La question de l’ouverture des professions réglementées est d’actualité depuis le début de la Vème République avec le rapport Rueff-Armand. Ce rapport considère les professions réglementées comme un obstacle au développement économique. Plus récemment, en novembre 2014, le député Richard Ferrand a remis au ministre de la justice un rapport proposant plusieurs mesures de modernisation des professions réglementées. C’est dans ce même esprit que la loi n° 2015-990 du 6 août 2015 pour la croissance, l'activité et l’égalité des chances économiques, dite « loi Macron », a été promulguée. Le volet de la loi sur la libéralisation des professions réglementées a pour objectif de promouvoir une réforme profonde des professions du droit. Mais peut-on concilier les objectifs de compétitivité économique avec la mission qu’exercent les huissiers de justice en France ? La politique économique fondée sur la libre concurrence, a conduit à une remise en cause du monopole des professions réglementées qui nous amène à nous questionner sur le bien-fondé du monopole de la profession de l’huissier de justice. Si le monopole de l’huissier de justice apparaît nécessaire à une justice de qualité au service de l’État de droit, il semble insuffisant pour préserver la profession face aux nombreuses évolutions. Force est de constater que certaines attributions liées au monopole de l’huissier de justice doivent s’adapter aux exigences actuelles d’ouverture du marché du droit / The subject of opening up regulated professions has been a topical one since the beginning of the Fifth Republic and the Rueff-Armand report. This report considers regulated professions as an obstacle to economic development. More recently, in November 2014, the MP Richard Ferrand gave the Minister of Justice a report which proposed several measures for modernising regulated professions. In the same spirit, Law no. 2015-990 dated 6th August 2015 regarding growth, business and equal economic opportunities, known as the « Macron law », was enacted. The objective of the component regarding the liberalisation of regulated professions is to promote a fundamental reform of legal professions. But are we able to reconcile the objectives of economic competitiveness with the mandate exercised by court bailiffs in France? The economic policy based on free competition has called into question the monopoly of regulated professions, leading us to investigate the merits of the monopoly enjoyed by the profession of the court bailiff. If this monopoly appears to be necessary for a high-quality justice system at the service of the Rule of Law, it seems to be inadequate in maintaining the profession, faced as it is with numerous changes. It is obvious that certain powers linked with the monopoly of court bailiffs have to be brought into line with the present requirements of opening up the legal market

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work / W. Richard Goe / At each milestone of its development, advocates of the juvenile court have repeatedly and rightly recognized the court for what it is: a powerful instrument affecting the normal development of youth. The juvenile court is a social institution organized to achieve certain values. At its most mundane, it ensures that certain practices and beliefs actually exist somewhere in the world. At its most grandiose, it imprints these behaviors and thoughts on those involved, extending its locus of influence and transforming society itself. Because of its potential to transform people’s lives, it is important to understand the circumstances under which the juvenile court more regularly and, perhaps more zealously, reinforces what people can and cannot do. To understand social control and the juvenile court, court case records were drawn from a large, Midwestern Juvenile Court filed between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2016. These records were obtained using the juvenile court’s Justice Information Leveraging System, an online, real-time court records management system available to the public. Drawing a random sample of juvenile court cases (N=582), the present study examines the effects of demeanor, context, race, social class, and gender on court imposed social control. Controlling for alternative explanations (i.e., prior involvement, offense severity, judge idiosyncrasies, and age), the present study shows that demeanor, context and race, as well as demeanor and gender affect decisions made during the juvenile court process. Among cases involving youth whose contexts were criminogenic, minority youth, more than white youth, were more likely to be detained prior to adjudication. Additionally, the effect of demeanor on disposition length among cases involving girls was greater than that observed among boys. Lastly, cases involving youth whose demeanors were disagreeable, were more likely to be detained and to receive dispositions that were longer and more severe than cases involving youth whose demeanors were agreeable. Notably, sufficient evidence was observed of effects involving offense severity and prior record on social control. Cases involving youth charged with a felony were, more than cases involving youth charged only with misdemeanors, more likely to be detained, disposed to a more severe intervention, and disposed for a longer period of time. Cases involving youth with more involved prior records generally received greater social control, particularly regarding detention and disposition length. However, mixed results were observed regarding adjudication and disposition severity. Sufficient evidence was observed to suggest that not all youth received a “first-timer discount” at adjudication. Likewise, first-timers were, compared to those with a history of court involvement (but not adjudication), more likely to receive some form of court intervention. These findings suggest new directions for juvenile court policy and practice. The juvenile court should investigate racial and gender disparity in what it does. It is possible that mundane, unintentional practices reinforce disparate social arrangements. Additionally, the court should reassess it reliance on “Just Deserts” and other graduated forms of intervention. As the latest research on adolescent development suggests (Steinberg 2007), youth are not adults, and, as such, should not be judge by adult standards.

