![]() ![]() I have read and understood regulation 17.9 of the Regulations for students of the SOAS, University of London concerning plagiarism. ![]() degree in constitutional law at SOAS Law School, University of London, with a thesis about Taiwan's judicial supremacy through strategic decision-making in the 1990s. He also majored in philosophy and can read any classical Chinese literature within the past four millennia without a dictionary. He received fundamental legal education in both civil law (Taiwan) and common law (England and Wales) jurisdictions, by which he can compare civil law jurisprudence with that of common law in detail. He is a Taiwanese scholar specialising in constitutional law, administrative law, judicial politics and behaviourism, philosophy, sinology and mathematics. Jindal Global Law School in Delhi, India since 2018. PhD Thesis Submitted on 13 September 2016Īdmitted to the Degree of PhD (Constitutional Law) on 31 January 2018ĭavid KC Huang has been a visiting fellow in constitutional law at the O.P. Supervised by Dr Alexander Christoph Fischer ( Heidelberg)Įxamined by Professor Andrew Le Sueur ( Londiniensis) Judicial Yuan Dismissal Resolution No.1358 2010ĩ.2.4 Setting the Tune: Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.476 1999ĩ.2.6 Conclusion: Public Opinion Prevails Obviouslyĩ.3.1 Taiwan: the Chinese Alsace-Lorraineĩ.3.2 Complicated Emotion towards China and ReunificationĪppendix (A): Personal Background of the Fifth-term JusticesĪppendix (B): Personal Background of the Sixth-term JusticesĪppendix (C): Education Background of the Fifth-term JusticesĪppendix (D): Education Background of the Sixth-term JusticesĪppendix (E): Qualifications of the Fifth-term JusticesĪppendix (F): Qualifications of the Sixth-term JusticesĪppendix (G): Career and Previous Profession of the Fifth-term JusticesĪppendix (H): Career and Previous Profession of the Sixth-term Justices Judicial Yuan Dismissal Resolution No.1297 2006 ![]() LIMITATION TO JUDICIAL POWER: SILENCE AND AVOIDANCEĩ.2.1 An Eye for an Eye Legal Tradition: Lex Talionisĩ.2.3 Capital Punishment: Constitutionality JUDICIAL UTILITARIANISM: PUBLIC OPINION AND HUMAN RIGHTSĨ.3 Principle of Anti-special Power RelationshipĨ.3.1 Public Functionaries: Pre-1990 Judicial ReviewsĨ.3.2 Public Functionaries: Two Decisive Cases in 1989 & 1992Ĩ.3.3 Students: Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.382 1995Ĩ.3.4 Soldiers and Sailors: Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.430 1997Ĩ.4 Judicial Liberalism And Its Impact On Human RightsĨ.4.1 The Trial of the Century: The Prosecutors' Power to CustodyĨ.4.2 Instrument of Appeal: Chairman Hsu Hsin-Liang's PetitionĨ.4.3 Instrument of Appeal: the Legislative Yuan's ProposalĨ.4.4 Instrument of Appeal: Enhanced Democratic ProposalĨ.4.5 Instrument of Appeal: Judge Gao Shi-Da's Leapfrog Appealĩ. JUDICIAL POWER EXPANSION THROUGH ADVISORY OPINIONS AND STATE ORGAN CASESħ.2 The Role of the Judicial Yuan in State Organ Litigationħ.3.2 Advisory Opinions: Intra-branch Conflictsħ.3.3 Advisory Opinions: Non-partisan CasesĪ - Instrument of Appeal: New Party's Proposalī - Instrument of Appeal: Democratic ProposalĬ - Instrument of Appeal: Nationalist Proposal A VICTORY FOR SINCERE DECISION-MAKING: INTERPRETATION NO.261 1990Ħ.2.1 The Republic of China's PerspectiveĦ.3.1 Did Taiwan's Public Opinion Support DemocratisationĦ.4 Theoretical Dilemma Over the ConstitutionĦ.4.2 From GroR-ROC towards Klein-ROC DilemmaĦ.5 Previous Decisions of the Judicial YuanĦ.5.1 Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.31 1954Ħ.5.2 Judicial Yuan Interpretation No.150 1977Ħ.7.1 A Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus DecisionĦ.7.2 An Astonishing Constitutional Court OrderĦ.9.2 Did Judicial Power Expand Thereafter?ħ. THEORISING JUDICIAL SUPREMACY: A TAIWANESE PERSPECTIVEĤ.2 Public Opinion, Media and the Judicial YuanĤ.3 Mendel, Ginsburg and the Judicial YuanĤ.7 Favouring the Guardian of the Constitution Theoryĥ.3 Legal Education and the Admission to Practice Lawĥ.4 Judicial Yuan: Taiwan's Constitutional CourtĦ. METHODOLOGY: RECONSTRUCTING THE JUDICIAL YUAN THROUGH DATA AND ARCHIVESģ.2 General Methodology: Single Historical Case Studyģ.3 General Methodology: Interdisciplinary Analysisģ.4 General Methodology: Amended Doctrinal Analysisģ.5.1 Subjective Judicial Bias and Preferred Positionģ.5.2 An Unexpected Discovery: The Importance of Archival Studies and theĤ. THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL YUAN PRE-1990Ģ.3 Dr Carsun Chang's Constitution of 1947Ģ.4 A Hard Political Decision: Stay or Retreat?ģ. 1.6 The Pursuit of Judicial Self-interestġ.7 The Court, Democratic Legitimacy and Public Opinionġ.8 Constitutional Judicial Behaviour and Public Opinionġ.9 Judicial Power Expansion and Its LimitationsĢ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |