Adequate and fair asylum procedures are a precondition for the effective exercise of rights granted to asylum applicants, in particular the prohibition of refoulement. In 1999 the EU Member States decided to work towards a Common European Asylum System. In this context the Procedures Directive was adopted in 2005 and recast in 2013. This directive provides for important procedural guarantees for asylum applicants, but also leaves much discretion to the EU Member States to design their own asylum procedures. This book examines the meaning of the EU right to an effective remedy in terms of the legality and interpretation of the Procedures Directive in regard to several key aspects of asylum procedure: the right to remain on the territory of the Member State, the right to be heard, the standard and burden of proof and evidentiary assessment, judicial review and the use of secret evidence.

Most books about public power and the state deal with their subject from the point of view of legal theory, sociology or political science. This book, without claiming to deliver a comprehensive theory of law and state, aims to inform by offering a fresh reading of history and institutions, particularly as they have developed in continental Europe and European political and legal science. Drawing on a remarkably wide range of sources from both Western and Eastern Europe, the author suggests that only by knowing the history of the state, and state administration since the twelfth century, can we begin to comprehend the continuing importance of the state and public powers in modern Europe. In an era of globalization, when the importance of international law and institutions frequently lead to the claim that the state either no longer exists or no longer matters, the truth is in fact more complex. We now live in an era where the balance is shifting away from the struggle to build states based on democratic values, towards fundamental values existing above and beyond the borders of nations and states, under the watchful gaze of judges bound by the rule of law.

He Was A Good Marine So Why Was He Discharged for Misconduct? Author Michael Short tells the Story of A Marine who Endured Torture as a POW during the Vietnam War and the Pain of Being Discharged for Misconduct Years Later Paw Paw, WV - (Release Date TBD) - How did it all end up the way it did? Albert proved to be a good Marine bearing the agony and torture as a Prisoner of War (POW), but why was he given a general discharge for misconduct? Author Michael Short tells the true, gripping, and harrowing events that happened in Fall from Grace, his new book released through Xlibris. Albert was a United States Marine. As a gunnery sergeant, Albert's moral compass had always been duty, honor, country. In 1968, he was in the TET Offensive in Hue City, Republic of South Vietnam. There were several NVA dead bodies lying near, and he was ready to fire his M-16 at any North Vietnamese soldiers running past him. But then, he felt the barrel of an AK-47 assault rifle touch the back of his head. Unadulterated fear rushed through him, and before he could look to see who had pointed the rifle at him, he felt a crushing blow to the side of his head. Consciousness left him. When he regained his senses, he had been captured by North Vietnamese soldiers. Torture began as the enemy attempted to force information from him. His cellmate was Lance Corporal Mack, who also received the same brutal physical torment. Through it all, they never gave information to their torturer. They suffered much - almost to the point of death. He was afflicted but never lost hope. He lived by the Marine Code - the Core Values. But after days of being a tortured POW, he escaped, returned to the states to learn that he had been listed as MIA. He would spend more than eighteen years as a Marine, and his "fall from grace" would be unexpected, traumatic, and extremely difficult to bear. Readers will find out what really happened as they leaf through the pages of Fall from Grace. For more information on this book, log on to www.Xlibris.com.

This monograph reconceptualises discrimination law as fundamentally concerned with stigma. Using sociological and socio-psychological theories of stigma, the author presents an 'anti-stigma principle', promoting it as a method to determine the scope of legal protection from discrimination. The anti-stigma principle recognises the role of institutional and individual action in the perpetuation of discrimination. Setting discrimination law within the field of public health, it frames positive action and intersectional discrimination as the norm in this field of law rather than the exception. In developing and applying this new theory for anti-discrimination law, the book draws upon case law from jurisdictions including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada, as well as European law.

