The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the country. The powers of the judicial branch are stated in Article 3 of the Constitution. The powers delineated are very limited, and as such the powers that the Supreme Court now holds, while originated from Article 3, have also in fact been appropriated over time. Article III is divided into three sections. The first section states that there is one supreme court that rules over the lower courts and the conditions under which judges in both the lower and higher courts shall hold their offices (Article 3 of the United States Constitution).
Like its American counterpart, the Cour de Cassation is the highest court in the French Judicial System. The Cour de Cassation is the final recourse in the judicial system in France, as such, “civil, commercial, social or criminal cases are first ruled upon by courts of first instance or lower courts (tribunaux d’instance and tribunaux de grande instance, commercial courts and industrial or labour courts (conseils de prud’hommes) etc.)”. The main role of the Cour de Cassation is not to rule on a case specifically, but rather to assess whether the lower courts have applied statutes properly to the case when making their decisions. The distinction of how the higher court rules in France and America is important to recognize because the delegation of power to rule on cases impacts how the court is then able to affect the other branches of government and thus the implications on society. As the Cour de Cassation is unable to rule on a case specifically, the effects of the decisions of the lower courts in France are similar to the Supreme Court in the United States. The lower courts in France, in essence create the precedent and the Cour de Cassation then rules on whether the court acted within its jurisdiction and whether the rules and reasoning were applied correctly. The French Judicial Authority’s powers are explained in Articles 64 through 66-1 in the French Constitution of October 4, 1958 (Assemblee National 2008). In these articles, the organization of the court, as well as limitations of the jurisdiction of the court is delineated. Article 64 establishes the Judiciary, as well as the fact that there are governing rules by which the judiciary must conform to, and that the “judges shall be irremovable” (Assemblee National 2008). Article 65 establishes who the judiciary consists of, and Articles 66 and 66-1 dictates that no one shall be “arbitrarily detained,” similarly to the right of Habeas Corpus in the United States, and no one “shall be sentenced to death”. The judicial system in the United States is a part of the system of checks and balances in the government. Even though the powers of the judicial system in the Constitution of the United States are not clearly defined and are in fact limited, the Supreme Court over time has appropriated the power of judicial review. One of the first, most notable cases of judicial review occurred in 1803 in the landmark decisions of Marbury v. Madison, written by Chief Justice Marshall. Contrary to the freedom of the judicial system in the United States, the judicial branch in France is severely limited. Jerome B. King explains: The complete rejection of judicial independence by the revolutionaries in the Constitution of 1791 reflected a longstanding feeling that the separation of powers in the American sense of the term could only be a device to maintain, not destroy, the special interests which lay at the heart of the social system of the ancient regime.
During the ancien regime, judges were from the dominant, upper classes in society. Often times they used their positions of power for corruptive purposes. This discredited the institution of the judicial branch as a whole, which is why after the French Revolution people were weary to give too much power to the judicial system. But as King explains, “it would be a mistake to assume that as a consequence the French judicial tradition is one of nothing but servility to the existing power, or that the judges have ever been as the beck and call of transient causes”. King asserts that the judicial system in France, despite its imposed limitations, is not powerless. While it may be easy to recognize that the judiciary in France does not have as much independence as the judiciary in the United States, one should not disregard the judicial system in France as inconsequential. Many notable scholars such as Lasser interpret the limitations placed on the French judiciary as indicative that there cannot be lasting resonance from their decisions.
Text 14
Common Law Countries
Because of our colonial history we had a common law legal system strongly influenced in its structure and functioning by that of the colonial power which had been England. There was a unitary court system in which there was a Supreme Court, consisting of an Appellate Division, which was the highest court, and Provincial and Local Divisions which functioned as superior courts of first instance. Statutes were superior to the common law, but there were only a few general codes and much of the law was made and developed by judges on the basis of precedent. Decisions of the Appellate Division were binding on all other courts. The Appellate Division followed its own decisions unless it was satisfied that an earlier decision was “clearly wrong”. Parliament was supreme and could pass laws to vary court decisions with which it disagreed.
Countries which had formerly been part of the British Empire had similar court systems, adapted where necessary to deal with federal issues. Invariably in these Commonwealth countries, which differed in this respect from the United States where the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court is more restricted because of its particular federal structure, there is a single highest court which is a court of general jurisdiction with the competence to deal with all law whether it be common law, state law or federal law. I will call this model the Supreme Court model. There is not a career judiciary. Instead, Judges are usually appointed to the superior courts from the practicing legal profession. Appeal courts are usually, though not invariably, staffed by judges promoted from superior courts of first instance, and where there is a three tier system, from judges of appeal. The Supreme Courts had a general jurisdiction, and in those countries where constitutions with entrenched rights were later adopted as the supreme law, their jurisdiction included the judicial review of legislative action and the conduct of organs of the state.
