Explore the vast range of titles available.

The book uses critical sociolinguistic analysis to examine the social consequences of courtroom talk. The focus of the study is the cross-examination of three Australian Aboriginal boys who were prosecution witnesses in the case of six police officers charged with their abduction. The analysis reveals how the language mechanisms allowed by courtroom rules of evidence serve to legitimize neocolonial control over Indigenous people. In the propositions and assertions made in cross-examination, and their adoption by judicial decision-makers, the three boys were constructed not as victims of police abuse, but rather in terms of difference, deviance and delinquency. This identity work addresses fundamental issues concerning what it means to be an Aboriginal young person, as well as constraints about how to perform or live this identity, and the rights to which Aboriginal people can lay claim, while legitimizing police control over their freedom of movement. Understanding this courtroom talk requires analysis of the sociopolitical and historical actions and structures within which the courtroom hearing was embedded. Through this analysis, the interrelatedness of structure, agency, constraint and change, which is central to critical sociolinguistics, becomes apparent. In its investigation of language ideologies that underpin courtroom talk, as well as the details of how language is used, and the social consequences of this talk, the book highlights the need for far-reaching changes to courtroom rules of evidence.

China established the China Coast Guard (CCG) in 2013. China promulgated China Coast Guard Law (CCGL) in 2021, which formally conferred on CCG the functions of maritime security and defense, maritime administrative law enforcement (MALE), and maritime crime investigation. In 2024, CCG revised the Directory of Maritime Administrative Law Enforcement Matters by China Coast Guard (CGD) and promulgated Provisions on Administrative Law Enforcement Procedures of Coast Guard Agencies (CGP). These three laws and regulations are most closely related to MALE of CCG, and with other laws and regulations related to MALE, they constitute a system of norms for MALE of CCG. This article reviews and summarizes the development history of MALE system of CCG, examines its MALE normative system in detail, and analyses the nature and content of CGP in depth. It then suggests ways to improve the system’s inadequacies.

The Indonesian Competition Supervisory Commission (ICSC) has the authority to investigate, prosecute, adjudicate, decide, and impose sanctions on business actors for violating Indonesian competition law. It also has the authority to establish procedural laws for the competition law enforcement procedures within its institution. This single role raises various issues in the current context, including the right to a fair trial and checks and balances. This article seeks to define the position of human rights, particularly the right to a fair trial, in competition law enforcement procedures. The result is that competition law enforcement procedures are subordinate to human rights, so they must be exercised in compliance with human rights standards, particularly the right to a fair trial. Based on the experience in Indonesia, this study finds that the ICSC’s single role is incompatible with human rights commitments in fair competition law enforcement procedures. As an alternative solution, this article encourages a modification and adjustment based on human rights commitments and checks and balances mechanism by limiting one of the ICSC’s authorities and broadening the interference of the Supreme Court in enforcing Indonesian competition law at the ICSC level.

Research-based reforms for collecting eyewitness identification evidence (e.g., unbiased pre-lineup instructions, double-blind administration) have been proposed by psychologists and adopted in increasing numbers of jurisdictions across the United States. It is well known that reducing rates of mistaken identifications can also reduce accurate identification rates (hits). But the reforms are largely designed to reduce the suggestiveness of the procedures they are meant to replace. Accordingly, we argue that it is misleading to label any hits obtained because of suggestive procedures as \"hits\" and then saddle reforms with the charge that they reduce the rate of these illegitimate hits. Eyewitness identification evidence should be based solely on the independent memory of the witness, not aided by biased instructions, cues from lineup administrators, or the use of lineup fillers who make the suspect stand out. Failure to call out these hits as being illegitimate can give solace to those who are motivated to preserve the status quo.

In Figueiredo Ferraz v Peru the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, deployed the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline to enforce an arbitral award against Peru. The award had been rendered in Peru and the successful party in the arbitration sought to enforce it against Peru's assets in New York. This article argues that, contrary to the Second Circuit's approach, when the merits of a dispute are decided in an arbitration seated in one jurisdiction and the arbitral award is then presented to a court in another jurisdiction for enforcement against the award debtor and its assets within the jurisdiction of that court, neither forum non conveniens nor any rule performing the same function should arise.

The objective of the paper is to create a concept of what securing the claim is, based on the positive legislation of Kosovo’s law, comparing its regulation with laws of somewhat similar legislations of neighbouring regions, understanding its implementation in practice, to achieve conclusions and remarks based on law, facts, practice, and the comparative aspect. The Civil Procedure Law in the Republic of Kosovo is regulated with contested, non-contested or enforcement procedure. Securing the claim is an institute expressively regulated by the “Law on Contested Procedure of the Republic of Kosovo” on its XXI Chapter that defines its means and types.Considering securing the claim measures are present in civil law to prevent any possible threat of protected rights until the final verdict is given, this paper tends to achieve a realization of how these measures practically succeed in actual cases, if they meet the criteria set in the law, or if securing the claim proposal is approved by the court, if they unintentionally restrain the respondent from using their rights. Moving forward, how one distinguishes claim security and interim measures from one-another although they describe the main concept, is strictly reviewed under this article, to finally achieve conclusions and remarks based on questions raised as above.

Programs such as NBC's Dateline: To Catch a Predator illustrate the possible pitfalls of law enforcement interactions with media. To Catch a Predator is rife with procedural deficiencies and often appears to place the goal of increased ratings ahead of appropriate law enforcement procedures. Recent research in the field of social psychology has revealed that the perception of the law and law enforcement as legitimate can have an important effect on public compliance with the law. When the police take part in procedurally flawed media events, they may do more harm than good—sincere efforts to inform the public about law enforcement actions may ultimately erode the perception of police legitimacy and result in increased criminality. As such, it is incumbent on law enforcement to wrest control of its media interactions and insist that proper police procedures be observed on camera and off.

Field studies of eyewitness identification are richly confounded. Determining which confounds undermine interpretation is important. The blind administration confound in the Illinois study is said to undermine it's value for understanding the relative utility of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Most criticisms of the Illinois study focus on filler identifications, and related inferences about the importance of the blind confound. We find no convincing evidence supporting this line of attack and wonder at filler identifications as the major line of criticism. More debilitating problems impede using the Illinois study to address the simultaneous versus sequential lineup controversy: inability to estimate guilt independent of identification evidence, lack of protocol compliance monitoring, and assessment of lineups quality. Moving forward requires removing these limitations.

Quality fact-finding is vital in the study of mass violence, and transitional justice offers a tempting pallet of formulas to exhume the violent past. Its privileged truth-finding protagonists are [international] tribunals and truth commissions. International criminal justice systems are credited in particular as reliable, truth-ascertaining forums. However, when confronted with African conflicts, this claim appears simplistic. Recent International Criminal Court (ICC) decisions highlight substantial failures to adequately investigate mass crimes and generate solid proof. The bulk of collected evidence consists of [unverified] eyewitness testimony and NGO reports.² However, judges have discredited some witnesses as being possibly manipulated or as providing