In this study of literature and law from the Constitutional founding through the Civil War, Hoang Gia Phan demonstrates how American citizenship and civic culture were profoundly transformed by the racialized material histories of free, enslaved, and indentured labor. Bonds of Citizenship illuminates the historical tensions between the legal paradigms of citizenship and contract, and in the emergence of free labor ideology in American culture. Phan argues that in the age of Emancipation the cultural attributes of free personhood became identified with the legal rights and privileges of the citizen, and that individual freedom thus became identified with the nation-state. He situates the emergence of American citizenship and the American novel within the context of Atlantic slavery and Anglo-American legal culture, placing early American texts by Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, Benjamin Franklin, and Charles Brockden Brown alongside Black Atlantic texts by Ottobah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano. Beginning with a revisionary reading of the Constitution's "slavery clauses," Phan recovers indentured servitude as a transitional form of labor bondage that helped define the key terms of modern U.S. citizenship: mobility, volition, and contract. Bonds of Citizenship demonstrates how citizenship and civic culture were transformed by antebellum debates over slavery, free labor, and national Union, while analyzing the writings of Frederick Douglass and Herman Melville alongside a wide-ranging archive of lesser-known antebellum legal and literary texts in the context of changing conceptions of constitutionalism, property, and contract. Situated at the nexus of literary criticism, legal studies, and labor history, Bonds of Citizenship challenges the founding fiction of a pro-slavery Constitution central to American letters and legal culture.Hoang Gia Phanis Associate Professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.In theAmerica and the Long 19th CenturyseriesAn ALI book

Thomas Curry argues that discussion and interpretation of the First Amendment have reached a point of deep crisis. Historical scholarship dealing with the background and interpretation of the Amendment are at an impasse, says Curry, and judicial interpretation is in a state of disarray. His purpose is to provide a new paradigm for the understanding and exploration of religious liberty. He traces much of the current difficulty to the largely unexamined assumption on the part of judges and scholars that the Amendment created a right - the right to free exercise of religion - and that the courts are the guardians of that right. In fact, however, the First Amendment is above all a limitation on government and a guarantee that the government will not impinge on the religious liberty that citizens already possess by natural right.

This yearbook is a compilation of thematically arranged essays that critically analyseemerging developments, issues, and perspectives across different branches of law. Itconsists of research from scholars around the world with the view that comparativestudy would initiate dialogue on law and legal cultures across jurisdictions. The themesvary from jurisprudence of comparative law and its methodologies to intrinsic detailsof specific laws like memory laws. The sites of the enquiries in different chapters aredifferent legal systems, recent judgements, and aspects of human rights in a comparativeperspective. It comprises seven parts wherein the first part focuses on general themesof comparative law, the second part discusses private law through a comparative lens,and the third, fourth and fifth parts examine aspects of public law with special focuson constitutional law, human rights and economic laws. The sixth part engages withcriminal law and the last part of the book covers recent developments in the field ofcomparative law. This book intends to trigger a discussion on issues of comparativelaw from the vantage point of Global South, not only focusing on the Global North.It examines legal systems of countries from far-east and sub-continent and presentsinsights on their working. It encourages readers to gain a nuanced understanding ofthe working of law, legal systems and legal cultures, adding to existing deliberationson the constituents of an ideal system of law.

Reprint of the rare 1843 edition. Tucker proposes a vigorous defense of states-rights principles in the manner of John Taylor of Caroline. A notably sophisticated argument, it balances detailed analysis of the U.S. Constitution with criticism of Joseph Story, Daniel Webster and other proponents of a powerful Federal government. Henry St. George Tucker 1780-1848] served as U.S. Congressman representing Virginia's 3rd District in the United States House of Representatives from 1815 to 1819. He studied under his father, St. George Tucker (editor of the American edition of Blackstone's Commentaries), at the College of William & Mary, and after he received his law degree, taught there himself. He was later was captain of Cavalry in the War of 1812, President of Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals, (1831-1841) and, later in life, a prominent Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He founded the Honor System there. Works that grew out of the classroom include Commentaries on the Laws of Virginia (1836-1837) and the present work. Tucker County, West Virginia, is named in his honor.

