Misplaced Pages

#20979

82-416: In some jurisdictions , a lawsuit is commenced by filing a summons , claim form or a complaint . These documents are known as pleadings , that set forth the alleged wrongs committed by the defendant or defendants with a demand for relief. In other jurisdictions, the action is commenced by service of legal process by delivery of these documents on the defendant by a process server; they are only filed with

164-602: A country is recognized as de jure , it is an acknowledgment by the other de jure nations that the country has sovereignty and the right to exist. However, it is often at the discretion of each nation whether to co-operate or participate. If a nation does agree to participate in activities of the supranational bodies and accept decisions, the nation is giving up its sovereign authority and thereby allocating power to these bodies. Insofar as these bodies or nominated individuals may resolve disputes through judicial or quasi-judicial means, or promote treaty obligations in

246-482: A claim right forbidding him from doing so. Likewise, if a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. For example, a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which those other people have

328-498: A claim right. So a person's liberty right of walking extends precisely to the point where another's claim right limits his or her freedom. In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights . However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called negative rights ; they permit or require doing nothing. For example, in some countries, e.g.

410-848: A crime, as well as cases of alleged child abuse or neglect; serious crimes committed by 16 or 17 year old persons may be referred to the District Courts. Seven judges in the Appeals Court hear most criminal appeals from District Courts, all appeals from juvenile court and all domestic/divorce cases from District Court, as well as some cases transferred to them by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court seats five judges who hear appeals on first-degree felonies (the most serious) including capital crimes, as well as all civil cases from District Court (excepting divorce/domestic cases). The Supreme Court also oversees cases involving interpretation of

492-547: A lower appellate court) has heard the matter. For example, in United States federal courts , the United States district courts have original jurisdiction over a number of different matters (as mentioned above), and the United States court of appeals have appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from the district courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in turn, has appellate jurisdiction (of a discretionary nature) over

574-414: A matter is brought before the courts in a way amounting to an abuse of process, a court recognising its jurisdiction is obliged to exercise it. But as Australia is a federal country, no court is vested with an unrestricted jurisdiction. Therefore, the rules of jurisdiction are used to determine the ambit of those restrictions upon the courts. This idea of restrictions on jurisdiction is well illustrated by

656-512: A member nation if that member nation asserts its sovereignty and withdraws from the union. The standard treaties and conventions leave the issue of implementation to each nation, i.e. there is no general rule in international law that treaties have direct effect in municipal law , but some nations, by virtue of their membership of supranational bodies, allow the direct incorporation of rights or enact legislation to honor their international commitments. Hence, citizens in those nations can invoke

738-419: A person. There is no hierarchy when it comes to any of the principles. States must therefore work together to solve issues of who may exercise their jurisdiction when it comes to issues of multiple principles being allowed. The principles are Territorial Principle, Nationality Principle, Passive Personality Principle, Protective Principle, Universality Principle Territorial principle : This principle states that

820-575: A prejudicial impact upon the State. It is especially used when it comes to matters of national security. Universality principle : This is the broadest of all the principles. The basis is that a State has the right, sometimes even the obligation, to exercise jurisdiction when it comes to the most serious violations of international criminal law; for example genocide , crimes against humanity , extrajudicial executions , war crimes , torture , and forced disappearances . This principle also goes further than

902-492: A regional level, groups of nations can create political and legal bodies with sometimes complicated patchworks of overlapping provisions detailing the jurisdictional relationships between the member states and providing for some degree of harmonization between their national legislative and judicial functions, for example, the European Union and African Union both have the potential to become federated nations although

SECTION 10

#1732779797021

984-641: A state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens. Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts , have discretionary jurisdiction , meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has

1066-431: Is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations. Rights ethics is an answer to the meta-ethical question of what normative ethics is concerned with (meta-ethics also includes a group of questions about how ethics comes to be known, true, etc. which is not directly addressed by rights ethics). Rights ethics holds that normative ethics

1148-488: Is concerned with rights. Alternative meta-ethical theories are that ethics is concerned with one of the following: Rights ethics has had considerable influence on political and social thinking. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives some concrete examples of widely accepted rights. Some philosophers have criticised some rights as ontologically dubious entities. The specific enumeration of rights has differed greatly in different periods of history. In many cases,

