scholarly journals Prawnomiędzynarodowy standard sądowej kontroli w sprawach związanych z zabezpieczeniem społecznym a regulacje polskie

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-75
Author(s):  
Sebastian Gajewski

The Convention of ILO № 102 is the basic source of international-law rules in the area of social security. This convention concerns the standards of judicial review in matters regarding social security. It declares that whenever a claim is settled by a special tribunal established to deal with social security questions and on which the protected persons are represented, no right of appeal should be required. It means that matters regarding social security should be settled by tribunals that are organizationally, personally and procedurally separated from those dealing with other cases. In Poland, most of the matters regarding social security are settled by common courts, by their special departments, in a special procedure. Nevertheless, relevant departments can also deal with cases concerning labor law and they do not consist of persons who are not judges and represent protected persons. It means that the Polish regulations concerning the judicial review in matters regarding social security do not fulfill the standard established by the Convention № 102.

Legal Studies ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Christopher Rowe

Abstract As part of its response to Covid-19 the government paused the use of the ‘Minimum Income Floor’ (MIF), which restricts the Universal Credit (UC) entitlement of the self-employed. This paper places the MIF in the wider context of conditionality in the social security system and considers a judicial review which claimed that the MIF was discriminatory. The paper focuses on how UC affects the availability of real choices for low-income citizens to limit or escape from wage labour, with two implications of the move to UC highlighted. First, the overlooked labour decommodifying aspect of tax credits, which provided a minimum income guarantee and a genuine alternative to wage labour for people who self-designated as ‘self-employed’, even if their earnings were minimal or non-existent, has been removed. Secondly, UC has in some respects improved the position of low-paid wage labourers in ‘mini-jobs’, who are not subject to conditionality once they work for the equivalent of approximately nine hours a week on the minimum wage.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Umbu Rauta ◽  
Ninon Melatyugra

Tulisan ini ingin menjawab dua isu utama mengenai hubungan hukum internasional dan pengujian undang-undang oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi RI (MKRI). Isu pertama adalah legitimasi penggunaan hukum internasional sebagai alat interpretasi dalam pengujian undang-undang, sedangkan isu kedua adalah urgensi penguasaan hukum internasional oleh hakim MKRI. Tulisan ini merupakan penelitian hukum yang menggunakan pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatan historis dalam menjelaskan perkembangan pengujian undang-undang di Indonesia sekaligus menemukan legitimasi penggunaan hukum internasional oleh MK RI. Kesimpulan dari tulisan ini menegaskan bahwa hukum internasional memiliki sumbangsih yang penting dalam perannya sebagai alat interpretasi dalam proses pengujian undang-undang oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi, khususnya terkait hak asasi manusia. Justifikasi keabsahan praktik penggunaan hukum internasional tersebut ditarik dari tradisi ketatanegaraan yang secara implisit dikehendaki UUD NRI Tahun 1945. Manfaat positif yang diberikan hukum internasional nyatanya harus disertai juga dengan penguasaan hukum internasional oleh hakim MK RI supaya hukum internasional dapat digunakan secara tepat. Pembahasan dalam tulisan ini dibagi ke dalam empat sub bahasan inti yakni, pengujian undang-undang, penggunaan hukum internasional sebagai the interpretative tool dalam pengujian undang-undang oleh MK, legitimasi penggunaan hukum internasional sebagai the interpretative tool dalam pengujian undang-undang, pentingnya penguasaan hukum internasional oleh hakim MK.This article intentionally answers two principal issues regarding the relationship between international law and judicial review by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. The first issue is the legitimacy of international use as an interpretative tool in judicial review. The second issue talks about the necessity of urgent international law mastery by the Constitutional Court’s judges. This legal research utilizes both a conceptual approach and a historical approach to explain the development of judicial review in Indonesia, and to find legitimacy of international law by the Constitutional Court. The analysis in this article affirms that international law positively contributes as an interpretative tool in judicial review by the Constitutional Court, particularly pertaining to human rights. A justification of a legitimate international law use is withdrawn from constitutional tradition which is implicitly desired by the Indonesian Constitution (UUD NRI 1945). Since international law has provided better insights into norms, a mastery of international law should be encouraged. There are four main discussions in this article: judicial review, application of international law in judicial review process, legitimacy of international law application in judicial review, and the importance of international law mastering by Constitutional Court judges.


2019 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 275-302
Author(s):  
Álvaro Paúl

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights developed a doctrine called conventionality control. In general terms, this doctrine is somewhat similar to the idea of judicial review of legislation, but applied in a transnational forum. According to the Court, conventionality control would require domestic judges and other bodies of States parties to the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) to depart from domestic legislation that runs counter to the ACHR or the Inter-American Court’s interpretation of the ACHR. Many scholars contend that the application of this doctrine should be carried out even if the domestic bodies that apply it have no constitutional power to do so. Others have a more restrictive interpretation and consider that domestic bodies would have to apply it to the extent of their power, according to their national constitutions. Apparently, the latter interpretation is gaining a wider support, which is desirable, because only this reading would be compatible with the principles of international law, and possibly accepted by all member States.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-148
Author(s):  
Kehinde Anifalaje

The right to social security is recognised as a basic human right in a number of international instruments. While most nations give recognition to social security rights and generally enforce them within the dictates of domestic legislation to their nationals, the narrative is different for non-nationals, particularly the migrant worker. The article examines the measures that have been deployed at international and regional levels to protect the social security rights of migrant workers, with particular attention to the regular ones. It argues that a number of factors, including the doctrines of territoriality and nationality, account for the marginalisation of the migrant worker in the enforcement of these rights. Some migrant-specific international instruments and series of bilateral and multilateral agreements to overcome these perceived challenges are being hindered by the low number of ratifying countries and disparities in the design and level of development of schemes for specific branches of social security across countries. The article concludes that the social security right of the migrant worker would be enhanced if more countries ratify, domesticate and enforce relevant international instruments on the social security rights of the migrant worker and complement same by a much more coordinated bilateral and multilateral social security agreements.


Author(s):  
Rabinder Singh

This chapter reflects on the impact of the Human Rights Act (HRA) in its first 10 years on litigation and, in particular, on advocacy. It suggests that the impact has been important but not revolutionary: the HRA has fitted into the existing legal landscape and has not required radical changes to the rules on procedure and evidence. It examines four areas in which its impact can be felt: the nature of the evidence required in human rights cases; disclosure and candour in judicial review proceedings; the increased need for cross-examination of witnesses; and the role of third-party interveners because human rights cases tend to raise issues of importance to the wider public. Finally, it examines the increasing importance of international law in domestic cases, which can be attributed in part to the impact of the HRA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document