000			04303nam a2200229Ia 4500
999			_c35633 _d35633
003			OSt
005			20210705165921.0
008			160316s2010 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a9781841136615
040			_c.
082			_a347.010000 _bGER
100			_aGerangelos Peter
245			_aThe separation of powers and legislative interference in judicial process : Constitutional principles and limitations
250			_aRep
260			_aOxford _bHart Publishing _c2010
300			_a338p _cxvii
365			_b Gratis
505			_aContents, Acknowledgements; Table of Cases; Table of Legislation; 1 Introduction; I. The Relevant Scenarios; II. Definitional Difficulties; III. The Original Legal Entrenchment of the Doctrine and the Underlying Rationale; IV. The Possibility of General Principles and Interpretational Methodology; V. The Purposive Nature of The Separation of Powers Doctrine; VI. The Problem of Definition and the Formalist Approach; VII. Core Branch Functions?; 2 Legislative Interference in the Pending Case Scenario: The Foundation of Principle and the Australian Position; I. Introduction; II. The Australian Constitutional Position and the Early Australian Constitutional Scholars; III. Early Development of Principle by the High Court ; IV. The Foundation of a Discrete Set of Principles Governing the Pending Case Scenario:Liyanage; V. Consolidation of Principle Post-Liyanage; VI. The Direction Principle at the Crossroads: Nicholas v The Queen; VII. The Uncertain Status of the Direction Principle in Australia; 3 Legislative Interference with Judicial Functions: The Jurisprudence of the United States, Evaluation of Principle, and Towards Resolution; I. Introduction; II. The Emergence of the Changed Law Rule and the Direction Principle in the United States; III. Klein and Its Uncertain Meaning; lV. Hart's Thesis and the United States Foundation of the Direction Principle; V. The Decline of the Direction Principle: The Robertson case; VI. Robertson's Uncertain Legacy: Plaut v Spendthrift Farm Inc; VII. Klein Qualified, Overruled or Misinterpreted? Miller v French; VIII. The Schiavo Litigation; IX. Further Confirmation of the Direction Principle; X. General Conclusions on the Separation of Powers and the Pending Case Scenario; XI. Towards a Resolution; XII. A Reformulated Direction Principle; XIII. Speculative Propositions; XIV.Conclusion; 4 The Separation of Powers and Final Judgments: Defining the Principle Limiting Legislative Revision of Final Judgments; I. Introduction and Definition of Final Judgment; II. Reflections on Finality Where the Separation Doctrine is Not Entrenched; III. A Middle Case: India; IV. Early Australian Commentary on the Constitutional Protection of Final Judgments; V. The Current Australian Position; VI. Qualifications; VII. A Reinforcement of Australian Jurisprudence: The Irish Position on Final Judgments; VIII. The United States Supreme Court and Final Judgments; IX. The Wheeling Bridge Qualification; X. The Development and Consolidation of Principle by the United States Supreme Court; XI. The Inviolability Principle Tested: Miller v French; XII. Conclusion; 5 Qualifications to the Inviolability of Final Judgments and Final Summation; I. Introduction; II. The Wheeling Bridge Qualification, the Regulation of Public Rights and 'Conditional' Final Judgments; III. The Waiver Qualification; IV. Conclusions on the Final Case Scenario; 6 Protections Afforded Decisional Independence in Jurisdictions without an Entrenched Separation of Powers; I. Introduction; II. The United Kingdom and the Separation of Powers; III. The European Convention on Human Rights; IV. The United Kingdom, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998; V. Canons of Statutory Intepretation; 7.Conclusion; 7.Conclution;
650			_a1. Separation Of Powers - U K 2. Judicial Independence 3. Judicial Process
700			_a _a
942			_2ddc _cBK