1230-404: Is conflicts between unions and their members. For example, individual members of a union may wish a wage higher than the union-negotiated wage, but are prevented from making further requests; in a so-called closed shop which has a union security agreement , only the union has a right to decide matters for the individual union members such as wage rates. So, do the supposed "individual rights" of

1312-517: Is created by the states’ constitutions and is further delineated by legislation passed by their respective parliaments. In the Constitution of Queensland 2001 (QLD), it is written at s58(1) that the Supreme Court of the state has all jurisdiction necessary for the administration of justice in Queensland . That is the extent of its jurisdiction. In New South Wales , the courts’ jurisdiction

1394-425: Is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction . In U.S. federal courts, courts must consider subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte and therefore recognize their own lack of jurisdiction even if neither party has raised

1476-515: Is not exclusive to the Australian federal court system, parties involved in international disputes will already be familiar with that concept. However, the threshold for intra-Australia transfer is notably lower than that pertaining to international transfer . The word "jurisdiction" is also used, especially in informal writing, to refer to a state or political subdivision generally, or to its government, rather than to its legal authority. In

1558-564: Is not mentioned in the constitution. Instead, the state’s legislature is empowered to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good governance of New South Wales. Amongst these laws, it is stated in section 23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) that the Supreme Court shall have all jurisdiction necessary for the administration of justice in NSW. In Victoria , that same power is conferred by section 85(1) of its constitution. In summary,

1640-592: Is similar to the Nationality Principle, except you are exercising jurisdiction against a foreign national that has committed a criminal act against its own national. The idea is that a State has a duty to protect its nationals and therefore if someone harms their nationals that State has the right to prosecute the accused. Protective principle : This principle allows States to exercise jurisdiction when it comes to foreign nationals for acts committed outside their territory that have or are intended to have

1722-455: Is the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties , statements, attitudes, and judgments. Meta-ethics is one of the three branches of ethics generally recognized by philosophers , the others being normative ethics and applied ethics . While normative ethics addresses such questions as "What should one do?", thus endorsing some ethical evaluations and rejecting others, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What

SECTION 20

#1732779797021

1804-493: Is used as a general term for the party taking action in a civil case. The word plaintiff can be traced to the year 1278, and stems from the Anglo-French word pleintif meaning "complaining". It was identical to " plaintive " at first and receded into legal usage with the -iff spelling in the 15th century. A plaintiff identified by name in a class action is called a named plaintiff . In most common-law jurisdictions,

1886-468: Is used by the economists to justify individual rights . Similarly, the author Ayn Rand argued that only individuals have rights, according to her philosophy known as Objectivism . However, others have argued that there are situations in which a group of persons is thought to have rights, or group rights . Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or family resemblance than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include

1968-525: Is useful to determine what questions a court may answer in examining a matter before it. Original jurisdiction permits courts to answer all questions of law and fact when a matter is brought before them for the first time (for practical reasons, courts hearing appeals from administrative bodies will also exercise original jurisdiction, this does not subvert the rule). Appellate jurisdiction is corrective in nature. There, courts examine how lower previous decision-makers answered questions of law, whether an error

2050-501: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws , and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived". Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses throughout history. For example, Jeremy Bentham believed that legal rights were

2132-615: The European Union member states except Denmark accepted Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 , which makes major changes to the Brussels Convention and is directly effective in the member nations. Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 now also applies as between the rest of the EU Member States and Denmark due to an agreement reached between the European Community and Denmark. In some legal areas, at least,

2214-456: The Necessary and Proper Clause in areas beyond those specifically conferred on Congress ( Missouri v. Holland , 252 U.S. 416 (1920)). This concerns the relationships both between courts in different jurisdictions , and between courts within the same jurisdiction. The usual legal doctrine under which questions of jurisdiction are decided is termed forum non conveniens . To deal with

2296-692: The United States , citizens have the positive right to vote and they have the negative right to not vote; people can choose not to vote in a given election without punishment. In other countries, e.g. Australia , however, citizens have a positive right to vote but they do not have a negative right to not vote, since voting is compulsory . Accordingly: Though similarly named, positive and negative rights should not be confused with active rights (which encompass "privileges" and "powers") and passive rights (which encompass "claims" and "immunities"). There can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash

2378-404: The United States —such subunits will exercise jurisdiction through the court systems as defined by the executives and legislatures. When the jurisdictions of government entities overlap one another—for example between a state and the federation to which it belongs—their jurisdiction is a shared or concurrent jurisdiction. Otherwise, one government entity will have exclusive jurisdiction over

