The Supreme Court of India and International Law: A Topsy-Turvy Journey from Dualism to Monism

Liverpool Law Review - In the relationship between international law and national law, the normative framework enshrined in the Indian Constitution is of formal dualism. Thus, international law...     

Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

On 28 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decisionin Mugesera, bringing to an end the decade-long legal saga involvinga speech made by Leon Mugesera in November 1992 in Rwanda. Whilethe decision of the Supreme Court was handed down in the contextof an immigration case, its impact will be mostly felt in therealm of criminal law, as the court embraced international jurisprudencefor the international elements of crimes against humanity. Inaddition, the decision is important for three reasons: it (i)clarified the interrelationship between international and domesticcriminal law; (ii) examined the notion of hate crime; and (iii)analysed the concept of inchoate crimes.     

German Constitutional Law in the UK Supreme Court

Liverpool Law Review - The outgoing tide of EU law will be Britain’s most significant constitutional change in recent times. In an era of uncertainties, the UK Supreme Court proved to be a...     

The Role of Domestic Courts in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice

Recent legal scholarship has argued that the traditional hierarchicalrelationship between international courts and domestic courtshas been replaced by a relationship characterized by such featuresas co-operation, communication and dialogue. This article examinesto what extent the practice of the International Court of Justicesupports that development. It concludes that the while the caselaw of the International Court of Justice remains largely rootedin the traditional perspective, in which decisions of domesticcourts are just facts, in recent cases we can see some evidencefor a more complementary relationship.     

The Heathrow Case in the Supreme Court: Climate Change Legislation and Administrative Adjudication

In R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd the UK Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that there had been a series of legal errors in the designation of the Airport National Policy Statement. This case note analyses the case from an ‘internal’ doctrinal perspective and argues that the Supreme Court could have engaged more explicitly with the legal issues that arise from climate change legislation for administrative law adjudication. For courts to adjudicate well in such circumstances they need to be prepared to develop administrative law doctrine, particularly in light of the issues of integrating climate change into public decision-making and of scientific/policy uncertainty which lie in the background of climate change legislation.     

Interpreting Meaning in Juvenile Court: The Use of Local Wisdom

To be presented at the 1982 Annual Meetings of Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association in Ottawa, June 6–9. The author would like to thank the many people working with juveniles in Alberta and elsewhere who provided insights for this paper. The work has been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grant Sumber 410-79-0124 and by funds from the Solicitor General's Contributions Grant.     

The Role of the United States Supreme Court in Shaping Federal Drug Policy

Through judicial review, the United States Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in deciding and/or interpreting the constitutionality of legislation. Since the passage of the Pure, Food and Drug Act in 1906, the Supreme Court’s role has been integral in formulating drug policy. In some instances, the Court’s decisions have limited the authority of the federal government, while in others have greatly expanded this authority. As a direct result of the decision-making of the Supreme Court, limitations have periodically been placed on Congress to regulate controlled substances. Many people, who were perceived as medical patients, became criminal drug users. The Court has restricted and later approved of the use of drugs during the free exercise of religion. Lastly, the Court has continually reinforced the supremacy of the federal government over the states, in turn limiting the ability of the states to consider marijuana legislative reform.     

From Cold War Instrument to Supreme European Court: The European Court of Human Rights at the Crossroads of International and National Law and Politics

The history of the genesis and institutionalization of the European Convention on Human Rights offers a striking account of the innovation of a new legal subject and practice—European human rights—that went along with, but also beyond, the political and legal genesis of Europe following World War II. The rise of the European human rights institutions shows not only how law and lawyers played key roles in the early politics of European integration but also how the subtle combination of law and politics—as both national and international strategies—continued to play a decisive part in the institutionalization of European human rights. The article generally argues that the interplay between law and diplomacy had a fundamental impact on the innovation of European law and that lawyers capable of playing an intermediary role between the two were particularly central to this development.     

Supreme Court of Canada's “Beautiful Mind” case

The Supreme Court of Canada's (SCC) first case involving capacity and the refusal of involuntary psychiatric treatment involved a self described “professor” who had been referred to as “Canada's Beautiful Mind”. He had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for uttering death threats. While considered incapable of making a treatment decision by psychiatrists and a review board, three levels of court, including the SCC, found him to be capable. “Professor” Starson therefore continued to refuse treatment for his psychosis and spent over seven years detained because he refused the treatment required to become well enough to be released. This refusal of treatment is permitted under Ontario law, although it is not permitted in some other Canadian provinces, and in many other countries.This article describes Starson's situation, Ontario's law with respect to consent to treatment and relevant Canadian constitutional and criminal law. It provides an analysis of the Consent and Capacity Board decision and the court appeals. Implications from Starson's case are analyzed in relation to what happened to Starson, human rights and comparative law pertaining to involuntary patients' refusal of treatment, especially their relevance to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and laws in some other countries. Many Canadian and foreign jurisdictions where laws apparently accord with human rights codes do not allow a person to refuse the treatment required to restore their liberty. We conclude that a law that allows a person with a mental illness to be incarcerated indefinitely in a “hospital” because needed psychiatric treatment cannot, by law, be provided is not justifiable in a caring democratic jurisdiction.     

The Changing Status of International Law in English Domestic Law

Netherlands International Law Review -