Judicial review

Vallejo files for review before the Supreme Court of California based on the fact Judges in California had interests in real estate and mortgage backed securities ( MBS ) which should have recused themselves and did not. This created a real conflict of interest prohibited by the Judicial Ethics Commission of California rending the ruling null and void and a rehearing scheduled as soon as possible. Title is still in Vallejo as Quiet Title Action proceeds.
AAF : CRITICAL ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA!
This Court's review is critical to protect homeowners’ constitutional rights to not have their homes taken by those who are not holders nor beneficiaries of their debt, particularly when a homeowner such as Petitioner
(“Flaherty” or “Homeowner”) did not default on his mortgage.
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES
JPMorgan Chase & Company; Bank of America, N.A.; Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP; Countrywide Financial Corporation; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; ReconTrust Company; U.S. Bank N.A.; U.S. Bancorp; Zuni Investors, LLC; The Zuni Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-OAl; MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.; MERS; Goldman Sachs; Angelo Mozilo; Stanford Kurland;Anne D. McCallion; Laura K. Milleman; Marshall Gates; Gene Soda; Jon Orville Freeman; Holly Hill Investments, LLC; Quanta Finance; the 1 Sharpe Opportunity Intermediate Fund Trust; Blackstone. The undersigned is aware of no other interested entities with an ownership interest, or a financial or other interest in the outcome of this proceeding that the justices should consider in determining whether to disqualify themselves.
The underlying courts in this case expressly rejected Yvanova, continuing the irreconcilable cycle of case law conflict that has existed ever since Yvanova came down in 2016 and some lower courts stood by Jenkins anyway. The “Jenkins” courts in this case for instance believe, if a homeowner does not have standing to challenge an unauthorized act by an alleged trustee or the power of a party to foreclose, he or she may then not have standing to challenge an alleged trustee’s sale that took place only in the computer system of ReconTrust to a disputed trustee U.S. Bank who did not have any assignment -- and in contravention of lawful court orders prohibiting any sale.
https://www.academia.edu/41161278/IN_THE_SUPREME_COURT_OF_THE_STATE_OF_CALIFORNIA_PETITION_FOR_REVIEW?email_work_card=thumbnail-desktop

Handbook produced with co-author Varda Bondy. This handbook is intended to address the gaps in legal practitioners’ understanding
of how mediation can be used as an alternative to, or alongside, judicial review and to provide practical assistance to those practitioners who are, or who may be, considering mediation as a route for resolving public law disputes, particularly judicial review claims. Includes mediated case studies.

In the Matter of: Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.; Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Acceptance Corp.; Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.; and Asset Backed Securities Corporation Respondents.

ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE AND DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 21C OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND
IMPOSING A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER

MERS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD FOR THE COUNTY RECORDERS

The non profit Organization known as Americans Against Foreclosures ( AAF ) has decided that enough is enough when it comes to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) which operates national electronic registry system and has registered some 60 million mortgages in its registry. The Company provides free public access to servicer information for registered home mortgages and complementing public land recording systems that have their origins in centuries old real property laws. MERS serves customers in the United States. It was founded on 01/01/1999 and has its address at: 1818 Library  Street, Suite 300, Reston, VA 20190. With telephone number: 1-800-646-6377 and website :  www.mersinc.org.

Europe is currently experiencing a "refugee crisis", demonstrated by millions of displaced people unseen since World War II. This book examines the interface between the EU's response to irregular flows, in particular the main extraterritorial border and migration controls taken by the Member States, and the rights asylum seekers acquire from EU law.

"Remote control" techniques, such as the imposition of visas, fines on carriers transporting unsatisfactorily documented third-country nationals, and interception at sea are investigated in detail in a bid to assess the impact these measures have on access to asylum in the EU. The book also thoroughly analyses the rights recognised by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to persons in need of international protection, inclusive of the principle of non-refoulement, the right to leave any country including one's own, the right to asylum, and the right to remedies and effective judicial protection.

The fundamental focus of the book is the relationship between the aforementioned border and migration controls and the rights of asylum seekers and, most importantly, how these rights (should) limit the scope of such measures and the ways in which they are implemented. The ultimate goal is to conclude whether the current series of extraterritorial mechanisms of pre-entry vetting is compatible in EU law with the EU rights of forced migrants.

Este trabajo busca introducir a las lectoras en el conocimiento de los principales institutos procesales necesarios para tramitar, resolver y eventualmente implementar las decisiones judiciales tomadas en el contexto de procesos colectivos y acciones de clase. Asimismo, presenta algunos de los problemas, interrogantes e implicancias de orden político, social y económico que genera el corrimiento del ámbito de debate de cuestiones colectivas hacia el seno del poder judicial.

Como principal clave de lectura les proponemos partir de una premisa fundamental: la enorme magnitud y el tipo de conflictos que se están discutiendo, papel va, papel viene, dentro del poder judicial. Sobre todo, ante los superiores tribunales de justicia de nuestros países.

Solo en Argentina, desde donde escribo, en los últimos 10 años el poder judicial federal y las jurisdicciones locales han dictado resoluciones y sentencias de diverso tipo (cautelares y de mérito) en el marco de procesos donde se debate, por ejemplo, el modo de facturar en el mercado de teléfonía móvil, la cartelización de empresas de distintos rubros, el acceso voluntario a la interrupción del embarazo y la impugnación de la ley que lo autoriza, las condiciones de detención de personas privadas de su libertad en establecimientos penitenciarios y diversos derechos fundamentales que les asisten (educación, requisas dignas, beneficios de la seguridad social, salario por el trabajo realizado, prisiones domiciliarias para embarazadas y madres con niñas pequeñas), las condiciones de internación en establecimientos neuropsiquiátricos, la defensa de sitios de memoria del genocidio argentino, situaciones de contaminación por explotación minera en zonas prohibidas, recuperación de espacios culturales y del patrimonio histórico, el trato digno que deben aplicar las entidades bancarias a sus clientes, la protección de patrimonio paleontológico, los límites de tasa de interés que cobran las tarjetas de crédito, la validez constitucional del blanqueo de capitales por parte de familiares de funcionarias y funcionarios públicos, la comisión que pagan inquilinos e inquilinas para acceder a una vivienda familiar, diversas prácticas ilícitas de mutuales y obras sociales (aumentos indebidos, bajas indebidas, cobros en exceso), la legalidad y razonabilidad de los cuadros tarifarios de servicios públicos esenciales (gas, luz, agua, telefonía), el pago de impuesto a las ganancias integrantes del poder judicial, situaciones de riesgo y daño ambiental por actividades de diversa índole (industrias, desmontes, represas, aplicación de agrotóxicos, obras de infraestructura vial), cargos y comisiones cobradas indebidamente por entidades bancarias, financieras y otras prestamistas, cláusulas contractuales abusivas de todo tipo y color, impuestos tasas y contribuciones que se consideran inconstitucionales, daños por productos elaborados (automotores, protectores solares), derechos de usuarios de servicios de turismo, restricciones de derechos en el contexto de la pandemia de Covid-19, condiciones edilicias de ciertos tribunales, la validez del empréstito contraído por Argentina con el FMI en 2018, el acceso a medicamentos para ciertas enfermedades, la falta de vacantes en las escuelas públicas, y el régimen de derechos y obligaciones de personas migrantes, entre muchas otras cuestiones.

Como podrán advertir, hablamos de conflictos que involucran a cientos de miles, millones y hasta decenas de millones de personas afectadas de manera homogénea en sus derechos, o en riesgo de serlo.

Conflictos que, en nuestra región, se desarrollan en el contexto de marcos convencionales y constitucionales que exigen proteger de manera preferente ciertos bienes y derechos, por un lado, y ciertos grupos de personas que han sido tradicionalmente relegadas o débilmente protegidas, por el otro.

