This volume examines the implementation of the Return Directive from the perspective of judicial dialogue. While the role of judges has been widely addressed in European asylum law and EU law more generally, their role in EU return policy has hitherto remained under explored. This volume addresses the interaction and dialogue between domestic judiciaries and European courts in the implementation of European return policy. The book brings together leading authors from various backgrounds, including legal scholars, judges and practitioners. This allows the collection to offer theoretical and practical perspectives on important questions regarding the regulation of irregular migration in Europe, such as: what constitutes inadequate implementation of the Directive and under which conditions can judicial dialogue solve it? How can judges ensure that the right balance is struck between effective return procedures and fundamental rights? Why do we see different patterns of judicial dialogue in the Member States when it comes to particular questions of return policy, for example regarding the use of detention? These questions are more timely than ever given the shifting public discourse on immigration and the growing political backlash against immigration courts. This book will be essential reading for all scholars and practitioners in the fields of immigration law and policy, EU law and public law.
Judicial Dialogue on Human Rights' offers a critical legal perspective on the manner in which international criminal tribunals select, (re-)interpret and apply the principles and standards formulated by the European Court of Human Rights. A part of the book is devoted to test the assumption that the current practice of cross-referencing, though widespread, is incoherent in method and erratic in substance. Notable illustrations analysed in the book include the nullum crimen principle, prohibition of torture, hearsay evidence and victims? rights. Another section of the book seeks to devise a methodologically sound ?grammar? of judicial dialogue, focussing on how and when human rights concepts may be transferred into the context of international criminal justice.
This volume examines the implementation of the Return Directive from the perspective of judicial dialogue. While the role of judges has been widely addressed in European asylum law and EU law more generally, their role in EU return policy has hitherto remained under explored. This volume addresses the interaction and dialogue between domestic judiciaries and European courts in the implementation of European return policy. The book brings together leading authors from various backgrounds, including legal scholars, judges and practitioners. This allows the collection to offer theoretical and practical perspectives on important questions regarding the regulation of irregular migration in Europe, such as: what constitutes inadequate implementation of the Directive and under which conditions can judicial dialogue solve it? How can judges ensure that the right balance is struck between effective return procedures and fundamental rights? Why do we see different patterns of judicial dialogue in the Member States when it comes to particular questions of return policy, for example regarding the use of detention? These questions are more timely than ever given the shifting public discourse on immigration and the growing political backlash against immigration courts. This book will be essential reading for all scholars and practitioners in the fields of immigration law and policy, EU law and public law.
Judicial Dialogue on Human Rights offers a critical legal perspective on the manner in which international criminal tribunals select, (re-)interpret and apply the principles and standards formulated by the European Court of Human Rights. A part of the book is devoted to testing the assumption that the current practice of cross-referencing, though widespread, is incoherent in method and erratic in substance. Notable illustrations analysed in the book include the nullum crimen principle, prohibition of torture, hearsay evidence and victims’ rights. Another section of the book seeks to devise a methodologically sound ‘grammar’ of judicial dialogue, focussing on how and when human rights concepts may be transferred into the context of international criminal justice.
Recent decades have brought international and municipal courts much closer together and induced a meaningful cooperation. This holds true also for the International Court of Justice and domestic judicial institutions as they engage actively in an inter-judicial dialogue, particularly on the normative level.
What do international and EU law require from the national asylum judge with regard to the intensity of judicial scrutiny to be applied and evidentiary issues? To answer that question, an analysis is made of the provisions on national judicial proceedings contained in the Refugee Convention (RC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Convention against Torture (CAT), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In addition, the assessment as performed by the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning the expulsion of asylum seekers is analysed.
“Highly illuminating ... for anyone interested in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the American democracy, lawyer and layperson alike." —The Los Angeles Review of Books In his major work, acclaimed historian and judicial authority Melvin Urofsky examines the great dissents throughout the Court’s long history. Constitutional dialogue is one of the ways in which we as a people reinvent and reinvigorate our democratic society. The Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of the Constitution, acknowledged that the Court’s majority opinions have not always been right, and initiated a critical discourse about what a particular decision should mean before fashioning subsequent decisions—largely through the power of dissent. Urofsky shows how the practice grew slowly but steadily, beginning with the infamous and now overturned case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) during which Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion upheld slavery and ending with the present age of incivility, in which reasoned dialogue seems less and less possible. Dissent on the court and off, Urofsky argues in this major work, has been a crucial ingredient in keeping the Constitution alive and must continue to be so.
This detailed book begins with some reflections on the importance of judicial interactions in European constitutional law, before going on to compare the relationships between national judges and supranational laws across 27 European jurisdictions. For the same jurisdictions it then makes a careful assessment of way in which ECHR and EU law is handled before national courts and also sets this in the context of the original goals and aims of the two regimes. Finally, the authors broaden the perspective to bring in the prospects of European enlargement towards the East, and consider the implications of this for the rapprochement between the two regimes. the Interaction between Europe's Legal Systems will strongly appeal to academics and students in European law, comparative law, theory of law, postgraduate students and LLM students in European law and in comparative law.
This comprehensive book examines the judicial governance of the patent system in Europe and beyond, and looks at mechanisms for enhancing coherence. Federica Baldan investigates the challenges to judicial coherence which may arise after the establishment of a specialised patent court in Europe.