801 resultados para International Criminal Court
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Subtitle varies.
Resumo:
Bibliography: ℓ. 21.
Resumo:
Criminal appeal rules and forms, 1908: p. 655-706.
Resumo:
Head-pieces: a few manuscript marginal notes; the "Chronica series" covers the period 1067-1671, and is extended in manuscript through 1727 (with omission of last four columns, magist. rotulorum & c., for 1722-1727.
Resumo:
At head of title: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law.
Resumo:
"July 1981."
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Includes index.
Resumo:
"Table of cases cited:" p. ii-vi.
Resumo:
"Table of cases": p. v-ix.
Resumo:
The recent Supreme Court decision of Queensland v B [2008] 2 Qd R 562 has significant implications for the law that governs consent and abortions. The judgment purports to extend the ratio of Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB and SMB (1991) 175 CLR 218 (Marion’s Case) and impose a requirement of court approval for terminations of pregnancy for minors who are not Gillick-competent. This article argues against the imposition of this requirement on the ground that such an approach is an unjustifiable extension of the reasoning in Marion’s Case. The decision, which is the first judicial consideration in Queensland of the position of medical terminations, also reveals systemic problems with the criminal law in that State. In concluding that the traditional legal excuse for abortions will not apply to those which are performed medically, Queensland v B provides further support for calls to reform this area of law.
Resumo:
Discusses two aspects of Hong Kong law: 1) the judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in A Solicitor v The Law Society of Hong Kong on whether Hong Kong courts were bound, post-1997, by pre-1997 House of Lords or Privy Council decisions, by pre-1997 decisions of their own, or by post-1997 overseas decisions from any jurisdiction; and 2) the need for clarification in the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance of whether a company can have a single legal representative, the ultra vires rule and the duties of company directors