2460-550: The World Trade Organization (WTO) that have socially and economically significant dispute resolution functions but, again, even though their jurisdiction may be invoked to hear the cases, the power to enforce their decisions is at the will of the nations affected, save that the WTO is permitted to allow retaliatory action by successful nations against those nations found to be in breach of international trade law . At

2542-769: The federal government and a state, actions by a state against the citizens of another state or foreign country. As a practical example of court jurisdiction, as of 2013 Utah has five types of courts, each for different legal matters and different physical territories. One-hundred-and-eight judges oversee Justice Courts, which handle traffic and parking citations, misdemeanor crimes, and most small claims cases. Seventy-one judges preside over District Courts, which deal with civil cases exceeding small claims limits, probate law, felony criminal cases, divorce and child custody cases, some small claims, and appeals from Justice Courts. Twenty-eight judges handle Juvenile Court, which oversees most people under 18 years old who are accused of

Plaintiff - Misplaced Pages Continue

2624-782: The member nations of the EEC signed the Brussels Convention in 1968 and, subject to amendments as new nations joined, it represents the default law for all twenty-seven Member States of what is now termed the European Union on the relationships between the courts in the different countries. In addition, the Lugano Convention (1988) binds the European Union and the European Free Trade Association . In effect from 1 March 2002, all

2706-579: The stannary courts that dealt with disputes involving the tin miners of Cornwall . The original royal charters of the American colonies included broad grants of franchise jurisdiction along with other governmental powers to corporations or individuals, as did the charters for many other colonial companies such as the British East India Company and British South Africa Company . Analogous jurisdiction existed in medieval times on

2788-579: The Courts of Appeals, as well as the state supreme courts, by means of writ of certiorari . However, in a special class of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to exercise original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C.   § 1251 , the Supreme court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states, and original (but non-exclusive) jurisdiction over cases involving officials of foreign states, controversies between

2870-733: The District Court in Provo, Utah . If both the minor traffic offense and the felony arrests resulted in guilty verdicts, the traffic conviction could be appealed to the District Court in Provo, while the second-degree felony appeal would be heard by the Appeals Court in Salt Lake City and the first-degree felony appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Similarly for civil matters, a small claims case arising in Orem would probably be heard in

2952-786: The European Continent. Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, franchise jurisdictions were largely eliminated. Several formerly important franchise courts were not officially abolished until Courts Act of 1971 . Right Rights are legal , social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement ; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention , or ethical theory. Rights are an important concept in law and ethics , especially theories of justice and deontology . The history of social conflicts has often involved attempts to define and redefine rights. According to

3034-621: The ICJ only nations may be parties in cases before the Court and, under Article 36, the jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. But, to invoke the jurisdiction in any given case, all the parties have to accept the prospective judgment as binding. This reduces

3116-820: The Orem Justice Court, while a divorce filed by an Orem resident would be heard by the District Court in Provo. The above examples apply only to cases of Utah state law; any case under Federal jurisdiction would be handled by a different court system. All Federal cases arising in Utah are under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Utah , headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah , and would be heard in one of three Federal courthouses. In Australia, unless

3198-518: The State of , followed by the name of the state, or People for short. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction (from Latin juris 'law' + dictio 'speech' or 'declaration') is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice . In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels (e.g., local, state , and federal). Jurisdiction draws its substance from international law , conflict of laws , constitutional law , and

3280-582: The State where the crime has been committed may exercise jurisdiction. This is one of the most straightforward and least controversial of the principles. This is also the only principle that is territorial in nature; all other forms are extraterritorial. Nationality principle (also known as the Active Personality Principle): This principle is based around a person's nationality and allows States to exercise jurisdiction when it comes to their nationality, both within and outside

3362-712: The State's territory. Seeing as the territoriality principle already gives the State the right to exercise jurisdiction, this principle is primarily used as a justification for prosecuting crimes committed abroad by a States nationals. There is a growing trend to allow States to also apply this principle to permanent residents abroad as well (for example: Denmark Criminal Code (2005), sec 7; Finland Criminal Code (2015), sec 6; Iceland Criminal Code (2014), art 5; Latvia Criminal Code (2013), sec 4; Netherlands Criminal Code (2019), art 7; Norway Criminal Code (2005), sec 12; Swedish Criminal Code (1999), sec 2; Lithuania Criminal Code (2015), art 5). Passive Personality Principle : This principle

