In common law countries, on the one hand, an important part of customary law is a law, not written in laws or regulations. Secondly, it is considered that precise meaning of these customs or practices - and the written law. (civil maritime litigation). It becomes clear only when courts have to apply it in practical situations. This is the case, the accumulation of decisions (previous) and, in particular, motivations (ratio decidendi) that judges give which is the main source of law, as the law itself.
This rule is that courts make decisions consistent with previous decisions. Although less important in countries with a civil law tradition of rights, the rule of precedent there is also the form of respect for precedent. In this context, the principle of legal certainty, that law must be known and accessible to all, require that law is effectively enforced.
These are the cases of voluntary jurisdiction, which, according to many authors, it is not jurisdictional activity itself but materially administrative activities that law has given to courts, as an exception to principle of separation of powers.
In England, the courts of first instance, by the Magistrates' court must strictly example to comply with latest Crown Court jurisprudence, itself dependent on that of High Court. Still above, is the Court Appeals and, finally, the Judicial Committee of House of Lords, which makes the final and whose law applies to everyone.
The report of case is to be distinguished from the legal relationship related to substantive law to which the implementation process is designed. It has its own premises (procedural requirements. That is, facts whose existence is a necessary condition to justify a power and duty of court to rule on the substantive law; where these conditions are lacking, the report of case is equally outstanding, but with court is a different power and duty to report their absence.
There are, however, ideas that go even further in division between action and substantive law, stating that action is simply due to every citizen the right to sue in courts, regardless of merits of claim that this is done worth. The title of action can be attributed to: subject to holder of substantive law that action is intended to achieve, which acts therefore in his interest. To a public body, the public prosecutor, acting in public interest and to anyone in public interest to which it belongs (action).
But a court is not necessarily bound by its own precedents. This is never the case in United States. Instead, the British tradition requires that a court be held in its own precedents, at least when it comes to most important classes, those whose decisions are considered sources of law. This precedent was set for the House of Lords, the previous London Street Tramways v London County Council in 1898.
However, since the Practice Statement of 1966, the House of Lords is explicitly released from this obligation, which allows very exceptionally, to revoke the previous become manifestly inadequate or unfair. In United States, the Supreme Court makes it much more frequently (eg Roper v. Simmons, 2005, which reversed the judgment of 1989, Stanford v. Kentucky, concerning the death penalty for minors). In practice, the courts use various interpretive techniques that allow them to depart from precedent, including, for example, the technique of distinction. The court must show why it considers the case differs from those previously considered, and why previous can not apply fully. In doing so, he claims not to challenge the law, but only complement it.
This rule is that courts make decisions consistent with previous decisions. Although less important in countries with a civil law tradition of rights, the rule of precedent there is also the form of respect for precedent. In this context, the principle of legal certainty, that law must be known and accessible to all, require that law is effectively enforced.
These are the cases of voluntary jurisdiction, which, according to many authors, it is not jurisdictional activity itself but materially administrative activities that law has given to courts, as an exception to principle of separation of powers.
In England, the courts of first instance, by the Magistrates' court must strictly example to comply with latest Crown Court jurisprudence, itself dependent on that of High Court. Still above, is the Court Appeals and, finally, the Judicial Committee of House of Lords, which makes the final and whose law applies to everyone.
The report of case is to be distinguished from the legal relationship related to substantive law to which the implementation process is designed. It has its own premises (procedural requirements. That is, facts whose existence is a necessary condition to justify a power and duty of court to rule on the substantive law; where these conditions are lacking, the report of case is equally outstanding, but with court is a different power and duty to report their absence.
There are, however, ideas that go even further in division between action and substantive law, stating that action is simply due to every citizen the right to sue in courts, regardless of merits of claim that this is done worth. The title of action can be attributed to: subject to holder of substantive law that action is intended to achieve, which acts therefore in his interest. To a public body, the public prosecutor, acting in public interest and to anyone in public interest to which it belongs (action).
But a court is not necessarily bound by its own precedents. This is never the case in United States. Instead, the British tradition requires that a court be held in its own precedents, at least when it comes to most important classes, those whose decisions are considered sources of law. This precedent was set for the House of Lords, the previous London Street Tramways v London County Council in 1898.
However, since the Practice Statement of 1966, the House of Lords is explicitly released from this obligation, which allows very exceptionally, to revoke the previous become manifestly inadequate or unfair. In United States, the Supreme Court makes it much more frequently (eg Roper v. Simmons, 2005, which reversed the judgment of 1989, Stanford v. Kentucky, concerning the death penalty for minors). In practice, the courts use various interpretive techniques that allow them to depart from precedent, including, for example, the technique of distinction. The court must show why it considers the case differs from those previously considered, and why previous can not apply fully. In doing so, he claims not to challenge the law, but only complement it.
About the Author:
You can visit www.clinmuzyka.com for more helpful information about Basic Overview Of Civil Maritime Litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment