THE IDEA OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE BEFORE THE PENSION AUTHORITY

The concept of justice, crystallizing over the centuries, is very important in creation of material law and shaping the procedures necessary for their implementation. The importance of ideas and principles of procedural justice for social insurance is essential not only because of the demand of law itself. Procedural justice is also important, because it influences the society. Analysis of the procedure before the pension authority on application for pension or retirement through the prism of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, concept of procedural justice and principle procedural due process indicates that justice is indispensable to realize the principle of the democratic rule of law. Robert S. Summers, recognizing other values of the process, taken from social life, sees the necessity to apply them not so much to the procedure as a means to achieve a specific goal, but to the procedure itself. In this context the procedure before the pension authority should be seen through the prism of the error risk, good result of the procedure, procedure evaluation and participatory management.

Nuremberg: Procedural due process at the International Military Tribunal

<p>For over sixty years, lawyers and historians have discussed the credibility and repercussions of the Nuremberg Trial (1945–1946). This paper argues that the defendants’ procedural due process rights were partially protected at Nuremberg, although there were gross breaches of particular fundamental due process rights. The Nuremberg Trial at the International Military Tribunal was conducted by the four Allied Powers to try the upper echelon Nazi war criminals following the Second World War. The London Charter, drafted by the Allies, outlined the trial procedure to be adopted, and provided certain guarantees in attempt to secure a fair trial for the twenty-two defendants. This paper examines the history of fundamental due process rights (recognised in both continental Europe and common law jurisdictions) and analyses the extent to which these rights were breached at Nuremberg. This paper further argues that despite the defendants being afforded more rights than they could have expected given the circumstances, such breaches significantly compromised the integrity of the trial.</p>

Nuremberg: Procedural due process at the International Military Tribunal

<p>For over sixty years, lawyers and historians have discussed the credibility and repercussions of the Nuremberg Trial (1945–1946). This paper argues that the defendants’ procedural due process rights were partially protected at Nuremberg, although there were gross breaches of particular fundamental due process rights. The Nuremberg Trial at the International Military Tribunal was conducted by the four Allied Powers to try the upper echelon Nazi war criminals following the Second World War. The London Charter, drafted by the Allies, outlined the trial procedure to be adopted, and provided certain guarantees in attempt to secure a fair trial for the twenty-two defendants. This paper examines the history of fundamental due process rights (recognised in both continental Europe and common law jurisdictions) and analyses the extent to which these rights were breached at Nuremberg. This paper further argues that despite the defendants being afforded more rights than they could have expected given the circumstances, such breaches significantly compromised the integrity of the trial.</p>

PENDEKATAN SOSIOLOGI HUKUM DALAM MEMAHAMI KONFLIK PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA

<p><strong><em>Abstract</em></strong></p><p><em>The issue of regulation has indeed become a lively discourse in recent years. Laws and </em> <em>regulations, which in essence is a set of regulatory systems to provide an orderly legal order and society, often creates conflicts, both internal conflicts between regulations and external conflicts involving government agencies and the community. The study of legal science in the perspective of sociological jurisprudence is a scientific instrument that makes sense to analyze the phenomenon of legal problems that occur in indonesia, this is because the beginning and the end of a regulation is society. The results show that regulatory conflicts occur because in practice the formation of laws and regulations often ignores procedural due process of law and substantive due process of law, one of the main points is that the widest possible public participation is required in the regulatory formation process. As a result, several regulations that have been produced often cause conflicts due to a mismatch between the substance of the regulations and the conditions and needs of the community.</em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p><p>Isu permasalahan regulasi menjadi diskursus yang sering mencuat beberapa tahun terakhir. Peraturan perundang-undangan yang esensinya merupakan sekumpulan sistem aturan untuk menghadirkan tatanan hukum dan masyarakat yang tertib, justru realitanya sering kali memunculkan konflik, baik konflik internal antar peraturan maupun konflik eksternal yang melibatkan lembaga pemerintahan dan masyarakat. Kajian ilmu hukum dalam perspektif sosiologi hukum menjadi instrumen keilmuan yang masuk akal untuk membedah fenomena permasalahan peraturan perundang-undangan yang terjadi, hal ini dikarenakan hulu dan hilir suatu regulasi adalah masyarakat. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa konflik regulasi terjadi dikarenakan di dalam praktik pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan masih sering kali mengabaikan <em>procedural due process of law </em>dan <em>substantive due process of law </em>yang salah satu poin utamanya adalah dibutuhkan partisipasi publik yang seluas-luasnya di dalam proses pembentukan peraturan. Alhasil beberapa regulasi yang dihasilkan kerap menimbulkan konflik dikarenkan ketidaksesuaian antara substansi peraturan dengan keadaan dan kebutuhan di masyarakat.</p>

