The memoirs of Charles-Lewis, Baron de Pollnitz. Being the observations he made in his late travels from Prussia thro' Germany, Italy, France, Flanders, Holland, England, &c. In letters to his friend, discovering not only the present state of the chief cities and towns; but the characters of the principal persons at the several courts.

"Account of the electoral family of Saxony, translated from the Bron's State of it": v. 1, p. 99-155.

Occupational Health and Safety, Courts and Crime: the legal construction of occupational health and safety offences in Victoria

This book reports on an empirically-based study of the manner in which the Magistrates' Courts in Victoria, construct occupational health and safety (OHS) issues when hearing prosecutions for offences under the Victorian OHS legislation. Prosecution has always been a controversial element in the enforcement armoury of OHS regulators, but at the same time it has long been argued that the low level of fines imposed by courts has had an important chilling effect on the OHS inspectorate's enforcement approaches, and on the impact of OHS legislation. Using a range of empirical research methods, including three samples of OHS prosecutions carried out in the Victorian Magistrates' Courts, Professor Johnstone shows how courts, inspectors, prosecutors and defence counsel are involved in filtering or reshaping OHS issues during the prosecution process, both pre-trial and in court. He argues that OHS offences are constructed by focusing on "events", in most cases incidents resulting in injury or death. This "event-focus" ensures that the attention of the parties is drawn to the details of the incident, and away from the broader context of the event. During the court-based sentencing process defence counsel is able to adopt a range of techniques which isolate the incident from its micro and macro contexts, thereby individualising and decontextualising the incident.

Safety, courts and crime: occupational safety and health prosecutions in the Magistrates' courts

This paper reports on an empirically based study of occupational safety and health prosecutions in the Magistrates' courts in the State of Victoria, Australia. It examines the way in which the courts construct occupational safety and health issues during prosecutions against alleged offenders, and then theorises the role of the criminal law in health and safety regulation. The paper argues that courts, inspectors, prosecutors and defence counsel are involved in filtering or reshaping occupational safety and health issues during the prosecution process, both pre-trial and in court. An analysis of the pattern of investigation of health and safety offences shows that they are constructed by focusing on 'events', in most cases incidents resulting in injury or death. This 'event focus' ensures that the attention of the parties is drawn to the details of the incident and away from the broader context of the event. This broader context includes the way in which work is organised at the workplace and the quality of occupational safety and health management (the micro context), and the pressures within capitalist production systems for occupational safety and health to be subordinated to production imperatives (the macro context). In particular, during the court-based sentencing process, defence counsel is able to adopt a range of 'isolation' techniques that isolate the incident from its micro and macro contexts, thereby individualising and decontextualising the incident. The paper concludes that the legal system plays a key role in decontextualising and individualising health and safety issues, and that this process is part of the 'architecture' of the legal system, and a direct consequence of the 'form of law'.

Courts and Consociations: Human Rights versus Power-sharing

Consociations are power-sharing arrangements, increasingly used to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts. Current examples include Belgium, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Burundi, and Iraq. Despite their growing popularity, they have begun to be challenged before human rights courts as being incompatible with human rights norms, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Courts and Consociations examines the use of power-sharing agreements, their legitimacy, and their compatibility with human rights law. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements.

In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and then in Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia regarding the constitution established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court's decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in Belgium. This book accounts for this change and assess its implications. The problematic aspects of the current state of law are demonstrated. Future negotiators in places riven by potential or actual bloody ethnic conflicts may now have less flexibility in reaching a workable settlement, which may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that negotiators will consider excluding regional and international courts from reviewing these political settlements.

Courts and Consociations:How human rights courts may destabilize power-sharing settlements

We consider the use of consociational arrangements to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts, and their compatibility with non-discrimination and equality norms. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the dictates of global justice and the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdic and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in the Belgian cases. We seek to account for this change and assess its implications. We identify problematic aspects of the judgment and conclude that, although the Court’s decision indicates one possible trajectory of human rights courts’ reactions to consociations, this would be an unfortunate development because it leaves future negotiators in places riven by potential or manifest bloody ethnic conflicts with considerably less flexibility in reaching a settlement. That in turn may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that advisors to negotiators will advise them to exclude regional and international courts from having standing in the management of political settlements.