This book seeks to understand how and why we should hold leaders responsible for the collective mass atrocities that are committed in times of conflict. It attempts to untangle the debates on modes of liability in international criminal law (ICL) that have become truly complex over the last twenty years, and to provide a way to identify the most appropriate model for leadership liability. A unique comparative theory of ICL is offered, which clarifies the way in which ICL develops as a patchwork of different domestic criminal law notions. This theory forms the basis for the comparison of some influential domestic criminal law systems, with a view to understanding the policy and cultural reasons for their differences. There is a particular focus on the background of the German law which has influenced the International Criminal Court so much recently. This helps to understand, and seek a solution to, the current impasses in the debates on which model of liability should be applied. An entire chapter of the book is devoted to considering why leaders should be held responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates, from legal, moral and pragmatic perspectives. The moral responsibility of leaders is translated into criminal liability, and the different domestic models of liability are translated to the international context, in such a way as to appeal to advanced students of ICL, academics, and practitioners who want to understand the complexities of leadership liability in international criminal law today and identify the best way to approach it. Cassandra Steer is Executive Director of Women in International Security Canada, and Junior Wainwright Fellow at McGill University, Canada. She holds a Ph.D. in Law from the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Will treating the conduct of local governments the same as the conduct of private enterprises pose serious threats to government, industry, or the antitrust laws? Mark Lee argues that the nation will be better off as a result because efficient forms of economic organization, previouly prohibited by the judiciary, will be permitted to flower and antitrust's policy war with itself will be put to an end. Lee reviews the powerful implications of the Supreme Court rulings in City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power and Light and Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder and offers a comprehensive, up-to-date, and detailed analysis of cases involving allegations that a local government commited an antitrust offense. He introduces a unique system for classifying different practices, one based on microeconomic functions, that will permit practitioners to classify and analyze any practice that concerns them.

This book examines the simultaneous protection of fundamental rights by various norms and jurisdictional organs, focussing on the multilevel protection of the principle of legality in Criminal Law.Written by accredited specialists in criminal law, constitutional law, international public law, and the philosophy of law, the majority of them ex-Counsels of the Spanish Constitutional Court, it addresses various manifestations of the principle of legality: the requirement of precision, the judicial subjection to law and the prohibition of bis in idem. It does so not only from a theoretical perspective, but also through a comparative study of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and state constitutional courts. This practical approach characterizes the book, which culminates in a detailed analysis of the relevant ECtHR Judgement Del Rio Prada v. Spain on the retroactivity of unfavourable jurisprudence."Multilevel protection of the principle of legality in Criminal Law" is a useful instrument of reflection for scholars of both the principle of criminal legality and the problems that arise from the concurrency of protective jurisdictions of human rights.

Peter Liddel offers a fresh approach to the old problem of the nature of individual liberty in ancient Athens. He draws extensively on oratorical and epigraphical evidence from the late fourth century BC to analyse the ways in which ideas about liberty were reconciled with ideas about obligation, and examines how this reconciliation was negotiated, performed, and presented in the Athenian law-courts, assembly, and through the inscriptional mode of publication. Using modern political theory as a springboard, Liddel argues that the ancient Athenians held liberty to consist of the substantial obligations (political, financial, and military) of citizenship.

Originally published in 1814, this is a reprint of the Yale University Press 1950 edition with an introduction by Roy Franklin Nichols. 562 pp. Taylor wrote this important work in 1814 as a reply to John Adams's Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. Unlike Adams, he rejects the concept of "a natural aristocracy" of "paper and patronage" and a federal government based on a system of debt and taxes. He considers the American government to be one of divided powers responsible to the sovereign people alone. Opposed to the extent of power awarded to the executive office, he calls for shorter terms for the president and all elected officers. Charles Beard said this work "deserves to rank among the two or three really historic contributions to political science which have been produced in the United States." JOHN TAYLOR 1753-1824] was known as "John Taylor of Caroline County, Virginia." He served in the Continental Army and later in the Virginia House of Delegates, then served three terms as a member of the United States Senate. He is considered to be one of the nation's greatest philosophers of agrarian liberalism. He was one of the nation's first proponents of states' rights. His works include New Views of the Constitution of the United States (1823), Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated (1820) and A Defence of the Measures of the Administration of Thomas Jefferson. By Curtius (1804), an argument in favor of the achievements of the first Jefferson administration.

Legal uncertainty is particularly high in constitutional law, where the Supreme Court may overrule earlier decisions as not conforming to the Constitution. This critical study of constitutional decision-making in the Supreme Court emphasizes the failures of the justices to consider constitutional structure and the original meaning of language in context. Conant criticizes the Supreme Court's opinions supporting racial segregation and the perpetuation of a caste system until the final overruling in "Brown v. Board of Education"; the Court's antitrust exemption of professional baseball; and the recent finding that physical desecration of the flag is protected under freedom of speech.

This study challenges the view of the liberal scholars who argue that the Supreme Court must redefine the Constitution to keep up with the changing times, because this view gives approval for judicial usurpation of the amending power. It also rejects the view of conservative scholars, who contend that the Supreme Court must search for the intent of the framers of the Constitution, on the grounds that subjective intent is impossible to research. There was no verbatim reporter at the 1787 convention, and no such notes were available to the ratifying conventions in the states that rendered the proposed constitution into law in 1789. Following the methodology of Justice Holmes, Conant focuses this work on constitutional purposes and the meaning of language within its total social context at the time of its adoption.

