To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace is a non-profit organization that promotes judicial independence in national court systems around the world. Judicial independence allows court systems to enforce the rule of law without interference by political or other governmental authorities.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    389 517
    10 374
    36 289
  • Legal System Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #18
  • The Crown is owned and operated by the Roman Cult, and has been since 1213
  • Daniel Declares Probation is Closing!

Transcription

Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Civics and today we're gonna look at the basics of a system that affects all our lives: the law. And no, we're not going to be talking about the laws of thermo-dynamics. That's Hank's show. Though we will be bringing the heat, ha! The law affects you even if you never committed a crime because there's so much more to the legal system than just criminal justice, and even though we're going to focus mainly on courts, the law is everywhere. If you don't believe me, read the user license on your next new piece of software, or if you fly anywhere read the back of your plane ticket. Hopefully won't be more entertaining than what you're watching now, but that's examples of the law. In general, courts have three basic functions, only one of which you probably learned about in your history class. The first thing that courts do is settle disputes. In pre-modern history (which is way easier to understand than post-modern history), kings performed this function, but as states got bigger and more powerful it became much easier to have specialized officials decide important issues like who owned the fox you caught on someone else's land. Or what does the fox say, which was disputed a lot back then. The second thing the courts do is probably the one you heard about in school, or on television, or perhaps while studying for the standardized test, and that's interpret the laws. This becomes increasingly important when you actually try to read laws, or when you realize that legislators are often not as they might be when writing laws in the first place. Take a look at the Affordable Care Act. There are a few famous careless errors in that. Finally courts create expectations for future actions. This is very important if you want to do business with someone. If you know that you'll be punished for cheating a potential business client, you're less likely to do it. Still you might, 'cause there are a lot of jerks out there who would. Are you one of them? Don't be! At the same time if you know that people will be punished for cheating you you're more likely to do business. And it's courts that create the expectation that business will be conducted fairly. Interpreting the laws can help this too, since the interpretations are public and they set expectations that everyone can understand and know what the law means and how it applies and then world peace. No more law breaking ever. The first thing to remember about courts in the U.S. is that most legal action, if it occurs in court at all, occurs in state court. And if it occurs at night, it occurs in Night Court. Because this is mainly a series about federal government, and not Indiana government or sitcoms about court in New York, I'm going to focus mainly on the federal court system which has four main characteristics. One, the federal court system is separate from the other branches of government. The executive could do the job, just like kings used to but we have separation of powers so we don't have to be at the mercy of kings. Have you seen Game of Thrones? Two, the federal courts are hierarchical, with the Supreme Court at the top and turtles all the way down. Nope -- not turtles -- sorry I meant lower courts. What this means is that when a lower court makes a decision it can be appealed to a higher court that can either affirm or overturn the lower court's decision. The third feature of federal courts is that they are able to perform judicial review over laws passed by Congress and state legislatures, and over executive actions. And the fourth aspect of federal court system is that you should know that the federal judges are appointed for life, and their salaries can't be reduced. This is to preserve their independence from politics. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Remember when I told you that the legislature makes the laws? Well, that was true, but it's also not the whole story. Legislatures both state and national make laws and these written laws are called statutes. In continental Europe those are pretty much all the laws they have. Statutes. Statutes everywhere! And statues. That place is filled with art. They had the Renaissance there, y'know? But in the U.S. and England, which is where we got the idea, we have something called common law, which consists of the past decisions of courts that influence future legal decisions. The key to common law is the idea that a prior court decision sets a precedent that constrains future courts. Basically if one court makes a decision, all other courts in the same jurisdiction have to apply that decision, whether they like it or not. The collection of those decisions by judges becomes the common law. I don't have to have a reason to punch the eagle. I should probably point out what courts actually do and explain that there are two different types of courts that can make civil law. What differentiates the two types of courts is their jurisdiction, which basically means the set of cases that they're authorized to decide. Trial courts are also called courts of original jurisdiction. These are the ones you see on TV and they actually do two things. First, they hear evidence and determine what actually happened when there's a dispute. This is called deciding the facts of the case. Not everything that happened or that may be important qualifies as a fact in a court case. Those are determined by the rules of evidence, which are complicated and would really slow down an episode of Law and Order. After the trial court hears the facts of a case it decides the outcome by applying the relevant law. What law they apply will depend on statutes and in some cases what other courts have said in similar situations. In other words the common law. You might have noticed that I've been referring to courts, not judges or juries, because not all trials have juries. Bench trials have only a judge who determines the facts and the law. Besides, who decides what in a court case isn't really that important. More than 90% of cases never go to court by the way, they just get settled by lawyers out of court. But say you actually go to court and you lose. Naturally, you'd be upset. Especially if you're a sore loser, like me. Shut up. You have a choice. You can give up and go back to your normal, loser life or you can appeal the trial court decision to a higher court. An appeals court that has, you guessed it, appellate jurisdiction. Did you actually guess that? That'd be amazing. Appeals courts don't hear facts -- who wants those -- they just decide questions of law so you don't have to bring witnesses or present evidence, just arguments. In most cases, if you want to bring a successful appeal, you need to show that there was something wrong with the procedure of your trial. Maybe the judge allowed the jury to hear evidence they shouldn't have heard, maybe one of the jurors was a cyborg. Here's the way that these courts connect to what I was saying before about common and statutory law. Most common law is made by appeals courts. And because appeals courts have larger jurisdiction than trial courts, appeals decisions are much more important than trial court decisions. So now I'm going to talk about the three types of law, and it's gonna get confusing. We should probably go to the Thought Bubble for some nice, compelling, intriguing animations. The two main types of law are basically the Bruce Banner of law. They're the criminal law and civil law, but they can sometimes morph into the Incredible Hulk of laws: public law. "Public law, smash abuse of government authority!" If you watch TV or movies, or read John Grisham novels, you're probably familiar with criminal law. Criminal laws are almost always statutes written by legislatures, which means that there is an actual law for you to break. In most states the criminal laws are called the penal codes. In a criminal dispute -- and it's a dispute because the government says you broke the law and you will say you didn't -- the government is called the prosecution and the person accused of committing the crime is called the defendant. Almost all criminal cases happen at the state level and for this reason it's hard to know exactly what is or what is not a crime in each state. Although murder is a crime everywhere. There are also some federal crimes like tax evasion, mail fraud, and racketeering. If you're suing someone or being sued, you're in the realm of civil law. Civil cases arise from disputes between individuals, or between individuals and the government, when one party, the plaintiff, claims that the other party, the defendant, has caused an injury that can be fixed or remedied. If the plaintiff proves his or her case the defendant must pay damages. If you lose a civil case you don't go to prison or jail in most circumstances, but you may end up losing lots of money, and that sucks. I love money. Cases about contracts, property, and personal injuries, also called torts, are examples of civil law. So under certain circumstances a civil or criminal case can become public law. This happens when either the defendant or plaintiff can show that the powers of government or the rights of citizens under the Constitution or federal law is involved in the case. Also if the law gets exposed to gamma rays. "Law, smash!" For example, in a criminal case where the defendant claims that the civil rights were violated by the police, the decision can become public law. Thanks Thought Bubble. So those are the basics of the court system in the U.S. And you can see that there's a lot to keep straight. There are types of courts, basically trial courts and appeals courts, on both the state and federal level. And there are types of laws, basically statutory and common laws. The fact that we have both state and federal statutory law is an example of federalism in action. The U.S. unlike most other nations has both statutory and common law, but most of the time when we're talking about federal laws we're in the realm of statutes, or maybe the Constitution. When you study American government, most of the cases you read about are examples of appeals and of public law. How this all works in practice is even more complicated. And the adaptability of the American legal fabric allows statutes to stretch to fit the growing and changing American society. Much like Bruce Banner's incredibly elastic pants. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time. I'm getting angry! Oh no! Ahhhh! I'm not wearing elastic pants! Oh no! Ahhhhh! Crash Course: Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non profits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the help of these Incredible Hulks. Thanks for watching. Rarrrr!

