巴基斯坦的司法任命

S. Khosa
{"title":"巴基斯坦的司法任命","authors":"S. Khosa","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199485079.003.0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay discusses the landmark developments pertaining to judicial appointments in the last decade in Pakistan—particularly, Pakistan’s experiment with the commission model of appointments with the 18th Constitution Amendment, 2010 establishing the Judicial Commission of Pakistan comprising members from across the judiciary, political executive, and the bar. In a challenge to its validity, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the 18th Amendment in District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (District Bar Association). This essay discusses the appointments process in Pakistan that existed prior to the 18th Amendment, followed by a close examination of the judgment in District Bar Association. It argues that even though the 18th Amendment, which ushered in the commission model in Pakistan, was upheld, by means of interpretation, what the Supreme Court has upheld is different from the process envisaged by this Amendment.","PeriodicalId":333958,"journal":{"name":"Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of India","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial Appointments in Pakistan\",\"authors\":\"S. Khosa\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780199485079.003.0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay discusses the landmark developments pertaining to judicial appointments in the last decade in Pakistan—particularly, Pakistan’s experiment with the commission model of appointments with the 18th Constitution Amendment, 2010 establishing the Judicial Commission of Pakistan comprising members from across the judiciary, political executive, and the bar. In a challenge to its validity, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the 18th Amendment in District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (District Bar Association). This essay discusses the appointments process in Pakistan that existed prior to the 18th Amendment, followed by a close examination of the judgment in District Bar Association. It argues that even though the 18th Amendment, which ushered in the commission model in Pakistan, was upheld, by means of interpretation, what the Supreme Court has upheld is different from the process envisaged by this Amendment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":333958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of India\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of India\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199485079.003.0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199485079.003.0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了巴基斯坦在过去十年中与司法任命有关的具有里程碑意义的发展,特别是巴基斯坦在2010年第18号宪法修正案中对委员会任命模式的试验,该修正案建立了巴基斯坦司法委员会,由来自司法、政治行政和律师行业的成员组成。在对其有效性的质疑中,巴基斯坦最高法院在地区律师协会拉瓦尔品第诉巴基斯坦联邦(地区律师协会)案中支持第18修正案。本文讨论了在第18修正案之前存在的巴基斯坦的任命程序,随后对地区律师协会的判决进行了仔细审查。它认为,尽管通过解释维持了在巴基斯坦开创委员会模式的第18修正案,但最高法院所维持的与该修正案所设想的程序不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judicial Appointments in Pakistan
This essay discusses the landmark developments pertaining to judicial appointments in the last decade in Pakistan—particularly, Pakistan’s experiment with the commission model of appointments with the 18th Constitution Amendment, 2010 establishing the Judicial Commission of Pakistan comprising members from across the judiciary, political executive, and the bar. In a challenge to its validity, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the 18th Amendment in District Bar Association, Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (District Bar Association). This essay discusses the appointments process in Pakistan that existed prior to the 18th Amendment, followed by a close examination of the judgment in District Bar Association. It argues that even though the 18th Amendment, which ushered in the commission model in Pakistan, was upheld, by means of interpretation, what the Supreme Court has upheld is different from the process envisaged by this Amendment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信