This study is an empirical analysis of how the fluctuating legal environment in the courts surrounding obscenity litigation over a thirty year period is an appropriate vehicle with which to demonstrate the dynamics of widespread group involvement in the judicial process. Joseph F. Kobylka traces how the development of the obscenity law from the 1957 Roth v. United States decision, which established the proscription of obscenity through its libertarian interpretation by the Warren court and its reaffirmation by the 1973 Miller v. California decision, necessitated changes in both the behaviors and strategies of libertarian and conservative groups in the active pursuit of their particular goals.

After a review of the shifts in the Supreme Court's doctrines concerning obscenity, Kobylka identifies the various political interest groups, and examines their motives, goals, and the factors, both internal and external, that determined their responses to Miller. He concludes with a summary of findings confirming that the study's empirical approach yields a comprehensive understanding of the fluidity of group politics. Specific group involvement is documented in the appendices, and bibliographies furnish lists of books, articles, and a table of cases. "The Politics of Obscenity" will be a useful, authoritative volume for advanced courses in the judicial process and group politics, and will also be invaluable to academic libraries, political scientists, and other scholars.

This book is the first full-length work to present debates over the constitutional amending process as a perennial theme in American political thought. Beginning with a discussion of the views of political philosophers, publicists, and legal commentators who may have influenced the views of legal change held by the American Founding Fathers, the work proceeds to look at the historical influences on and discussions surrounding the amending process that was incorporated into Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The reader will gain a new respect for the way the amending process has served and still serves as a safety valve for constitutional change in the United States without permitting ill-considered or hastily conceived modifications. This work will be of interest to political scientists, historians, and students of American studies and legal history.

Last and best edition of the first English law dictionary. Corrected and greatly enlarged, English and Law French in parallel columns. First published in 1527, this pioneering dictionary was originally written in Law French with the Latin title Expositiones Terminorum Legum Anglorumae. Quite popular with students and lawyers due to its clarity and concision, it went through at least twenty-nine editions, the last appearing in 1721(with reissues in 1742 and 1819). The 1721 edition was translated by his son, William Rastell, who is often listed as its author. "Rastell's Termes de la Ley is a book which, like St. Germain's Doctor and Student, reflects the common law at the close of the year-book period with much fidelity." --Thomas Atkins Street, The Foundation of Legal Liability III:79 John Rastell d.1536], an Oxford-educated printer and lawyer, was a Member of Parliament when the Protestant reformation was legalized. Around 1527, the time Les Termes de la Ley was first published, Rastell took part in the religious controversies of the time, defending the Roman doctrine of purgatory in his notable work, A New Boke of Purgatory. William Rastell 1508?-1565] was the eldest son of John Rastell. A printer, lawyer, judge and author, he published his great collection of statutes from the Magna Carta to the present in 1557. It was updated periodically, the final edition appearing in 1625. Rastell also compiled A Table Collected of the Yeres of our Lorde God and of the Yeres of the Kynges of Englande (1561). He edited many important works including Littleton's Tenures (1534) and Sir Anthony Fitzherbert's Natura Brevium.

Banning therapeutic and reproductive cloning jeopardizes more than cloning itself. The constitutional principles intertwined with cloning embrace such vital liberties as personal autonomy, privacy, reproduction, and freedom of expression. Properly understood, cloning is essentially the same as other forms of assisted reproduction. Procrustean bans on cloning implicate and indirectly threaten numerous key personal interests, including abortion, in vitro fertilization, same-sex adoption, and surrogacy. A government allowed to preemptively isolate and censor medico-scientific research into cloning may be emboldened to shut down other forms of disfavored inquiry and expression as well. Much of the animosity toward cloning is based on unfounded fear, science-fiction fantasy, moralistic bias, and slippery slope predictions, most of which is scientifically untenable or already illegal. Yet when people are cloned, they will in fact be less similar than identical twins; genetics aren't everything. Differing environments produce differing people, and human clones--distinct individuals--will be entitled to the same human rights and legal protections that have protected individuals for centuries. Kunich establishes the pressing need to evaluate cloning in a rational scientific and legal manner, before the extreme opposition sprouting from fear and misunderstanding, which has already led to several state laws, results in an unconstitutional federal ban.