Coloured Judgements? The Work of the Thai Constitutional Court, 1998–2016

Created in 1997 as part of a major constitutional reform, Thailand’s Constitutional Court has since become embroiled in several high-profile political controversies. Since the 2006 coup, because a number of such decisions have favoured one political camp and considering obvious close and long-standing relations between judges and political elites, questions have arisen about the court’s ability to act as an independent arbiter. Is this view justifiable? To answer that question, this article first analyses how the court has behaved across political administrations in 32 high-profile cases since 2001. It then turns to the socio-biographic profile of the bench, the politics of nominations and changes to its composition, particularly since 2006. Finally, the article considers data on participants in classes offered by the Constitutional Court, which makes it possible to better understand the links between Thai political and judicial networks. The analysis finds evidence of politically biased voting patterns and increasingly partisan nominations to the court, though formally appointment procedures are apolitical, which suggests the politicisation of the court and growing ties between judicial and political elites. These findings raise new questions about the public’s perception of the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy and prospects for the rule of law.     

种族灭绝罪初探

种族灭绝罪被视为违反绝对法的犯罪,但是它至今仍是单一法律文件规定的犯罪。构成种族灭绝罪要求行为人蓄意全部或局部消灭某一民族、人种、种族或宗教团体。其具体行为方式包括杀害;造成严重的身体或心理伤害;故意使该团体处于某种生活条件下,以毁灭其全部或部分的生命;强制施行办法,意图防止该团体内的生育;强制转移该团体内的儿童至另一团体。     

刍议对公民社会权的司法救济——以南非格鲁特布姆案为视角

作为体现对公民享有人的尊严的基本生活的保护,公民的社会权已随社会的发展而相继被很多国家写进宪法。随着贫富差距的日益增大和人权观念的逐渐深入,社会权作为一种新兴的人权当然也日益被社会所重视。而如何从实体和程序上对其加以法律保障,就成为宪法学需要予以研究的问题。     

国际法院解释领土条约的路径、方法及其拓展

领土主权属于一国的根本问题。由于部分领土条约相关条款过于原则或模糊不清,当事方会产生条约解释上的国际争端。通常,国际法院依据《维也纳条约法公约》第31、32条规定的解释规则进行阐释。但是,领土条约具有与一般条约不同的特性,这一特性也决定了其解释方法的特殊性。条约解释与争议领土主权的归属存在密切关系,不当解释会严重损害当事国的领土主权。正是出于此顾虑,国际法院过于严格遵照条约文本语言表述的精确性,但在司法实践中又出现一定的矛盾与反复,甚至在个案中弱化条约解释的价值,转而以有效统治作为判案的法理依据。国际法院的做法动摇了国际社会相关当事方将领土争端提交国际法院,采取法律方式解决纠纷的信心,值得关注和深入研究。     

论行政协议非诉执行制度的优化

行政协议约定内容的设定没有受到立法程序中关于公众参与程序和立法机关备案审查程序的控制,也往往没有协议内容公开和相关程序的要求。相较于行政决定(由行政协议转化而来的除外)作为非诉执行依据的情形,行政协议作为非诉执行依据时更难以解决行政法上的代理人问题,即行政协议中行政主体一方更难以全面地代表公共利益。从现行行政协议非诉执行制度的执行名义、申请程序、审查程序和标准来看,应进一步加强对行政主体一方应代表的公共利益的全面考量和保护,并提出如何完善相关制度的建议。     

Moving from Evidence‐Light to Evidence‐Based Practice: Randomized Control Trials in Family Law

In a resource‐constrained environment, such as the access to justice field, it is critical to develop better knowledge about effective and efficient service delivery. This article discusses the need for more rigorous evaluation and research in the field, both in order to better reach individuals with legal needs and to maximize court resources. Various evaluation methodologies will be explained, along with examples of current randomized control trial studies being conducted at the Harvard Access to Justice Lab.     

Constitutional Contestation of Religion in Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT

Sri Lanka’s constitutional policy regarding religion affords the ‘foremost place’ to Buddhism and obligates the state to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, whilst assuring the rights and freedoms of the other religions. By explicitly creating a special status for Buddhism, the constitution has produced the category of the ‘Other’ that has the potential to discriminate against minorities in a pluralistic society and to undermine the fundamental principle of equality. The creation of this distinction generated contestation during constitutional reforms. By examining reform proposals on religion, interview material and comparing the debates of the Constitutional Assembly (October/November 2017) with the Constituent Assembly debates (1970–71), this study retraces the evolution of the Buddhism Chapter and identifies the present contestations and their role in deciding a constitutional arrangement for religion.     

Workplace Monitoring and the Right to Private Life at Work

In Barbulescu v Romania, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the application of the Article 8 right to private life in the workplace, and the extent of the state's positive obligations to protect the right against workplace monitoring. The decision establishes that there is an irreducible core to the right to private life at work that does not depend on an employee's reasonable expectations of privacy, and sets out clear principles for striking a fair balance between Article 8 and the employer's interests in the context of workplace monitoring. This article considers the nature of states’ positive obligation to protect human rights at work, the scope of the right to private life, and the impact of the decision on domestic law of unfair dismissal.