THE SEPRATION OF POWERS AND LEGISATIVE INTERFERENCE IN JUDICIAL PROCESSpdf电子书版本下载

点此进入-本书在线PDF格式电子书下载【推荐-云解压-方便快捷】直接下载PDF格式图书。移动端-PC端通用
种子下载[BT下载速度快] 温馨提示：（请使用BT下载软件FDM进行下载）软件下载地址页 直链下载[便捷但速度慢]   [在线试读本书]   [在线获取解压码]

THE SEPRATION OF POWERS AND LEGISATIVE INTERFERENCE IN JUDICIAL PROCESSPDF格式电子书版下载

下载的文件为RAR压缩包。需要使用解压软件进行解压得到PDF格式图书。

建议使用BT下载工具Free Download Manager进行下载,简称FDM(免费,没有广告,支持多平台）。本站资源全部打包为BT种子。所以需要使用专业的BT下载软件进行下载。如 BitComet qBittorrent uTorrent等BT下载工具。迅雷目前由于本站不是热门资源。不推荐使用！后期资源热门了。安装了迅雷也可以迅雷进行下载！

（文件页数 要大于 标注页数，上中下等多册电子书除外）

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

1 Introduction 1

Ⅰ.The Relevant Scenarios 3

Ⅱ.Definitional Difficulties 7

Ⅲ.The Original Legal Entrenchment of the Doctrine and the Underlying Rationale 10

Ⅳ. The Possibility of General Principles and Interpretational Methodology 14

Ⅴ. The Purposive Nature of The Separation of Powers Doctrine 29

Ⅵ.The Problem of Definition and the Formalist Approach 37

Ⅶ.Core Branch Functions? 40

2 Legislative Interference in the Pending Case Scenario: The Foundation of Principle and the Australian Position 57

Ⅰ.Introduction 57

Ⅱ.The Australian Constitutional Position and the Early Australian Constitutional Scholars 57

Ⅲ.Early Development of Principle by the High Court 65

Ⅳ The Foundation of a Discrete Set of Principles Governing the Pending Case Scenario: Liyanage v R 67

Ⅴ. Consolidation of Principle Post-Liyanage 74

Ⅵ.The Direction Rule at the Crossroads: Nicholas v The Queen 90

Ⅶ.The Uncertain Status of the Direction Principle in Australia 113

3 Legislative Interference with Judicial Functions: The Jurisprudence of the United States, Evaluation of Principle, and Towards Resolution 117

Ⅰ.Introduction 117

Ⅱ.The Emergence of the Changed Law Rule and the Direction Principle in the United States 121

Ⅲ.Klein and Its Uncertain Meaning 124

Ⅳ. Hart’s Thesis and the United States Foundation of the Direction Principle 131

Ⅴ. The Decline of the Direction Rule: The Robertson Case 135

Ⅵ.Robertson’s Uncertain Legacy: Plaut v Spendthrift Farm Inc 145

Ⅶ.Klein Qualified, Overruled or Misinterpreted? Miller v French 152

Ⅷ.The Schiavo Litigation 162

Ⅸ.Further Confirmation of the Direction Principle 168

Ⅹ.General Conclusions on the Separation of Powers and the Pending Case Scenario 170

ⅩⅠ.Towards a Resolution 174

ⅩⅡ.A Reformulated Direction Principle 177

ⅩⅢ.Speculative Propositions 180

ⅩⅣ Conclusion 186

4 The Separation of Powers and Final Judgments: Defining the Principle Limiting Legislative Revision of Final Judgments 191

Ⅰ.Introduction and Definition of Final Judgment 191

Ⅱ.Reflections on Finality Where the Separation Doctrine is Not Entrenched 195

Ⅲ.A Middle Case: India 202

Ⅳ.Early Australian Commentary on the Constitutional Protection of Final Judgments 206

Ⅴ. The Current Australian Position 210

Ⅵ.Qualifications 212

Ⅶ.A Reinforcement of Australian Jurisprudence: The Irish Position on Final Judgments 215

Ⅷ.The United States Supreme Court and Final Judgments 217

Ⅸ.The Wheeling Bridge Qualification 222

Ⅹ.The Development and Consolidation of Principle by the United States Supreme Court 224

ⅩⅠ.The Inviolability Principle Tested: Miller v French 236

ⅩⅡ.Conclusion 245

5 Qualifications to the Inviolability of Final Judgments and Final Summation 247

Ⅰ.Introduction 247

Ⅱ.The Wheeling Bridge Qualification, the Regulation of Public Rights and ‘Conditional’ Final Judgments 249

Ⅲ.The Waiver Qualification 251

Ⅳ.Conclusions on the Final Case Scenario 267

6 Protections Afforded Decisional Independence in Jurisdictions without an Entrenched Separation of Powers 271

Ⅰ.Introduction 271

Ⅱ.The United Kingdom and the Separation of Powers 272

Ⅲ.The European Convention on Human Rights 288

Ⅳ.The United Kingdom, the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. 302

Ⅴ. Canons of Statutory Intepretation 306

7 Conclusion 311

Index 321