Montevideo convention and criteria of statehood
Contents Introduction............................................................................................................3 Theoretical perspective a) Defined territory.................................................................................4 b) Population.........................................................................................5 c) Effective control by a government............................................................5 d) Capacity to enter into relations with other states............................................5 Montevideo scrutinized: shortcomings v propositions............................................................6 Recognition of states: Is there a need for? a) Declaratory theory at closer examination...........................................................7 b) Constitutive theory...........................................................................................8 Self-determination as additional factor relevant to the criteria for statehood...................................9 Other propositions.....................................................................................................10 Attempting to define atypical quasi-state actors: the Holy See..................................................11
Sharia Law and Judicial Activism in Pakistan
Pakistan: Sharia Law and Judicial Activism The Islamic Republic of Pakistan lies in the global south and is characterized as a developing or third world country. Its status as a developing nation tends to conjure an image of poverty, economic backwardness, lax legal systems and a power hungry government. While most of these assumptions hold true, it is important to understand that Pakistan has been faced by several political speed bumps and an unstable, constantly changing constitution since its independence in 1947. It is also noteworthy to understand that Pakistan's legal system is entrenched not only in the Constitution but also in a set of Islamic codes known as Sharia Law. This makes legal issues religious and moral, besides being political which opens another avenue for conflict and complications. Historically, Pakistan was established as a Muslim nation separate from its Indian counterpart in order to give the Muslim minority in India more representation and a chance to form the majority. It was, perhaps, this motive that led to a more religiously inclined political atmosphere and often gave precedence to Sharia Law over Common Law. The former often takes precedence in personal matters and civil and criminal cases while the latter is applied mostly in commercial cases. "The legal system is based on English common law with provisions to
"In Civilian systems the judge is simply the mouthpiece of the law", Discuss
AMAN THAKAR TUTORIAL GROUP Q TUTOR: Karla Pérez Portilla "In Civilian systems the judge is simply the mouthpiece of the law", Discuss Judges in Civil Legal systems can be seen as having a wide and varied role depending on the system in question. Despite being part of the same family, no two civil law systems are the same and as such the role of the Judge is rarely the same in the various systems. For example in France, with the belief in separation of powers they wanted Judges to not be able to create Common law with ease giving them the role of applying the law seen in the phrase "la bouche de la loi", meaning literally 'the mouth of the law'. Yet in other systems judges have prominent roles in society and help shape and change the code. Restricting judges roles can be seen in the very foundations of Civil Law with it originating from Roman Law. Here the belief was that Judges should not interpret the law in creative ways. This can be seen in the compilation of all legal materials being collected in the Corpus Juris Civilis. The idea was to create certainty in the law, allowing anyone to refer to this to make their decision rather than having the Judiciary create law. Looking at The Civil Law translation by Scott the role of Judges is outlined as "a judge ought to be careful not to decide in any other way than is prescribed by the laws, the constitutions or the
Should terrorists be tortured?
Yes . Timely information is needed to break up cells, capture wanted terrorists, and prevent thousands or millions of deaths; this information can be obtained in a more timely manner by administering torture. If we were able to stop the 9/11 attacks, thousands of lives would have been saved, along with billions of dollars in economic damage. Intelligence agents had information that Osama bin Laden was up to something, but they had nothing specific as to place and time. Today, the FBI and CIA are in the same situation. The next attack could involve a nuclear "dirty" bomb, an anthrax or smallpox bioweapons attack, or a poisonous chemical attack. The 9/11 attacks were bad, but the devastation of a mass destruction weapons attack could be tenfold. Intelligence information is only good for a short time. When Saddam was captured, Al Qaeda and Fedayeen cells scattered. Thus, any intelligence gained after a short initial period was outdated. Torture ensures we get the information on a timely basis. Of course torture is immoral, but we're talking about the lives of thousands, possibly even millions. Even if mass destruction weapons aren't involved, low-level attacks like a homicide bombing could cause the loss of many Americans lives. What is more important--protecting an evil, hateful terrorist from a little pain or saving scores of American lives? You may hear or read "expert"
International Law in International Politics
International Law in International Politics In the field of international politics, realism, either classical realism or neo-realism, has very little room for international law. It dismisses international law as being virtually irrelevant to matters of high politics. In contrast, in the field of international law, legal positivism has paid scant regard to non-legal political considerations that might influence the implementation of international law. Positive lawyers have concentrated on determining a body of legal rules and believe it should be obeyed even if it is not. Thus there is a power-law divide; realists, accepting legal positivists' standing that law is a body of rules, deny the significance of international law on state's behavior and distain international law as an epiphenomenal role in the ordering of international life. This paper attempts to clear up realists' misunderstanding on the nature, functions, and influence of international law in international politics. I argue that 1) realists misperceive international law's nature as a body of rules instead of a process--either a political one as proposed by the policy-oriented approach (McDougal & Lasswell, 1996) or a legal one as proposed by the international legal process approach (Boyle 1985, Chayes 1974); 2) realists misperceive international law's functions as merely constraint on state's behavior instead of
This essay will seek to examine how far international law inhibits national states in relation to border control.
