Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Overlapping consensus is a term coined by John Rawls [1] in A Theory of Justice and developed in Political Liberalism.The term overlapping consensus refers to how supporters of different comprehensive normative doctrines—that entail apparently inconsistent conceptions of justice—can agree on particular principles of justice that underwrite a political community's basic social institutions.
The various overlapping governmental laws led to legal pluralism in which jurisdiction often was left up to the great powers to institute and organize their own legal structures to represent their citizens abroad.
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).
In United States law, jurisdiction-stripping (also called court-stripping or curtailment-of-jurisdiction) is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and to exclude or remove federal cases from state courts.
Pith and substance [1] is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government (be it provincial or federal) has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.
Conflict of laws (also called private international law) is the set of rules or laws a jurisdiction applies to a case, transaction, or other occurrence that has connections to more than one jurisdiction. [1]
[3] Those elements demonstrate a significant overlap between the avoidance doctrine and other jurisdictional or justiciability barriers. The avoidance doctrine reflects such other justiciability doctrines as standing and ripeness, and permeates jurisdictional doctrines like Pullman abstention and the adequate and independent state ground doctrine.
The outcome of this process is potentially to require the courts of one jurisdiction to apply the law of a different jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from, say, family law, tort, or contract. The law which is applied is sometimes referred to as the "proper law." Dépeçage is an issue within choice of law.