Plaintiff - Misplaced Pages Continue

3444-546: The U.S. are a prime example of jurisdictional dilemmas caused by different states under a federal alignment. When parents and children are in different states, there is the possibility of different state court orders over-ruling each other. The U.S. solved this problem by adopting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act . The act established criteria for determining which state has primary jurisdiction, which allows courts to defer

3526-598: The United States and customary international law to be a part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" (along with the Constitution itself and acts of Congress passed pursuant to it) (U.S. Const.art. VI Cl. 2) As such, the law of the land is binding on the federal government as well as on state and local governments. According to the Supreme Court of the United States , the treaty power authorizes Congress to legislate under

3608-404: The above rights, and the discussion about which behaviors are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of importance. The concept of rights varies with political orientation. Positive rights such as a "right to medical care" are emphasized more often by left-leaning thinkers, while right-leaning thinkers place more emphasis on negative rights such as the "right to a fair trial". Further,

3690-575: The benefit of maintaining legal entities with jurisdiction over a wide range of matters of significance to nations (the ICJ should not be confused with the ICC and this version of "universal jurisdiction" is not the same as that enacted in the War Crimes Law (Belgium) , which is an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction that will fail to gain implementation in any other state under the standard provisions of public policy ). Under Article 34 Statute of

3772-457: The case formally in the name of the monarch, state or government. In many Commonwealth realms, this is the king (or queen, when the monarch is female), named the Crown, abbreviated R , thus R v Defendant (orally, R against (versus) Defendant ). In several U.S. states, including California , Illinois , Michigan , and New York , the prosecution of a criminal case is captioned as The People of

3854-460: The court subsequently with an affidavit from the process server that they had been given to the defendant according to the rules of civil procedure . In most English-speaking jurisdictions, including Hong Kong , Nigeria , Australia (except in federal jurisdiction), Canada and the United States , as well as in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland , the legal term "plaintiff"

3936-541: The courts, file a complaint (thus establishing a real court case under judicial supervision) and become a plaintiff. In England and Wales , the term "claimant" replaced "plaintiff" after the Civil Procedure Rules came into force on 26 April 1999. The move, which brings England and Wales out of line with general usage in English-speaking jurisdictions, was reportedly based on an assessment that

4018-620: The difference in competence between federal and state courts. Federal courts are the High Court of Australia , the Federal Court of Australia , the Family Court of Australia , and other subsidiaries. Federal courts exercise federal jurisdiction - the judicial powers granted to the federal government by the constitution of Australia. The extent of that jurisdiction is outlined in both the Constitution and legislation enacted by

4100-493: The difficult question of how to co-ordinate their activities with those of national courts. If the two sets of bodies do not have concurrent jurisdiction but, as in the case of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the relationship is expressly based on the principle of complementarity , i.e., the international court is subsidiary or complementary to national courts, the difficulty is avoided. But if

4182-400: The discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject matter jurisdiction. It is also necessary to distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction . A court of original jurisdiction has the power to hear cases as they are first initiated by a plaintiff , while a court of appellate jurisdiction may only hear an action after the court of original jurisdiction (or

SECTION 50

#1732779797021

4264-561: The distinction between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights , between which the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often divided. Another conception of rights groups them into three generations . These distinctions have much overlap with that between negative and positive rights , as well as between individual rights and group rights , but these groupings are not entirely coextensive. Rights are often included in

4346-415: The essence of rights, and he denied the existence of natural rights, whereas Thomas Aquinas held that rights purported by positive law but not grounded in natural law were not properly rights at all, but only a facade or pretense of rights. Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has

4428-609: The federal parliament. For example, section 73(ii) of the Constitution empowers the High Court to hear appeals from the supreme court of any state, and from other courts exercising federal jurisdiction. Likewise, section 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) empowers the Federal Court of Australia to hear any matter arising under laws enacted by the federal parliament. Similarly, the jurisdiction of state courts

