Criminal justice system in pondicherry - a comparative critical study of the past and the presen

The Union Territory of Pondicherry prior to its merger with the Indian Union was a French Colony. The erstwhile territory of Pondicherry along with its hamlets, namely, KARAIKKAL, MAHE and YANAM was administered by the French Regime. Before it was established by French in 1 6 74 A.D. it was part of Vijayanagara Empire. Prior to this, Pondicherry was a part of the Kingdom of Chola and Pallava Kings. During French Regime, the laws which were in force in France in relation to administration of civil and criminal justice were extended to the erstwhile Territory of Pondicherry. Thus while Pondicherry stood influenced by the Inquisitorial system since the beginning of the 18th century, the neighboring states forming part of the Indian Union since Independence came under the Influence of the British system, viz. accusatorial system. The territory of Pondicherry, for administrative reasons, came to be merged with the Indian Union in the early 60's. Following the merger, the Indian administration sought to extent its own laws from time to time replacing erstwhile French Laws, however, subject to certain savings. Thus the transitional period witnessed consequential changes in the administration of the territory, including the sphere of judicial system. Since I 963, the Union Territory of Pondicherry was brought under the spell of the Indian Legal System The people in Pondicherry ' thus have had the benefit of experiencing both the svstems. Their experiences will be of much help to those who undertake comparative studies in law. The plus and minus points of the respective systems help one to develop a detachment that helps independent evaluation of the svstents. The result of these studies could be relevant in revitalising our criminal systems.The present system is evaluated in the light of the past system. New dimensions are added by way' of an empirical study also.

Economics of Justice in Kerala

The focus of the present study is on issues related to Legal—Economics. The economic approach to legal issues is based on the belief held by both legal professionals and economists that law and economics are complementary disciplines and that collaboration is highly beneficial.The principles of economic analysis can help our understanding of the law. Economic approach has important effects on the costs and benefits that prospective litigants may expect from litigation and their decisions to litigate or to settle out of court. Economic consideration is also helpful to understand I 1 the significance of litigation costs, the practical problems of legal administration and the provision of legal servicesz. The economic approach to law is mainly based on the belief held by some economists that the core of economics, the theory of choice is in principle- applicable to all human and institutional behaviour.

Translation of the Decision of the International Court of Justice related to the Case concerning the dispute regarding navigational and related rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Judgment

--

Corrective Justice vs. Social Justice in the Aftermath of War

How do we justify the practice of corrective justice for losses suffered during armed conflicts? This article seeks to show the force and relevance of this question, and to argue that, in cases of massively destructive wars, social justice should gain priority over corrective justice. Starting from a liberal Rawlsian conception of the relationship between corrective and social justice, it is argued that, paradoxically, the more destructive a war is, the less normative force corrective rights have and the higher priority policies of social justice, which guarantee basic rights to all citizens, should have.

The Demobilization Process of Paramilitaries in Colombia: Between Politics and Justice

The phenomenon of paramilitarism in Colombia has received an ambiguous treatment, balancing between political and criminal issues; an oscillation that has been intimately linked to the evolution of the Colombian internal conflict. This contribution analyzes the recent negotiations held with paramilitary groups by the administration of Alvaro Uribe Vélez (2002-2010). After a brief account of the dependency path that has determined this historical episode, I propose an assessment of the use of judicial categories by the various actors of the negotiations. The main argument is that those categories –war criminal, political criminal, drug smuggler, etc.– do not depend on the intrinsic nature of an armed actor, but are socially constructed by a conflictive process of material and symbolic struggles. The capacity to categorize private violence, as legitimate or illegitimate, political or criminal, appears as one of the basic manifestations of the state’s action, as well as one of the main conflicts presiding at the rocess of state formation.

La Cour Pénale Internationale à la croisée des chemins.

Desde la adopción del Estatuto de Roma en julio de 1998, la CPI está confrontada a varios problemas, entre los que se encuentra el desacuerdo que persiste entre la Asamblea de Estados parte relativo a la defi nición del crimen de agresión, que es uno de los crímenes de competencia de la Corte de acuerdo con el artículo 5 del Estatuto. Otra difi cultad es la oposición de los Estados Unidos de América desde que la administración Bush desplegó todo un arsenal jurídico destinado a impedir cualquier tipo de colaboración con la CPI con el American Service Members’ Protection Act y los acuerdos bilaterales de inmunidad destinados a prevenir la entrega de ciudadanos estadounidenses a la Corte por parte de los Estados miembros del Estatuto de Roma.La entrada en vigor de su Estatuto el 1 de julio de 2002 le permitió al Fiscal de la Corte iniciar las primeras investigaciones y procesos por crímenes de guerra y por crímenes contra la humanidad cometidos en los conflictos que destrozan ciertos Estados africanos (R.D.C., República Centroafricana, Uganda). La orden de detención contra el presidente sudanés Omar Al Bashir por las atrocidades cometidas en Darfur muestra los límites de la actuación de la Corte, al no poder ejecutar su mandato sin la cooperación de los Estados. La Corte debe enfrentarse a las críticas relativas al “doble estándar” y de ser un instrumento de “justicia para los pobres” de la que se escaparían los “poderosos”. Las respuestas a estos problemas podrían ser aportadas, en parte, en el marco de los procesos de revisión previstos por el Estatuto de Roma nueve años después de su entrada en vigor.

Spanish version of Colquitt's Organizational Justice Scale

Resumen tomado de la publicaci??n

The Court of Justice of the European Union as a fundamental rights tribunal: challenges for the effective delivery of fundamental rights in the area of freedom, security and justice. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 49, 29 August 2012

This paper reflects on the challenges facing the effective implementation of the new EU fundamental rights architecture that emerged from the Lisbon Treaty. Particular attention is paid to the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and its ability to function as a ‘fundamental rights tribunal’. The paper first analyses the praxis of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and its long-standing experience in overseeing the practical implementation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Against this analysis, it then examines the readiness of the CJEU to live up to its consolidated and strengthened mandate on fundamental rights as one of the prime guarantors of the effective implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We specifically review the role of ‘third-party interventions’ by non-governmental organisations, international and regional human rights actors as well as ‘interim relief measures’ when ensuring effective judicial protection of vulnerable individuals in cases of alleged violations of fundamental human rights. To flesh out our arguments, we rely on examples within the scope of the relatively new and complex domain of EU legislation, the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), and its immigration, external border and asylum policies. In view of the fundamental rights-sensitive nature of these domains, which often encounter shifts of accountability and responsibility in their practical application, and the Lisbon Treaty’s expansion of the jurisdiction of the CJEU to interpret and review EU AFSJ legislation, this area can be seen as an excellent test case for the analyses at hand. The final section puts forth a set of policy suggestions that can assist the CJEU in the process of adjusting itself to the new fundamental rights context in a post-Lisbon Treaty setting.