Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau, 1925. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [vii]-xii).

Thèse--Lausanne. / "Etude ce croit sociologique." Bibliography: p. 245-252.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Yale University, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [374]-395).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1947. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Bowling Green State University, 2006. / Document formatted into pages; contains vi, 563 p. Includes bibliographical references.

After the arrest of Augusto Pinochet more than a decade ago, universal jurisdiction was a political and legal reality and became a white hot subject of global controversy. Universal jurisdiction was hailed as one of the magic bullets in the campaign against impunity. Universal jurisdiction is the doctrine that allows any country to punish certain egregious crimes, regardless of wherever or by whomever they have been committed, even if it has no direct connection with the offense and there is an absence of the traditional grounds for jurisdiction. However Schabas rightly indicate that universal jurisdiction past is mysterious and its future uncertain. Some say there is decline of universal jurisdiction or even state that there is a demise of universal jurisdiction. Still some other commentators assert that universal jurisdiction simply does not exist. There are those who view the broadening of the scope of universal jurisdiction with extreme skepticism. The critics fear for the slippery slope which could lead to a radical and dangerous encroachment on the sovereignty of nations. Today there are those that see a “backlash” or “downtrend” in the movement for universal jurisdiction especially after the Arrest Warrant case. It is stated that the universal jurisdiction movement appears to be a moving train without its locomotive. Maybe it only lost some of its steam. On the other hand NGO’s assert that there is no question of the growing practice of states in regard to universal jurisdiction and the principle is supposed to be uncontested. Over exaggerated statements expressing support for universal jurisdiction are often found. Notwithstanding that Prof Schabas state that universal jurisdiction is an ideal subject for research; he has nevertheless opined that universal jurisdiction generates more heat than light. Many of the reports describe universal jurisdiction as important component in the struggle against impunity. According to him it is, but a small component or as stated by Bottini: “its application remains negligible.” Schabas is of the opinion that international tribunals and truth commissions seem a better investment for scarce resources. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Public Law / unrestricted

Since the mid-1980s, California's juvenile justice system has been struggling to address two phenomena: crossover youth and the policy of dual jurisdiction. Crossover youth are children who are simultaneously involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems; in conjunction, the policy of dual jurisdiction is a policy that permits juvenile courts to assume collaborative jurisdiction over crossover youth's child welfare and juvenile justice cases. Between 1989 and 2004, the system's actors adhered to California Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) § 241.1, which prohibited the policy of dual jurisdiction. As a result, the system's actors assigned crossover youth to either the child welfare or juvenile justice system, and these children did not receive proper treatment. However, in January 2005, the California state legislature amended WIC § 241.1 to incorporate Section (e), which is also known as the policy of dual jurisdiction. Subsequently, the system's actors now have the option to assign crossover youth to both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and these children can receive holistic services from both systems. Currently, approximately two southern Californian counties implement the policy of dual jurisdiction. This thesis argues that the implementation of dual jurisdiction is necessary as it serves in the best interests of crossover youth by addressing the issue of disproportionate minority contact, decreasing the rates of juvenile recidivism, and increasing the availability of rehabilitative services. This thesis also uses preliminary field research to demonstrate the policy of dual jurisdiction's benefits and to encourage more counties to adopt this policy.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--RAND Graduate School, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis critically analyses the Australian law of jurisdiction in private international litigation. Jurisdiction in international litigation is often regarded as a procedural area of law which is less important than choice of law in practical and theoretical terms. There has been little scholarly attention devoted specifically to the study of jurisdiction in Australia. In recent years, jurisdiction has certainly overtaken choice of law in practical importance. This emphasises the need for critical academic study of the law of jurisdiction. This thesis addresses this need. It critically analyses the present principles and the manner in which they are applied, identifies the factors which should influence the law, and proposes appropriate reforms to the principles. This thesis is in five related parts. The first part examines the procedural and constitutional context in which the principles of jurisdiction have been developed and applied. This context has important implications for the law and practice of jurisdiction, which have largely been overlooked in the literature, although they are important in understanding how the principles have developed and how they are applied. The second part critically analyses the present law of jurisdiction. The Australian principles of jurisdiction have not changed substantially in the last 100 years, while economic and social conditions which affect international litigation have undergone dramatic and wide-reaching changes. The present law provides that the courts are jurisdictionally competent in a wide range of cases, which do not all require a substantial connection between the dispute and the forum. The various principles applied in declining jurisdiction make it likely that the Australian courts will exercise their discretion to retain jurisdiction in the majority of cases. Foreign jurisdictional agreements should be enforced by a stay unless there are strong reasons for non- enforcement. But the application of overriding mandatory rules, even where there is a jurisdictional agreement, and the courts' wide discretion under the Australian forum non conveniens principle make it unlikely that the courts will decline to exercise jurisdiction. The present principles, in short, permit the courts to take jurisdiction in too many cases, and require them to decline to exercise jurisdiction in too few cases. The third part examines how the principles on declining jurisdiction operate in practice. This is addressed by a doctrinal and an empirical analysis of the manner in which these principles are applied by the Australian superior courts. These analyses identify factors which appear to influence decisions in practice, not all of which are consistent with the applicable principles. For example, the principle requires the court to enforce foreign jurisdictional agreements unless there are strong grounds for non-enforcement. In practice, strong grounds are easily shown. These analyses show that there are factors which influence decisions which are not always apparent from the principles, suggesting that reform is required. The fourth part identifies the factors which ought to influence the law and practice of jurisdiction. The relevant factors are identified in terms of the interests of foreign states, individual litigants' interests and the forum state's interests. The law and practice of jurisdiction are examined to determine whether those interests do in fact influence law and practice. Many important interests, especially of foreign states and of defendants, are not sufficiently taken into account. This also implies that reform of the principles is warranted. The fifth part considers how Australian jurisdictional principles could be improved. Detailed reforms are suggested, drawing on a discussion and an evaluation of different approaches to jurisdiction, particularly drawing on the European Community's Regulation on Jurisdiction and Judgments. The principles should ensure that the court is jurisdictionally competent only where it is likely to be an appropriate forum for the dispute. The proposed reforms identlfy grounds of exclusive jurisdiction, provide protection to weaker parties to contracts, and otherwise require the enforcement of jurisdictional agreements. Default rules of jurisdiction which are likely to indicate a strong connection between the forum and the dispute are proposed. Specific principles for declining jurisdiction are also proposed. Retention of the forum non conveniens principle is recommended, but the English principle is advocated as a more suitable and just approach. This thesis is intended to contribute both to a theoretical understanding of this area of law and to an understanding of its practical application.

Thesis--George Washington University, 2001. / Caption title. Includes bibliographical references. Also available via the Internet.