Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article addresses the issue of the uniform and autonomous interpretation of private law conventions, including of private international law conventions, from the perspective of their Contracting States, particularly their judiciaries, and of the international organizations. Firstly, the author analyses the use of standard uniform interpretation clauses, and the origin of such clauses, in the context of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The following part the article addresses negative and positive obligations imposed on States and their judiciaries under international law regarding the uniform and autonomous interpretation of international treaties. It is argued that States are not only obliged to refrain from referring to concepts from national laws for the purpose of the interpretation of international law instruments, but also that they face certain positive obligations in the process of applying the conventions. Those include referring to foreign case law, international scholarship, and under certain circumstances, also to travaux préparatoires. Thirdly, the author discusses the role of international organizations—e.g. HCCH, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, in safeguarding and facilitating the uniform and autonomous interpretation of private law conventions. It does so by describing various related tools and approaches, with examples and comments on their practical use (e.g. advisory opinions, information sharing, access to supplementary material, judicial exchanges and legislative action).

When applying legal texts to the facts of a case, these texts may conflict with each other, or the conflict may exist in the same text, or they may be obscured or deficient. It is incumbent upon the judge to interpret these texts and remove the conflict, ambiguity, and deficiency in order to reach a judicial ruling based on sound legal texts that align with the provisions of the law. Due to the diversity of types, reasons, and methods for interpreting legal texts, this study aims to clarify judicial interpretation of legal texts and distinguish it from other types of interpretation, along with their reasons and methods. The researchers used a descriptive-analytical approach by describing and analyzing the legal texts related to the subject of the study to reach the desired results. The researchers reached several results and recommendations, the most important of which is that the judiciary plays a key role in interpreting legal texts when applied to the facts presented to it in order to address any deficiencies, ambiguities, or conflicts within those texts. The study recommends establishing a legal system that shows the methods, reasons, and cases for judicial interpretation, in order to address legal texts when applied to the legal facts presented to the judiciary.

Catalyzed by the surge in climate litigation worldwide, this article examines the tension between the moral imperatives of intergenerational justice and the operational constraints of positivist legal frameworks. It hypothesizes that while positivist doctrine prima facie challenges judicial application of intergenerational justice principles, reconciliation is possible through contextually attuned adjudication and evolved conceptions of legal principles for the Anthropocene. The article explores three key litigation strategies: dynamic interpretation of existing rights, application of constitutional future generations clauses, and procedural mechanisms for representing future interests. Building on European climate judgments, it analyzes how these approaches strain positivist tenets and animate separation-of-powers objections. The article argues that addressing interpretive and foundational challenges posed by climate change requires both doctrinal innovation and theoretical reconstruction. It shows how contextual constitutionalism can help courts to acknowledge intergenerational duties while preserving legal determinacy, and explores how positivism might evolve to accommodate multigenerational climate governance. Situating leading cases within debates between positivism and non-positivist theories, the article offers a roadmap for developing a framework of legal validity suited to the era-defining challenge of climate change.

How do Supreme Court justices decide their cases? Do they follow their policy preferences? Or are they constrained by the law and by other political actors? The Constrained Court combines new theoretical insights and extensive data analysis to show that law and politics together shape the behavior of justices on the Supreme Court. Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman show how two types of constraints have influenced the decision making of the modern Court. First, Bailey and Maltzman document that important legal doctrines, such as respect for precedents, have influenced every justice since 1950. The authors find considerable variation in how these doctrines affect each justice, variation due in part to the differing experiences justices have brought to the bench. Second, Bailey and Maltzman show that justices are constrained by political factors. Justices are not isolated from what happens in the legislative and executive branches, and instead respond in predictable ways to changes in the preferences of Congress and the president. The Constrained Court shatters the myth that justices are unconstrained actors who pursue their personal policy preferences at all costs. By showing how law and politics interact in the construction of American law, this book sheds new light on the unique role that the Supreme Court plays in the constitutional order.

The published reports of 88 cases mentioning Private Acts of Parliament (PAs), heard in the higher courts of England and Wales and Scotland were analysed to assess the courts’ current approach to PAs. Fifty-six English and eight Scottish cases were considered suitable for further assessment. Encyclopaedias and textbooks stress the application of contractual approaches, the contra proferentem rule and the judicial use of the preamble when the courts interpret PAs. These texts also suggest that the approach to cases promoted by public bodies differs to that where the promoter is a corporation and that there is a different approach to PAs involving London which are regarded as Public/General Acts of Parliament. The validity of these suggestions was assessed. English and Scottish judges approached the interpretation of PAs similarly. It was of interest that a number of cases dealt with Acts that were confirming provisional orders, a type of legislation still used in Scotland. Although the judges often considered contractual principles of interpretation or applying the contra proferentem rule, in practise they were not invariably applied and when used there was no apparent difference to those Acts promoted by public bodies or in the case of “London” PAs. The preamble was used to confirm the judges construction of the PA and to establish its purpose. The general principle however seemed to be that the courts adopted the method best suited to give the Act efficacy. The numbers of PAs enacted has declined over the period studied reflecting the passing of Public General Acts whose provisions rendered the further enactment of some types of PA unnecessary.