Just a piece of cloth? German courts and employees with headscarves

On 10 October 2002, and on 24 September 2003, the German Federal Labour Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court each delivered a decision on the consequences of wearing a headscarf for employees. Both courts appeared to protect the individual rights of the woman in question. The Federal Labour Court invalidated the dismissal of a salesperson based on the wearing of a headscarf; the Federal Constitutional Court held that a school teacher must not be denied employment on grounds of wearing a headscarf. However, both courts also left some room for manoeuvre in favour of clothing policies or laicism principles which could be used to justify head-scarf bans. This note discussed the potential and drawback of these cases, especially as regards intersectional inequalities along the lines of gender, religion and ethnicity.

Shared authority: courts and legislatures in legal theory

This book advances a fresh philosophical account of the relationship between the legislature and courts, opposing the common conception of law, in which it is legislatures that primarily create the law, and courts that primarily apply it. This conception has eclectic affinities with legal positivism, and although it may have been a helpful intellectual tool in the past, it now increasingly generates more problems than it solves. For this reason, the author argues, legal philosophers are better off abandoning it. At the same time they are asked to dismantle the philosophical and doctrinal infrastructure that has been based on it and which has been hitherto largely unquestioned. In its place the book offers an alternative framework for understanding the role of courts and the legislature; a framework which is distinctly anti-positivist and which builds on Ronald Dworkin’s interpretive theory of law. But, contrary to Dworkin, it insists that legal duty is sensitive to the position one occupies in the project of governing; legal interpretation is not the solitary task of one super-judge, but a collaborative task structured by principles of institutional morality such as separation of powers which impose a moral duty on participants to respect each other's contributions. Moreover this collaborative task will often involve citizens taking an active role in their interaction with the law.

The pillory effect : media, the courts and the punitive role of public shaming in Australia

Public shaming and humiliation have been used across cultures for centuries to punish offenders and define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for communities. This article argues that since court-imposed shaming sanctions were phased out in Australia, the news media has assumed responsibility for performing this cultural practice. Through critical engagement with some of the research literature on shaming, the historical shift to the media as the modern pillory is explored. This article looks beyond the doctrine of open justice, which assigns the news media a dual role as a watchdog against injustice and a conduit between the courts and the public, to consider its role in shaming and suggest this role continues to evolve in a changing media landscape.

Multiplicity of International Courts and Tribunals

This work comprehensively explores the implications of multiplicty of international judicial bodies on the coherent application of public international law. It carried out an in-depth analysis of the underlying reasons for the multiplicity, a thorough discussion of the benefits and the challenges presented by this development, its theoretical dimensions and solutions suggested to mitigate the challenges. The work locates the root causes of these challenges in the normative and institutional expansions of international law without a corresponding coordination of the activities of the ¿proliferating¿ judicial bodies. The challanges are systemic in nature. Clearly, because of their systemic nature, the impacts of these challenges are not limited to the specific courts, cases and parties implicated, but have a ripple effect that reverberates throughout the system. Therefore, the mitigation of the impacts of these challenges is of a paramount importance for the credibility, predictability, legitimacy and overall integrity of the international legal system and the eventual augmentation of the ¿compliance pull¿ garnered as a result.

The Map of the Courts and the Brazilian Borders

The formation of our borders are analyzed, at first presenting the question of the demarcation line of Tordesillas and the problems that led to the abandonment of this trace to adopt a configuration thatwould deal with both the actual possession of the territory (uti possidetis) as the natural borders formed by rivers and water borders. Next, the Map of the Courts is examined, having served as the basis for the Treaty of Madrid, and it determines, actually, the current configuration of our country. An analysis is made of this cartographic document, with the aid of digital cartography, which yieldeds in the quantity of existing distortions, to modeled its trait and found out how it was built.