Academic literature on the topic 'Judicial Doctrain'

Judicial autonomy has suffered changes all through Colombian constitutional history, especially due to the expedition of the Political Constitution in 1991. This implies that the judge’s function was affected and suffered relevant changes, particularly in duties such as the motivation of judicial providences and the search for real justice in concrete cases. As a consequence of these relevant changes, now judges must pay special attention to the constitutional precedent and the charges imposed on them in order to avoid sanctions like the annulment of their judgments through the «vías de hecho» doctrine. These limitations and consequences were issued with the aim of protecting fundamental rights, and making the legal system dynamic and coherent.<br>La autonomía judicial ha sufrido transformaciones en la historia constitucional colombiana, aún más con la entrada en vigencia de la Constitución Política de 1991. Esto implica que la función del juez se ve afectada y sufre mutaciones relevantes, sobre todo en cuanto a sus deberes, como la motivación de las providencias y la búsqueda efectiva de justicia para el caso concreto. Nótese, entonces, que el juez debe observar con atención los precedentes constitucionales y las cargas que estos le imponen, so pena de incurrir en sanciones, como la cesación de efectos jurídicos del fallo a través de las así llamadas «vías de hecho». Dichas limitaciones y consecuencias fueron pensadas en clave de la máxima protección de los derechos fundamentales, la dinamización y la coherencia del sistema jurídico.

La presente tesis realiza un estudio a fin de determinar cuáles son los argumentos doctrinarios y factuales que sustentan el peritaje judicial contable en el Perú. Para ello el presente estudio se apoyó en 89 dictámenes y/o informes periciales emitidos por peritos contables según mandatos judiciales en los fueros: civil, laboral y penal, proporcionados por peritos contables asistentes a las convenciones nacionales de perito contables: 2004, 2006, 2008 y al Congreso Nacional de Contadores Públicos del Perú 2008.<br>Tesis

The United States Constitution had been in existence for almost two hundred years before the Supreme Court decided that some violations of constitutional rights may be too insignificant to warrant remedial action. Known as "harmless error," this statutory doctrine allows a court to affirm a conviction when a mere technicality or minor defect did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. The doctrine aims to promote judicial efficiency and judgment finality. The Court first applied harmless error to constitutional violations by shifting the statutory test away from the error's effect on substantial rights to its impact on the jury's verdict. Over time, the test evolved even further, now allowing a court to disregard the constitutional error when a majority of justices believe that the untainted record evidence shows that the defendant is, in fact, guilty. This sacrifice of individual and institutional constitutional protections at the altar of judicial efficiency and judgment finality subverts the harmless error doctrine's purposes and strikes at the core of America's founding ideals. In particular, it allows appellate courts to invade the jury's role as the finder of fact and guilt, to sidestep their constitutional role to review and correct errors and protect the Constitution, and to incentivize government actors to commit constitutional violations with little-to-no ramifications. After conducting a comprehensive review of the harmless error doctrine and its development, this thesis traces through many substantive, theoretical, and practical problems with the doctrine's current application. It then proposes that the Constitution and the values that it protects should once again be elevated above the harmless error doctrine's pragmatic concerns of judicial efficiency and judgment finality.

Tax avoidance is an exceedingly complex area of law. It is also a matter generally found not far from the headlines, or from the concerns of state and policy forums such as the G8 and the OECD. In an increasingly capital mobile world, the concern on the part of Governments for the protection of their sources of revenue has increased. Adam Smith’s four canons of taxation are well known. In his work, The Wealth of Nations, Smith regarded the values of certainty, equity, efficiency and convenience as integral to the functioning of a tax system. Among these, however, Smith would seem to have regarded certainty as of particular significance. The prominence afforded to the value of certainty, in conjunction with the smaller role afforded the state likely contributed to the formalistic approach taken by the courts of the British Commonwealth to the interpretation of taxing statutes. In recent times, however, the importance of certainty among policy makers and jurists has declined. Although this is not to contend that the value of certainty has ceased to be a consideration, it would seem to have come to be regarded as a lesser value among many rather than an end in itself. Although the optimal level of certainty within a jurisdiction is undoubtedly a matter for debate, the presence of uncertainty may carry with it a number of risks and unintended consequences which may hinder the achievement of the ends sought after by policy makers. These may include an increase in the rate of capital flight and in the use of asset sheltering devices, a decrease in the incidence of economic activity, and decreased rates of compliance among taxpayers. The value of certainty, in other words, may be of greater significance to the efficient functioning of a tax system than it has in recent times been thought to be. In contending with tax avoidance, the countries of the British Commonwealth tend to employ either one of two instruments; a statutory General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) or a judicial doctrine; an innovation of the common law. In this thesis, the writer sets out to examine the judicial doctrine applied in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom (UK), and the statutory GAARs deployed in Canada and New Zealand, and the respective implications of each instrument for the value of certainty. While the difference in the implications presented by the application of a broad judicial doctrine and a narrow GAAR may be slight, it is the writer’s contention that, all things held equal, the use of a judicial doctrine is likely to have a less deleterious effect on the value of certainty than a GAAR. Accordingly, it is the writer’s contention that the use of a judicial doctrine is for this reason be preferred.

This thesis attempts to apply an economic approach to deal with the positive analysis of the doctrine of separation of powers, focusing on the judicial branch of government, and more specifically on the question: why do we find an 'independent' judiciary as an almost universal phenomenon in democratic countries? The first part of the thesis sets the analytical framework - what I perceive as the broad and moderate view of the economic approach towards law - and defines the phenomenon of the independence of the judiciary to be examined - the gap between the structural independence of the judiciary and its substantive independence. It also includes a literature survey of previous work related to the economic analysis of the doctrine of separation of powers and the positive analysis of the judiciary. A theoretical discussion is in the focus of the second part. It departs from a critical view of the Landes-Posner model of the independence of the judiciary, and proceeds to offer an alternative model. The main argument of the thesis is that, in contrast to the traditional view of separation of powers, we have an independent judiciary because it is in the interests of the government of the day to maintain one. Such an institution is delegated legislative and other powers, by which politicians can maximize their self-goal choices. The third part of the thesis presents some empirical findings in an attempt to support the proposed positive model of judicial independence. A statistical approach is taken to investigate the decisions whether to promote judges from the English Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, shedding new light on attitudes of British governments towards the independence of the judiciary. A more descriptive-narrative approach is taken in the final chapter, portraying and analyzing the relations between the Israeli judiciary and the other branches of government. It is argued that the analysis of these relations lends support to the delegation theory of the independence of the judiciary.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2002.<br>Some digitised pages may appear illegible due to the condition of the original hard copy<br>ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis is a response to the judgment of the Constitutional Court in South African Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath, in which certain provisions of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act were subjected to constitutional review. The outcome of the case was the striking down of certain provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, and the removal of Judge Willem Heath from his position as head of the Unit. The provisions were said to infringe upon the principle of separation of powers, an implicit term of the Constitution of South Africa. This principle affects the extent of the judicial power because of its influence on determining the acceptability of extra-judicial functions. The doctrine of separation of powers is therefore considered in its historical and theoretical context, with particular reference to the way in which it tends to limit or define the role of judges. Following this analysis, the status of institutions supporting constitutional democracy is examined, and the legislation governing Special Investigating Units is compared with that which regulates the office of the Public Protector. As a result, some alternative legislative means of achieving the ends of the Units, namely the combating of state corruption and maladministration, are suggested.<br>AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis volg op die uitspraak van die Grondwetlike Hof in South African Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath, waarin sekere bepalings van die Wet op Spesiale Ondersoekeenhede en Spesiale Tribunale aan grondwetlike hersiening onderwerp is. Die uitkoms van die saak was dat sekere ongrondwetlike bepalings van die Wet ongeldig verklaar is, en dat Regter Willem Heath van sy posisie as hoof van die Eenheid onthef is. Dit is bevind dat die bepalings die beginsel van skeiding van magte, 'n implisiete term van die Suid-Afrikaanse Grondwet, geskend het. As gevolg van sy invloed op die bepaling van aanvaarbaarheid van buite-juridiese funksies, beïnvloed dié beginsel die omvang van die juridiese mag. Die skeiding van magte leerstuk word dus in sy historiese en teoretiese konteks oorweeg, met spesifieke verwysing na die manier waarop dit neig om die rol van regters te beperk of te omskryf. Na hierdie analise word die status ondersoek van instellings wat grondwetlike demokrasie ondersteun, en die wetgewing wat die Spesiale Ondersoekeenhede beheer, vergelyk met dié wat die Openbare Beskermer reguleer. Op grond hiervan word sekere alternatiewe wetgewende metodes voorgestelom die doeleindes van die Eenhede, naamlik die bekamping van staatskorrupsie en wanadministrasie, te bereik.