No description available.

M.B.A. / An investigation into the application of judicial case management in the South African civil court system to enhance quality and access to justice. Background The South African judicial system, and in particular, the lower Courts have been plagued by inefficiency and inadequate use of its resources. This, in turn, has lead to inordinate delays in the prosecution of both civil and criminal matters. This research will however focus on the civil prosecution of cases. Ultimately, the quality of service being provided to both internal and external customers is lacking and is evidenced by the slow pace of cases through the system. The civil justice system in South Africa is in need of an overhaul as the quality of the service provided by the courts has been questioned extensively. The focus of this research is to look at judicial case management as well as some of the current factors that may be responsible for the delays in the civil justice system and to propose judicial case management as a possible solution to enhance quality in the South African judicial system. Related to the concept of quality are productivity and efficiency and, by implication, these areas may also be improved. Accordingly, this study will assess the current situation in the South African civil justice system and investigate if judicial case management will assist in achieving quality and productivity. IV Objectives The overall objective of this study is to formulate recommendations to enhance quality and access the civil justice system. To reach the above aim, the following objectives are relavant: 1.3.1 Conduct interviews with members of the public and legal professionals involved in the civil justice system in South Africa to assess their perceptions of the system. 1.3.2 During the interviews, elicit recommendations on how the system may be improved with particular emphasis on judicial case management. 1.3.3 Conduct a literature review of relevant and available literature that investigates developments in the British, Canadian, Australian and part of the American legal system, respectively. 1.3.4 Describe and analyse the data collected. 1.3.5 Compare the data collected in the South African context with developments in international judicial systems. 1.3.6 Make recommendations with a view to improving quality in the South African civil justice system. Design and data collection A qualitative research paradigm will be used for this study. Primary data was collected using the semi-structured interview method and the in-depth interview methods, respectively, in order to determine the views among some legal professionals in the province of Gauteng as well as certain members of the public. Documentary secondary data was also used in this research project in addition to the primary data collection methods. Conclusions In summary, the conclusions can be drawn that: there are problems in the South African civil justice system that lead to increased costs, unnecessary delay and complexity of the system; the causes of the problems are related to a wide variety of issues that range from, inter alia, human resources, training, operational issues, jurisdiction of courts, the structure and functioning of the courts, pleadings and the rules of court; there is a need and a willingness for judicial case management, despite some opposition, but that nature and form thereof will have to be the subject of discussion. Recommendations Recommendations to improve the system range from improving statistical analyses; increasing the public participation process in law making; improving the sheriffs services and service of process; improving the management and administration of the courts; introducing alternative dispute resolution and possibly mandatory dispute resolution; addressing procedural issues and finally, introducing some form of judicial case management.

Magister Legum - LLM / South Africa

Purpose and Limits of the Present Study. International litigation is primarily concerned with finding a solution for the conflicting and contradictory claims of the disputant states who have different notions of justice for their acts and omissions at the international level. This problem becomes more acute when one party asserts its right against the other, and, in the absence of any treaty or convention, tries to establish and prove the existence of such right, on the basis of long usage, practice or custom, recognized as such by the civilized nations of the international community. The International Court of Justice, like its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, had to face those problems in a number of cases brought before it, and it succeeded, to a great extent, in solving those complicated problems, and, by crystallizing those rudimentary rules of customary law, which in the past had been a source of confusion for the international jurists, has made important contributions to the development of international law. It is the purpose of the present study to analyze the jurisprudence of the Court and, to find those principles of customary international law that the Court has applied for arriving at a particular decision. The approach is basically expository, and is confined to scrutinize that volume of authority, which the Court has produced on "international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law."¹ Within this limited range it was thought desirable not to ignore the fundamental questions relating to state sovereignty and "domestic jurisdiction", which present-' various problems in international adjudication. Since the object of the present thesis is to extract, assemble, and evaluate the nature of those principles which the Court enunciated in its Judgments, it was found necessary to draw upon the individual opinions of the dissenting Judges, or, the separate opinions of those who concurred in the operative part of the Judgment, but, gave different reasons for arriving at the same conclusion, because it has been said that: "A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the broadening spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day where a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”¹ 1 Art. 38 (1) (b) of the Statute of the Court. 1 Charles Evans Hughes, U.S. Supreme Court 68 (1928) (quoted by Runz, "The Nottebohm Judgment (second phase)," 514 AJIL (I960), p.. 539; see however, Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, Stevens, London, 1958, pp. 66-7). / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

This study intends to examine criticisms of the Court and efforts to curb its power during the formative period of American constitutional law.

open inner court

No description available.

No description available.