Legal Aspect of Decision Making Essay

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

This appeal arises out of a judgment awarded to appellee, Amelie Kemogne (“Kemogne”), against appellant, Charles Ndeumeni, (“Ndeumeni”), following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Ndeumeni challenges the denial of his motion for summary judgment, the admission of certain testimony offered against him, as well of the sufficiency of the evidence that sustained the judgment against him. On appeal, Ndeumeni presents four issues for our review. We rephrase and reorder the questions as follows:

If say that case is admiralty/maritime case, governed by admiralty law, is to say that substantive admiralty law applies.

The vessel was held deliberately and in such a position that damage to the Plaintiff’s dock resulted. This damaging of the dock preserved the vessel.

“Agreeably to the remark already made, the national and State systems are to be regarded as ONE WHOLE. The courts of the latter will of course be natural auxiliaries to the execution of the laws of the Union, and an appeal from them will as naturally lie to that tribunal which is destined to unite and assimilate the principles of national justice and the rules of national

Note that your students can find the answers to the even-numbered For Review questions in Appendix F at the end of the text. We repeat these answers here as a convenience to you.

The case (1992) was sent to the Supreme Court of Queensland, but this was postponed when the Meriam men brought another case to the High court that challenged a document of the Queensland Government’s.

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.

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.

One of the grounds of setting aside an arbitral award is if it opposes public policy under Section 34(2)(b)(ii). With the advent of the Saw Pipes case , the concept of public policy expanded in nature and started including patently illegal errors of the arbitral tribunal as a ground for setting aside the award.

Holding: The Court holds that the Liechtenstein claim is inadmissible. Guatemala is under no obligation to recognize

. Article 50 provides as follows: “If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

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.

Seaworthiness not to be implied. There shall not be implied in any contract for the carriage of goods by sea to which the Rules apply by virtue of this Act, any absolute undertaking by the carrier of the goods to provide a seaworthy ship.

This chapter deals with identifying the legal characteristics which can qualify an entity as a sate and the act of recognition. It considers the norms constituting the statehood criteria and their relationship with the act of recognition.