Marcos constitucionales que, además, en diversos supuestos reconocen expresamente el derecho de acceso colectivo a la justicia (como Argentina, Brasil y Colombia), y tribunales que lo han hecho operativo a pesar de su falta de regulación adecuada (adecuación que, por la entidad de los conflictos, debería ser estricta).

Frente a este tipo de conflictos y de marcos convencionales y constitucionales, claramente diferentes a los que se tuvieron en cuenta para diagramar nuestras herramientas procesales tradicionales, resulta imprescindible revisar y repensar diversas técnicas y nociones conceptuales clásicas para adaptarlas a clave colectiva.

How to Design Impactful Laws - Treatise on Legistic and Legisprudence  in the Age of Soft Law

La loi peine toujours plus à « faire la loi » à l’ère du droit souple et de la globalisation. Afin de produire un impact législatif aussi juste qu’optimal, la légistique doit proposer dans ce nouveau contexte une démarche permettant d’intégrer démocratiquement la force du droit souple dans le processus législatif, de pair avec le contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois, sans se contenter d’améliorer la clarté des textes.

Ce traité présente les fondements de la légistique, constituée historiquement pour faire recouvrer à la loi sa rationalité, son efficacité, sa clarté et sa concision.

Il explique comment :
- créer une analyse d’impact intégrée qui prenne en compte toutes les composantes du développement durable parmi la multiplicité des instruments d’action tant publics que privés (légistique matérielle prospective) ;
- formuler des textes clairs et cohérents (légistique formelle) ;
- évaluer rétrospectivement les effets des lois et des politiques publiques par des méthodes appelées à devenir participatives (légistique matérielle rétrospective).

Ce traité porte sur le droit suisse et le droit de l’Union européenne, avec des aspects de droit comparé. Il intègre de manière critique les développements en économie comportementale, en sciences affectives, en intelligence artificielle et en sciences de la gouvernance et de la régulation.

Il s’adresse non seulement aux juristes mais aussi aux spécialistes en sciences sociales, au personnel politique et administratif ainsi qu’à toute personne intéressée par le pilotage des politiques publiques.

****************************************************************************
How to Design Impactful Laws: Treatise on Legistic and Legisprudence  in the Age of Soft Law

In an age of soft law and globalization, it has become increasingly difficult for the law to “lay down the law”. To ensure in this new context that its impact is as fair as optimal, legistic must go beyond mere clear legislative drafting: it has to propose a method for integrating the strength of soft law in the democratic law-making process.
This treatise presents the foundations of the sciences of legislation (legistic or legisprudence), historically constituted to make laws more rational and effective, clearer and shorter.

It explains how to:
- create an integrated impact assessment that factors in all the components of sustainable development, among the multiplicity of public and private policy instruments (ex ante material legistic);
- formulate and communicate clear and coherent texts (formal legistic);
- retrospectively evaluate laws and public policies through methods which should become more participative (ex post material legistic).

This treatise is based on Swiss and European Union law, with a look on comparative law. It includes developments in regulation and regulatory governance, behavioral economics, affective sciences and artificial intelligence.

This work is intended not only for lawyers, but also for social scientist, members of political and administrative authorities, and anyone interested in public policy evaluation.

This article examines the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction. It reviews arbitral jurisdiction in the United Kingdom by considering the principle of competence-competence as provided for in its arbitration law. The term competencecompetence – also referred to as competence sur la competence or kompetenz-kompetenz – confers a right on arbitrators to decide their own jurisdictional authority to hear a dispute and is essential to the practice of international commercial arbitration. 1 Although this principle is ∗ Ozlem Susler is a lecturer at La Trobe University, Australia where she has recently submitted her doctoral dissertation on the jurisdiction of arbitration tribunals. She has been involved with the Willem C Vis East International Commercial Arbitration Moot as a coach and judge for a number of years. 1 The principle of competence-competence is defined as the arbitrators’ power to determine their own jurisdiction, to hear and determine the dispu...

