Judicial Review最新文献_第6页

‘ … Yet a Duty is a Duty, Though he be Alone.’ Should There be a Specialist Decision Maker to Determine Issues Relating to the Right to Conscientious Objection Under the Abortion Act 1967? 然而责任就是责任，尽管他独自一人。“1967年《堕胎法》下是否应该有一个专家决策者来决定与良心反对权有关的问题?”

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2022.2084950

James E. Hurford

引用次数: 0

The Role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation 恐怖主义立法独立审查员的作用

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2022.2077587

Jonathan Hall

引用次数: 1

Hong Kong Electoral Law with English Roots: Rethinking The Simplistic Approach to Relief from Penalty for Excusable Illegal Conduct in Lam Pok v Lee Hin Long [2021] HKCFI 779 《香港选举法的英文渊源:林柏诉李显龙案中可原谅违法行为的减刑方法再思考》[2021][HKCFI] 779

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2022.2087361

K. Wong

引用次数: 0

Fratila and another v SSWP [2021] UKSC 53 Fratila和其他v SSWP [2021] UKSC 53

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2022.2063661

Georgina Fenton

引用次数: 0

Certainty at all Costs? A Critical Analysis of the Proposed Introduction of Fixed Recoverable Costs in Immigration Judicial Reviews 不惜一切代价确保稳定?在移民司法审查中引入固定可收回成本的批判性分析

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2021.2037277

Robert Thomas, Joe Tomlinson

引用次数: 0

Limitation, Empowerment and the Value of Legal Certainty in the Treaty Incorporation References Case

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2021.2016295

NicholasRex Kilford

{"title":"Limitation, Empowerment and the Value of Legal Certainty in the Treaty Incorporation References Case","authors":"NicholasRex Kilford","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2021.2016295","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2021.2016295","url":null,"abstract":"1. Since the ‘process’ of contemporary devolution first began in 1998 three issues have often given lawyers, academics and critics food for thought. The first issue is external to the settlement: the relationship between devolution and parliamentary sovereignty. The ability of either to survive the existence of the other has been a central question for the discourse, with both sovereignty and devolution potentially posing a deathknell for the other. The second issue is internal to the settlement – the tension between, on the one hand, the immensely technical nature of the devolution statutes themselves and, on the other, their profound constitutional significance. The former has sometimes served to obscure the latter from view. It would be curious, however, given that ‘[t]he carefully chosen language in which these provisions are expressed is not as important as the general message that the words convey’, for the technicalities of the Scotland Act 1998 to stand in the way of its constitutional ‘message’. The third issue is how best to make sense of that message, and to situate it within the constitution more generally. However, it is probably fair to say that the constitutional significance of the settlement itself is, unlike in its earlier years, no longer uncertain. Few would contend now that the devolved legislatures deserve comparisons with an English parish council. Curial attestations of the constitutional value of the devolved legislatures abound, a value which is predicated by their democratic credentials and reinforced in Scotland and Wales by legislative declarations of","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127698255","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}

引用次数: 0

Procedural Fairness in the Privy Council: Themes and Reflections 枢密院的程序公平:主题与思考

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2021.2058198

Edward Lui

引用次数: 0

Nullity in Public Law: Two Recent Supreme Court Judgments 公法中的无效:两个最近的最高法院判决

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2021.2034349

A. Vaughan, Michael Spencer

引用次数: 0

‘Worthy of Respect in a Democratic Society’? Forstater and the Expression of Controversial Beliefs “在民主社会值得尊重”?福斯特与有争议信仰的表达

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2021.2030949

James E. Hurford

引用次数: 0

The Coronavirus Pandemic and Religious Freedom: Judicial Decisions in the United States and United Kingdom 冠状病毒大流行与宗教自由:美国和英国的司法裁决

Judicial Review Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2021.2057719

Guy Baldwin

{"title":"The Coronavirus Pandemic and Religious Freedom: Judicial Decisions in the United States and United Kingdom","authors":"Guy Baldwin","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2021.2057719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2021.2057719","url":null,"abstract":"Restrictions imposed by governments in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 have presented a human rights challenge around the world. The difficulty of balancing public health against human rights has been particularly acute in relation to freedom of religion, as measures limiting attendance at places of worship or requiring their temporary closure have been challenged in the courts. This article analyses judicial decisions in the US and UK that have considered the lawfulness of restrictions on places of worship. Although the legal approaches to assessing violations of freedom of religion in the US and UK are different, both approaches have led to the similar result of courts taking issue with the imposition of certain public health restrictions on places of worship. In the US, where the current, albeit controversial, understanding of the requirements of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment invites attention to the neutrality and general applicability of a law, the Supreme Court initially declined to grant injunctive relief against coronavirus restrictions on places of worship, before reversing course in Roman Catholic Diocese v Cuomo. In the UK, assessing the question under art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the Outer House of the Court of Session in Philip found that Scottish coronavirus restrictions were not proportionate to their legitimate end. This article argues that these decisions exhibit a number of problems, and the preferable view is that restrictions on religious practice to save lives in a pandemic can be legally justified on a temporary basis.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116795563","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}

引用次数: 0