Abstract The study aimed to investigate the issue of women’s access and rights to land in Kenya. The study targeted Yaw Pachi women’s group, Siaya district who have experienced several problems of land tenure in terms of access and rights within their community which is Luo by tribe. The factors that influence these women’s access to land were also examined. The factors included Luo customary law, Luo customary practices, statutory laws as well as statutory institutions. The study also aimed to analyse the 2006 Draft National Land Policy by looking at what aspects of gender reform had been incorporated into the policy. The study examined the role of the land board as a statutory institution responsible for ensuring women and men have equal access and rights to land. In order to collect data, this study used qualitative method of social research. The researcher chose a small sample based on the research being conducted using a case study method. The sample was from an area where the phenomena such as customary laws and practices are prevalent. Qualitative research enables the researcher to collect and analyse in-depth information on a smaller group of respondents. Documentary analysis, interview techniques were used to gather data. The study population comprised of seventeen women from Yaw Pachi women’s group in Siaya district and twelve key informants. The key findings of the case study of Yaw Pachi women’s group shows that women can gain access to land in Siaya district mainly through marriage and by association with a male relative, who could be the woman’s father, father in-law, brother or son. Although the law of succession states that women can inherit land from their fathers, most findings revealed that this does not happen in reality. The 2006 Draft National Land Policy that intends to solve all the disparities women face when it comes to equity in land resources has been put on hold following an unsuccessful constitutional review in 2005.While the policy acknowledges that there are customs that discriminate against women, it also seeks to promote customary systems of land tenure. The Draft National Land Policy proposes a pluralist approach to land reform.

O presente trabalho questiona o papel da legislação na realização judicial do direito. Para responder a essa questão, empreende-se uma tese conceitual sobre a dinâmica jurídica, que pretende superar a tradicional dicotomia entre a legislação e a função judicial concebida pela doutrina clássica da separação dos poderes. De acordo com a argumentação desenvolvida aqui, o judiciário julga não somente fatos dos casos, mas também as próprias escolhas legislativas, de modo que já não é possível defender que a função judicial consiste em mera declaração da lei nos casos particulares ou ainda em subsunção lógica das lides que lhe são submetidas às normas previamente postas pelo processo legislativo. Assim, a realização judicial do direito não pode ser anteriormente determinada, uma vez que não está condicionada pelo conteúdo legislado. Contudo, os conteúdos da lei transmitem algum sentido para os cidadãos e, por isso, criam expectativas. Confirmar ou não essas expectativas é uma questão relacionada com a justificação e a legitimidade dos Estados racionais modernos, que estabelecem com os cidadãos uma relação de dominação legal-racional. Desse modo, a questão do papel da legislação (direito positivo passado) na realização do direito atual é posta em termos de legitimidade. Se, de um lado, constatamos que não é possível pretender controlar a discricionariedade judicial dentro dos próprios limites do direito, de outro lado defendemos que é legítimo pretender submeter o direito positivo à crítica e ao controle democrático. Isso porque interessa a todos os cidadãos que as decisões judiciais possam ser justificadas de modo razoável, graças a uma argumentação cuja força e a pertinência se reconheçam amplamente na sociedade. A partir dessa perspectiva, propomos um redimensionamento do argumento legal na prática jurídica e passamos a analisar as diversas implicações da questão central posta neste trabalho na realização judicial do direito. / This work questions the function of statutory law in the judicial realization of law. To answer this question, we undertake a conceptual thesis on legal dynamics, which aims to overcome the traditional dichotomy between the statutory law and the judicial function designed by the classical doctrine of separation of powers. According to the arguments put forward here, judges judge not only the facts of the cases, but also the legislative choices, so that it is no longer possible to argue that judicial function is a mere declaration of the statutory law in individual cases. Thus, the judicial realization of law cannot be previously determined, since it is not strictly conditioned by the legislated content. However, the statutory law content communicates meanings to citizens and therefore it creates expectations. To confirm or not to confirm these expectations is something related to justification and legitimacy of modern rational States, which hold a legal-rational domination relationship with citizens. Thus, the question of the function of statutory law is put here in terms of legitimacy. On the one hand, we find that we cannot intend to control judicial discretion within the proper limits of the law, on the other hand we argue that it is suitable to intend to submit the positive law to public critics and democratic control. All citizens seem to expect that judicial decisions can be justified in a reasonable manner, thanks to arguments whose strength and relevance are widely accepted in society. From this perspective, we propose a redefinition of the use of legal argument in legal practice and then we start to examine the various implications of the central question posed in this work in the judicial realization of the law.