History

The association began in the 1980s. It conducted international projects and adopted international standards on judicial independence. The association promoted the New Delhi Minimum Code of Judicial Independence, adopted in cooperation with the International Bar Association in 1982;[1] the Montreal Declaration on the independence of justice[2] adopted in cooperation with The World Association of Justice in 1983; and The Mount Scopus Standards of Judicial Independence in 2008.[3]

Aims

  • To promote the principle of judicial independence as a central foundation of democracy and peace, domestic and international
  • To strive to encourage and support the building of culture of judicial independence
  • To draft international standards of judicial independence and to revise them from time to time, based on the work and deliberations of an international team of jurists
  • To conduct research projects on judicial independence and world peace
  • To promote the ideals of peace, democracy, freedom and liberty by strengthening and maintaining judicial independence in all its aspects
  • To help judges, judiciaries and jurists when they face threats or challenges to judicial independence
  • To conduct conferences on judicial independence
  • To initiate educational projects promoting judicial independence
  • To follow up challenges or threats to judicial independence or practices adversely affecting judicial independence
  • To support a culture of peace in all its aspects

Main activities

1980-82: The members of the Association developed The Code of Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence that were adopted in New Delhi, under the framework of the International Bar Association. This was done in conferences in Berlin, Lisbon, Jerusalem and New Delhi.

1983: The members took part in drafting the Montreal Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice.

1985: The works of the project conducted during 1980-1985 were published in Prof. Shimon Shetreet and Chief Justice Jules Deschênes, ed., Judicial independence: The contemporary debate.[4]

1986: General Report on human rights was presented at the 12th Congress of Comparative Law, Sydney, Melbourne, Australia.

1991: The major report on "Independence and Responsibility of Judges and Lawyers" was presented in the International Congress of the World Association on Procedural Law, Coimbra - Lisbon, Portugal.

2000: The members of the Association contributed to the study of the Discretionary Power of the Judge, in the 50th Anniversary of the International Association of Procedural Law, University of Ghent.

