Under the 1956 Labour relations Act, parties who were dissatisfied with decisions of the then Industrial Court, could appeal to the old Labour Appeal Court, and then if still further unhappiness persists, to the former Appellate Division. Such appeals entailed placing before the court the complete record of the Industrial Court, and requesting it to decide if on the evidence, it would have come to the same conclusion. Sometimes the courts of appeal decide that they would, sometimes that they would not. When planning the new Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, the Cheadle Commission decided that this process was too slow, too technical, too cumbersome and too expansive. So it recommended that, at least in the case of the most common disputes, the issues should be decided quickly, informally and finally by arbitration. Unless the parties agree to private arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 42 of 1956, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration (CCMA) would supply the arbitrators, who would exercise their powers, not under agreed terms of reference, but under the LRA itself. Like private arbitrators, those of the CCMA are also meant to dispose of matters with a minimum of legal formalities (see section 138(1) of the LRA). But the drafters of the LRA did not mean to insulate arbitration awards entirely from the watchful eye of the Labour Court. They therefore specifically provided for review of CCMA arbitrations awards in section 145, but they also gave general powers of review in section 158(1)(g) respectively of the LRA. As if the jurisdictional puzzle created by the LRA was not complex enough, the legislature added the Promotion of Justice Act 3 of 2000. It is an attempt to give expression to the constitutional right of fair labour practices and the constitutional standard of lawfulness and rationality. If section 145 limits the grounds on which commissioners’ actions can be reviewed, or if that section cannot be interpreted to reconcile it with the PAJA, it may well be that section 145 cannot pass constitutional muster - unless that section constitutes a limitation compliant with section 36 of the Constitution. That would be for the Constitutional court to decide.

In this study I analyzed the 1089 desegregation outcomes in federal district courts that occurred between 1994 and 2004 in order to identify a) the legal and non-legal factors in the litigation process that predict pro-desegregation outcomes and b) the judicial patterns that impact the future of desegregation policy. Twenty-one legal and non-legal variables were analyzed via logistic regression analysis to identify factors that predict pro-desegregation outcomes. Only three predictor variables were statistically significant: Government Litigants; Region 3 (West) and Region 4 (Northeast.) Descriptive analyses of the data identified two trends in the pattern of litigation: The percentage of defendant wins increased after 1991 at a lesser rate than has been previously reported. I conclude that based on the results of both the quantitative and qualitative analyses the federal district courts are not a barrier to desegregation and can still be a part of a comprehensive desegregation strategy.

Historically South African law has been dominated by Western law. Indigenous law and the jural postulates which underpin that law are insufficiently accommodated in the South African legal order. The Western component of the official legal system is regarded as institutionally and politically superior and is as such perceived to be the dominant system. In contrast indigenous law is regarded as a servient system. The monopolistic control of the legal order by the Western section of the population resulted in the creation of a legal order primarily suited to its own needs. The fact that few of the values of indigenous law are reflected in the official legal system and the fact that there is a measure of conflict and tension between the fundamental precepts of indigenous law and those of Western law, gave rise to a crisis of legitimacy of the official legal system in South Africa. This in turn lead to the emergence of unofficial alternative structures for the administration of justice. Indigenous law should receive full recognition and enjoy the same status as Western law. To accomplish this, legislative measures which entrench a distorted indigenous law, limit the application of indigenous law, or affect its status in the South African legal order, should be revoked. Even in a multicultural society such as that of South Africa, there is a common nucleus of core values that are shared by the whole society. But different cultures have different conceptions of these basic values and their role in legal, political and social ordering. The Bill of Rights should give due recognition to the postulates which underscore both Western and indigenous law. This should be done by providing that the values the Bill entrenches, must be interpreted in their proper cultural perspective where circumstances so demand. But this will be possible only if the level of knowledge of indigenous law and its fundamental precepts is drastically improved. / LL.D

The ICC, which came into force in 2002, was held up by human rights activists as a force that would transform a culture of impunity into a culture of accountability. However, after five years of activity, the evidence suggests that the Court's effect has been mixed. Its ability to achieve retributive justice, broader reconciliation and restorative justice, as well as to deter future offences and promote peace has been variable, at best. Despite the Court's claim that politics are not its job, political missteps and support are adversely affecting the work of a judicious Court. Using the cases of Uganda and Darfur, this paper argues that the most significant factors impacting the Court's ability to achieve the four aims outlined are its lack of enforcement capacity, lack of international political will, the result of geo-political interests and concerns over the norm of state sovereignty, and lack of attention to political context by the Court itself.

