This question is spilt into two parts the first part being the different processes which change law need to be examined and the second part being the question that the judiciary does not actively make laws besides in opportunistic ways. To assess these two questions we need to explain the different processes which lead to law reform, a look at the parliamentary system in making laws and changing laws, The judiciary system will be reviewed to look at the impact they have on law reform and how they interpret the laws and set out precedents through their interpretation. Institutions set up by the state such as the law committee have to be looked at their input in changing the law. External institutions such as the EU will need to be examined to see the role it plays in changing laws in the country and how the judiciary system is affected by the changes.
To establish the judiciary system connection with the changing of laws their first to establish who should create laws. Laws should be created by a democratic process, it should be carried out by the government in parliament as it has political legitimacy in the the state. This makes parliament the most important source of law as it consists of elected MPs. If the population of the state does not like the laws of the land they can vote for a different government in the state have similar views to their own.
The reasons why the judiciary system should not change laws is that the Judiciary system is independent from other organisation and this is a essential part in the running of the judiciary system. This allows the 'judiciary not being involved and not having any personal interest in advantage in the case they are working on so they enforce the law and not create it' (unit 26, ...
... middle of paper ...
...n the making and changing of laws. If a citizen of the state believes his rights have not been upheld he can apply to the Court in Strasbourg to take up his case. This shows the major influence the EU has in the laws of the country. The Judges in Strasbourg court have ordered the Judges in the UK to make their decisions on the precedents the EU courts have issued. The judiciary is important in law making as it has a major secondary role in making laws. The Judiciary role is to impose the laws that have been created by parliament, the judiciary applies these laws creating precedents and these in itself become a kind of law. This question on the role in the judiciary quoted is one that I agree with. The Judiciary only creates law through opportunist ways of interpreting the law and it is disbarred from the process as it is not elected by the citizens of the state.
The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to make it. In some cases an approach that gives slightly more emphasis to the text may be seen to be more in line with the judiciary’s constitutional position. The law is written in the words of the statutes, and Parliament has an obligation to express law correctly. The role of the court courts is not to ensure that Parliament hits the target every time, especially when the legislation does not clearly display those targets.
laws is to keep the bad things out from the old society out such as
Nowadays, the Australian legal system has three powers, which are legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative power is in charge of making the laws; subsequently those laws will be passed to the executive power to administer the laws it...
Lastly, the Court of Justice of The European Union (ECJ) is formed by the Court of Justice, Specialised Courts and the General Court, each of the courts have their own jurisdiction and legal personnel. Their main role is to make sure that Public law is imposed, to defend individual rights and give preliminary rulings as mentioned above.
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.
This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group.... ... middle of paper ... ... Carl F. Stychin and Linda Mulcahy, Legal Methods and Systems, (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
The European Foreign and Security Policy is a necessary and important part of the European Union. These policies are discussed, drawn up, voted on and put into effect by the European Council. However, to implement a policy the vote within the Council must be unanimous, without unanimity no policy will be implemented . The rule of law in the European Union is essential to many of its actions, both at home and abroad. The rule of law is “that every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries.”...
A major impediment of the common is the tendency to lead to perpetuity of bad decisions once a precedent has been set. If there is no amendment and the same ruling is applied, that bad decision will be subsist and will be perpetuated. Since the common law system revolves around following antecedents, it usually takes a long while for change to occur. Unfortunately, before this change is effected, the bad decision will be upheld as long as the change does not come into effect. This is one area where the codified system of law has an advantage as it is rules based approach to law making designed to provide a comprehensive code of laws for the area in question.
The Judges and Magistrates also had to be qualified for their positions in the court. A Judge must be thorough in Dharma and have the qualifications equivalent to that of a minister. A Judge shall be fair and impartial in order to gain the trust of the population into the legal system of the state. There should be a bench of 3 judges who shall hold court at frontier posts, sub – district headquarters, and provincial
The judicial branch is constituted by different parts in order to interpret the laws through the process of judicial review. Also, each part of the people has their own task and certain power when changing or improving the laws. Judicial restraint and judicial activism are relevant in the United States and are related to the judicial system of a country. They are also a check against the inequitable use of the power of the constitutional body. However, they have the opposite way to deal with this kind of problem.
The judicial process basically involves a series on intertwined roles and procedures for resolving disputes through an authoritative individual or people whose decisions tend to be obeyed on a regular basis. The judicial process or functions also involve the use of administrative agencies, which were created to help the government in enacting the law in a simpler and more direct way than the legislature. Given the nature of their functions, administrative agencies do not necessarily adhere to the civil procedure established for courts and employ less formal means of pursuing their actions. However, there are various concepts and processes of administrative agency judicial functions in relation to different components
The rule of law and its set of requirements attempted to give the specifics to which lawmakers could govern not only legally but responsibly. Not only restricting extra-legal use of power but also its practice limits injustice. Thus it is often argued that the rule of law is only instrumentally morally valuable, valuable when and to the extent that a legal system is used to purse morally valuable ends . So as such the rule of law is instrumentally valuable, drawing attention to state-atrocities and the implications it has on the government and her citizens.
The rule of law is thought to be one of the most fundamental doctrines of the constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom. The distinctive UK‘s constitution has influences previously on the judicial system too. Government and the legal systems in history have both been involved in rules and discretion and most of all the elimination of all discretionary power in which both of these are impossible and unwanted. The rule of law means in one sense, government by the law but obviously government is by the people as well as by the law. As soon as the governing people are added in, the government can’t then be by law on there own. Although the situation is not undoubtedly as the making of particular laws can be guided by open and relatively stable general laws that have been made. For the Rule of Law to have meaning in a democratic society, it has to mean that those who run it have comply with it for it to work; there must be no room for an “ends justifies the means”
The judiciary should not only be impartial when dealing with cases but independent too. Whenever cases are being assessed, both impartiality and independence should go hand in hand to avoid