O presente trabalho questiona o papel da legislação na realização judicial do direito. Para responder a essa questão, empreende-se uma tese conceitual sobre a dinâmica jurídica, que pretende superar a tradicional dicotomia entre a legislação e a função judicial concebida pela doutrina clássica da separação dos poderes. De acordo com a argumentação desenvolvida aqui, o judiciário julga não somente fatos dos casos, mas também as próprias escolhas legislativas, de modo que já não é possível defender que a função judicial consiste em mera declaração da lei nos casos particulares ou ainda em subsunção lógica das lides que lhe são submetidas às normas previamente postas pelo processo legislativo. Assim, a realização judicial do direito não pode ser anteriormente determinada, uma vez que não está condicionada pelo conteúdo legislado. Contudo, os conteúdos da lei transmitem algum sentido para os cidadãos e, por isso, criam expectativas. Confirmar ou não essas expectativas é uma questão relacionada com a justificação e a legitimidade dos Estados racionais modernos, que estabelecem com os cidadãos uma relação de dominação legal-racional. Desse modo, a questão do papel da legislação (direito positivo passado) na realização do direito atual é posta em termos de legitimidade. Se, de um lado, constatamos que não é possível pretender controlar a discricionariedade judicial dentro dos próprios limites do direito, de outro lado defendemos que é legítimo pretender submeter o direito positivo à crítica e ao controle democrático. Isso porque interessa a todos os cidadãos que as decisões judiciais possam ser justificadas de modo razoável, graças a uma argumentação cuja força e a pertinência se reconheçam amplamente na sociedade. A partir dessa perspectiva, propomos um redimensionamento do argumento legal na prática jurídica e passamos a analisar as diversas implicações da questão central posta neste trabalho na realização judicial do direito. / This work questions the function of statutory law in the judicial realization of law. To answer this question, we undertake a conceptual thesis on legal dynamics, which aims to overcome the traditional dichotomy between the statutory law and the judicial function designed by the classical doctrine of separation of powers. According to the arguments put forward here, judges judge not only the facts of the cases, but also the legislative choices, so that it is no longer possible to argue that judicial function is a mere declaration of the statutory law in individual cases. Thus, the judicial realization of law cannot be previously determined, since it is not strictly conditioned by the legislated content. However, the statutory law content communicates meanings to citizens and therefore it creates expectations. To confirm or not to confirm these expectations is something related to justification and legitimacy of modern rational States, which hold a legal-rational domination relationship with citizens. Thus, the question of the function of statutory law is put here in terms of legitimacy. On the one hand, we find that we cannot intend to control judicial discretion within the proper limits of the law, on the other hand we argue that it is suitable to intend to submit the positive law to public critics and democratic control. All citizens seem to expect that judicial decisions can be justified in a reasonable manner, thanks to arguments whose strength and relevance are widely accepted in society. From this perspective, we propose a redefinition of the use of legal argument in legal practice and then we start to examine the various implications of the central question posed in this work in the judicial realization of the law.

The relationship between privacy, technology, and law is complex. Thomas Jefferson’s prescient nineteenth century observation that laws and institutions must keep pace with the times offers a vision for change. Statutory law and court precedents help to define our right to privacy, however, the development of new technologies has complicated the application of old precedents and statutes. Third party organizations, such as Google, facilitate new methods of communication, and the government can often collect the information that third parties receive with a subpoena or court order, rather than a Fourth Amendment-mandated warrant. Privacy promotes fundamental democratic freedoms, however, under current law, the digital age has diminished the right to privacy in our electronic communications data. This work explores the statutory and constitutional law protecting our right to privacy, as well as the inadequacies that have developed with the digital revolution. With commonplace use of third parties to facilitate electronic communication, our courts and lawmakers must amend current laws and doctrines to protect the privacy of communications in the digital age. To provide clarity and appropriate data privacy protections, the following clarifications and amendments should be made to the third party doctrine and the Stored Communications Act (SCA): 1) third party doctrine should only apply to context data, 2) content data should be protected by the Fourth Amendment, 3) the SCA should eliminate the distinction between Remote Computing Services (RCS) data and Electronic Communication Services (ECS) data, and 4) the SCA should require warrants for all content data acquisition.

A la suite de la stipulation des capitula de 1447, Bologne assume une forme de gouvernement « mixte » basée sur la collaboration entre un conseil local, centré sur l’oligarchie associée à la para-seigneurie de la famille Bentivoglio, et un représentant de l’autorité pontificale, détentrice de la souveraineté sur la ville. La recherche vise à approfondir la nature du rapport entre les deux composantes du gouvernement bolognais à la lumière de l’étude du domaine criminel, moins clairement réglementé par les capitula. L’analyse des sources législatives à partir du texte statutaire de 1454, qui symbolise l’entente entre la ville et la papauté nous fournit la base pour la détermination du modèle d’action de la cour podestatale. L’enquête relative aux actes judicaires et aux actes de gouvernement nous permet de déterminer les formes d’ingérence des autorités politiques. Un regard plus approfondi sur les crimes politiques nous révèle enfin la division des sphères de pouvoir entre la domination locale et la papauté. L’étude ainsi effectuée nous transmet l’idée d’une mutation dans un sens « hégémonique » de la justice publique, exploitée par la domination locale pour renforcer sa position devant le pouvoir pontifical. Les limites que la soumission pontificale imposait au développement politique des autorités locales deviennent pourtant évidentes lors de périodes de crise intérieure ou de pressions extérieures : dans ces circonstances, les moyens déployés par les autorités locales pour leur renforcement autoritaire deviennent inutilisables car leur légitimité se pose en conflit avec le respect des prérogatives souveraines pontificales. / After the stipulation of the capitula of 1447, the government of Bologna turns into a collaboration between a local council, centered on the seigniory of the Bentivoglio family and the oligarchy supporting them, and a delegate of the papal sovereignty. The dissertation has the purpose of study in depth the nature of the relationship between the two souls of the “mixed” government ruling Bologna during second half of 15th century by the light of the study of criminal justice, which the capitula do not clearly regulate. The analysis of the legislative sources, starting from the statutory law of 1454, symbol of the mutual agreement between the town and the papacy, gives us the base to clarify the model of action of the podestà court at this time. The investigation of judicial sources and government acts allows us to determine the interferences of the political authorities in the judicial administration and the actual judicial practice. The consideration of the approach to political crimes contributes to elucidate the vision local ruling classes had of the shared governance with the papacy. The study so carried-out provides us the evidence of a mutation of the judicial system, becoming “hegemonic”. The local domination uses this hegemonic system to strengthen her political position in front of the papal sovereignty. The limitation that this one imposes to the local domination gets clear only during domestic political crisis or foreign pressures: through these circumstances, the exploitation of the judicial system in a political way is inapplicable, as the legitimacy of these means clashes with the respect of sovereign prerogatives of the papal power.