Perbezaan antara semakan "Duluan kehakiman"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
50 bait ditambah ,  14 tahun lalu
 
==''Stare decisis'' dalam sistem perundangan sivil==
''Stare decisis'' tidak lazim digunakan dalam [[undang-undang sivil (sistem perundangan)|sistem perundangan sivil]] kerana ia melanggar prinsip yang hanya legislatif boleh membuat undang-undang. Dalam teori, mahkamah rendah tidak terikat dengan duluan yang ditetapkan mahkamah tinggi. Walau bagaimanapun dalam realiti keperluan untuk kesinambungan dalam undang-undang memerlukan pengaplikasian duluan oleh mahkamah-mahkamah rendah dan dalam bidang kuasa undang-undang sivil mahkamah tingginya sebagai contoh ''[[Mahkamah Cassation (Perancis)|Cour de cassation]]'' dan ''[[Conseil d'État]]'' di Perancis diiktiraf sebagai badan-badan kuasi-legislatif.
{{terjemahan}}
''Stare decisis'' is not usually a doctrine used in [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems, because it violates the principle that only the legislature may make law. In theory therefore, lower courts are generally not bound to precedents established by higher courts. In practice, the need to have predictability means that lower courts generally defer to precedents by higher courts and in a sense, the highest courts in civil law jurisdictions, such as the ''[[Court of Cassation (France)|Cour de cassation]]'' and the ''[[Conseil d'État]]'' in France are recognized as being bodies of a quasi-legislative nature.
 
Doktrin stare decisis juga mempengaruhi bagaimana keputusan mahkamah disusun. Secara amnya, keputusan mahkamah dalam bidang kuasa common law amat panjang dan menerangkan secara terperinci bagaimana satu keputusan dicapai. Ini berlaku untuk menjustifikasikan satu keputusan berdasarkan undang-undang kes terdahulu disamping menyenangkan penggunaannya sebagai duluan dalam kes-kes masa depan.
The doctrine of stare decisis also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions in common law jurisdictions are extremely wordy and go into great detail as to the how the decision was reached. This occurs to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent in future cases.
 
Keadaan ini boleh dibandingkan dengan sususan mahkamah dalam bidang kuasa undang-undang sivil (antara yang paling prominen merupakan [[Perancis]]) yang pendek dan menotakan perundangan yang relevan serta tidak terus berhujah tentang bagaimana satu keputusan dicapai. Ini adalah keputusan pandangan teori yang menyatakan bahawa suatu mahkamah hanya mentafsirkan pandangan legislatif dan penerangan terperinci tidak perlu. Oleh sebab ini, kebanyakan penerangan mengenai undang-undang tidak dilakukan oleh para hakim, malah sebaliknya cendiakiawan-cendiakiawan akademik undang-undang yang membuat keterangan.
By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently [[France]]) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and not going into great detail about how a decision was reached. This is the result of the theoretical view that the court is only interpreting the view of the legislature and that detailed exposition is unnecessary. Because of this, much more of the exposition of the law is done by academic jurists which provide the explanations that in common law nations would be provided by the judges themselves.
 
Dalam bindang kuasa undang-undang lain, seperti bidang kuasa Jerman, pandangan mahkamah lebih panjang daripada yang terdapat di Perancis dan mahkamah sering memetik keputusan kes-kes lepas dan tulisan akademik. Walau bagaimanapun, sesetengah mahkamah seperti mahkamah-mahkamah [[Jerman]] tidak menekankan fakta-fakta kes tetapi sebaliknya lebih mengambil berat mengenai argumentasi doktrin dan mencari pentafsiran undang-undang yang betul dan benar.
In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries, court opinions tend to be much longer than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and academic writing. However, some courts (such as [[Germany|German]] courts) put less emphasis of the particular facts of the case than common law courts, but put more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is.
 
==Ketulenan dan stare decisis==
3,214

suntingan

Menu pandu arah