A study on the impact of dimensions of risk management such as project complexity, project planning and control, project team and organizational environment on risk management practices of IT firms that develop and manage projects in the UAE The IT sector has been growing at a rapid rate in a country like UAE due to the impetus and incentives offered by the rulers with a view to transform the country as a hub of knowledge management center. Opportunities for various projects are identified by the government and offered to private as well as public sector undertakings to trigger off the momentum of diversification. Many information technology companies exist in the country and the sector has been growing as a major provider of employment opportunities to qualified job seekers across the world. From various studies, it has been found that the projects handled by many companies fail to give proper attention to the risk management aspect and the failure of many projects in the form of time overrun, higher cost and failure to fulfill customer requirements can be attributed to the absence of proper care given to various dimensions of risk management as well as various aspects of risk management practice. Hence, the study focuses on the relationship between certain primary dimensions of risk management and its impact on risk management practices such as risk identification, risk analysis, risk response planning and risk response monitoring and controlling. The study reveals a very strong positive correlation between two major aspects of risk management in projects which are risk dimensions and risk management practice.

This Article analyzes the jurisprudence of CJ Grunis, the President of the Supreme Court of Israel, in light of John Hart Ely's constitutional theory. In an earlier case, during CJ Barak's Presidency, Justice Grunis publicly endorsed Ely's constitutional theory—which has put him at odds with the previous two Presidents of the Court, CJs Barak and Beinisch. Against this backdrop, this Article examines whether (or to what extent) Ely's theory can explain Justice Grunis's decisions as President of the Court. The Article argues that Ely's theory provides a more promising focal-point for evaluating President Grunis's public-law decisions than simplistic characterization such as activism, restraint, conservatism or formalism.

The Article also argues that analyzing the jurisprudence of President Grunis in light of Ely's theory can contribute not only to understanding the President's decisions, but also to evaluating Ely's theory itself. In particular, the Article employs this analysis to shed light on two main debates about Ely's theory. First, on the question of the extent to which Ely's theory could cabin judicial discretion and provide guidance as to the type of cases in which judicial intervention will be justified; and second, on the question of the extent to which Ely's theory leads to different results in practice than competing constitutional theories, such as the approach of former President Barak. The Article also employs this analysis to contribute to the broader debate about the practical value of constitutional theory.

Note: the article is in Hebrew

Jeremy Waldron has long argued that judicial review is inconsistent with the importance that democracies properly attach to political participation and to equality.  This paper looks at those arguments as recently summarised in a paper called “The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review”.  Waldron’s arguments highlight the apparent incongruity of a democracy giving a small group of unelected judges the last word on matters which concern citizens and legislators, and on which citizens and legislators may be at least as well-informed, and capable of reasoned decisions, as judges.  In addition to a properly functioning judiciary, Waldron believes, democracies should normally be expected to have citizens and legislators who care about, and are capable of protecting, the basic rights of members.  Hence, he claims, there is no compelling reason to prefer the decisions of judges to legislators where rights are at stake, and good reasons to believe that doing so detracts from important democratic values and rights.

I am not so sure.  While I do not believe that judicial review is necessary for democracy, I am unpersuaded that it is undemocratic whenever people are fortunate enough to live in a reasonably functioning democracy.  Waldron underestimates, I will argue, the extent to which democratic forms of politics can be judicial, rather than legislative, and overestimates the importance of voting to democratic ideals of freedom, equality, and political participation.  Hence, judicial review, like elected legislatures themselves, I will suggest, is a fallible, but potentially democratic, solution to problems of constitutional government.