Purpose This paper aims to elucidate the responsiveness of China’s judicial system in addressing the challenges of identifying online illegal fund-raising crimes that have emerged in recent years. This study systematically evaluates the efficacy and potential pitfalls of legal guidelines contained in judicial interpretations, such as holistic determination, sampling verification and presumption of the nature of funds. In addition, the research endeavors to propose pertinent recommendations for refining the existing judicial rules. Design/methodology/approach This research mainly uses a doctrinal methodology, focusing on the principal judicial interpretations formulated by the Supreme People’s Court and other central judicial entities in China. The scope encompasses the realm of online illegal fund-raising crimes as well as other cybercrimes. The analytical framework involves a comprehensive examination of these authoritative judicial documents, coupled with a theoretical and critical analysis of relevant academic materials. Findings This research underscores that while judicial interpretations serve as an effective legal strategy to confront the challenges posed by online illegal fund-raising crimes, their implementation introduces a nuanced landscape. These legal guidelines, often emanating from diverse judicial departments and tackling specific issues, carry the inherent risk of giving rise to new complexities and fostering inconsistency. Judicial authorities shall exercise prudence in both the formulation and application of these guidelines, ensuring their harmonization with existing legal norms and fundamental legal principles. Originality/value This research constitutes a critical and comprehensive examination of judicial interpretations in China pertaining to online illegal fund-raising crimes. It offers valuable insights into the country’s judicial interpretation system and its legal responses to financial crimes. The paper serves as a valuable resource for academics, law enforcement professionals, policymakers, legislators and researchers.

This article is one of very few attempts to empirically measure legal interpretation. It maps the application of eleven interpretation elements (good faith, ordinary meaning, object and purpose, etc.) in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) across ten International Criminal Court case studies. The elements were coded for identity and sequence of element, and amount of text used in applying each element. The mapping and analysis reveal, among other things, that the application of the VCLT across cases is markedly inconsistent and, in some instances, opaque and arguably unjustifiable. The results suggest, at least based on this small sample, that the ICC’s current practice of applying the accommodating, flexible methodology of the VCLT may be inconsistent with the requirement of strict construction in Article 22 of the Rome Statute, and that even when strict construction does not technically apply, a more systematic, transparent, and robust approach should nevertheless still be followed.

The South African Constitution, which has been referred to as one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, provides a wide-ranging outline of rights applicable to all people who live in the Republic, whether as citizens or not. Although this inclusive framework has promoted the dignity, equality, and freedom of humans, it has raised debates on the extent of foreigner nationals’ claim and enjoyment of the socio-economic and natural resources of the country. This article critically assesses judicial interpretation of Sections 22, 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution to determine the extent of foreign nationals’ access to socio-economic rights. It assesses especially those that entail property rights (Section 25), access to the socio-economic rights (Sections 26 and 27), as well as the freedom of trade and occupation (Section 22) to allow foreigners to fully engage in many sectors of the economy, including mining, agriculture and even business. Using the landmark judgements of the Constitutional Court, such as the case of Khosa v Minister of Social Development and the case of Union of Refugee Women v Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, this paper has raised complex debates about the extent to which foreign nationals may claim and enjoy the socio-economic and natural resources of the country, as well as the socio-economic ramifications for such interpretations. The paper assesses the conflict between universalism in the constitution and the obligation of the state to safeguard national assets for its citizens. The article suggests legal and policy reforms to find a balance between inclusivity and the sustainability of national development and resource sovereignty. This is achieved through a critique of country development and sovereignty over its resources by challenging policy gaps, judicial reasoning, and comparative constitutionalism.

Almost since the beginning of the republic, America's rigorous separation of powers among Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches has been umpired by the federal judiciary. It may seem surprising, then, that many otherwise ordinary cases are not decided in court even when they include allegations that the President, or Congress, has violated a law or the Constitution itself. Most of these orphan cases are shunned by the judiciary simply because they have foreign policy aspects. In refusing to address the issues involved, judges indicate that judicial review, like politics, should stop at the water's edge--and foreign policy managers find it convenient to agree! Thomas Franck, however, maintains that when courts invoke the \"political question\" doctrine to justify such reticence, they evade a constitutional duty. In his view, whether the government has acted constitutionally in sending men and women to die in foreign battles is just as appropriate an issue for a court to decide as whether property has been taken without due process. In this revisionist work, Franck proposes ways to subject the conduct of foreign policy to the rule of law without compromising either judicial integrity or the national interest. By examining the historical origins of the separation of powers in the American constitutional tradition, with comparative reference to the practices of judiciaries in other federal systems, he broadens and enriches discussions of an important national issue that has particular significance for critical debate about the \"imperial presidency.\"

This article analyses a domestic litigation matter seeking to establish accountability for air pollution-related human rights violations. It examines how the judiciary applied national and international law to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. It argues that the domestic case deserves careful reading for a number of reasons that can be distilled into two premises. Firstly, the national legal framework and its respective judicial interpretation impede access to justice for victims of state and/or corporate human rights violations. Secondly, it is essential that the state develops laws and policies in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which would allow claimants to focus their argumentation on material, rather than procedural issues relevant to proving the merits of the case.