{"title":"Comparative Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Omnibus Legislation","authors":"Daniel Greenberg","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmab023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab023","url":null,"abstract":"<span>Bar-Siman-TovIttai (ed). Comparative Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Omnibus Legislation, 2021. ISBN: 978-3-030-72748-2</span>","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138531534","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}
{"title":"COVID-19 and the Rule of Law","authors":"D. Greenberg","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmab024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44319435","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}
Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has posed myriad brain-wracking questions to decision-makers at all levels. Viet Nam managed to curb mortality and morbidity to praiseworthy levels in the past COVID-19 waves, however, has now had its back against the wall amidst the recent exponential infection cases and draining medical resources. For swiftly flattening the curve, the legislature authorized the Government to take bolder steps where needed, even different from the laws. This article argues that while the empowerment comes from the goodwill of the legislature for the purpose of containing the raging outbreak, there remain procedural irregularities. This should garner more attention from the state authority to ensure the rule of law and legality of all state actions during the time of public health emergency.
{"title":"‘Authorized to Depart from the Law’","authors":"D. Nguyen","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmab022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab022","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has posed myriad brain-wracking questions to decision-makers at all levels. Viet Nam managed to curb mortality and morbidity to praiseworthy levels in the past COVID-19 waves, however, has now had its back against the wall amidst the recent exponential infection cases and draining medical resources. For swiftly flattening the curve, the legislature authorized the Government to take bolder steps where needed, even different from the laws. This article argues that while the empowerment comes from the goodwill of the legislature for the purpose of containing the raging outbreak, there remain procedural irregularities. This should garner more attention from the state authority to ensure the rule of law and legality of all state actions during the time of public health emergency.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48806272","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}
In the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, the proper understanding of the plain meaning rule (or literal rule) of statutory interpretation remains unclear. In its most basic iteration, the rule states that, where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the words must be given their natural and ordinary signification; there is no room for interpretation. That notwithstanding, to this day, even the meaning of the rule, as opposed to its application, still sometimes sparks debate in the Commonwealth. In 2015, a judge of the Grand Court in Cayman held that once a provision in a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court does not need to read the provision in its broader context. In a subsequent case, in 2018, a court of coordinate jurisdiction disagreed. It ruled that, even where a provision appears to be clear and unambiguous, a court must still read the statute in its fuller context in order to decipher the legal meaning in that particular context. This article discusses the plain meaning rule with a view to elucidating its proper understanding while questioning the appropriateness of its continuing nomenclature especially in light of developments in recent decades.
{"title":"The Plain Meaning Rule: A Quibble about Nomenclature and a Lot More","authors":"B. H. Simamba","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmab021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, the proper understanding of the plain meaning rule (or literal rule) of statutory interpretation remains unclear. In its most basic iteration, the rule states that, where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the words must be given their natural and ordinary signification; there is no room for interpretation. That notwithstanding, to this day, even the meaning of the rule, as opposed to its application, still sometimes sparks debate in the Commonwealth. In 2015, a judge of the Grand Court in Cayman held that once a provision in a statute is clear and unambiguous, a court does not need to read the provision in its broader context. In a subsequent case, in 2018, a court of coordinate jurisdiction disagreed. It ruled that, even where a provision appears to be clear and unambiguous, a court must still read the statute in its fuller context in order to decipher the legal meaning in that particular context. This article discusses the plain meaning rule with a view to elucidating its proper understanding while questioning the appropriateness of its continuing nomenclature especially in light of developments in recent decades.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44951493","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 focus of this article is the well-known statutory construction principle ‘a statute is always speaking’. This principle has a long history and has been applied in numerous cases. It has always been said that social changes are rapid, and the judges may need to give an ‘updated’ reading to a statute because legislative drafters just did not (and could not) foresee everything. However, as time goes by, the ways in which the courts apply this principle do not seem to be exactly the same. Also, the range of factors that the courts will consider seems to be expanding as the case law shows. In particular, in the 21st century, the need to use this principle is reinforced in technology advancement cases due to the unprecedented speed of technological improvements. Illustrative examples are therefore needed to provide certainty and predictability to the application of the principle. This article aims to accomplish this task. It will scrutinize three types of technology advancement cases to understand how the principle has been applied in recent years in technology context.
{"title":"How Do Statutes ‘Speak’ in Recent Technology Advancement Cases?","authors":"Samuel Yee Ching Leung","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmab020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The focus of this article is the well-known statutory construction principle ‘a statute is always speaking’. This principle has a long history and has been applied in numerous cases. It has always been said that social changes are rapid, and the judges may need to give an ‘updated’ reading to a statute because legislative drafters just did not (and could not) foresee everything. However, as time goes by, the ways in which the courts apply this principle do not seem to be exactly the same. Also, the range of factors that the courts will consider seems to be expanding as the case law shows. In particular, in the 21st century, the need to use this principle is reinforced in technology advancement cases due to the unprecedented speed of technological improvements. Illustrative examples are therefore needed to provide certainty and predictability to the application of the principle. This article aims to accomplish this task. It will scrutinize three types of technology advancement cases to understand how the principle has been applied in recent years in technology context.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45011525","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：