In 1780, the term “international law” was created and first used by Jeremy Bentham in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Since about 1840, in the English and Romance Languages it has replaced the older terminology of ‘law of nations’ or ‘droit de gens’ which can be traced back to the Roman concept of ius gentium and the writings of Cicero.[1] There have been different definitions offered to define the term “international law”.For example, Bentham himself defined international law as the law which relates to the mutual transactions between sovereigns as such.[2] Tim Hiller says,it is the “body of rules which are legally binding on states in their intercourse with each other”.[3] In the view of Sir Cecil Hurst, “International Law is the aggregate of rules which determines the rights which one state is entitled to claim on behalf of itself or its nationals against another state”.[4] Despite the different definitions offered above, there is a similarity with all three definitions, which is the relationship between states. As Colin Warbrickasserts, “International law has something to do with States”, however while states were the only legal persons of international law fifty years ago, today's international organizations, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, public companies, private companies and
Intervention in Libya demonstrates that the use of force on grounds of humanitarian intervention is permissible in public international law.
“Intervention in Libya demonstrates that the use of force on grounds of humanitarian intervention is permissible in public international law.” The UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted on the 17th March 2011 the Resolution 1973/2011 authorising “the imposition of a no-fly over Libya and taking all necessary measures to protect civilians”[1] from the military forces of Muammar Gaddafi. A military force lead by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was sent in Libya to protect “civilians” on the basis of “humanitarian consideration”[2]. The Resolution conferred legality to the use of force in Libya. In this view, “the use of force on grounds of humanitarian intervention” seems “permissible in public international law.” This essay will evaluate this claim and this idea of legality of use of force upon the sovereign territory of another member State. Interventions that lead to the development of such principle will be analysed and whether, or not, the UNSC is going beyond its powers to confer legality to such actions based on humanitarian grounds. The idea behind the creation of the United Nations and the drafting of its Charter found its inspiration in conflicts such as the World War II. To counter imperialism ambitions of certain States that have shaken the World and jeopardize international peace, the UN set out lots of measures to avoid the
When a case involves several different foreign elements, how do courts decide on the appropriate law rules to apply? Why are such decisions likely to be significant in the case of disputes involving cross-border business and commercial activity? Suggest how a well-known company, or the organisation you work for, could be affected by the principles involved here.
When a case involves several different foreign elements, how do courts decide on the appropriate law rules to apply? Why are such decisions likely to be significant in the case of disputes involving cross-border business and commercial activity? Suggest how a well-known company, or the organisation you work for, could be affected by the principles involved here. When a case has one or more foreign elements, the courts are faced with making a decision of which laws to apply. First, It is determined if the matter is substantive or procedural.[1] Substantive law concerns the facts of the case, and the reasoning used in relation to the matter. Procedural law refers to the rules that determine how cases can be presented in court. Sometimes clarifications are needed for both a foreign and an English rule in the same case.[2] English law then decides if the case should be heard by the English courts, once this is settled, it determines what laws would be applicable and relevant to the case. The English courts use the English choice of law rules to bring into consideration the connecting factors between the jurisdictions and its laws. Lex fori means that the law of the nation where the case is being tried is usually applicable. This means that English law is valid if the dispute is being tried in the English courts. When the English courts decide to hear a case they proceed with
How does the English common law system decide where commercial disputes with foreign connections should be tried? Give examples from case law to support your answer.
When faced with a commercial dispute involving foreign connections, the English court has first to determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. Where the defendant resides within the EU the Brussels Convention (BC) usually determines jurisdiction. However in cases where the BC does not apply, the English court determines jurisdiction according to common law rules. Presence At common law, proceedings can be validly served on defendants present within the jurisdiction even where that presence is temporary. In Maranhee[1] the defendant was validly served while on a one-day trip to the Ascot races even though the dispute related to a contract concluded in France. Where foreign-domiciled corporations are concerned, they are deemed to be present if they are registered in England, or if a name and address for service has been filed, or otherwise if they have a place of business within the jurisdiction, even if the activities performed at that place of business are only incidental to the corporation’s main business[2]. In South India Shipping[3] an office in London set up by a bank and used for information-gathering and publicity was considered to be an established place of business for the purposes of service even though no banking transactions were carried out there. Partnerships are considered present when a partner is present within the jurisdiction, or the
Critically assess any two provisions of Rome I and evaluate their relevance in international business decision making. Based on your assessment, how important a change is Britains acceptance of Rome 1, in terms of the effects it will have on decisions in English courts relating to contractual obligations in transnational commercial disputes? Give examples to justify your answer.
Critically assess any two provisions of Rome I and evaluate their relevance in international business decision making. Based on your assessment, how important a change is Britain’s acceptance of Rome 1, in terms of the effects it will have on decisions in English courts relating to contractual obligations in transnational commercial disputes? Give examples to justify your answer. Is the implementation of the Rome Convention and Rome Regulation I a major change to English law in regards to the question of applicable law? The Rome Regulation I (hereinafter Rome I) was another step[1] up the staircase towards harmonisation of the law of the Member states to ensure that the same choice of law would be applied regardless of which court in the Member states was processing the case[2]. Although some, as Billah[3], claims that it was a fundamental change to English law when the Convention was enacted in the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, this paper will argue that the changes for the Common law system in regards to the questions of applicable law as presented in Article 3 and 4 in the Rome Convention and Rome I does not differ so much from the principles already developed in the English Courts. Freedom of Choice, expressed or inferred choice of law The Article 3 (1) of the Rome Convention reads: . A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice