Amicus Curiae Research Articles

Amicus Curiae dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana: Perspektif KUHP Nasional dan Perbandingan

The aim of this article is to examine the function of amicus curiae in the criminal justice system. To analyse this issue, this article uses normative legal research method and two approaches, namely the statutes approach and the comparative approach with the current regulations concerning amicus curiae in The United States of America. This article argues that in the National Criminal Code regime, amicus curiae will increasingly occupy an important and central position. This argument can be seen at least from the formulation of the Article 12 paragraph 2, Article 35, and Article 54. In all of these aspects, the values and sense of justice of the community are important for judges to consider. In this case, amicus curiae plays an important role to show how the community assesses the criminal case being tried. By conducting a comparative study with the regulation of amicus curiae in the United States, this article proposes three aspects to be considered in regulating the implementation of amicus curiae in Indonesia. These three aspects include the affirmation of the position of amicus curiae in Indonesian criminal procedure law, the regulation of the substance of amicus curiae, and the procedure for submitting amicus curiae to the Court.

Zhang Wanhong (张万红), 1976-2024

Amicus Curiae is pleased to republish below a memorial note commemorating the life and work of the very distinguished Chinese legal scholar Professor Zhang Wanhong, of Wuhan University. Professor Zhang passed away earlier this year. The note came to our attention in The China Collection (formerly Chinese Law Prof Blog) an important forum for posting news and other materials on China’ s legal development. We thank the authors for kindly giving Amicus Curiae permission to republish the commemorative note.

Symposium on Scientia Iuris

In this reply, I express my gratitude to Amicus Curiae for hosting a symposium on my new book—Scientia Iuris: Knowledge and Experience in Legal Education and Practice from the Late Roman Republic to Artificial Intelligence (Springer, 2024)—as well as to the symposium’s guest authors for their insightful contributions. In so doing, I also engage with their comments on my analysis and argument. Keywords: scientia iuris; knowledge; experience; legal education; legal practice.

The Role of Amicus Curiae in Judges' Decisions Regarding Justice Collaborators in Premeditated Murder Cases

Amicus Curiae is limited to providing opinions, and not taking action. The practice of amicus curiae is actually commonly used in countries that use the Common Law system and not the Civil Law system adopted by Indonesia. However, this does not mean that this practice has never been applied or practiced in Indonesia. In the Indonesian judiciary, amicus curiae has not been clearly regulated, but the legal basis for accepting the concept of amicus curiae in Indonesia is Article 5 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. Therefore, it is interesting to examine the role of the amicus curiae in the judge's decision regarding the justice collaborator in the criminal case of premeditated murder. To answer these problems, normative legal research methods (normative juridical) are used with a statutory approach, case approach, conceptual approach and comparative approach, using secondary data obtained from primary, secondary and tertiary legal material sources. In this research, the role of the amicus curiae in the judge's decision on the justice collaborator in the criminal case of premeditated murder as regulated in Article 340 of the Criminal Code. Apart from that, the role of amicus curiae is also regulated in the Constitutional Court Regulations Article 14 Paragraph (4) Number 06/PMK/2005, Article 180 Paragraph (1) KUHAP, Article 183 KUHAP, Article 89 Paragraph (3) Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights Humans, Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (SEMA) Number 4 of 2011, even though they do not have clear regulations, in their application amicus curiae have never been prohibited by judges.

Authority of Amicus Curiae in Constitutional proceedings : Bridging Society and the Constitutional Court

Amicus Curiae, or friends of the court, is an important instrument in constitutional proceedings in Indonesia even though it does not yet have a standard legal basis. This study discusses the authority of Amicus Curiae in providing additional information, enriching the judge's consideration, and supervising the proceedings of the Constitutional Court. The method used is the literature study approach, which is a research method whose series of research is related to the method of collecting library data, or research whose object of research is studied through various literature information, such as: books, journals, articles and documents. Amicus Curiae is filed in the form of a written document containing legal arguments and other relevant analysis. The Constitutional Court has the authority to reject Amicus Curiae that are judged irrelevant or filed with improper motives. On the other hand, a quality Amicus Curiae can have a positive influence on the decisions of the Constitutional Court and contribute to law enforcement and democracy in Indonesia. Amicus Curiae has not been clearly regulated in Indonesia, but in principle it is accepted under article 5 paragraph 1 of the Law on Judicial Power "Judges and constitutional judges are obliged to explore, follow and understand the legal values and sense of justice that live in society. Furthermore, the confession of the Amicus Curiae can be found in article 180 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which states that "In the event that it is necessary to clear up the sitting of the matter arising in court, the presiding judge of the trial may request expert testimony and may also request to submit new material by the interested person.

Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case that could have severely impacted access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortion. The researchers summarize the legal challenges to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) original approval of mifepristone in 2000 and its 2016 and 2021 decisions modifying mifepristone's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program and label, the responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to the challenges, and the potential implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. The researchers detail how the FDA relied on a robust scientific record analyzing tens of thousands of patient experiences that conclusively demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the changes to the mifepristone REMS Program and label and urge the Supreme Court to rely on the clear scientific record and preserve access to mifepristone without reimposing restrictions. What follows is a reprint of this brief.

Challenging Consent—Applicant Versus Amicus Curiae Interventions in Sexual Violence Cases in South Africa

Abstract This note presents and analyses the Centre for Applied Legal Studies’ (CALS) considerations regarding whether to intervene as an amicus curiae or a co-applicant in Embrace v. Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (Embrace), a legal case which questions the constitutionality of the mistaken belief in consent defence in relation to rape (and other sexual offences). To present CALS’ litigation considerations, which formed the decision of whether to intervene in Embrace as an amicus curiae or co-applicant, this note presents the legal context around the mistaken belief defence. It then expands on CALS’ position around the framing of mistaken belief, which differs from the two applicants in Embrace. Finally, it presents CALS’ considerations that were required around entering the Embrace case as an applicant as opposed to entering as an amicus curia. The considerations included the benefit of co-applicants to raise new legal issues, and the forms of recourse available to amici versus co-applicants, the principle of the ‘low-hanging fruits’, and finally, potential liability around costs.

Conglomerates at the court: The political consequences of mergers & acquisitions

Increasingly, corporations expand through the creation or acquisition of new subsidiary companies. Despite the commonality of the practice, little is known regarding how it influences corporations’ political behavior. This research note analyzes how subsidiaries shape corporations’ political interests and collaborations as they seek to influence the Supreme Court. To accomplish this, we construct a historical dataset of the acquisitions and mergers of a politically active sample of Fortune 500 corporations (spanning various industries and sizes) that we combine with their history of filing amicus curiae briefs to the Court. Through social network and longitudinal analyses, we analyze whether and how corporations change their targeted issue areas, collaborations, and political success following consolidation. While mergers and acquisitions have little effect on the quantity of actions or success before the Court, they expand the issues of political interest for corporations, and increase both their popularity and ability to broker information in their political network.

The future perspectives of the European Unified Patent Court in the light of the existing intellectual property courts in the United States and Japan

AbstractThe entering into force of Europe's Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 1 June 2023 shifts the question on whether and how a specialised and unified court should be designed to the question on how the already conceived court shall function to meet the set institutional and substantive goals for the European patent adjudication. Despite the contextual legal and economic differences, the examples of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) can serve as guidance for the new European court, especially in its early days of operation. This article, outlining both the differences and similarities in the origins of the three courts, articulates upon the challenges as well as the achievements of the United States and Japanese examples to shed light on the future perspectives of the UPC and wherever relevant, provide policy‐oriented and practical recommendations for those in charge of shaping the UPC's jurisprudence. To this end, it is submitted that particular attention should be paid to ensuring the wide range of competences of the UPC judges; the interinstitutional dialogue between the UPC and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the dialogue among the UPC judges, including the encouragement of dissenting opinions; consultation of public, if possible in the form of amicus curiae briefs; and international cooperation with existing specialised IP courts worldwide. Based on evidenced foreign practices, these mechanisms are argued to serve the objectives of avoiding ‘overspecialisation’, achieving uniformity while maintaining accuracy, securing the new court's legitimacy and, finally, fostering global judicial harmonisation.

THE NARROW CONFINES OF INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVISM: THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, ABORTION, AND AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

Abortion disputes routinely occur in the judicial realm. Before the Supreme Court, from Roe to Dobbs, both reproductive rights and antiabortion movement groups and their allies engaged in institutional activism, filing amicus curiae (or friend-of-the-court) briefs to influence case outcomes. The number of such briefs has increased substantially over time. Yet few movement researchers investigate this form of institutional activism. We examine amicus briefs in over forty abortion cases from 1971 to 2022, discerning which amicus filers and frames influence justice voting, including for the pivotal moderate justices. We situate our work in resource mobilization, professional status, and framing theorizing, concluding that amicus briefs significantly shape judicial outcomes in abortion cases. However, our results show effective amicus strategies confront a narrow set of opportunities for judicial influence. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court battle over reproductive rights is heavily shaped by justice ideology, with filer and framing approaches—when they are influential—impacting mainly moderate justices.