DOI 10.13140/RG.2.1.4084.5682
MARIANO SILVA, Jeferson. (2016), Jurisdição constitucional em Espanha (1981-1992) e Brasil (1988-1997. Tese de doutorado (Ciência política). Rio de Janeiro: IESP-UERJ.
O trabalho apresenta um método de análise descritiva das jurisdições constitucionais, pensado como uma ferramenta que permita ampliar os estudos sobre comportamento judicial comparado e especialmente voltado à análise (a) das circunstâncias históricas particulares em que as jurisdições constitucionais são praticadas; (b) do significado político dos discursos que elas produzem; e (c) dos dissensos e consensos jurisdicionais que as constituem. Os procedimentos metodológicos apresentados são aplicados a dois conjuntos de decisões judiciais: as sentenças prolatadas nos julgamentos de Recursos de Inconstitucionalidade, realizados pelo Tribunal Constitucional de Espanha, entre 1981 e 1992, e as prolatadas nos julgamentos de Ações Diretas de Inconstitucionalidade, realizados pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, entre 1988 e 1997. Os resultados decorrentes desses ensaios de aplicação do método inicialmente proposto indicam duas conclusões gerais. De uma parte, é possível distinguir, no comportamento dos juízes constitucionais, divergências consistentemente associadas à natureza política de suas indicações. De outra parte, as clivagens do comportamento judicial, mais ou menos coincidentes com as clivagens políticas presentes no momento de formação das composições dos tribunais constitucionais, não atrelam, necessariamente, o comportamento dos juízes constitucionais às preferências atuais dos atores políticos que os indicaram. Ou seja, as divisões mais gerais do espaço político se propagam no espaço da jurisdição constitucional, porém sofrem, neste último espaço, uma refração, por meio da qual os juízes constitucionais indicados por um grupo político agem, muitas vezes, diversamente dos – e mesmo contrariamente aos – interesses desse grupo.

This article addresses the question whether the European Union defaulted on the ‘strict observance’ of international law and ‘respect’ for the UN Charter, which are now express objectives of the EU following the Lisbon reform, in the course of the famous Kadi cases. With the final appeals judgment having been handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in July 2013, this question can now be conclusively answered in the negative. Despite the general tension these legal challenges created between EU law and international law, the EU managed, in the course of twelve years, to weave a seamless coat of compliance with international law. The article contrasts this finding with the general academic discourse on this case law, which tends to depict Kadi as a ‘sacrifice’ of compliance with international law for the benefit of fundamental rights (as well as the autonomy of the EU legal order). By retracing the entirety of this string of cases, the article demonstrates that, all rhetoric aside and for all practical purposes, the EU courts and other institutions managed to avoid any violations of international legal obligations towards the UN Security Council in this matter. The EU discontinued its own sanctions against Mr Kadi only after he had been delisted by the UN by means of a political decision, not by virtue of judicial intervention.

Marbury vs. Madison talvez seja a decisão judicial mais estudada no mundo inteiro. Não é à toa, pois, de fato, foi nesse caso, julgado na Suprema Corte norte americana, à época presidida pelo Chief Justice John Marshall, que se criou efetivamente o controle de constitucionalidade. Mas o culto a tal decisão talvez escamoteie a realidade dos fatos: por mais inovador que seja o acórdão proferido por Marshall e seus colegas, ele decorre de uma lógica pouco corajosa, quase corporativista. É que, ao declarar a inconstitucionalidade da norma jurídica que obrigava o Poder Judiciário a conceder a comissão a um funcionário nomeado pelo antecessor do Presidente Thomas Jefferson, a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos se omitiu de resolver a verdadeira questão posta nos autos, qual seja, a obrigatoriedade de um Presidente respeitar e dar consecução às nomeações ou decisões políticas de um outro. Em breves palavras: a Suprema Corte norte americana criou o controle de constitucionalidade para não ter de resolver sozinha a celeuma política envolvendo o ex-Presidente John Adams e o Presidente Thomas Jefferson. Ao mesmo tempo, a Corte aproveitou a oportunidade para empoderar politicamente o Judiciário em relação aos outros poderes, na medida em que firmou o entendimento de que a Suprema Corte é quem deveria ser a legítima guardiã da Constituição dos Estados Unidos.

