Authority Of Tribunals Research Articles

Maritime Tribunal as Quasi-Judicial Body in Indonesia

Maritime Tribunal as Quasi-Judicial Body in Indonesia; Supreme Court is a judicative body under Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution 1945. The development of the legal system in Indonesia has established new institutions with judicative power to settle certain disputes which are attributed from the special legislation. In the field of maritime law in Indonesia, the Maritime Tribunal has the authority to conduct further examination of a shipwreck in accordance with the Shipping Law. This article uses the normative legal research method with the statutory statute approach. This matter requires further analysis towards the legality of the Maritime Tribunal's authority in Indonesia, that the tribunal is part of the an echelon II organ of the Ministry of Transportation. Based on the criteria and characteristics of a quasi-judicial body, Maritime Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body that possessed has mixed authority of executive function in implementing rules and regulation and administration in the maritime sector, as well as nd judicative function to conduct legal process concerning shipwrecks, that the result of the examination becomes the consideration of the judge in general courts to issue the judgment. The judge in civil or criminal disputes that arise from shipwrecks, in making consideration of the judgment, oblige the disputing parties to settle further examination of a shipwreck in Maritime Tribunal.

Between power and procedure: the changing balance of investment treaty protections

In recent investment agreements, states have expanded their rights to protect essential interests, while also granting new procedural rights to investors. Why are states simultaneously expanding and limiting their power? After reviewing recent treaty practice, this article argues that these seemingly contradictory trends illustrate three main developments: first, investment treaties now operate as instruments of governance based on rule of law principles; second, treaty parties wish to limit the authority of tribunals and provide greater predictability to host states and investors; finally, widespread change in the investment law regime can occur rapidly and bilaterally. These three developments together provide optimism for the future of investor-state arbitration.

Jura Novit Curia and the Right to Be Heard - An Analysis of Recent Case Law

In international arbitration challenges to arbitral awards are on the rise. The losing party sometimes challenges the award on the ground that the tribunal has applied the principle of jura novit curia when determining the contents of the applicable substantive law. It is argued that the award should be set aside, since the arbitral tribunal has exceeded its authority or failed to comply with the fundamental requirements of due process, such as the right to be heard. The question of whether, and how, the arbitral tribunal may apply the principle of jura novit curia has been addressed in a number of court decisions over the last five years: by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in February 2009 and August 2010, by the Quebec Superior Court in December 2008, by the Finnish Supreme Court in July 2008, and by the Paris Court of Appeal in December 2010. The article first reviews the limits of the arbitral tribunal's authority to apply the principle of jura novit curia Thereafter, the referenced case law is presented and analyzed based on the criterion of foreseeability. In conclusion some thoughts are presented on what issues the arbitral tribunal should consider if contemplating applying the principle of jura novit curia in international arbitration.

BEARD-PULLING AND FURNITURE-REARRANGING: Conflict Within the Seventeenth-Century Audiencia of Santo Domingo

On April 8,1626, a violent confrontation took place between the president and one of the oidores of the audiencia of Santo Domingo. According to a letter from oidor Alonso de Cereceda, President Diego de Acuña had called three of the magistrates and the fiscal of the audiencia to his residence in order to question them in private about their response to a message from Acuña's wife, doña Ana de Acuña, instructing them to release a prisoner. When Cereceda suggested that doña Ana's involvement in official business was undermining the tribunal's authority, Acuña flew into a rage and physically assaulted the oidor, punching him in the body and face and knocking his chair to the ground. After the other two oidores and the fiscal pulled the two men apart, Acuña called some of the presidio soldiers into the chamber to guard the letrado officials with drawn swords. Cereceda claimed that while these other witnesses were present, Acuña “attacked me two or three more times, throwing punches at me and putting his hand to my beard for greater injury.” He was then escorted home by the sargento mayor of the presidio, while the other officials remained to calm the president. Following this altercation, Cereceda stopped attending the court's audiencia publica and acuerdo sessions in person, sending his votes with the audiencia scribes instead, until Acuña finally had him placed under arrest.

BEARD-PULLING AND FURNITURE-REARRANGING: Conflict Within the Seventeenth-Century Audiencia of Santo Domingo

On April 8,1626, a violent confrontation took place between the president and one of the oidores of the audiencia of Santo Domingo. According to a letter from oidor Alonso de Cereceda, President Diego de Acuña had called three of the magistrates and the fiscal of the audiencia to his residence in order to question them in private about their response to a message from Acuña's wife, doña Ana de Acuña, instructing them to release a prisoner. When Cereceda suggested that doña Ana's involvement in official business was undermining the tribunal's authority, Acuña flew into a rage and physically assaulted the oidor, punching him in the body and face and knocking his chair to the ground. After the other two oidores and the fiscal pulled the two men apart, Acuña called some of the presidio soldiers into the chamber to guard the letrado officials with drawn swords. Cereceda claimed that while these other witnesses were present, Acuña “attacked me two or three more times, throwing punches at me and putting his hand to my beard for greater injury.” He was then escorted home by the sargento mayor of the presidio, while the other officials remained to calm the president. Following this altercation, Cereceda stopped attending the court's audiencia publica and acuerdo sessions in person, sending his votes with the audiencia scribes instead, until Acuña finally had him placed under arrest.

Group Mentality, Expressivism, and Genocide

AbstractNo Abstract