Court Considerations in the Termination of Parental Rights: A Comprehensive Analysis of Israeli Court Decisions

Court decisions to terminate parental rights (TPR) have a major impact on parents and children, but the decision‐making process is unclear. Analysis of 261 Israeli TPR court cases indicated the dominance of considerations relating to normative parental functioning, the parents' ability to change, the impact of separating a child from his family, the parents' social normativity and educational ability. The legal considerations relate to the importance of the biological family, the necessity of adoption and the importance of a fair legal process. Insufficient consideration is accorded to cultural differences in parenting practices and the voice of the child.     

论成立国际刑事法庭的合法性问题

刑法上的“合法性原则”要求一个法庭必须“依法成立”。法庭只有“依法成立”,才有资格进行审理、并在确定被告有罪时对其进行定罪。刑法上这个原则,当然也适用于国际刑事法庭。自上个世纪90年代以后,国际社会为了惩治严重的国际犯罪行为,已成立了不少国际刑事法庭。尽管这些国际刑事法庭的宗旨和目的相同,但它们的成立方式却各不相同:前南斯拉夫国际刑事法庭和卢旺达国际刑事法庭是联合国安理会通过决议成立;塞拉利昂特别法庭是塞拉利昂政府与联合国通过签订协议而成立。虽然,成立方式可以不一样,但都必须符合“合法性”原则。本文将通过案例分析,来探讨这些国际刑事法庭在实践中是如何论证和裁决关于成立国际刑事法庭的“合法性”原则的法理问题。     

Indexing watchdog accountability powers a framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions

Independent oversight institutions are critical components of the accountability landscape in modern democracies. This paper presents a framework for assessing the accountability powers of these watchdogs. This watchdog accountability index is an empirical tool to assess the key accountability powers of accountability forums that operate in a democratic constitutional context. The aim is to provide a richer evidence base to assess evolving external accountability arrangements and their effectiveness. Our approach breaks down the concept of watchdog accountability power into three distinct, conceptually coherent dimensions. We apply the accountability index to assess the strength of one of the main watchdog institutions in the EU, the European Court of Auditors in 2017. Data were collected by means of a study of secondary sources and by an expert survey.     

从警方鉴定人出庭现状谈我国鉴定人出庭作证制度的完善

在我国目前的鉴定体制下,大部分的鉴定结论是由侦查部门作出的,因此,作为警方的鉴定人,出庭作证对实现鉴定结论的法律价值具有重要意义。由于我国司法鉴定人制度存在缺陷、相关法律不完善、保障制度不健全等方面的原因,致使包括警方鉴定人在内的鉴定人出庭作证率低,为此,应当从司法鉴定制度建设、立法完善和人权保障入手,完善我国鉴定人出庭作证制度。     

灾后法院法律纠纷解决调查

为更深入和具体了解地震灾害对法院纠纷解决的影响,2008年7月西南财经大学法学院调查分队就“灾后法院法律纠纷解决方面的问题”这一课题深入到基层人民法院进行了较为全面的实证调查。调查主要了解灾后基层法院涉灾案件的基本情况以及地震给法院正常诉讼工作带来的困难,同时获取了法院方面的相关统计分析资料与案例信息,从而对灾后法院受理的各类涉灾纠纷的基本情况和特点作了调查分析,并提出了相应对策。     

行政首长应当出庭应诉吗?——在司法的技术、权能与功能之间

从司法技术的角度看,首长应诉制度存在"去专业化"之倾向,无助于提升司法的公正性。但此制度可在一定程度上缓解由于法院司法审查权能之实际不足所引发的行政诉讼之整体危机,并对行政纠纷之彻底解决有所助益,故其在当下具有一种作为权宜性策略的适行性。但是,《行政诉讼法》不宜直接规定首长应诉制度,而仅需对被告委派代理人出庭作出一般性宣示。     

《罗马规约》在亚洲的批准与实施探究

回顾<罗马规约>在亚洲的批准情况,并分析多数亚洲国家不愿签署和批准规约的基本缘由;进而,在全面介绍规约在亚洲国家实施概况的基础上,重点介绍规约在柬埔寨的实施情况.最后,还就如何推促规约在亚洲的签署与批准问题,阐释了作者的基本观点.     

We're Still Taking X‐Rays but the Patient is Dying: What Keeps us from Intervening More Quickly in Resist‐Refuse Cases?

Professionals frequently lament the fact that the dynamics of resist‐refuse cases are often entrenched before the family receives effective intervention. Dysfunctional behavior patterns can become entrenched, with severe impairment of children's ability to function. Assessment is a critical component in the process of assisting families, but can come to so dominate the process that the situation is unrecoverable once the assessment is completed and meaningful interventions begin. The authors will describe commonly encountered obstacles to early intervention in resist‐refuse cases, ranging from systemic stressors to the persistence of inaccurate beliefs and information and practices that undermine accountability. Practical strategies, including a broader conceptual model, integrating assessment into intervention, encouraging lawyers and courts to take earlier action, and suggestions for future professional development will be addressed.     

Courts and the politics of secrecy: national security,human rights and the importance of supranational oversight

Abstract

The article examines the use of state secrecy in court litigation concerning alleged gross human rights violations committed in the struggle against terrorism, focusing specifically on cases of extraordinary rendition and comparing the performance of courts in the United States, in Italy and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The article explains that national courts have validated the assertion by national governments of the state secret privilege in litigation involving cases of extraordinary rendition, ensuring de facto immunity to individuals involved in gross human rights abuses. On the contrary, it underlines that the ECtHR has pierced the veil covering these ‘deep secrets’, undertaking a strict scrutiny of acts of extraordinary rendition to torture committed by governments in the name of national security. As the article argues, the success of the ECtHR can be explained by a number of reasons, including distance, time and institutional design. In conclusion, the case law of the ECtHR on secrecy and national security confirms the continuing importance of supranational courts as instruments of external oversight on the human rights practice of European states.     

Constitutional Illegitimacy over Brexit

Members and supporters of the British government say that the only constitutionally legitimate course of action over Brexit after the referendum is to press ahead with withdrawal from the European Union, even if that would entail the complete severance of all ties (which we normally call ‘hard Brexit’). A more sophisticated view of the constitution, however, shows that these more or less populist arguments are false. As the Supreme Court confirmed in the recent Gina Miller judgment, the constitution did not change with the June referendum. Parliament is still supreme and determines both ordinary legislation and constitutional change. In fact, if one examines closely the claim that the referendum entails hard Brexit, it becomes obvious that this claim is false as well. The referendum opened the door for one among four different possibilities. Which Brexit option—if any—the United Kingdom should take is a matter for Parliament now to decide, following the normal processes of democratic deliberation and representation.