Global ETD Search

21	La protection de l’ordre juridique sous-régional par les Cours de justice : contribution à l’étude de la fonction judiciaire dans les organisations ouest-africaines d’intégration / Protection the sub regional legal environment by the Courts : contribution to the judicial function study in the West African integration organizations. Sow, Idrissa 18 September 2013 (has links) Aux lendemains des indépendances, les Etats de l’Afrique de l’Ouest ont constitués entre eux des organisations d’intégration économique dans le but de favoriser leur développement économique et social.Ces organisations conçues pour la plupart à partir du modèle Européen dispose d’une personnalité juridique autonome et d’un corps de règles propres ayant vocation à s’insérer de façon uniforme dans l’ordre juridique interne des différents Etats membres. Le fonctionnement harmonieux de ce système suppose l’existence d’un organe indépendant chargé, entre autres, de veiller à l’équilibre général du dispositif et d’assurer une interprétation uniforme des normes communautaires.Dans le cadre de l’UEMOA comme de La CEDEAO, cette fonction de protection est exercée par des organes juridictionnels intégrés dont la mission principale consiste à veiller au respect du droit dans l’interprétation et dans l’application des Traités constitutifs.L’objectif visé, à travers cette contribution, est de faire observer que le dispositif de protection mis en place fonctionne, d’une part, par les mécanismes de coopération institués entre les cours de justice et les autres composantes du système communautaire et d’autre part par le contrôle juridictionnel exercé sur les organes communautaires et les Etats membres. / After being freed from colonization, the West African States have set up commonly economic integration organizations to promote their economic and social development.The creation of the majority of those organizations is based on the European example and they have an independent legal personality and a body with specific rules in charge of integrating uniformly the internal legal environment of the different Member States.The harmonious functioning of the system requires, among others, the existence of an independent structure designed to take control of the general balance organization and achieve a uniform interpretation of the Community norms. Within the framework of the WAEMU as well as in the ECOWAS, this protective function is delegated to integrated judicial bodies whose main mission consists in making sure that a submission to the law related to the interpretation and compliance with Treaties is effective.The goal of such a contribution is to point out that the settled protection device is functioning, on the one hand, by the cooperation mechanisms introduced by justice courts and the other components of the Community system and, on the other hand, by the judicial control over the community structures and the Member States. Justice de l’intégration Ordre juridique communautaire Renvoi préjudiciel Avis consultatif Légalité communautaire Responsabilité communautaire Recours en manquement Justice of integration Community legal order Prejudicial return Opinion advisory Community lawfulness Action for human rights violation 340
22	Characteristics of Contemporary Gag Order Requests in Media Law Reporter Volumes 19 Through 33 Clark, Brad Leavitt 11 July 2009 (has links) (PDF) The conflict between the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment is not new nor is it easily decipherable. Both amendments appear to have absolute priority, yet they appear to conflict (Erickson, 1977). The First Amendment declares unequivocally, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press[,]" while the Sixth Amendment states with equal force, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." (U.S. Constitution, Amendment I, Amendment VI). Free speech and an unrestricted press can lead to a partial jury, but a jury unbiased by the media may mean restricted speech. In the judicial system the debate about how to balance these two competing constitutional rights has raged for decades, but one critical area—the nature and characteristics of requests for judicial "gag" orders—has been largely ignored. This thesis analyzed 103 cases from the Media Law Reporter volumes 19 through 33 (approximately 1991-2005) where gag orders were requested because of pretrial publicity. Those 103 cases were evaluated for the type of case, the reason for the case, when the gag order was requested, who requested the gag order, why they requested the gag order, who opposed the gag order, why they opposed the gag order, and why the gag order was granted or denied. It was found that although the issue of gag orders and their use in trials is not settled there is a general pattern to how they tend to be used. This study found that gag orders are most commonly used by judges in serious criminal trials, particularly at the federal level. Further, these cases usually involved juries, and the targets of the gag order were the parties involved in the trial, not the press. law legal mlr media law reporter media news first amendment sixth amendment first sixth amendment gag order prior restraint free speech sheppard prejudicial biased jury judicial system constitution amendment I amendment VI constitutional press case cases publicity judge judicial criminal trial jury juries lawyer Communication

Search results

Characteristics of Contemporary Gag Order Requests in Media Law Reporter Volumes 19 Through 33