Egypt\u27s New Constitution: The Islamist Difference

The paper discusses the distributional impact of the rules of the new Egyptian constitution (2012). It specifically addresses the way such rules, substantive and (potentially) procedural, can influence Egyptian law\u27s identity and the underlying relations between the state and individuals and among individuals themselves that such identity implies

American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section Report to the House of Delegates

The proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 413-15 regarding the admission of character testimony in cases of sexual abuse and child molestation, have been roundly criticized by the legal community on both substantive and procedural grounds. The ABA has resolved to oppose the substance of these rules, and fear that in addition to the direct concerns regarding the result of the rules, they raise troubling policy issues going forward

Implementing Privacy Policy: Who Should Do What?

Academic scholarship on privacy has focused on the substantive rules and policies governing the protection of personal data. An extensive literature has debated alternative approaches for defining how private and public institutions can collect and use information about individuals. But, the attention given to the what of U.S. privacy regulation has overshadowed consideration of how and by whom privacy policy should be formulated and implemented. U.S. privacy policy is an amalgam of activity by a myriad of federal, state, and local government agencies. But, the quality of substantive privacy law depends greatly on which agency or agencies are running the show. Unfortunately, such implementation-related matters have been discounted or ignored— with the clear implication that they only need to be addressed after the “real” work of developing substantive privacy rules is completed. As things stand, the development and implementation of U.S. privacy policy is compromised by the murky allocation of responsibilities and authority among federal, state, and local governmental entities—compounded by the inevitable tensions associated with the large number of entities that are active in this regulatory space. These deficiencies have had major adverse consequences, both domestically and internationally. Without substantial upgrades of institutions and infrastructure, privacy law and policy will continue to fall short of what it could (and should) achieve

Rules of Evidence -- Substantive or Procedural?

It hardly needs stating that the definition of a legal word or term depends upon the purpose for which it is to be defined. If in framing a generalization designed to state a rule or make a discrimination applicable in a specific topic or field of the law, the courts use specified terms, it by no means follows that they intend those terms to be understood in the same sense in generalizations dealing with problems in another topic or field. The words, substance or substantive and procedure or procedural, have been used most frequently in three separate situations: (1) in dealing with controversies concerning the applicability in one territorial jurisdiction of the law of another territorial jurisdiction, (2) in determining the applicability in a federal court of the law of the state in which the federal court is sitting in a trial between citizens of different states, and (3) in determining the operative effect of a statute enacted after the happening of the event or creation of the condition which is the subject of the action. In all of them the solution is generally expressed in terms of procedure or substance. In none of them does the meaning given the term therein furnish a compelling answer to our question. Consequently, whether a constitutional or statutory provision recognizes or confers or creates the power of a court to regulate procedure, its interpretation requires an elementary analysis of our system of litigation

Note: Secured Creditors in Wage Earner Proceedings: Interpreting the Validity of Bankruptcy Rule 13-307(d)

On October 1, 1973 the Supreme Court promulgated rules prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed in cases and proceedings governed by Chapters I-VII and Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act. The procedural changes are extensive, permeating every stage of straight bankruptcy and Chapter XIII Wage Earner proceedings. One of the more important rules is Bankruptcy Rule 13-307(d), which deals with claims of secured creditors in Wage Earner proceedings under Chapter XIII. Secured creditors have challenged the validity of Rule 13-307(d), claiming that the rule modifies the secured party\u27s substantive right to full recovery of the contract price. Thus, they allege that it is a substantive rule of law and outside the Supreme Court\u27s rulemaking power. Various courts have made conflicting decisions. The resolution of this issue will have significant impact on future creditor-purchaser relations and on the future of Chapter XIII Wage Earner proceedings as a viable alternative to straight bankruptcy

Glancing at the Content of Substantive Rules Under the Jurisdiction-Selecting Approach

Antalet individer med funktionsnedsättning ökar, dels beroende på att numera kan sjukdomar botas som tidigare inte kunde botas och dels beroende på att allt fler för tidigt födda barn kan räddas. Den orala hälsan är ofta negativt påverkad hos personer med funktionsnedsättning och det föreligger risk att dessa personer, trots ett större tandvårdsbehov än andra, erhåller mindre tandvård. Anledningen till detta är inte helt känd. Syftet med våra studier var därför att fördjupa kunskapen om hur personer med funktionsnedsättning och deras anhöriga prioriterar och tänker om oral hälsa. Syftet med studierna var också att fördjupa kunskapen om hur hälso- och sjukvårdspersonal samt tandvårdspersonal tänker om behov avseende bemötande och oral hälsa hos personer med funktionsnedsättning. Den kvalitativa forskningsmetoden grounded theory har valts då den är speciellt lämplig på områden där teorier är sparsamt förekommande eller saknas. Öppna kvalitativa intervjuer har genomförts med 65 informanter. Studierna visade att föräldrar till barn med funktionsnedsättning samt vuxna personer med kognitiva och/eller fysiska funktionsnedsättningar inte prioriterade den orala hälsan på grund av att andra mer akuta problem upplevdes som viktigare. Många personer med funktionsnedsättning vårdas kortare eller längre tid på vårdinrättningar, men kunskapen om oral hälsa var låg och inte prioriterad av personal inom hälso- och sjukvården. Personer med funktionsnedsättning återfinns inom såväl allmäntandvård som specialisttandvård och kunskapen om dessa patienters vårdbehov och bemötande av dem varierade mycket mellan olika kliniker, allmän- och specialisttandvård och mellan olika tandvårdspersonal. Sammantaget utgör dessa resultat en möjlig förklaring till varför personer med funktionsnedsättning löper ökad risk för oral ohälsa. Detta innebär också att en prioriterad, god oral hälsa och ett adekvat bemötande av personer med funktionsnedsättningar snarare kan handla om tur än om en jämlik rättighet

Health and safety at work: the prevention model in Italy. WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT – 408/2020

A research itinerary aimed at clarifying the substantive content and the type of prevention that shapes the rules for the protection of health and safety of workers in the Italian legal system. The focus will be on the difference between primary and secondary prevention in the warranty of fundamental right

Positing for balancing: investment treaty rights and the rights of citizens

Substantive bilateral investment treaty (BIT) rules have the potential to undermine the rights to health, safety and the environment of the citizens of host States if stricter State regulations to protect these rights amount to regulatory expropriation or breach other investment protection rights. This article argues that the rules created by BITs are comparable with and stand parallel to the rules created by the domestic laws of host States and BIT arbitral tribunals should balance these rights when they conflict with each other. BIT arbitral tribunals act as de facto courts since they enforce rights that are assertable against the public at large and not against the host State alone. Similar to the “rules” created by BITs, an analysis of the legal nature of “rights” created by BITs also reveals that they are comparable with the rights created by domestic laws of host States. The article articulates three legal arguments founded on substantive BIT clauses, human rights, and property rights on the basis of which, three specific rights, i.e., the rights to health, safety and the environment of citizens of host States may stand parallel to the rights created by BITs in favour of foreign investors. These arguments, both individually and pooled together,call for balancing these citizens’ rights with the rights of foreign investors arising from a BIT in the event of conflict