Search

Status-seeking behavior, the pursuit of a higher position on an international social hierarchy as perceived and defined by members of a community, has received considerable attention in recent years. Yet, much of what this recent literature calls status-seeking is difficult to distinguish from something else: the pursuit of fairness. We disentangle status-seeking from fairness-seeking by identifying where a pure status-seeking and a fairness-seeking argument diverge—in the degree to which state actors demand exclusive rights and privileges. Survey experiments of the Russian public concerning the country's membership in the G8 as well as a case study of Germany's behavior in the first Moroccan crisis provide strong support for our "biased fairness" account. Derived from the behavioral economics and psychology literature, it maintains that leaders demand entitlements that match their status and find any such denial as less fair than an equivalent discrepancy for other countries. However, once assured of what they deserve, they do not demonstrate any tendency to exclude others, the hallmark of the status motivation. Convergent evidence at multiple levels of analysis, country contexts, and widely different time periods gives strong indications that fairness concerns are driving much of what is attributed to status-seeking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amid the extensive literature on the Stalinist dictatorship during the 1930s and the postwar period, the gap in scholarship on the Soviet leadership during the war years is particularly noticeable. This article fills that gap. Stalin’s war cabinet is characterised according to several criteria: first, the formal status of members of the leadership; second, the system of delegating authority; third, the functioning and competency of the structure of collective leadership; and fourth, Stalin’s loyalty to his top associates and the degree of their political immunity. The article demonstrates that the war years saw a relative ‘normalisation’ of the dictatorship. These important changes influenced the subsequent development of the Stalinist system of power and the evolution of Soviet authoritarianism after the dictator’s death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information about the law concerning parliamentary privilege as well as highlights the practical constraints in relying upon parliamentary material in judicial review and other public law proceedings. Other information related to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and Admissibility and parliamentary materials in litigation is presented.

The article focuses on the social and political aspect of privilege. It notes the social significance of perspective on the privilege and its impact to the consciousness of the people towards politics, and notes the disparities of privileges among social groups. Also discussed is the ethical aspect of privileges and how political institutions utilize privileges.

President Al Bashir has avoided the International Criminal Court ("ICC") for seven years and has been able to travel to both states that are party to the Rome Statute and states that are not without any consequences. The existence of customary international law immunities makes it difficult for the ICC to be able to discharge its duties without the cooperation of states parties. The silence of the Security Council and its failure to clarify Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) on whether the resolution indeed removes Sudan's immunities in order for President Al Bashir to be arrested and surrendered to the ICC. equally makes the ICC's job difficult. This article examines whether there is a justification for South Africa's failure to abide by its obligations under the Rome Statute when it did not secure and arrest President Al Bashir. This will be done against the backdrop of the ICC decisions or. the obligations of states parties to the Rome Statute to cooperate. The article also analyzes the South African High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal judgments with regard to South Africa's domestic and international obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces the nuances of bilateral security agreements and status of force agreements in Afghanistan. Many contain legal restrictions that complicate the ability of Long War contractors to provide advice and security during international missions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article critically reviews the extant literature on social group representation and clarifies the advantages of intersectionality theory for studying political representation. It argues that the merit of intersectionality theory can be found in its ontology of power. Intersectionality theory is founded on a relational conception of political power that locates the constitution of power relations within social interactions, such as political representation. As such, intersectionality theory pushes scholarship beyond studying representation inequalities – that are linked to presumably stable societal positions – to also consider the ways in which political representation (re)creates positions of privilege and disadvantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports the decision of the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division in the case "Southern Africa Litigation Centre v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development." It reports that the court held that South Africa's commitment to the International Criminal Court the Host Agreement, and that this agreement did not provide Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan, immunity from South Africa's prosecutorial power.

The article examines the the necessity for international organizations (IOs) to implement dispute resolution mechanisms as a prerequisite to seeking immunity. Topics discussed include United Nation's (UN) obligations to provide a dispute resolution mechanism for victims of the cholera outbreak in Haiti; UN violation of treaty obligations to provide victims with a mechanism for redress; and requirement of a dispute resolution mechanism.

The article offers information on need for the contemporary Europe to understand and meet the problems of citizens and establish loyal co-operation of the states. Topics discussed include importance of unity of law, the unity of institutions, the unity of the market; problem of rise in institutional populism being destructive for the unity of the market; and role of parliamentary control in European politics.

The debate about socio-economic inequalities and class has become increasingly important in mainstream academic and political debates. This article shows that during the late 2000s class analysis was rediscovered in Romania both as an analytical category and as a category of practice. The evidence suggests that this was the result of two converging processes: the deepening crisis of Western capitalism after 2008 and the country's increasingly transnational networks of young scholars, journalists, and civil society actors. Although a steady and focused interest in class analysis is a novelty in Romania's academia, media, and political life and has the potential to change the political conversation in the future, so far the social fields where this analysis is practiced have remained relatively marginal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immunity is an exemption conferred on a person in order to protect him from litigation or persecution. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended accords immunity to the president, vice-president, governors and deputy governors only. The import of this constitutional conferment is that no civil or criminal proceedings should be instituted against them while in office. This singular feature of the immunity clause emphasizes the functional necessity of the immunity which the constitution canvasses for these political office holders. A trial relating to any crime committed by any of them can commence after their tenure in office expires. This raises the issues that evidence against them might have been destroyed, prosecution witnesses may die before the trial commences and changes in the law can enable them to evade justice. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The early Stuart parliaments witnessed a dramatic expansion in the exercise and scope of parliamentary privilege. What had once been essentially a mechanism for avoiding disruption to parliamentary business came, instead, to be seen as a personal benefit for members, or even a political weapon for use against the crown. While such developments occurred in both Houses, it was the Lords which normally led the way, continually pushing the boundaries of privilege as part of a general reassertion of its rights and status. While the Commons also proved capable of innovation in this field, it is the Lords which emerges from this survey as the more assertive of the two Houses, better organised and much more effective in exploiting the advantages that parliamentary privilege now provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the return of Dáil reform to the political agenda, it is timely to revisit a previous reform aimed at making the Dáil more transparent and responsive to the citizens it serves. Over 15 years ago, Standing Order 59 changed the relationship between members of the Dáil and the citizens. This reform of parliamentary privilege was to change the nature of political speech rights in Irish politics. The rule change meant that members of the Dáil would be made to answer for their statements when they damaged the reputation of a member of the public. At the time of introduction, this rule was met with claims that the provision would restrict the right to freedom of expression in the chamber and that the traditional role and protections for parliamentarians would be changed forever. There were also fears that it would create a stifled debating chamber, thereby curtailing the role of Parliament. Over 15 years after its introduction, the ability of members to scrutinise issues in the public interest is back on the agenda. There has already been one failed Oireachtas Inquiries referendum and pressure is growing for further reform of institutions to bring an investigative or inquires remit to the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is timely to assess the changes created by the original reform. This report analyses the reasons for the reform, concerns expressed at the time and whether the change has resulted in a more engaged parliament and it analyses the use of Standing Order 59. The results of the study show that the level of awareness of the change is minimal and questions whether reform is successful if the changes are not widely known and used. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Translated by Chase RaymondBased on the work of theoreticians prevalent in the field of Memory Studies (Rothberg, Nora, Radstone, Aguilar, Faber, de Diego, Gómez López-Quiñones and Labanyi), this article analyses the films The Devil Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth by the Mexican director Guillermo Del Toro as examples of a memory-formation that is deeply entrenched within Spain’s current political, legal and cultural debates on the Spanish Civil War, the Francoist dictatorship and the political immunity institutionalised by the Transition’s pact of silence. At the same time, as emerging from ‘otherlands’ of memory, Del Toro’s films are good examples of how multidirectional memories react to universal/transnational concerns about traumatic pasts and violations of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article evaluates the common law of the foreign official immunity for defining the proper role of the executives. Topics discussed include the role of the federal common law of foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the lawsuit Samantar v. Yousuf, and the judicial opinion of the court on the same lawsuit.

The article discusses the Speech or Debate Clause which is contained in the U.S. Constitution, focusing on various judicial interpretations of legislative immunity in America by jurists such as former U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Marshall Harlan, Earl Warren, and Potter Stewart. The U.S. Congress and several American legal cases are mentioned, along with U.S. constitutional law and qualified immunity for official acts. Absolute immunity is assessed in relation to the U.S. Westfall Act.

The article considers the uses made of print by the Irish Parliament between 1660 and 1782. Proceedings were made more widely available, initially with printed Votes and then with fuller Journals. Just how widely is considered. The record of the house of commons and the house of lords is compared. Also the authorised publication of statutes is traced. Sizes of format and editions and costs are considered, concluding that these seriously limited access to the publications. In contrast, varieties of unofficial print, generated either by individual members and candidates or by partisans, are discussed. The effect of these productions was to increase awareness of politics and, arguably, to generate more intense controversies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper purports to consider the question of whether it is conceivable that a people, who have been occupied and whose rights have been severely violated for several decades, may legitimately target civilians as a last resort. Looking at terrorist attacks, inter alia suicide attacks, in the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, this paper scrutinizes philosophical and legal attempts to justify the deliberate killing of civilians in order to compel the opponent into changing his politics. The paper draws a simplified picture of the historical developments in the region and does not provide an exhausting analysis of the situation but rather highlights single events in order to examine the legal framework against the background of the conflict. It intends to raise rather than answer questions and aims at making a contribution to this complex discussion. Looking at several philosophical justifications of terrorism, the paper then turns to the issues of self-determination, necessity and self-defence. As expected, the discussion reinforces the prohibition to target civilians as one of the fundamental principles of humanitarian law. However, very interesting aspects come into view when investigating the limits of philosophical theories and legal standards regarding the question of last resort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on constitutional provisions on parliamentary immunity and amendments in the articles on the immunity of Deputies and the Senate Regulation of 2005. It further states trend regarding the constitutional regulation of the parliamentary immunity and the constitutional provisions regarding the parliamentary immunity concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court. It also mentions the shortcomings regarding the constitutional provisions of the articles.

The article discusses former British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel's conservative political strategy from 1832 to 1841, focusing on his efforts to pass the Controverted Elections Act of 1839, which was aimed at ensuring Great Britain's House of Commons' privileges in terms of adjudicating cases involving alleged breaches of electoral law. The author highlights controversy over Peel's proposal, including discussions of the Great Reform Act of 1832, partisanship in the British parliament, and parliamentary election committees. Special attention is paid to Peel's response to the legal case of Stockdale v. Hansard, which involved the publication of parliamentary papers.

Enjoy immunity protects MPs from the influence of other authorities. This protection was determined according to the criminal liability of members. This immunity is immunity from liability in addition, Classical parliamentary privilege in democratic countries. All European countries in transition in the nineties of the last century have applied these immunities, but they themselves are further expanded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the authors present their views on judicial selection. According to them, Judges must freely apply the law without prejudice and without favoritism which should be free of improper outside or political influences. If law does not meet with public or political approval, it should be uninfluenced by the threat of removal from office.

A history of the political conditions and privileges for Jewish moneylenders in 14th-century Austria is presented. The author describes the risks of property loss experienced by the privileged wealthiest lenders when leaving the patronage of the duke, along with their persecution by the Hapsburg rulers of Austria. The escalating political rivalry between the duke and the landowners is described as a factor in the willingness of many Jews' willingness to have their property confiscated. The spread of this system of privilege to Kärnten, Steiermark, and Vienna, Austria is also described.

The Supreme Court's decision in Samantar v. Yousuf vindicated the position of the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser, which had long argued that the immunities of current and former foreign government officials in U.S. courts are defined by common law and customary international law as articulated by the Executive Branch, rather than by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. But the decision will place a burden on the Office of the Legal Adviser, which will now be asked to submit its views on the potential immunity of every foreign government official sued in the United States. The State Department will be lobbied both by foreign governments who want to protect their officials and by plaintiffs and human rights advocates who would like to recognize exceptions to official immunities. In deciding whether to recognize the immunities of foreign government officials, the State Department will have to consider the reciprocal impact on U.S. officials who may be sued in foreign courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the request of the Executive Branch, courts routinely dismiss private suits against sitting heads of foreign states. Congress has never delegated authority to the Executive Branch to identify principles governing head of state immunity. The courts' practice thus appears inconsistent with the conventional view that the Executive Branch lacks authority to affect private rights unless authorized by Congress to do so. This Article argues that the Executive Branch's practice of determining head of state immunity is an example of sole executive lawmaking, deriving from the President's constitutional responsibility as the only authorized representative of the United States in its relations with foreign states. The President accordingly has some inherent, though limited, lawmaking authority under Article H of the Constitution. The Article supports this doctrinal argument by examining the separation-of-powers concerns underlying the courts' historic deference to executive branch determinations of foreign state immunity, prior to the codification of that subject in 1976. It considers objections that the Executive Branch's authority to determine head of state immunity is more plausibly grounded in the Reception Clause than in the President's more general power to conduct the nation's diplomacy, and that head of state immunity determinations are not really lawmaking. The Article concludes by considering the respective roles of Congress and the courts in determining and applying principles of head of state immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the resolution of the head of state immunity claims and the role of the U.S. Department of State, an agency within the executive branch to fulfill its institutional mandate. It says that the court decides on the claims based on the immunity suggested by the State Department. It also says that implementing a legal presumption can enhance institutional strengths. Moreover, it mentions that difficult cases concerning head of state immunity are likely to arise in the future.

The immunity of foreign states from suit in U.S. courts is governed by a federal statute, the Foreign Soveriegn Immunities Act (FSIA). This statute does not apply to the immunity of individual foreign officials, however, as the Supreme Court recently held in Samantar v. Yousuf. Instead, the Court reasoned, the immunity of foreign government officials is controlled by common law. But there is no extant body of federal or state common law governing foreign official immunity, and the Court did not clarify how this law should be developed going forward. The State Department claims that it holds constitutional power to make indvidual immunity determinations on a case-bycase basis that are binding on the courts, and that the immunity principles articulated by the government should be followed even in cases where it does not make a specific determination. I argue in this article that the executive branch lacks such "lawmaking" power. I examine the text and structure of the Constitution, functional and historical arguments, the Court's case law, and implied congressional authorization, and I reject each of these as possible grounds for the power asserted by the executive branch. Instead, I assert that the development by courts of a federal common law of individual immunity (with no binding authority in the executive branch) fits comfortably within the existing jurisprudence on federal common law and is preferable on functional grounds. Federal common law should be constrained in some respects, however, by the content of the FSIA, by customary international law, and by the views of the executive branch on certain discrete issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parliamentary and executive immunity – Italian Corte Costituzionale – Constitutional versus ordinary lawmaking – Comparative perspective to other EU member states – Italian situation unique [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The political environment in Lebanon is one plagued with a tumultuous history of violence and power struggles. This turmoil climaxed on February 14, 2005, when the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hanri, was assassinated in a terrorist attack. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was subsequently created by the UN. Security Council to try those responsible for Hariri's assassination. Previous international UN. -created tribunals have successfully eliminated head of state immunity protections of the accused. However, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon `s unique characteristics prompt a weighty legal question, one who's positive answer is vital for the Tribunal's existence, especially if it is found that those responsible for the attack appear to be high-ranking state officials: Is the Special Tribunal for Lebanon "international" enough to eliminate head of state immunity claims? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent cases that have been advanced by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) against presidents Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Laurent Gbagbo of Côte d'Ivoire have attracted significant publicity. The first two have arrived at the Court as a result of Referrals from the United Nations Security Council and all represent novel incursions into the otherwise impenetrable immunity that incumbent heads of state have enjoyed under customary international law. This article will analyse the bases upon which a revocation of a head of state's immunity may be accomplished before the ICC, according to the prevailing rules of customary international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It will be argued that in the cases of al-Bashir and Gaddafi, neither the Court nor the Security Council has appropriately abrogated the absolute immunity from prosecution enjoyed by those defendants under customary international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International criminal justice has become a weapon in political struggles in Uganda and Sudan. In this light, this article discusses the political meaning of the International Criminal Court's judicial interventions. It argues that the ICC, presented by its advocates as a legal bastion immune from politics, is inherently political by making a distinction between the friends and enemies of the international community which it purports to represent. Using original empirical data, the article demonstrates how in both Uganda and Sudan warring parties have used the ICC's intervention to brand opponents as hostis humani generis, or enemies of mankind, and to present themselves as friends of the ICC, and thus friends of the international community. The ICC Prosecutor has at times encouraged this friend–enemy dichotomy. These observations do not result in a denunciation of the Court as a ‘political institution’. On the contrary: they underline that a sound normative evaluation of the Court's activities can be made only when its political dimensions are acknowledged and understood.To show that justice has its practical and ideological limits is not to slight it. …The entire aim is rather to account for the difficulties which the morality of justice faces in a morally pluralistic world and to help it recognize its real place in it –not above the political world but in its very midst.J. Shklar, Legalism: Law, Morals and Political Trials (1986), at 122–123. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It was time that Ottoman States tried to survive in the Abdulhamid II. period. In this period, especially king and statesmen and other intellectuals try to find different solution for preventing from collapsing. Abdulhamid II wanted them these solutions to be presented as a type of pleading. Our article's subject is pledge about what Ottoman states had to be made arrangements in order to get out of the difficult position. They are given under titles. Romanian's ambassador explained wisely what States and Ottoman ruler had to do. These are titles which are handled: excessive centralism, lack of serious revisal, lots of meetings, officiality in bureaucracy, abundant civil servants, administrators made revisal in provincial, administrators' realationship with ambassadors, privilege petitions, collecting taxes, reducing salaries and taking away, common security, recruiting of non-Muslims, privileges of spiritual communities, attempt for reform and loans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The application of the state immunity doctrine with regard to the guarantee of access to court in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR) has been proved to be a complicated issue. In the ECHR's case-law before the case Cudak v. Lithuania, the application of the state immunity doctrine had been considered as a proportionate restriction of the right of access to court even in cases of the realization of the protection of the jus cogens norm which was very much criticized by the scholars of international law. Thus, the referral of the case Cudak v. Lithuania to the Grand Chamber could or should change the ECHR's case-law in this sphere or at least develop certain criteria which would afford ground for a more effective protection to the right of access to court in cases of the application of the state immunity doctrine despite the fact that this right is not absolute. However, the case Cudak v. Lithuania has not fully satisfied these aims. Contrary, the case Cudak v. Lithuania left much obscurity, giving a strong indication that, what regards the realization of the right of access to court, the state immunity doctrine is more a material than a procedural ban, since the argumentation given by the ECHR in this case does not guarantee practical protection of this right. Moreover, the case Cudak v. Lithuania allows, in a way, to cast doubts on its compliance with the rules of international law as it concerns the retrospective application of the 2004 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property which is not yet in force even today. Therefore, at the end of this article the author presupposes that a better way of ensuring the guarantee of access to court in cases of the application of the state immunity doctrine would be to leave this issue of a clear political shadow to be solved between the two states by means of diplomatic negotiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the ruling of Peter Milliken, a speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, on documents pertaining to the handling of Afghan prisoners by Canadian soldiers and officials from the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. Accordingly, he declared the commitment of the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege by withholding Afghan detainee documents. Also mentioned is the approval of the House of Commons on the move of the government to extend Canada's military deployment in Afghanistan from February 2009 until February 2011.

The article reflects on whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) would qualify an individual government official for the immunity in the U.S. It mentions that the circuit courts had debated on the issue; some covered the issue based on the human rights law under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA); others addressed the issue outside the TVPA. It concludes by accepting the version of the latter, which would create consistency between the FSIA doctrine and the TVPA passage.

A troubling pattern has emerged in a number of recent cases: officials whose conduct is truly abhorrent have been found immune from suit under qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity, which is meant to shield officials from suit when they are not on notice that their conduct is unlawful, has been stretched to protect officers that strip-search 13-year-old students, handcuff and abandon pretrial detainees in abandoned parking lots, and knowingly incarcerate innocent people. These cases represent a fracture in qualified immunity doctrine: the "clearly established" standard no longer serves the policy goals that underlie the doctrine. And matters will only get worse under Pearson v. Callahan, an opinion rendered this Term. This Article argues for a new way of evaluating such conduct and applies a new framework to settle a circuit split on qualified immunity. Using new research on moral intuitionism and universal moral grammar, it argues that officers, when committing truly terrible acts, can be presumed to know that what they are doing is wrong and could subject them to suit. Moreover, judges are capable of consistently identifying such acts as truly abominable, despite the fact that the exercise is subjective. The Article argues for a radical departure from the "clearly established" standard, arguing instead that in some rare circumstances where officers commit "abominable acts," qualified immunity should be waived. Not only will such an exception produce more just outcomes, it will also better serve the goals of the doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the effect that shielding elected representatives from criminal law might have in those countries that are undergoing democratization. Parliamentary immunity helps to compensate for any shortfall in the human rights enjoyed by ordinary citizens and provides elected representatives with the protection necessary to rectify that shortfall. However, the immunity may also protect subversive advocacy, rights violations and political corruption. Turkey provides an illuminating case study of those challenges to parliamentary immunity. Drawing on the Turkish experience, it is argued that methods other than exposing parliamentarians to criminal prosecution should be used to counter those problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers whether states are obliged or permitted to arrest Sudanese President Omar al Bashir pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the international Criminal Court (ICC). The article considers the extent to which the ICC Statute removes immunities which would ordinarily be available to state officials. It is argued that the removal of the immunity by Article 27 of the ICC Statute applies also at the national level, when national authorities act in support of the ICC. The article examines the application of Article 98 of the ICC Statute and considers the legal nature of Security Council referrals to the ICC. It is argued that the effect of the Security Council referral is that Sudan is to be regarded as bound by the ICC Statute and thus by Article 27 Given that the Statute operates in this case not as a treaty but by virtue of being a Security Council resolution, the removal of immunity operates even with regard to non-parties. However, since any (implicit) removal of immunity by the Security Council would conflict with customary international law and treaty rules according immunity to a serving head of state, the article considers the application of Article 103 of the United Nations (UN) Charter in this case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The vice presidency of Dick Cheney from 2000 to 2008 raised complicated questions about the constitutional and legal position of the Vice President, including the Vice President's amenability to civil suits for damages. The U.S. Supreme Court's executive immunity jurisprudence has established that the President can claim absolute immunity for official acts, while cabinet members and presidential aides can assert only qualified immunity. No court has ever determined if the Vice President should be granted absolute or qualified immunity in civil suits for damages. Acknowledging that the vice presidency is an increasingly important political office, this Note argues that neither the Vice President's constitutional status nor his specific functions justify a grant of absolute immunity This Note asserts that although the Vice President could claim some limited form of legislative immunity, qualified immunity is the appropriate standard in most stilts for damages. This Note contends that qualified immunity for the Vice President would both preserve the effective functioning of the executive branch and ensure that the Vice President is legally accountable for an abuse of power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses parliamentary immunity in cases where members of the Peruvian congress (Congreso de la República del Perú) have been accused of insult, slander, defamation, or other offenses against reputation. It notes that the congress has chosen to uphold the immunity of its members in all such cases since 1995. The article describes problems in the consideration of these cases, including consideration based on faulty criteria and excessive delays in processing waiver requests. It proposes changes to Peruvian law that would facilitate access to justice by parties bringing such cases.

The article presents various writs and other parliamentary documents from Great Britain related to parliamentary privilege from the period 1411 to 1489.

The article deals with the constitutional regulation of the institute of impeachment in Lithuania and abroad, the official doctrine, touches upon both its historical and comparative aspect. The beginning of the article discusses the place of the impeachment procedure in the sphere of constitutional liability, its ties with other sanctions of constitutional liability. The article also provides an in-depth discussion of the legal regulation of impeachment and the constitutional justice practice, analyses the issues of legal regulation. After thoroughly examining the organisational and procedural aspects of the impeachment procedure, the author makes the following opinions and suggestions: 1. the list of officials who according to the Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania may be impeached (the president of the Republic of Lithuania, certain judges and MPs) should be seen as optimal, however the Constitution does not provide for procedural norms, for instance, it does not identify who possesses the power to initiate impeachment, leaving this for regulation by the parliamentary statute; 2. it would be prudent to change the legal regulation of organising the impeachment procedure and to redistribute the powers (competences) to institutions that take part in implementing the procedure, leaving the power of the initiative of impeachment to the parliament (MPs), whereas the right to pass the final decision should be assigned to the judiciary (preferably, the Constitutional Court); this suggestion is based on the desire to reduce the political and possibly conjuncturerelated aspect of the impeachment process; 3. the author also suggests narrowing the grounds for impeachment to the list enshrined in the Constitution, in view of recognition by the Constitutional Court that a severe violation of the Constitution is equivalent to a breach of an oath; 4. besides, having considered legal regulation of other countries (Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Portugal), the author suggests narrowing the scope of immunity of the president of the Republic of Lithuania and expanding the parliamentary powers by giving it the right to decide on the consent to prosecute the president, or provide, ex verbis, in the Constitution that the president of the Republic of Lithuania can only be impeached on the ground of a severe violation of the Constitution (breach of an oath). The currently legally effective scope of immunity of the president prevents him from impeachment over a committed crime. 5. Also, the author suggests introducing legal regulation on the possibility to revoke from office the officials against whom the impeachment procedure has been initiated even before the decision on impeachment is made. The power to make this decision should be assigned to judiciary to avoid politicising and bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the European Court of Human Rights case Kart v. Turkey regarding violation of right regarding access to courts under the European Convention on Human Rights. It mentions defend services of member of parliament (MP) over criminal proceedings for parliamentary immunity. It states observation of deprivation in parliamentary immunity leads to absence in participation of MP at parliamentary elections by the government of Turkey.