4510-645: The foundational questions that governments and politics have been designed to deal with. Often the development of these socio-political institutions have formed a dialectical relationship with rights. Rights about particular issues, or the rights of particular groups, are often areas of special concern. Often these concerns arise when rights come into conflict with other legal or moral issues, sometimes even other rights. Issues of concern have historically included Indigenous rights , labor rights , LGBT rights , reproductive rights , disability rights , patient rights and prisoners' rights . With increasing monitoring and

4592-412: The hearing of a case if an appropriate administrative agency determines so. The primary distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are codified at the federal level. In the United States' common law system, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and personal jurisdiction over the parties to the case. A court whose subject matter jurisdiction

4674-499: The history of English common law, a jurisdiction could be held as a form of property (or more precisely an incorporeal hereditament ) called a franchise . Traditional franchise jurisdictions of various powers were held by municipal corporations , religious houses , guilds , early universities , the Welsh Marches , and counties palatine . Types of franchise courts included courts baron , courts leet , merchant courts , and

4756-399: The information society, information rights , such as the right to privacy are becoming more important. Some examples of groups whose rights are of particular concern include animals , and amongst humans , groups such as children and youth , parents (both mothers and fathers ), and men and women . Accordingly, politics plays an important role in developing or recognizing

4838-447: The interests of justice, the second court is a more appropriate place to litigate. In assessing the interests of justice in any particular matter, the court will have regard to the interests of the parties. The mere existence of criteria to transfer matters over to different courts nonetheless means that parties have an interest in commencing proceedings in the most convenient jurisdiction to them. The advantage conferred onto first movers

4920-467: The issue of forum shopping , nations are urged to adopt more positive rules on conflict of laws. The Hague Conference and other international bodies have made recommendations on jurisdictional matters, but litigants with the encouragement of lawyers on a contingent fee continue to shop for forums. Under international law there are different principles that are recognized to establish a state's ability to exercise criminal jurisdiction when it comes to

5002-575: The jurisdiction claimed is concurrent or, as in the case of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the international tribunal is to prevail over national courts, the problems are more difficult to resolve politically. The idea of universal jurisdiction is fundamental to the operation of global organizations such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which jointly assert

SECTION 60

#1732779797021

5084-546: The jurisdiction of local courts to enforce rights granted under international law wherever there is incorporation. If there is no direct effect or legislation, there are two theories to justify the courts incorporating international into municipal law: In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes all treaties that have been ratified under the authority of

5166-414: The jurisdiction of the courts of each state extends (at a basic level) to matters occurring within their state. Meanwhile, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia is over matters arising under federal law. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to hear appeals from states’ Supreme Courts, the Federal Court, and over matters prescribed in the Constitution of Australia. That approach to jurisdiction

5248-654: The matter. A court whose subject matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction . In the U.S. states , each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government ) are all courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction . The United States district courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between

5330-487: The nature of laws, the power ceded to these bodies cumulatively represents its own jurisdiction. But no matter how powerful each body may appear to be, the extent to which any of their judgments may be enforced, or proposed treaties and conventions may become, or remain, effective within the territorial boundaries of each nation is a political matter under the sovereign control each nation. The fact that international organizations, courts and tribunals have been created raises

5412-415: The other principles as there is attached to it the obligation to either prosecute the accused or extradite them to a State that will, known as aut dedere aut judicare . At a supranational level, countries have adopted a range of treaty and convention obligations to relate the right of individual litigants to invoke the jurisdiction of national courts and to enforce the judgments obtained. For example,

5494-470: The plaintiff first, as in Plaintiff v. Defendant (orally, Plaintiff and Defendant ). The party against whom the complaint is made is the defendant ; or, in the case of a petition, a respondent. Subsequent references to a case may use only one of the names, typically that of the first nongovernmental party. Criminal cases are usually brought by the prosecution, not a plaintiff. The prosecution may bring

5576-571: The political barriers to such unification in the face of entrenched nationalism will be very difficult to overcome. Each such group may form transnational institutions with declared legislative or judicial powers. For example, in Europe, the European Court of Justice has been given jurisdiction as the ultimate appellate court to the member states on issues of European law. This jurisdiction is entrenched, and its authority could only be denied by

5658-428: The power imbalance of employer-employee relationships in capitalism as a cause of inequality and often see unequal outcomes as a hindrance to equality of opportunity. They tend to identify equality of outcome as a sign of equality and therefore think that people have a right to portions of necessities such as health care or economic assistance or housing that align with their needs. In philosophy , meta-ethics

