This article charts how security‐cleared counsel have been constructed as a mechanism for managing the tension between security and fairness in secret trials and transferred across national boundaries as an example of ‘best practice', before going on to evaluate recent cross‐cultural and transnational research on this ‘best practice'. Particular attention is paid to the central role played by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in promoting the role of ‘special advocates’ and a contrast is made between the methodologies deployed by the Court and those used in recent research to identify and problematize ‘best practice’ within the closed world of security‐cleared counsel. The article then goes on to explore the relationship between ‘best practice’ and procedural tradition and argues that normative solutions advancing ‘best practice’ need to pay careful attention to the procedural contexts and cultures in which they are embedded.
{"title":"In a World of Their Own: Security‐Cleared Counsel, Best Practice, and Procedural Tradition","authors":"J. Jackson","doi":"10.1111/jols.12186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12186","url":null,"abstract":"This article charts how security‐cleared counsel have been constructed as a mechanism for managing the tension between security and fairness in secret trials and transferred across national boundaries as an example of ‘best practice', before going on to evaluate recent cross‐cultural and transnational research on this ‘best practice'. Particular attention is paid to the central role played by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in promoting the role of ‘special advocates’ and a contrast is made between the methodologies deployed by the Court and those used in recent research to identify and problematize ‘best practice’ within the closed world of security‐cleared counsel. The article then goes on to explore the relationship between ‘best practice’ and procedural tradition and argues that normative solutions advancing ‘best practice’ need to pay careful attention to the procedural contexts and cultures in which they are embedded.","PeriodicalId":119166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Courts of Human Rights (Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128321917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Based on popular accounts of the experience of European integration, particularly the role an audacious European Court Justice (ECJ) played in driving integration in the early days through judicial-activism, judicial organs of integration communities are increasingly under pressure of expectation to take on roles that should significantly shape the direction of their respective communities. The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) is one judicial organ that struggles under such a burden of expectation. While the ECCJ has been active in protecting human rights in recent times, most observers will conclude that it has not impacted integration in West Africa anywhere near as much as the ECJ has impacted on European integration. For some, by its growing involvement in human rights adjudication, the ECCJ may well have taken on a role that sends it in the wrong impact direction. The chapter argues that properly applied, the human rights competence of the ECCJ gives the Court an important role with a potentially huge impact on ECOWAS integration that is not sufficiently understood and appreciated.
{"title":"The Role of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in the Integration of West Africa: Small Strides in the Wrong Direction?","authors":"S. Ebobrah","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2621453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2621453","url":null,"abstract":"Based on popular accounts of the experience of European integration, particularly the role an audacious European Court Justice (ECJ) played in driving integration in the early days through judicial-activism, judicial organs of integration communities are increasingly under pressure of expectation to take on roles that should significantly shape the direction of their respective communities. The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) is one judicial organ that struggles under such a burden of expectation. While the ECCJ has been active in protecting human rights in recent times, most observers will conclude that it has not impacted integration in West Africa anywhere near as much as the ECJ has impacted on European integration. For some, by its growing involvement in human rights adjudication, the ECCJ may well have taken on a role that sends it in the wrong impact direction. The chapter argues that properly applied, the human rights competence of the ECCJ gives the Court an important role with a potentially huge impact on ECOWAS integration that is not sufficiently understood and appreciated.","PeriodicalId":119166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Courts of Human Rights (Topic)","volume":"502 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134249717","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The protection of property, historically and practically is crucial in many aspects. The laws of democratic countries, as well as the international agreements put importance on such regulations. One of the common types of restriction to the right of a peaceful enjoyment of property comes from the State, as expropriation with a legitimate aim to protect public interest. It is significant to maintain a balance between the public interest and the protection of property; but in some ways it can be disrupt against equity. About unlawful expropriation or any other kind of confiscation; the national courts may be more distant about imposing sanction to the State; but the International Law and Courts are more restrictive and strict about State’s unjust actions. The most significant International Agreement the Turkish Government sticks to is The European Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s judgments are binding; so the government has efforts to adapt itself to the Convention and tries to avoid being sentenced to judicial fine. One of the Decisions that may lead to a change in Turkish legislation, is the Court’s decision on the “Case of Devecioglu v. Turkey” (Application no. 17203/03) given on 13 November 2008, about the protection of property.
{"title":"The Balance between the Public Interest and the Protection of Property Rights: A Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights About Expropriation","authors":"M. Dülger","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2560894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2560894","url":null,"abstract":"The protection of property, historically and practically is crucial in many aspects. The laws of democratic countries, as well as the international agreements put importance on such regulations. One of the common types of restriction to the right of a peaceful enjoyment of property comes from the State, as expropriation with a legitimate aim to protect public interest. It is significant to maintain a balance between the public interest and the protection of property; but in some ways it can be disrupt against equity. About unlawful expropriation or any other kind of confiscation; the national courts may be more distant about imposing sanction to the State; but the International Law and Courts are more restrictive and strict about State’s unjust actions. The most significant International Agreement the Turkish Government sticks to is The European Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s judgments are binding; so the government has efforts to adapt itself to the Convention and tries to avoid being sentenced to judicial fine. One of the Decisions that may lead to a change in Turkish legislation, is the Court’s decision on the “Case of Devecioglu v. Turkey” (Application no. 17203/03) given on 13 November 2008, about the protection of property.","PeriodicalId":119166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Courts of Human Rights (Topic)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125803656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：