1999-2009: Members of the Association took part in the Culture of Peace Project and in the Religions for Peace Organization International (RPO International) and organized conferences around the world.

2007-2012: Revision during series of conferences in Jerusalem 2007, Vadouz 2007, Jerusalem 2008, Kraków 2008, Cambridge 2009, Utah 2010, Vienna 2011, Hong Kong 2012 and Ghent 2012 of the 1982 New-Delhi Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence which was concluded in the Mt. Scopus International Standards on Judicial Independence.

Officers and advisory board

The members of the Association are distinguished jurists and scholars from all around the world.[5]

Officers

  • President - Prof. Shimon Shetreet
  • Vice President - Prof. Daniel Thurer
  • Vice President - Adv. Markus BuechelDeceased 9 July 2013
  • Vice President - Prof. Marcel Storme
  • Secretary and Treasurer - Adv. Gian Andrea Danuser
  • Auditor - Prof. Heinz C. Hoefer - Liechtenstein

Advisory board

Co-Chairs

  • Professor Christopher Forsyth, University of Cambridge
  • Professor Marcel Storme, University of Ghent

Vice Chair

Members

  • Advocate Markus Buechel, Senior Advocate, Liechtenstein
  • Professor Anton Cooray, City University of Hong Kong
  • Professor Maimon Schwartzschild, University of San Diego
  • Professor Dr. Fryderyk Zoll, Jagiellonski University and University of Osnabruck
  • Professor Wayne McCormack, The University of Utah
  • Professor Dr. Walter Rechberger, University of Vienna

Conferences

The Association and its members organized numerous conferences around the world. In the last decade, the Association organized conferences in Ghent, Belgium (October 2012), Hong Kong City, Hong Kong (March 2012),[6] Vienna, Austria (2011), Salt Lake City, USA (2010), Cambridge, UK (2009), Kraków, Poland (November 2008), Jerusalem, Israel (March 2008), Vaduz, Lichtenstein (December 2007) and Jerusalem, Israel (June 2007).[7]

One conference was held at the University of San Diego in August 2013, and focused on Judicial Independence World Peace and the Rule of Law[8] The last conference was held in Moscow (May 29 - June 1, 2014), organised by Dmitry Magonya, Dmitry Maleshin and Irina Reshetnikova.

The New Delhi Code of Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence

The 1982 New Delhi Code provided for necessary safeguards of judicial independence on the following aspects:[9][10]

  • Personal and Substantive Independence
  • Judicial Conduct
  • Collective Independence
  • Internal Independence
  • Judges and the Executive
  • Security of Judicial Tenure
  • The Legislature and Judges
  • Standards of Judicial Selection

Mount Scopus International Standards

The 2008 Mount Scopus International Standards emphasized the importance of maintaining constitutional safeguards of judicial Independence and securing judicial independence from numerous aspects including: collective independence of the judiciary, internal independence of the judge vis-a-vi his colleagues and his administrative superiors, the significance of insuring a reflective judiciary, one that reflects all sectors of society and the importance of providing educate resources for the judiciary to perform its functions, and the total separation of powers between judicial functions and executive responsibility.[11][12]

Publications

  • Shimon Shetreet and Jules Deschenes, Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate (1985 Martinus Nijhoff).[13][14]
  • Shimon Shetreet and Christopher Forsyth, The Culture of Judicial Independence: Conceptual Foundations and Practical Challenges.[15][16]

References

  1. ^ "New-Delhi Standards 1982 New Delhi Code of Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  2. ^ "Montreal Declaration Universal declaration on the independence of justice". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  3. ^ "Mt. Scopus Approved Revised International Standards of Judicial Independence Approved March 19, 2008". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  4. ^ Martinus Nijhoff 1985
  5. ^ "Members of the Association". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  6. ^ "International Project on Judicial Independence" (PDF). Retrieved 1 May 2013.[permanent dead link]
  7. ^ "The Mt. Scopus Conferences 2007-2012". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  8. ^ "The International Conference on Judicial Independence, San Diego, USA 2013". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  9. ^ "Analysis of the Concept Of Judicial Independence". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  10. ^ Shimon Shetreet and Jules Deschenes, Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate (1985 Martinus Nijhoff).
  11. ^ "Mt. Scopus Standards 2007-2012". The International Association of Judicial Independence and World Peace. Retrieved 1 May 2013.
  12. ^ S. Shetreet and C. Forsyth (eds.), The culture of judicial independence: Conceptual foundations and practical challenges, 637+xlix pp. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012).
  13. ^ S. Shetreet (2002). Judicial Independence Judicial Independence. Kluwer Law International, BV. ISBN 9789024731824.
  14. ^ Shimon Shetreet and Jules Deschenes, Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate (1985 Martinus Nijhoff)
  15. ^ Shetreet, Shimon; Forsyth, Christopher (2011). The Culture of Judicial Independence. BRILL. ISBN 978-9004188334.
  16. ^ S. Shetreet and C. Forsyth (eds.), The culture of judicial independence: Conceptual foundations and practical challengeS, 637+xlix pp. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012).

External links

This page was last edited on 31 January 2023, at 06:08
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.