Judicial decisions play a crucial role in the development of international human rights law. This chapter discusses the absence of a formal rule of precedent, the principle of legal certainty, and the influence of international judicial decisions on the human rights framework. It examines how judicial decisions from international, regional, and domestic courts contribute to the development and interpretation of human rights norms. The chapter also discusses the challenges and limitations of relying on judicial decisions as a primary source of human rights law, including issues of consistency, coherence, and legitimacy. It highlights the importance of judicial decisions in shaping human rights law and the need for a balanced approach to ensure legal certainty and predictability.

This chapter looks at potential sources that can account for the provisions in the biblical law collections such as previous legal collections, practical legal documents (e.g., contracts), and fictional court cases. Some biblical laws may have originated as stand-alone fictional court cases, akin to the Mesopotamian legal-pedagogical genre of model cases.

This chapter provides an introduction to Swiss law in general by firstly addressing the Federal structure of Switzerland including the three different levels of government and the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the Swiss Confederation. This chapter then goes to describe the judicial system in Switzerland, focusing on the Federal and Cantonal courts and the manner in which Civil law disputes are dealt with in Switzerland. This chapter thereafter explores the sources of law in the Swiss legal system, namely statutory legal sources, case law and legal doctrine

Class action damages used to be boring. Essentially an accounting exercise, they came at the end of the case, after resolution of the more interesting issues of what the defendant did and whether it was liable for doing it. And because trial rarely happens, especially in consumer class actions where jury awards can be untethered to damages estimates and potentially astronomical, the damages reports quietly served by the dueling expert witnesses near the close of discovery served mainly as a benchmark for pretrial settlement discussions.

The Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) was one of the chief results of the Uruguay Round. Dispute settlement under the GATT had not been binding. Adoption of panel reports could be, and too often was, blocked by the losing party. All of the major trading members wanted dispute settlement to be binding, to have definitive results. They carefully constructed a complex system to remedy past defects. It had internal inconsistencies that only became apparent over time.

In the international law of the sea, human activities in the ocean are regulated according to multiple jurisdictional zones. Thus, the spatial distribution of jurisdiction of States is the foundation of the law of the sea. Where the jurisdiction of two or more coastal States overlaps, delimitation of the overlapping marine spaces is at issue. This chapter will deal with rules of international law with regard to maritime delimitation, focusing mainly on the following issues: (1) the cardinal principle applicable to maritime delimitations, (2) the three-stage approach and its limitations, (3) relevant circumstances in the law of maritime delimitation, (4) the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, and (5) the role of international courts and tribunals in the development of the law of maritime delimitations.

[2.1] Contemporary statutory interpretation law involves, broadly, consideration of the statutory text, taking account of its full context and having regard to its purpose. These three concepts have loosely existed in statutory interpretation law for centuries, providing the basis for determining the legislative intent of a statute to varying degrees. This chapter considers the relatively recent history of these key concepts, starting at the beginning of the 20th century. Having some basic knowledge and understanding of this recent history enhances understanding of contemporary concepts and provides historical context to the current law and older cases. Following federation in 1901, Australia continued to be bound, and influenced, by English law. The English approach to interpretation placed considerable emphasis on the grammatical meaning of text, with limited regard to context and purpose.

This chapter concludes the book by charting a path forward for law reform. Suggestions for reform of the significantly more burdensome legal framework in Australia, as opposed to England and Wales, are presented. Throughout this book is a plea for the law to support, rather than impede, trans young people’s gender expression and bodily autonomy.

This chapter focuses on the guiding case system, which is distinctive and cannot be simply explained by current case law theories. More specifically, it first explores the distinctiveness of the guiding case system in the specific context of China, as opposed to other types of case law in liberal democracies, then goes on to explain why the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has been able to expand its judicial lawmaking authority in the sense of being able to interpret the law through guiding cases. Furthermore, it illustrates that the Main Points of Adjudication (caipan yaodian), as a part of a guiding case, has essentially become a form of statutory interpretation that enables the SPC to independently perform a legislative function to a certain extent without routine surveillance by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC). This stands in contrast to the previous practice, where the SPC performed the legislative function merely through having it delegated by the NPCSC. It is further suggested that, under China’s authoritarian regime, the effectiveness of the SPC’s lawmaking function through the guiding case system depends largely on the extent to which the courts could be independent in the context of China.

This chapter investigates judicial precedents in China’s instrumentalist legal system and finds that judges are generally reluctant to refer to a judicial precedent, including a guiding case, in the process of making a judicial decision. It further reveals that the guiding case system has effectively crystallized a bureaucratic system of judicial precedents with guiding cases at the top of the pyramid. A bureaucratic system of this kind is grounded primarily in the political hierarchy of the courts and a nationwide typical-case-selection movement, in which the lower courts are politically responsible for submitting a certain number of typical cases selected from within their respective jurisdictions to the Supreme People’s Court every year. Finally, it attempts to develop a bureaucratic theory of judicial precedents centred on guiding cases that fits into China’s authoritarian context and that differs substantially from any other type of case law in a liberal context.