UOLLB First Class Law Notes®’s Post

Hello everyone, Here are some legal justification on the minimum standard that must be meet in access to justice must be secured in democrats society according to International Convention on civil and political rights; The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, which sets out the civil and political rights of individuals. Access to justice is recognized as a fundamental right under the ICCPR, and Article 14 of the Covenant outlines the minimum standards that must be met in order to secure access to justice in a democratic society. According to Article 14 of the ICCPR, everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. This tribunal should be able to determine both the rights and obligations of individuals and any criminal charges against them. Individuals should also have the right to be tried without undue delay, and to have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defense. In addition, the ICCPR requires that individuals have the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of any charges against them, as well as the right to legal assistance if they cannot afford it. They must also be allowed to examine or have examined witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against them. Moreover, Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to appeal a verdict or sentence to a higher tribunal, and the right to have the conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. Finally, the ICCPR prohibits the retroactive application of criminal law to the detriment of the accused. In summary, securing access to justice in a democratic society requires the establishment of competent, independent, and impartial tribunals, as well as ensuring the rights of individuals to a fair and public hearing, legal assistance, prompt information, examination of witnesses, and the right to appeal and review.

Another important article for legal professionals. Bar leaders take note!

Our oath as lawyers to defend the Constitution includes our commitment to positively contribute to our civic culture, the rule of law, and our democracy. It might sound daunting, but each of us can play a positive role. Thoughts and hopefully inspiration in my latest President's Page. https://lnkd.in/etcXc6nj

Constitutional Law: A Guide for Beginners Explore the essentials of constitutional law, its historical evolution, key components, and its impact on governance, alongside resources for effect... https://lnkd.in/dktT5FZy #ConstitutionalLaw

Can the Supreme Court Overturn State Charges? Understanding Legal Authority and Jurisdiction Can the Supreme Court Overturn State Charges? The question of whether the Supreme Court can overturn state charges touches on the fundamental principles of federalism and the balance of power between state and federal governments in the United States. Generally, the Supreme Court primarily deals with federal law and constitutional issues and does not directly overturn state charges. However, there are specific circumstances under which the Supreme Court can intervene in state court decisions. This article explores these circumstances, the legal process involved, and the broader implications for the legal system. Federal Question Jurisdiction The Supreme Court can review a state court decision if it involves a federal question, meaning the case hinges on interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. For example, if a state law or court decision is alleged to violate the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court can step in to resolve the issue. This authority is rooted in the Supremacy Clau... #ConstitutionalLaw #federalcourtreview #FederalLaw #federalquestionjurisdiction #LegalAuthority #overturnstatecharges #statecourtdecisions #statelaw #SupremacyClause #SupremeCourt

The Role of Judicial Review in Constitutional Law Explore the intricacies of judicial review in constitutional law, its historical evolution, key cases, impacts on legislation, and ... https://lnkd.in/d_MU9wvF #ConstitutionalLaw

The oral arguments in Loper-Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo occurred last week (check out the interview about the case with amicus brief author Ben Robbins at NELF in the below post). The question boils down to what happens when a statute involving a federal agency contains an ambiguity? Under the Chevron doctrine, courts defer to the agency's interpretation of the law. This doctrine has been misinterpreted, expanded and contracted over the years. But at inception, Chevron represents little more than a canon of interpretation for resolving statutory ambiguities. If needed, may a judge rely in some fashion on an agency's interpretation of the law? As a doctrinal matter, that proposition seems reasonable. Where this principle has veered off the rails is when (a) courts have uncritically equated an omission in a statute to an ambiguity, and (b) courts have deferred to agency interpretations without first conducting the hard work of statutory interpretation. If the Court clarifies the Chevron doctrine to address these problems, Chevron can and probably should still provide a viable canon of construction in the hard cases where courts must interpret a statute in the face of legitimate ambiguity.

The Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Service, Evidence, and Access to Justice Conventions will take place from July 2 to 5 at the HCCH - Hague Conference on Private International Law. I'll be attending as part of the ITechLaw Association delegation, along with Alexander Blumrosen. What questions about cross-border evidence and service practice do you hope the Special Commission will address in its Conclusions & Recommendations? https://lnkd.in/ewpuWshv

Courts have started applying the amendments to FRE 702, and lawyers need to help judges understand the changes. In my new article, I discuss how courts have reacted to the amendments and suggest some ways litigants can align their arguments with the structure and intent of the new rule. Many thanks to Washington Legal Foundation for publishing this piece and getting the word out. https://lnkd.in/gKreCXhK

In an article for The Conversation, Professor Justin Simard describes how The Citing Slavery Project encourages judges and lawyers to address slavery's influence on the law by providing historical context for modern-day usage. https://bit.ly/3VKK6N9