Judicial Responses to Counter-Terrorism Law after September 11

The role of the courts is quite important, especially in the protection of individual rights and liberties. Many counter-terrorism policies implemented at the national level often infringe on these rights, and courts are the best line of defense against these violations of liberty. However, courts do not always rule in favor of liberty, sometimes ruling in favor of a strict government policy. This analysis seeks to explain the conditions that may lead courts to rule in favor of, or against, the government, arguing that political fragmentation is a potentially key factor in determining when particular case outcomes occur.     

Friends of the Court? Why EU governments file observations before the Court of Justice

The preliminary reference procedure under which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) responds to questions from national courts regarding the interpretation of EU law is a key mechanism in many accounts of the development of European integration and law. While the significance of the procedure has been broadly acknowledged, one aspect has been largely omitted: The opportunity for member state governments to submit their views (‘observations’) to the Court in ongoing cases. Previous research has shown that these observations matter for the Court's decisions, and thus that they are likely to have a significant impact on the course of European integration. Still, little is known about when and why member states decide to engage in the preliminary reference procedure by submitting observations. This article shows that there is significant variation, both between cases and between member states, in the number of observations filed. A theoretical argument is developed to explain this variation. Most importantly, a distinction is made between legal and political reasons for governments to get involved in the preliminary reference cases, and it is argued that both types of factors should be relevant. By matching empirical data from inter‐governmental negotiations on legislative acts in the Council of the EU with member states’ subsequent participation in the Court procedures, a research design is developed to test these arguments. It is found that the decision to submit observations can be tied both to concerns with the doctrinal development of EU law and to more immediate political preferences. The conclusion is that the legal (the CJEU) and political (the Council) arenas of the EU system are more interconnected than some of the previous literature would lead us to believe.     

Early Childhood Trauma Impact on Adolescent Brain Development,Decision Making Abilities,and Delinquent Behaviors: Policy Implications for Juveniles Tried in Adult Court Systems

By examining previous literature on the brain’s developmental process during adolescence, this paper aims to determine how early childhood trauma potentially effects decision making in adolescence through exploring self-regulation theory. Through a self-regulation framework, the hope is to determine the connection, if any, between early childhood trauma, delinquent behavior, and involvement in the juvenile justice system. The author insists that not only do adolescents have less culpability due to their brain developmental stage compared to adults, but also early childhood trauma puts adolescents at a greater risk of impaired self-regulation which allows for more probable delinquent behavior. This paper also considers implications for social policy makers and youth advocates concerned with juvenile offenders tried in adult courts and existing racial disparities in the system.     

The determinants of voluntary judicial resignation in Australia,Canada, and New Zealand

This article compares supreme and high court judicial turnover with respect to voluntary exits and retirements in three Westminster parliamentary democracies, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, for the period 1970–2012. The findings of an event history model indicate that judges who author large numbers of opinions in a given year are likely to stay longer, while those who dissent from their colleagues frequently are more likely to exit early. It was also found that judges are more likely to resign if the party that appointed them was expected to lose government.     

Agent permeability, principal delegation and the European Court of Human Rights

A growing body of international relations literature examines the delegation of state authority to international organizations. Delegation is a conditional grant of authority from a principal to an agent in which the latter is empowered to act on behalf of the former. This paper explores the effect of agent permeability to interested third parties on the efficacy of control mechanisms established by principals. Our central argument is that higher levels of agent permeability are likely to lead to higher levels of agent autonomy. Because of this, principals who face a potentially permeable agent are likely to delegate more cautiously—partially, in stages, or with clear limits. We illustrate our argument with a case study of the European Convention of Human Rights and its two principal institutions, the Commission and the Court. We find that principals (contracting states) historically delegated quite cautiously to the Court, clearly concerned about the Court’s autonomy. Court behavior in its first two decades reassured principals while increasing the Court’s permeability. Over time, that increased permeability increased Court autonomy in conjunction with the Court’s growing visibility and experience.

The judicialisation of EMU politics: Resistance to the EU's new economic governance mechanisms at the domestic level

Courts are increasingly asked to deal with fundamental political disagreements in liberal democracies. Because of its political salience and the extent of its consequences, the crisis of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) has exposed such fundamental disagreements between and within its member states, which numerous plaintiffs have brought before domestic courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This article analyses this judicialisation of the EMU crisis. Using a database on lawsuits introduced in all 28 member states with regard to crisis measures and the new EMU governance mechanisms introduced since 2010, the authors study which actors use the courts and under which circumstances. Based on a combination of judicialisation and political economy approaches, the article develops a series of assumptions on actors’ motivations in order to understand the reasons for judicialisation in debtor and creditor countries.     

论死因裁判制度在我国的建构与前景

我国2012年修改后的刑事诉讼法在鉴定意见部分作了较大改动,包括引入专家证人制度,加强鉴定人的出庭等等,这会对提高我国死因结论的质量产生明显的促进作用,但"游济安"等案件暴露出了一个尖锐的问题:如果警方得出了一个意外事件的结论,案件根本不会进入刑事诉讼程序,那么,我们在刑事诉讼法中为解决此类问题所作的一切设计和努力都将落空。因此,在中国的现实语境下,非常有必要将死因结论的形成作为单独的前置程序明确加以设定,这就是死因裁判制度。应当在现有法律框架下就陪审制度,报告制度,责任制度等一系列内容予以明确立法,通过程序化的设计,有效地吸收社会不满,提高民众的公正感和伸张社会正义。     

Low-Level,but High Speed?: Assessing Pretrial Detention Effects on the Timing and Content of Misdemeanor versus Felony Guilty Pleas

Abstract

While numerous studies have examined pretrial detention and felony case outcomes, little empirical attention has been devoted to misdemeanor pretrial detention. We theorize that misdemeanants detained for a longer proportion of time will plead guilty quicker because the costs of fighting their charges in jail often outweigh the sanctions they face. Utilizing data on 165,630 felony and misdemeanor cases from Miami-Dade County, Florida, during a 4-year period (2012–2015) we assess whether the effects of pretrial detention length on the timing and content of guilty pleas differ across lower-level and upper-level courts. Survival analyses and multinomial logistic regressions indicate that misdemeanor cases overall and those involving lengthier pretrial detention are resolved faster, with most resulting in non-carceral sanctions such as credit for time served (CTS). Given that misdemeanors make-up the bulk of U.S. criminal cases, these findings reveal important insights about how pretrial detention impacts case-processing dynamics in lower courts.