5740-644: The powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of society . Generally, international laws and treaties provide agreements which nations agree to be bound to. Such agreements are not always established or maintained. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is exercised through three principles outlined in the UN charter . These are equality of states, territorial sovereignty and non-intervention. This raises questions of when can many states prescribe or enforce jurisdiction. The Lotus case establishes two key rules to

5822-563: The prescription and enforcement of jurisdiction. The case outlines that jurisdiction is territorial and that a state may not exercise its jurisdiction in the territory of another state unless there is a rule that permits this. On that same note, states enjoy a wide measure of discretion to prescribe jurisdiction over persons, property and acts within their own territory unless there was a rule that prohibits this. Supranational organizations provide mechanisms whereby disputes between nations may be resolved through arbitration or mediation . When

5904-533: The reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments is now more straightforward. At a national level, the traditional rules still determine jurisdiction over persons who are not domiciled or habitually resident in the European Union or the Lugano area. Many nations are subdivided into states or provinces (i.e. a subnational "state" ). In a federation —as can be found in Australia , Brazil , India , Mexico , and

5986-430: The right of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a right of the son to receive something in return for that respect; and the divine right of kings , which permitted absolute power over subjects, did not leave much possibility for many rights for the subjects themselves. In contrast, modern conceptions of rights have often emphasized liberty and equality as among the most important aspects of rights, as

6068-469: The risk of wasting the Court's time. Despite the safeguards built into the constitutions of most of these organizations, courts and tribunals, the concept of universal jurisdiction is controversial among those nations which prefer unilateral to multilateral solutions through the use of executive or military authority, sometimes described as realpolitik -based diplomacy. Within other international contexts, there are intergovernmental organizations such as

6150-443: The shared area. When jurisdiction is concurrent, one government entity may have supreme jurisdiction over the other entity if their laws conflict. If the executive or legislative powers within the jurisdiction are not restricted, or have only limited restrictions, these government branches have plenary power such as a national policing power . Otherwise, an enabling act grants only limited or enumerated powers. Child custody cases in

6232-457: The state Constitution, election matters, judicial conduct, and alleged misconduct by lawyers. This example shows how matters arising in the same physical territory might be seen in different courts. A minor traffic infraction originating in Orem, Utah is handled by the Orem Justice Court. However, a second-degree felony arrest and a first-degree felony arrest in Orem would be under the jurisdiction of

6314-492: The system of rights promulgated by one group has come into sharp and bitter conflict with that of other groups. In the political sphere, a place in which rights have historically been an important issue, constitutional provisions of various states sometimes address the question of who has what legal rights. Historically, many notions of rights were authoritarian and hierarchical , with different people granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance,

6396-440: The term equality which is often bound up with the meaning of "rights" often depends on one's political orientation. Conservatives and right-wing libertarians and advocates of free markets often identify equality with equality of opportunity , and want what they perceive as equal and fair rules in the process of making things, while agreeing that sometimes these fair rules lead to unequal outcomes. In contrast, socialists see

6478-530: The term "claimant" used in England and Wales since 1999 (see below) is used only in specific, often non-judicial contexts. In particular, in American usage, terms such as "claimant" and "claim form" are limited to extrajudicial process in insurance and administrative law . After exhausting remedies available through an insurer or government agency , an American claimant in need of further relief would turn to

6560-519: The word "claimant" is more acceptable as " plain English " than the word "plaintiff". In Scottish law a plaintiff is referred to as a " pursuer " and a defendant as a "defender". The similar term "complainant" denotes the complaining witness in a criminal proceeding. In the Federal Court of Australia , most plaintiffs are called "applicants", but in admiralty and corporations law matters they are called "plaintiffs". Case names are usually given with

6642-414: The workers prevail about the proper wage? Or do the "group rights" of the union regarding the proper wage prevail? The Austrian School of Economics holds that only individuals think, feel, and act whether or not members of any abstract group. The society should thus according to economists of the school be analyzed starting from the individual. This methodology is called methodological individualism and

6724-458: Was made in that process, as well as whether and how that error ought to be rectified. Their job is to correct errors made in answering the said questions - essentially, to correct errors of law. The jurisdiction of Supreme Courts of states and territories may be vested in each other in special circumstances, the federal jurisdiction may also be vested in them. Technicalities aside, the scheme compels courts to transfer matters to another court if, in

#20979