For example, international trade can be regulated effectively because it is a yes or no matter, it excludes the more controversial aspects such as customs and tradition. International law struggles to enforce laws based on morality and human rights, primarily because of their diverse interpretations across cultures (Theiler, 2014). Improvements in international law are occurring regularly in hopes of eventually becoming as effective, if not more effective than domestic law. International law can be costly, imposing sanctions can be very expensive and rewards are also costly and unpopular among states. The concept of “Reversible rewards” has been groundbreaking for the international system.
A great number of sections, especially 2, 3 and 4, draw the line between courts and Parliament while protecting civil liberties and explained how to achieve positive results. However, nowadays this act is rather often criticised as being weak mechanism for protection of human rights. In reality, domestic courts struggle to meet objectives laid out in the Human Rights act 1998 since their power is strictly limited. In addition to, Parliament is afraid to lose its sovereignty and position. All things considered, even though The Act is not constitutionally entrenched and has some drawbacks, the Act still better protects human rights than the situation before the Human Rights Act 1998 was
Both the harm principle and legal paternalism are aimed at upholding an individual’s liberties within the law. However, they argue different view points and restrictions. The harm principle is chiefly concerned with upholding an individual’s right to somehow harm oneself, while legal paternalism says the law can interfere to prevent an individual from harming oneself. This is the most obvious distinction between the two philosophies. Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law.
Moreover, he points out that there is a tendency of understanding this legalist paradigm in a state-centric practice, which works through a top-down influence (McEvoy 2007). Sovereign states are the main actors who have the legitimacy to implement the law with their institutions. Truly, often enough the absence of functioning of such institutions is a synonym for lawlessness, violence and anarchy in a Hobbesian manner (“homo homini lupus”). The observation of
1. Circumstantial evidence, also known as ‘indirect’ evidence, is often dismissed as being weaker than direct evidence. By its very definition, circumstantial evidence seems to be less credible because it requires an extra step of inference to determine a conclusion that might not even be the truth. Evidence is powerful when it successfully establishes facts and fulfills the burden of proof. Powerful evidence is credible, and paints a clearer picture of the truth, which allows courts to make more informed decisions in the interests of justice.
I will see their opinion begin with harmony but end up with different perceptions. Interpretation of Laws Concerning abusive practice, AG Colomer holds “the closer the undertaking in a dominant position is to hindering competition in the market, the stronger the presumption of abuse”. In AG Colomer’s opinion, there are actually some practices which are considered as abusing dominant position per se. For example, exclusive purchase obligation, loyalty rebate, and predatory pricing; yet, not all anti-competitive behavior should
In other words, uncertainty avoidance indicates the preferred amount of structure in a society. It is a preference for strict laws and regulations rather than ambiguity and risk. A country with strong uncertainty avoidance has more rigid rules of behavior. Corresponding laws are stricter and penalties are heavier. On the contrary, countries with weak uncertainty avoidance tend to be uncomfortable with unstructured situations.
Law is a conservative institution whether international or domestic. Discussing the differences between domestic and international law may generally lead some to believe that either one or the other is the “real” type of law. The first step in refuting the argument that international law is not “real” law is defining the varied elements of law. Then, after assessing what constitutes law, determining whether international law is “real” law is a matter of finding these elements within the concept of international law. Hence, international law is “real” law because it possesses the various elements that define the notion of law.
National sovereignty versus legislative powers of the EU What is also noteworthy is that national and cultural sovereignty with the contracting country prevails for the importance of protecting human rights. Obviously, countries do not appreciate that pressure to comply with these clauses is coming through external relations. In other words, that such a dominant figure like the EU, is making itself capable of putting pressure on domestic authorities to revise its legal order or change it. And with that said, it is obvious that the EU is in need of a stricter policy which will lead to more compliance and fluentness. In connection with the notion of national and cultural sovereignty, legislative powers of the EU are closely related.
Later he also compares the Roman Republic system to add value to his explanations. 2. Montesquieu specified that the independence of the judiciary has to be real and not merely apparent. Judiciary is seen as most powerful, independent, and unchecked, and was considered dangerous.  The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of powers independent and unchecked.