Special Education Meetings: The Role of the Facilitator in Districts Serving Rural Communities

Special education professionals serve as facilitators of Individualized Education Program (IEP) team meetings. This study explores how facilitators see their IEP meeting roles and probes further into how IEP facilitators envision an ideal IEP meeting in school districts with rural schools. Findings indicate that facilitators see their roles in three parts: procedural due process, informal problem solving, and parental support. Their view of the ideal IEP meeting involved a strong presence by members, parental involvement, and achieving true collaboration. Implications for teachers and school leaders include agenda distribution, external meeting communication, and role clarification.

Constitutionalism and the Westminster Model

This chapter evaluates the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom, revealing a disturbing new settlement of State power. In particular, it hones in on the ‘Westminster Model’ of government which advertises a strict separation of powers supposedly insulating judges from direct executive influence. An altogether different reality emanating from the archival trove of intergovernmental files is found; one which challenges the grundnorm of judicial independence embedded within the Westminster model of governance. Although Executive dominance of the judiciary runs contrary to basic texts and beliefs, this chapter lays out an alternative perspective which implicates the senior judiciary in subterranean policymaking that has led to the steady erosion of procedural due process. It examines where the Civil Service fits into this picture, and draws attention to its servants’ inherent shortcomings as ‘bureaucrats of the law’ having assumed responsibility in large part for the body of sub-standard work distributed under the misnomer: ‘Judges’’ Rules. It explains how, on the critical issue of an individual’s vulnerability when confronted by police power, civil servants, tasked with furthering the ‘public interest’, were far more adept at bolstering ‘police interests’, with backing from the then Head of the Judiciary (Lord Chancellor) and his Law Officers (the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General). By documenting key historical events that impacted upon the criminally suspected or accused, awareness of which has been muted or unknown, this Chapter explains how the doctrine of the Separation of Powers is contravened and the principle of judicial independence muddied to the point of non-recognition.

“Houston, We Have a Lawsuit”: A Cautionary Tale for the Implementation of Value-Added Models for High-Stakes Employment Decisions

Until recently, legal challenges to the use of value-added models (VAMs) in evaluation and teacher employment decisions in federal court had been unsuccessful. However, in May 2017 a federal court in Texas ruled that plaintiff-teachers established a viable federal constitutional claim to challenge the use of VAMs as a means for their termination in Houston Federation of Teachers v. Houston Independent School District. Houston represents a significant departure from prior federal court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of VAMs to terminate teachers on the basis of poor performance. The Houston court found that the districts’ refusals to release the underlying data of VAM ratings used to terminate those teachers violated the teachers’ procedural due process rights. By denying access to the code, teachers could not protect against the government’s making a mistaken deprivation of their property right to continued right to employment. The authors discuss Houston and its potential impact, limitations, and significance.

Torture, Dignity, and the Rule of Law

It has been claimed, “If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. If you make this exception [and permit torture], the whole Constitution crumbles.” The ambition of this chapter is to provide the terms through which this judgment can be vindicated. The judgment’s pivotal assumption is that the prohibition on torture is in some manner foundational for any modern legal system. Three theses help to secure this foundational thesis: (i) Historically, basic rule of law and procedural due process requirements—most profoundly the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty”—first emerge in the 18th century as the necessary legal bases for prohibiting judicial and penal torture. (ii) What is systematically implied by this historical process is that the modern rule of law is law’s own reflective effort to provide an absolute separation between the force of law and physical force, between legality or lawfulness and state violence. (iii) The rule of law’s emphatic separation between the force of law and the procedures of state violence presupposes that the object of law is the person with dignity, that is, a being possessing intrinsic worth. What dignity minimally means in the modern age is that while the state may deprive subjects of their liberty, it may not directly infringe upon their bodily integrity, or treat them in any manner that would infringe upon their equal intrinsic worth with all other legal subjects.