Judicial Uncertainty and Antitrust Prosecution

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quan Li
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Uncertainty

Closed Trials and Secret Allegations

2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Kelman
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Amount Of Information ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Do So ◽  
Judicial Uncertainty

The tension between an individual’s right to a fair trial and a state’s prerogative to withhold information where it is in the national interest to do so is an issue which is especially relevant in preventative detention cases. In a string of cases since 2009, lower courts have interpreted the ‘gisting’ requirement imposed by the Grand Chamber in A v United Kingdom in response to this problem. This paper will consider the jurisprudence of the lower courts and will argue that the House of Lords’ judgment in AF No. 3 imposed requirements not only in relation to the amount of information that must be disclosed, but also in relation to what that information must consist of. It will note that two irreconcilable interpretations of A have developed, and argue that one of those approaches is incompatible with AF. Finally, it will discuss the interaction between these decisions and the statutory framework of the JSA, especially ss 6(5) and 7(2), and will consider the consequences of the judicial uncertainty in this area in relation to the return of TPIMs following the CTSA.

The Influence of Judicial Uncertainty on Executive Support for Negotiation in Canadian Land Claims Policy

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christa Scholtz
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Judicial Politics ◽  
Federal Budget ◽  
Land Rights ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
Indigenous Land Rights ◽  
Indigenous Land ◽  
Judicial Uncertainty

Abstract. Governments and Indigenous groups bargain under the shadow of the law, and this paper pushes the judicial politics research agenda by examining empirically whether flickers in law's shadow systematically affect the implementation of the Canadian government's negotiation choice in the Indigenous land rights context. Through interviews and a time series analysis of Canada's specific claims policy, I find that judicial uncertainty increases the federal government's propensity to accept specific claims for negotiation. However, there is evidence that Indigenous protest action during the Oka crisis and Elijah Harper's role in scuttling the Meech Lake constitutional accord, more than other factors, greatly impacted the federal budget allocated towards negotiation.Résumé. Les négociations entre les gouvernements et les groupes autochtones se déroulent sous les auspices de la loi, et le présent document examine le programme de recherche sur les politiques légales afin de déterminer de façon empirique si certaines imprécisions dans la loi influent sur les options retenues par le gouvernement du Canada en ce qui concerne les droits sur les terres autochtones. Une analyse statistique de la politique de revendication en vigueur au Canada ainsi qu'un certain nombre d'entrevues m'ont permis de constater l'existence d'un flou juridique qui amène le gouvernement fédéral à accepter d'examiner certaines revendications spécifiques à la table des négociations. Il semble toutefois que certains incidents particuliers, comme les gestes de protestation posés par les autochtones lors de la crise d'Oka, ou le rôle joué par Elijah Harper dans l'échec de l'Accord constitutionnel du lac Meech, aient eu une incidence marquée sur l'importance des sommes allouées par le gouvernement fédéral à ces négociations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document