Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Of constitutional models, 'personal' and 'public' law litigation, equity and "English law" efficacy

Supreme Court bars Triple Talaq for six months. Here's a 11-point primer is a fascinating example in retrospection.

The opinion of the court to which the article links is 395pp. It's actually, literally a compendium of related law, quoted at length, to demonstrate the tribunal's reasoning and it's purpose, which is to conform socially acceptable rules of conduct from diverse "custom and usage".

I'm at p298. Thank you, Prof. Lal.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 at 01:45:42 PM EST
This paragraph exemplifies the "plain language" exposition and citations in the court's reasoning. It features issues in dispute and juridical classifications (indicated above).

180. Muslims are followers of Islam. Muslims consider the Quran their holy book. For their personal relations, they follow the Muslim `personal law' - `Shariat'. The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, as already  noticed  above provided, "the rule of decision" in matters pertaining, inter alia, to marriage, dissolution of mar riage including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat would be the Mus lim `personal law' - `Shariat', and not, any custom or usage to the contrary. It is therefore, that by a statutory  intervention, customs and usages in conflict with Muslim `personal law', were  done away with, in connection with  `personal  law' matters, in relation to Muslims. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 provided, grounds for dissolution of marriage to Muslim women, under Section 2 of the above enactment. Details with reference to 1937 and 1939  legislations, have already been narrated, in Part IV  -  Legislation in India, in the field of Muslim `personal law'. Refe rence may, therefore, be made to Part IV above.


Think about this marvel of "transparency", when next you gird your intellect to translate another Anglo-merican "position paper" (opinion) ...

aaaand that may be as early as this evening or tomorrow after the UK gov't releases version No. 3 of UK outlines plans to break free of European Court jurisdiction after Brexit

by accepting third-country status on "the withdrawal date", 29 March 2019. Thereafter, the EU has asserted, ECJ enforcement will apply only to disputes entered in and contracts concluded by EU28 "persons," when the UK enjoyed membership in the EU.

< wipes tears >

After 29 March 2017, UK and EU may negotiate a NEW! governing treaty.

EU Position Papers

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 at 04:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Categorized "Future partnership papers" at UK.gov | Article 50 and negotiations with the EU

Enforcement and dispute resolution (pdf)

so TTIP arbitration by any other name ... wait for it...

In leaving the European Union, we will bring about an end to the direct [!] jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
There  are a number of existing precedents where the  EU has reached agreements with third countries which provide for a close cooperative relationship without the CJEU having direct jurisdiction over those countries.
The UK views enforcement and dispute resolution as two  distinct issues, and it is not  necessary, or indeed common, for one body to carry out both functions in this way.
For example, many  EU free trade agreements with  third countries include provisions on resolving disputes through a binding arbitration model in addition to mechanisms for political agreement.


For example, the EEA Agreement provides for the creation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority. The Surveillance Authority is responsible for ensuring fulfillment of obligations under the EEA agreement by the EFTA States.

Say wut?
The ability of the European Commission and the CJEU within the EU legal system to impose sanctions, such as fines for non-compliance with EU rules, is exceptional.
There is no precedent [!], and indeed no imperative driven by EU, UK or international law, which demands that enforcement or dispute resolution of future UK-EU agreements falls under the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU.

< wipes tears >

o, I do believe, US District Courts beg to differ along with the Republic of Argentina and a host of USAID beneficiaries: indirect jurisdiction works!

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Aug 23rd, 2017 at 05:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series