What does ‘Sex’ Mean to You? The Rainbow Bench Gives Their Opinion. A Discussion on Textualism by Amicus Curiae Briefs Written by Nonprofits in Bostock v. Clayton County

What does ‘Sex’ Mean to You? The Rainbow Bench Gives Their Opinion. A Discussion on Textualism by Amicus Curiae Briefs Written by Nonprofits in Bostock v. Clayton County

Amicus Curiae Participation in ICSID Arbitration: Evolution and Refinement

Amicus Curiae Participation in ICSID Arbitration: Evolution and Refinement

Analysis Of Opportunities For Implementing The Amicus Curiae Concept As A Form Of Public Participation In The Judicial System In Indonesia

This research uses the normative juridical method, and it aims to determine the amicus curiae mechanism in the Indonesian legal system. The research results show that the implementation of amicus curiae in the judicial system in Indonesia still needs a common perspective among judges, where there are still judges who accept or reject this concept or do not even consider it at all. The concept of amicus curiae in the Indonesian legal system has yet to be a significant consideration because no explicit regulations accommodate it. Still, it is often stated that the position of amicus curiae is embodied through Article 5 of Act Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, which mandates judges to explore, follow, and understand legal values and a sense of justice that lives in society. In line with these provisions, the judge has the authority to provide space and open up the broadest possible information and opinions from various groups who pay special attention to a case being examined. Judges using amicus curiae in their considerations, both from a philosophical, sociological, and juridical perspective, aim to prioritize legal certainty and provide justice with the participation of society. The research then provides a suggestion that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia can issue a Policy Circular or through a Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court regarding guidelines that judges can use to implement amicus curiae and how to assess the quality of information in amicus curiae.

Connelly v. U.S. - Amicus Curiae Brief of Law Professor Adam Chodorow Supporting Respondent

Connelly v. U.S. - Amicus Curiae Brief of Law Professor Adam Chodorow Supporting Respondent

Brief of Professor Joseph A. Grundfest as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner in NVIDIA Corp. and Jensen Huang, Petitioners, v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB and Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB, Respondent

Brief of Professor Joseph A. Grundfest as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner in NVIDIA Corp. and Jensen Huang, Petitioners, v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB and Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB, Respondent

Brief of Birth Rights Bar Association as <i>Amicus Curiae</i> in Support of Appellants Jane Doe and John Doe, Does v. Kachru, No. A168669 (Cal. App. 1st) <br>

Brief of Birth Rights Bar Association as <i>Amicus Curiae</i> in Support of Appellants Jane Doe and John Doe, Does v. Kachru, No. A168669 (Cal. App. 1st) <br>

Notes: Strikingly Misconceived: National Union of Metalworkers of SA on behalf of Nganezi & others v Dunlop Mixing & Technical Services (Pty) Ltd & others (Casual Workers Advice Office as Amicus Curiae) (2019) 40 ILJ 1957 (CC)

In this case note I endorse the conclusion reached in Dunlop but quarrel with the reasoning by which it was reached. In particular, I think the treatment of the duty of fidelity, reciprocally owed by each party to the other under the employment contract, was thoroughly misconceived.

Amicus Curiae Brief in Iowa v. SEC.  Brief of the Manhattan Institute, James R. Copland, and Bernard Sharfman as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners. <br>

Amicus Curiae Brief in Iowa v. SEC.  Brief of the Manhattan Institute, James R. Copland, and Bernard Sharfman as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners. <br>

Assessment of Stakeholder Options to Participate in Disputes Over Seabed Mining

Exploitative mining in the deep seas is coming, and with it will arrive a new wave of international disputes. Numerous stakeholders will be interested in these disputes, such as those seeking to profit from exploitative mining activity; developing states seeking to benefit from equitable sharing of wealth and lessons learned; and environmentalists all over the world worried about environmental catastrophes that could result from such activity. Stakeholders include the mining contractor, the sponsoring state of the contractor, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) created by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to control mining activity in the deep seas, states (both states parties to UNCLOS and those that are not) and affected communities, which includes Indigenous peoples and climate activists. However, the dispute settlement system of UNCLOS treats these different stakeholders unequally in terms of whether they may be parties to a dispute proceeding and, if so, what claims they may bring. Unsurprisingly, the system excludes non-states parties and non-state entities (apart from the International Seabed Authority and the contractor), such as Indigenous peoples and climate activists, from serving as parties (claimant or respondent) to a dispute. This essay explores the limited ways in which excluded stakeholders nonetheless may be able to participate in a dispute initiated under UNCLOS. Specifically, they may serve as witnesses, experts, or amicus curiae in proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the Seabed Disputes Chamber, or a commercial arbitral tribunal. This essay also advocates for the ISA to establish administrative processes for ongoing monitoring and whistleblower complaints. Such processes would allow excluded stakeholders to submit relevant evidence and information that could—and should—be used in any formal dispute settlement processes initiated by those stakeholders who enjoy direct participatory rights.

Brief of 20 Professors of Law and Public Knowledge as Amici Curiae in Support of Affirmance <br>

Brief of 20 Professors of Law and Public Knowledge as Amici Curiae in Support of Affirmance <br>