Role Of Judiciary : Court 's Guidelines

Tropical countries such as India, endowed with rich biodiversity and natural resources. People consider environment as a part of their lives. Therefore, the natural environment should not be affected by the business activities. In India, natural resources such as water considered sacred. Also there are many powerful NGOs act upon environmental issues. For example, Coca Cola had to face many hardships in India because of the environmental issues. Therefore, it is very important to be careful with environment in the said country.

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

International law has relatively little relevance for environmental law, the standard of justice revolves around the advancement of peace and respect for basic human rights. The absence of mechanisms under international law does not seem to be unjust, as it does not impinge on international peace and security or the enjoyment of human rights, at least not directly. A wide variety of positions on global justice and fairness support normative obligations for outsiders to compensate rainforest states for protecting their forests, obligations that may well have to be translated into binding law. International law should take into account, much more than is now the case, positive obligations of international solidarity, including the protection of the global commons.

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

Name the ways that the U.S. judiciary is restricted in deciding cases. How do these restrictions affect the legal environment?

Court and process: Constitutional Court ruled that the law is the prerogative of the federalism, not only reconciliation state governments. The state of government did not agree that would be their responsibility for repaid Mr. Barron. The chief justice John Marshall thought that this is not the states problem, and there is nothing to do in the side of the city of Baltimore. Mr. Barron insists that is in the faith amendment and it should be until the bill of right of the state government, and the federal government were unsure of the faith amendment was so clear. However, after the civil war the state of government made the fourth amendment that the state can’t take any bill of rights from the citizen.

Tarr, G. A. (2014). Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking, 6th Edition. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from

In the State of New Hampshire when you are arrested and charged with a crime, you will be arraigned by the District Court who has jurisdiction in a 24 hour time frame. Jurisdiction is determined on where the crime occurred, what the crime was, and who committed the crime. During the arraignment a plea is entered or request of a continuance, an attorney will be provided for defendants who cannot afford one on their own, bail set, and a probable cause hearing will be scheduled. If bail is set, this is to encourage the defendant to show up for any future court appearances and may issue restrictions for travel and other activities to avoid having bail revoked (Broderick & Dahar, 2008). If the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, the judge may proceed to a verdict, or the prosecutor and the defense attorney may work out a plea deal if the charge is considered minor. If it is a more serious crime, the judge will move to schedule future hearings.

It has also been suggested that judges could use video conferencing facilities from a different location in order to deal with a civil dispute rather than be physically present. This is not without its’ own set of challenges . It is implied that a party in a trial has the right to see a judge “struggling conscientiously with the detail of a case ” which is a “feature of the court system that cannot be discarded ”. In trying to minimise the physical aspect of the judge’s role in court seems to undermine the basic fundamental human rights mentioned in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that parties in a trial are entitled to a “fair and public hearing...” . This is because it seeks to reinforce the aspect of the courts moving towards a more ‘impersonal ’ and ‘nonhuman ’ approach to dealing with civil disputes.

First, let’s clarify that the Supreme Court is the court of the land. After reading the book of Cheeseman and some research from the website that the Checks and Balances is needed because according to Muller “it is the framers of the Constitution designed the U.S. government so that each branch had a check on the others. In this way, no one branch would have absolute authority. Judicial review is the main way the Supreme Court can check the legislative branch's power. If a case before the court raises a constitutional question, the justices may decide a law violates the Constitution. Congress then has the power to pass another law to override that court ruling. Of course, that law, if challenged, would be subject to further judicial review” (Muller,2013).

In the earliest stages of the constitution, as the federal government began to form there was no consensuses between the federalists and anti-federalists on the power the judicial branch of government should be allowed to maintain. Judicial Review is defined as “a constitutional doctrine that gives to a court system the power to annul legislative or executive acts which the judges declare to be unconstitutional” (Judicial Review). Robert Yates wrote Brutus No. 11 and 12 questioning the power of judicial review within the judicial branch from the perspective of an anti-federalist (Gillman 57-58, 2013). Alexander Hamilton and James Madison responded to Yates anti-federalist claims with the federalist papers specifically, in Federalist No. 78,

All throughout her career, Gro continued to be concerned about global issues. In 1983, Gro was invited by the United Nation Secretary General to establish and chair the World Commission of Environment and Development. This commission is best known for developing the political concept of sustainable development. This led to the Earth Summit in 1992, which is the United Nations Conference of Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.

The Earth Charter began in the late 80s, when a group known as “the Brundtland Commission launched what was called Our Common Future Report to guide the transition to sustainable development” (“History”, 2009). In the early 90s, two gentle men by the name of Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev along with the assistance of the “Dutch Government developed an Earth Charter as a civil society initiative by working through the organizations founded by themselves…” to later draw on hundreds of international documents (“History”, 2009). Before the Earth Charter became a

Most social movements in India since the 1970s have actively used the Courts-especially the Supreme Court-as a part of their struggles. This has been possible because of the higher Courts’ activism, especially under the guidance and action of Public Interest Litigation. Through the instrument of Public Interest Litigation, the Court liberated itself from traditional constraints in the legal system so as to reach out ‘to the weaker sections of Indian humanity.