Historically South African law has been dominated by Western law. Indigenous law and the jural postulates which underpin that law are insufficiently accommodated in the South African legal order. The Western component of the official legal system is regarded as institutionally and politically superior and is as such perceived to be the dominant system. In contrast indigenous law is regarded as a servient system. The monopolistic control of the legal order by the Western section of the population resulted in the creation of a legal order primarily suited to its own needs. The fact that few of the values of indigenous law are reflected in the official legal system and the fact that there is a measure of conflict and tension between the fundamental precepts of indigenous law and those of Western law, gave rise to a crisis of legitimacy of the official legal system in South Africa. This in turn lead to the emergence of unofficial alternative structures for the administration of justice. Indigenous law should receive full recognition and enjoy the same status as Western law. To accomplish this, legislative measures which entrench a distorted indigenous law, limit the application of indigenous law, or affect its status in the South African legal order, should be revoked. Even in a multicultural society such as that of South Africa, there is a common nucleus of core values that are shared by the whole society. But different cultures have different conceptions of these basic values and their role in legal, political and social ordering. The Bill of Rights should give due recognition to the postulates which underscore both Western and indigenous law. This should be done by providing that the values the Bill entrenches, must be interpreted in their proper cultural perspective where circumstances so demand. But this will be possible only if the level of knowledge of indigenous law and its fundamental precepts is drastically improved. / LL.D

No description available.

No description available.

- Legal Status of an Arbitrator Main aim of this thesis is to describe the legal status of an arbitrator in international and national arbitration. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution which is nowadays very frequently used and which has been established in Czech Republic by Arbitration Act. Arbitrator is the most important person in arbitration because he leads the trial and makes binding and enforceable decisions. Thesis is divided into six parts which concern about alternative dispute resolutions, about arbitration generally, historical evolution of legal status of an arbitrator in Czech Republic, current legislation, legal status of an arbitrator and permanent arbitration courts and legal status of a financial arbitrator. The merit of this thesis is to grasp main problems which arise on the field of legal status of an arbitrator and describe the approach of courts and legal experts. Paper also contains comparison with the legal system of Slovakia, Germany and the United Kingdom and incorporates the latest amendments. of Arbitration Act.

The purpose of my thesis is to analyse one of the most used type of extrajudicial procedures, the International commercial arbitration. The reason for my research is the progress and elevation of use of the arbitration and not only on international field. The thesis is composed of six chapters, each of them dealing with different aspects of Arbitration. Chapter One is introductory and defines basic terminology used in the thesis. The chapter is subdivided into two parts. Part One describes international arbitration and domestic arbitration and explains differences between them. Part Two deals with the question of arbitrability in Czech Republic and in different countries. Chapter Two is subdivided into five parts and provides an outline of permanent court of arbitration. Part One illustrates the approach to Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic. Part Two looks at Court attached to International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Part Three describes International court attached to Vienna International Arbitration Centre. Part Four looks at Slovak arbitration court in Bratislava and the last part deals with the oldest arbitration court, The London Court of International Arbitration. Chapter Three examines relevant Czech and...

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited / In 1998, 120 members of the United Nations adopted a treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, designed to address issues such as war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The United States, in cooperation with its European allies, was instrumental in bringing this treaty about. In the end, however, it felt compelled to withdraw its signature, an unusual step signifying a high level of dissatisfaction with the structure and competency of the Court. This thesis argues that, while the United States maintains good relations with Europe, its abandonment of the ICC has constituted a major setback to Euro-American relations, and entailed a loss of face among the international community as a whole. Even as the United States has stood aloof from the Court, fearing that its soldiers and officials could face politically motivated trials, Europeans have continued their vigorous efforts to make the ICC a success. The United States and Europe are now on opposing sides on a major issue of international criminal justice. This has already caused tensions over internationally sanctioned peacekeeping troops, and has the potential to further disrupt the Euro-American partnership, above all in the military sphere. / Lieutenant, United States Navy