Resumo Comumente, os estudos dedicados à centralização da jurisdição constitucional no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) adotam, como fundamento, suposta ampliação da segurança jurídica e presumido ganho de eficácia em contexto de crescente demanda do Poder Judiciário. Comparando-se os discursos nos debates legislativos que alteraram o texto constitucional, expandindo os efeitos das decisões do STF, e os dados levantados pela pesquisa “A quem interessa o controle concentrado de constitucionalidade?”, analisou-se, neste artigo, a eficácia do aumento da concentração do controle no STF para a redução da litigiosidade e, consequentemente, da sobrecarga nessa corte. Observou-se que a ampliação dos poderes do STF na adjudicação constitucional, durante os últimos cinquenta anos, não resultou em diminuição da sobrecarga; contudo, as estratégias de seletividade, para reduzir os julgamentos de mérito, foram mais eficazes. Por outro lado, houve a estabilização do número de acórdãos proferidos, fa...

Autonomy is a concept at work in both defenses and attacks on judicial review. Its opponents cite the costs to collective autonomy (which is what they seem to mean when they talk about its impositions on democracy), while its defenders will extol virtues including protecting individual autonomy from collective power. I consider the relationship between autonomy and judicial review after defining autonomy’s internal structure as consisting in two dimensions: individual and collective, and public and private. Although these dimensions are conceptually co-original, I argue that political institutions, like judicial review, ought to give priority to individual autonomy over collective autonomy, at least in matters of basic liberties. Judicial review is conditionally justified, then, for any society which takes individual autonomy as a fundamental good.

Governments reform the process of nominating judges to constitutional courts, seeking to reduce the courts' involvement in state affairs. Since 2008, reformers have tried to appoint judges who would be more judicially restrained. We use the rulings of judges on Israel's Supreme Court in its capacity as Israel's High Court of Justice (HCJ) on the Israeli executive's decisions. We show that reformers did achieve their goal of reducing the HCJ's tendency to accept petitions against the executive. However, that trend has abated due to existing legal conventions regarding particular policy subsystems. Abstract Governments reform the process of nominating judges to constitutional courts,

Cox v LSF9 Master Participation Trust and US Bank as Trustee Fraud

Another Homeowner wins an unlawful foreclosure case against U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A., U.S. Bancorp, the LSF9 Master Participation Trust, et al, as the Appeals Court remands the case due to lack of standing.

La "difficulté contre-majoritaire" ne cesse de susciter nombre de travaux, aux États-Unis comme partout ailleurs. On a même cru y voir le problème central sinon exclusif de la théorie constitutionnelle contemporaine. Les débats au sein de la doctrine américaine sur la légitimité de la décision Brown, et notamment celui qui eut lieu entre Wechsler et Hand – qui tous deux étaient d’accord avec la solution retenue par la décision mais en critiquaient le raisonnement  – permettent de comprendre qu’on ne peut échapper à la question fondamentale : quelle est la légitimité d’une décision en démocratie ?
Le traitement de cette question donne lieu à deux types d’analyse : l’une qui se reconnaît explicitement normative ; l’autre qui tente d’être descriptive.

This new text provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date coverage of administrative law in Hong Kong. It includes original commentary on judicial review, administrative tribunals, the Ombudsman, the Legislative Council Redress System, Commissions of Inquiry, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, the Audit Commission, subsidiary legislation and more. Drawing on law, policy and practice, it offers detailed analysis while maintaining accessibility, charting developments as Hong Kong continues to evolve as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Administrative Law in Hong Kong is essential reading for judges, practitioners, policymakers, academics, students and commentators with an interest in public law, governance and administration.

