Advantages and Disadvantages of the Ccj as the Caribbean's Final Court of Appeal

“The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;”

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

Have you heard about the Korematsu v U.S Case in the papers lately? I have. It is all the rage lately, and there are such mixed signals on which side people support, it’s like a vegetable soup. Whereas, I am absolutely certain where my support is going to…more specifically, the dissenting opinion of this case. You must listen to my ranting, or I am afraid I might become senile keeping all these thoughts to myself. In any case, I have two reasons why I support the dissenting side.

It believes that the interjection of social norms into the judicial reform movement would be a powerful force for change. By encouraging public participation in the proceeding, JRF hopes that, one day, the judiciary would become a shared commitment that ensures a fair set of trial procedure, a culture of equality, and a society of justice.

We further find persuasive decisions arising from the courts of other jurisdictions that have, by an overwhelming majority, refused to endorse the usurpation of the jurisdiction of a court with concurrent jurisdiction via the failure to permit the matter to be resolved in its original forum. See, e.g., First Midwest Corp. v. Corp. Fin. Assoc., 663 N. W. 2d 888, 892-93 (Iowa 2003) (holding that it was an abuse of discretion to deny stay while matter was pending in neighboring state) (citing Waicker, supra, 347 Md. at 115); Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, 549 N.W.2d 172, 176 (Neb. 1996) (holding that “entertaining [a] declaratory judgment action was an abuse of discretion” where same issue were pending in West Virginia); Simmons v. Superior Court in and for L.A. Cnty., 214 P.2d 844, 848-49 (1950) (“The fruits of the recognition of the rule of comity have been so beneficient, when applied to courts of concurrent jurisdiction created by differed sovereignties, as to justify the conclusion that it is not only a rule of comity, but one of necessity.” (internal quotations omitted)); Phelps v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass’n, 112 F. 453, 465-66 (6th Cir. 1901) (“It is a rule of almost universal application that, between courts of the same sovereignty and concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of the controversy . . . should be suffered by every other court to decide every question within the sphere of the pending cause . . . .”). These persuasive

this essay I will attempt to examine and analyse the effectiveness of international courts and

- International law organization participation: [Accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with reservations; accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court]. (1)

This essay advances the position that the quotation under discussion is, with all due respect to the Author, entirely incorrect. It is the counter-argument of this essay that the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have ‘abused’ their interpretive jurisdiction, and, in places, have even done violence to the very wording of the Treaty itself.

The problem that was addressed in this case is that about the injuries to Cue Co.’s plantation and the death of the manager. Cue Co.’s is a large multinational enterprise incorporated and headquartered in Country Q, Cue Co.’s own a banana plantation in Chiquitaland. The rebels that were at war with the government raid the banana plantation and destroying most of the banana and building. The manager was a citizen of Country Q. Both Chiquitaland and Country Q agree to submit the dispute to arbritation.

Though there are many countries that are apart of the ICC, a fair question is what sparked the need for such a powerful court? Because even though the ICC is doing their best not to repeat the mistake of have crimes go unpunished there are situation such as the United States refusing to join the organization and has immunity from being prosecuted that makes the court look unfair and re enforces the idea that that the powerful are untouchable. Another case would be that the ICC has been heavily criticized for being prone to prosecute cases only in Africa, which raises the question why do they prosecute countries that are not wealthy and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries. These small questions can make one consider if there really is a need for an international criminal court. However what one fails to understand is there is a need for an international court. In this paper I will be discussing exactly what was the cause of such a powerful court, why the United State has continuously refuse to join the ICC and had immunity before official leaving and finally why does it seem like the ICC is prosecuting countries that are not wealthy such as countries in Africa and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries.

“In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realization. We will do our part to see it through till the end. We ask you...to do

On the present case being addressed to the International Court of Justice in dealing with the matter of sovereignty over the Island of Manca, the issue of legality belonging to which side of the parties at dispute is put forward. The problem however, lies in, the period at which the dispute took place, for International law has not evolved at that time unlike in this day and age.

The Applicant was clear with the court and simply requested that their nativiational rights be re-established. Costa Rica also highlighted to the court the economic sanctions imposed by Respondent as punishment for bringing the case before the court. This act of retribution by the Respondent, in my opinion, hampered the Respondent's defense and furthered the Applicant's grievance. This admission also increased the difficulty of remaining impartial to both parties. As I found myself more and more in agreement with the Applicant, I found it more and more difficult to neutrally accept and investigate the Respondent’s

powerful set of laws within the country. According to Section 2 of Chapter 1 of the Jamaican

Under Art. 267, only ‘court or tribunal’ of a member state may initiate preliminary reference to the ECJ, however through succeeding case law this has been expanded by allowing entities whose members may not be judges, ‘provided that those entities have the power to adjudicate disputes’12. This concept of a court or tribunal has been interpreted widely as it is a matter of union law13. The Advocate-General in De Coster14 criticised the court’s approach and criteria to the interpretation as he deemed it confusing. The court in this instance accepted the reference, as ‘it was a permanent body established in law, that it gives legal rulings and that the jurisdiction is compulsory’15. The court in further cases has treated tribunals as not only tax appeal like in the case above but also; customs, social security and immigration.