JAWONDEL’S NEW LEGAL SYSTEM By Marlize Nel Miss Johnston Legal 11 – The Legal System 23/03/15 In this report, both Rule of Law and Federation are defined. Additionally the benefits and limitations of the said features are disclosed with recommendations to mitigate limitations for stakeholders. Thorough research was used to comprehensively define the features and discern what the benefits and limitations would be for the stakeholders if the interim government incorporated them into Jawondel’s new legal system. Table of Contents Federalism and Rule of Law 1 Rule of Law 1.1 Federalism 1.2 Benefits of Rule of Law and Federalism 2 Benefits of Rule of Law 2.1 Benefits of Federalism 2.2 Reasoning behind why Rule of Law and Federalism …show more content…
Democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. Jawondel is in the process of transitioning, just like the said countries. Rule of Law and Federalism are central attributes to democracy therefore should definitely be integrated into any democratic legal system; including the one Jawondel wishes to develop. Jawondel is a small nation currently under an interim government until a new government is elected. Jawondel has decided to reform its government from a dictatorship to a democracy. Jawondel’s leaders wish to adopt a model which is similar to the Australian legal system and have asked that a report be prepared on two features that should be integrated into their new legal system. Throughout this report Rule of Law and Federation will be defined, and it will be explained how including them in Jawondel’s legal system will advocate the rights of individuals, certainty, justice and equity. It will also explore and disclose the benefits and limitations of the features, and give recommendations to lessen the limitations. Both features discussed in this report achieve everything Jawondel is looking for. From being a democratic country through to displaying the rights of individuals, equity, justice and certainty. 1.0 Federalism and Rule of Law 1.1 Rule of Law: Rule of Law (also known as
Imagine you are the director of health information services for a medium-sized health care facility. Like many of your peers, you have contracted with an outside copying service to handle all requests for release of patient health information at your facility. You have learned that a lobbying organization for trial attorneys in your state is promoting legislation to place a cap on photocopying costs, which is significantly below the actual costs incurred as part of the contract. (Case Study, p. 20)
The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..
To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems
Over one hundred and eighty sovereign states are members of the United Nations and they have different constitutions. Some have to provide for a federal structure, in others although unitary, include different legal systems within the one state. The disparities between constitutions deals with momentous ethnic, linguistic and religious considerations. Their vagueness requires a prudent imposition on what ?is? and what ?ought? to be the law. The premise of this piece is on Global Administrative Law, with an exegesis on critical legal studies.
In the course preserving the law and order, the effectiveness of the system designed to administer justice cannot be over emphasized. Faith in the adjudicatory system by the populace is often underscored by the satisfaction the populace derives from it in terms of its administration of justice. Hence it is pertinent to analyze the approach certain countries are employ in their respective adjudicatory process.
The country of Fredonia is in need of assistance on rewriting a new constitution and the restructure of its court system. There are a few different methods when it comes to selecting judges to establish a national supreme court. Being that the country is unitary it is not going to be the same as the United States of America and the federal system that is in place. The Unitary system is when a centralized government controls all the policies of the country. The country can pick from the election method that can be either partisan or nonpartisan which is ballot votes, appointment method of either legislative or executive where the governor or the executive in charge makes the decision on who to appoint, legislative selection where the state chooses the appellate and Supreme Court judges, or the appointment election method where a list of qualifies individuals is made and a review session and selections process is put forth to choose the best fit justice for the vacant position. All are great methods in their own way and depending on the country, but they all have their negative aspects as well which all will be discussed. Being that the country is rewriting its constitution and has to make sure it is put forth in the best way possible the pros and cons of each method have to be looked upon to determine which best fits the country. From all the methods available to choose from the method that would best fit for Fredonia when it comes to choosing justices to
Discuss whether or not the criminal justice system could operate without the existence of privileges to evidence. Within this answer discuss why privileges exist and argue for or against the end for privileges and societies interest in these rules of evidence. Discuss a minimum of two different privileges within your answer.
Our universal human rights which extend to every living person on this planet, are not achieved through the legislator, nor the executive but within the judicial arm of government. It is within trials that individuals can attain a sense of justice, fairness and certainty in an impartial outcome to a case. The jury system breathes confidence into the concept of justice, where the power is decentralised from elitist powerful judges and put into the hands of ordinary members of the community. Individuals are not prepared to accept a decision made by so-called experts, by a board of judges, or by a dictator. They are prepared to accept and outcome which stems from the wider
By and large, the appropriation of the case administration layout for a court system can have numerous positive and negative impacts. As the chairperson of a court with 50 workers, the expansion of caseloads has turned into a prevention of productive work. A positive angle for this surprising increase in the amount of cases could evolve into new additional duties for the court system itself. Despite the fact that the immediate benefits of this case administration framework are rare, they have a tendency to become more apparent when the system has been set up for some time. The issue with a longer usage time is that system itself tends to be slow to change. Thus when something has been the standard for quite a while, an orderly change is hard. The negative impact of this case management system is the deficient precautionary measures taken when caseloads get to be overpowering. The case management system combined with a 50 man court framework has turned out to be a disappointment after some time, and the pattern is deteriorating. With the case documenting multiplying in the previous seven years, it is vital that something is done to diminish the effect of being overpowered. Case management has made judges reconsider their present system in dealing with the courts (Peak, 2010).
Another important point made by the author is, courts have stretched their impact over the official branch, with correspondingly affect controls. The present burdens of the national government have their foundations in decisions around established laws made long back. Hence, the likeliness of change is
The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.
Initially, laws are difficult to design because lawmakers can’t think of every possibility, every scenario, and every obstacle that may present itself in the democracy. Despite these difficulties, laws keep society together and provide unity for the citizens. Advantages for creating laws, include, but are not limited to, providing direction for the collection of taxes, declaring clear expectations for compliance and punishment of citizens and elimination of chaos.
The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.
One feature in the design of a country’s constitution is the organisation and relationship between the legislature and the executive. The two can have impacts on the country’s politics and society and the
The rule of law broadly requires; that all are equal before the law , that the government is subject to the law and must exercise its power according to the law, finally that ‘there exist fundamental individual liberties and minimum standards of justice, to which the law must conform’ . The rule of law is problematic to define but put simply it is not ‘the rule of men’ and is evident in societies with functioning judiciaries and a clear separation of powers such as New Zealand. It is one of several intrinsic attributes of our constitutional makeup and overall the Judiciary aid in ‘ensure[ing] that the rule of