Text 15
Civil Law Countries
Constitutional courts were then a feature of civil law countries. Unlike common law countries where constitutional adjudication was conducted within and as part of the normal court system, Constitutional Courts were established apart from the ordinary courts. Specialised constitutional courts fitted well into the judicial architecture of civil law countries with their detailed codes and different court systems where there is less emphasis on judge-made law and precedent than is the case in common law countries. A specialised constitutional court with exclusive jurisdiction in constitutional matters was calculated to promote legal certainty in constitutional matters, and to avoid conflicting decisions being given on the constitutionality of legislation in the different courts. What is also relevant is that constitutional norms are expressed in general terms and leave greater room for interpretation than the detailed codes do.
This calls for different techniques than those used by judges of civil law courts in the application of codes to the facts of a particular case. Constitutional adjudication also has a greater political impact than other forms of adjudication. The establishment of constitutional courts allowed specialists in constitutional law to be appointed as judges to these courts, and for the adoption of special procedures for the appointment of such judges.
Text 16
International Law
Among the United Nations most pervasive achievements has been the development of a body of international law – conventions, treaties and standards – that play a central role in promoting economic and social development, as well as international peace and security. Many of the treaties brought about by the United Nations form the basis of the law that governs relations among nations. While the United Nations work in this area does not always receive attention, it has a daily impact on the lives of people everywhere.
The United Nations Charter specifically calls on the Organization to help in the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, including arbitration and judicial settlement (Article 33),and to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification (Article 13). Over the years, the United Nations has sponsored over 500 multilateral agreements, which address a broad range of common concerns among states and are legally binding for the countries that ratify them.
In many areas, the United Nations legal work has been pioneering, addressing problems as they take on an international dimension. It has been in the forefront of efforts to provide a legal framework in such areas as protecting the environment, regulating migrant labour, curbing drug trafficking and combating terrorism. This work continues today, as international law assumes a more central role across a wider spectrum of issues, including human rights law and international humanitarian law.
Text 17
Headache
Headache is such a common complaint and can occur for so many different reasons that its proper evaluation may be difficult. Chronic headaches are commonly due to migraine, tension, or depression, but they may be related to intracranial lesions, head injury, cervical spondylosis, dental or ocular disease, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, sinusitis, hypertension, and a wide variety of general medical disorders. Although underlying structural lesions are not present in most patients presenting with headache, it is evertheless important to bear this possibility in mind. About one-third of patients with brain tumors, for example, present with a primary complaint of headache.
The intensity, quality, and site of pain – and especially the duration of the headache and the presence of associated neurologic symptoms – may provide clues to the underlying cause. Migraine or tension headaches are often described as pulsating or throbbing; a sense of tightness or pressure is also common with tension headache. Sharp lancinating pain suggests a neuritic cause; ocular or periorbital icepick-like pains occur with migraine or cluster headache; and a dull or steady headache is typical of an intracranial mass lesion. Ocular or periocular pain suggests an ophthalmologic disorder; bandlike pain is common with tension headaches; and lateralized headache is common with migraine or cluster headache. In patients with sinusitis, there may be tenderness of overlying skin and bone. With intracranial mass lesions, headache may be focal or generalized; in patients with trigeminal or glossopharyngeal neuralgia, the pain is localized to one of the divisions of the trigeminal nerve or to the pharynx and external auditory meatus, respectively.
Inquiry should be made of precipitating factors. Recent sinusitis or hay fever, dental surgery, head injury, or symptoms suggestive of a systemic viral infection may suggest the underlying cause. Migraine may be exacerbated by emotional stress, fatigue, foods containing nitrite or tyramine, or the menstrual period. Alcohol may precipitate cluster headache.
Temporomandibular joint dysfunction causes headache or facial pain that comes on with chewing; trigeminal or glossopharyngeal neuralgia may also be precipitated by chewing, and masticatory claudication sometimes occurs with giant cell arteritis. Cough-induced headache occurs with structural lesions of the posterior fossa, but in many instances no specific cause can be found.
The timing of symptoms is important. Headaches are typically worse on awakening in patients with sinusitis or an intracranial mass. Cluster headaches tend to occur at the same time each day or night. Tension headaches are worse with stress or at the end of the day.
The onset of severe headache in a previously well patient is more likely than chronic headache to relate to an intracranial disorder such as subarachnoid hemorrhage or meningitis. The need for further investigation is determined by the initial clinical impression.
A progressive headache disorder, new onset of headache in middle or later life, headaches that disturb sleep or are related to exertion, and headaches that are associated with neurologic symptoms or a focal neurologic deficit usually require cranial MRI or CT scan to exclude an intracranial mass lesion. Signs of meningeal irritation and impairment of consciousness also indicate the need for further investigation (cranial CT scan or MRI and examination of the cerebrospinal fluid) to exclude subarachnoid hemorrhage or meningeal infection. The diagnosis and treatment of primary neurologic disorders associated with headache are considered separately under these disorders.
Text 18