Reviews & endorsements

Advance praise: 'The scholarship displayed in this work is of the highest quality. It is an authoritative text on administrative law in Hong Kong and makes a most important contribution to the learning in this field. It will provide invaluable guidance and assistance to judges, lawyers, public administrators, academics and students. This work will be a leading text and deserves to be widely read and used both in and outside Hong Kong.'
- Andrew Kwok Nang Li, First Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (1997–2010)

Advance praise: 'This closely focussed and precise account of administrative law in Hong Kong will prove very useful to the student approaching the examinations or practitioner wrestling with a difficult judicial review. Well and clearly written this book will surely make its mark. Dr Thomson deserves the gratitude of the profession.'  - Christopher F. Forsyth, Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge

Advance praise: 'A very welcome addition to the few books that deal with Administrative Law in Hong Kong. The author has produced a very readable guide to an area of law that is crucial to the maintenance of the Rule of Law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Especially welcome is the author's attempt to locate the significance of Administrative Law within the unique constitutional structure of the HKSAR, including descriptions of the major public bodies that make decisions that resonate in public law.'  - Philip Dykes, Bernacchi Chambers, Hong Kong

This article investigates UK judicial engagement with the war and related foreign affairs prerogatives, specifically considering developments in judicial review since 2002.  It outlines the comparative strengthening of judicial checks on high policy prerogatives during this period, but finds that such advances have had minimal impact in real terms; case outcomes remain unaltered and prerogatives in this area are still afforded special treatment by the judiciary.  The specific aim of this article is to identify underlying reasons why, despite appearances, there has been no actual material departure from the traditional GCHQ position which ring-fenced such prerogatives as immune from judicial scrutiny.  To this end it conducts a detailed analysis of caselaw, identifying and discussing two interrelated reasons. 

First, in war and foreign affairs matters the judiciary employ boundaries between law and non-law, specifically eliminating political or policy issues from their concern.  However, attempting to maintain the ‘internal purity’ of law involves judicial concessions in other respects; the way in which the courts apply boundaries is selective and inconsistent, ultimately acting to favour the government of the day.

Second, knowledge or expertise is a key factor underlying judicial approaches in war, defence and foreign affairs.  Executive views in this area have always enjoyed precedence in the courtroom and this is logically justified on the basis that government has superior expertise and exclusive access to information in this area.  The precedence of executive views has continued in recent caselaw, undermining the appearance of strengthening judicial checks.  The weight that courts afford government evidence in such areas is, for the most part, institutionally mandatory and it must therefore be concluded that the courts are incapable of effectively checking ministerial prerogative in war and related foreign affairs.

É possível obter um conceito de Autoridade que esclareça como autoridade e poder interagem no Direito? O problema se justifica na necessidade de categorias para avaliar fenômenos jurídicos e políticos. Utilizamos da obra de Hannah Arendt como marco teórico, por sua abordagem diferenciada da questão. Partimos da revisão bibliográfica da obra arendtiana e das suas fontes, encontrando conceitos-chave e perspectivas renovadas sobre autoridade como parte de um sistema jurídico-político. A hipótese confirmada é que a autoridade coloca manutenção e modificação da ordem em harmonia, vinculando passado e futuro pela tradição, enquanto aumento da comunidade política vinculado ao momento constituinte fundador.

هذا البحث يحاول تسليط الضوء على أهم وأبرز القواعد التي يقوم عليها الإعلان القضائي التقليدي، ومدى إمكانية تطويعها في استخدامات البريد الإلكتروني كأحد الوسائل الحديثة للإعلان القضائي، من ناحية القواعد الشكلية المقررة في الإعلان، وقواعد العلم اليقيني أو الحكمي بمضمون الإعلان، وقواعد الموطن بطبيعة الحال، وهو ما نتناوله في ثلاثة مباحث، على أن يسبقها مبحث تمهيدي يشكل مدخلاً مفاهيمياً لإعلان الأوراق القضائية عبر البريد الإلكتروني في ظل التطورات التكنولوجية الحديثة.

Principles of judicial notices via e-mail: An analytical study of Bahrain's civil and commercial procedure law

Published in: The Constitutional Court journal - Bahrain
volume(2), issue(4), January 2015