Within the classical tripartition of powers, courts and tri- bunals have always held the most marginal role, limited by the interpretation of laws. In the last decades, however, judiciaries have been increasingly addressed with the task of resolving moral issues and political questions, drawing power away from representative institutions. The intention of this essay is to analyse the judicialisation of politics and how this emergent phenomenon is slowly reshaping the skeleton of political structures and mutating the political environment — particularly (...) within the United Kingdom. In order to provide beneficial outcomes, this phenomenon should be accompanied by an attempt to embrace more democratic principles, seeking to promote a more inclusive space in the light of greater political responsibility, dialogue, and plurality of opinion. (shrink)

The judiciary system deals with various types of cases, including civil disputes and criminal trials, that require efficient management and strict adherence to procedures. Traditionally, handling these cases involves extensive paperwork, complex scheduling, and logistical challenges. These existing methods often lead to delays, high costs, limited accessibility, and inconsistent data management. To address these issues, we propose developing an online portal for case management and hearings. This e-portal aims to automate processes, reduce costs, improve accessibility, enhance transparency, and ensure (...) consistent data management. By implementing this solution, we aim to expedite case resolutions, lower expenses, provide better access to information for all parties, and create a more efficient legal system. (shrink)

Two-tiered mixed theories of punishment hold that legislatures should act according to consequentialism, but the judiciary should act according to retributivism. A major motivation for these theories is wanting to preserve the idea that punishment is ultimately justified on consequentialist grounds, without falling prey to the Punishing the Innocent objection. Yet this benefit is illusory. While two-tiered mixed theories successfully avoid the Punishing the Innocent objection narrowly construed, they do not successfully escape the point behind it. This is because (...) cases can be constructed with the same problems as those used to describe the classic Punishing the Innocent objection, just bumped up to the legislature. (shrink)

Pardon powers are common but difficult to justify. A pardon power is, roughly, a power that is (a) possessed by a non-judicial official, (b) used to cancel legal liability to a criminal sanction in a particular case without thereby altering the law, and (c) unconstrained by law. So defined, pardon powers seem to be at odds with two constitutional principles. Contrary to the separation of powers, the pardon power gives to someone other than a judge a decisive role in determining (...) criminal liability in particular cases. Contrary to the rule of law, the pardon power is neither constrained nor ruled by law. -/- Here I provide a novel defence of pardon powers, in three steps. First, even an optimal legal code requires suboptimal results in some cases. In such cases there is a “gap” between what is required by the code we should have and what we should do absent that code. Adhering to the code in every gap case is undesirable: while it would avoid suboptimal results, it would create too much unpredictability. Deviating from the code in every gap case is also undesirable: while it would ensure predictability, it would produce too many suboptimal results. The best strategy is to adhere in some cases and to deviate in others, that is, to selectively deviate. The most important thing about selective deviation is that it leads to like cases being treated differently. This is the second step in the argument. Third, pardon powers are an appropriate vehicle for selective deviation. Selective deviation calls for a power that can be used to set aside the code without changing it. It calls for a power that can be used inconsistently. Moreover, it calls for a power that is not in the hands of a body institutionally disposed towards consistency in decision-making, such as the judiciary. That is, it requires a power with features (a)-(c) – a pardon power. -/- This argument overcomes the various objections to pardon powers. Contrary to the objection from the separation of powers, selective deviation is a task better carried out by non-judicial officials. Contrary to the objection from the rule of law, a power of selective deviation must be unconstrained to preserve the law’s guiding function. Overall, the features of pardon powers that seemed to be in tension with the separation of powers and the rule of law turn out to be favoured by those same principles. (shrink)

The struggle by black people to obtain freedom, justice, and dignity is as old as this nation. At times, great and inspiring leaders rose out of desperate situations to give confidence and feelings of empowerment to the black community. Most of these leaders urged their people to strive for racial equality. They were firmly wedded to the idea that the courts and judiciary were the vehicle to better the social position of blacks. In spite of dramatic civil rights movements (...) and periodic victories in the legislatures, black Americans by no means are equal to whites. Racial equality is, in fact, not a realistic goal. By constantly aiming for a status that is unobtainable in a perilously racist America, black Americans face frustration and despair. Over time, our persistent quest for integration has hardened into self-defeating rigidity. (shrink)

Karl Llewellyn’s critique of the canons of statutory interpretation led to a decline in their use for several decades. His critique, however, faced sustained resistance from some corners of the academy and the judiciary. Although this resistance has had only a selective uptake, it animated a gradual revival of the canons and brought the state of scholarship to an impasse that is for the most part partisan. In this article, I examine the semantic canons from a deeper level and (...) argue that a universal assumption about them is false. Said assumption is that, although not dispositive, the semantic canons at least offer some reasons in favour of or against a candidate interpretation. Inclinations to rely on the semantic canons are also based on this assumption, although it is an assumption that the critics of the canons also share. I argue that this assumption is false because the semantic canons are a class of rules that are by nature not reason-giving. This provides a new ground against giving the semantic canons deliberative weight in questions of statutory interpretation. (shrink)

This report presents the results of a research project which examined how Polish administrative courts exercise discretionary powers when deciding cases related to business activity. When a business enterprise asks the court to review actions taken by administration, judges decide whether an administrative body has used its powers in accordance with the law. The law in this case includes both the relevant statutory regulations but also more general principles originating from other sources, such as the Constitution or European Union law. (...) It is generally accepted that in such cases courts have discretion, i.e. are able to select legal standards on which to base their judgments and to decide how to apply such standards to the case at hand. This does not mean, of course, that administrative court judges can do what they please. But, within some well-established boundaries, they can select from among various rules and principles those legal standards which apply to the case before them, interpret their meaning, and assess their importance. We aim to understand this process. (shrink)

Sentencing outcomes turn on moral and evaluative determinations. For example, a finding of “irreparable corruption” is generally a precondition for juvenile life without parole. A finding that the “aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors” determines whether a defendant receives the death penalty. Should such moral determinations that expose defendants to extraordinary penalties be subject to a standard of proof? A broad range of federal and state courts have purported to decide this issue “in the abstract and without reference to our (...) sentencing case law,” as the Supreme Court recently put it. Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108, 119 (2016). According to these courts, “it would mean nothing” to ask whether the defendant “deserves mercy beyond a reasonable doubt” or “more-likely-than-not deserves it” because moral questions are not “factual.” Instead, moral determinations are highly subjective “value calls” to which concepts of doubt and certainty do not intelligibly apply. -/- Implicit in these rulings is a controversial view of the nature of moral judgment. This Article traces the contours of the view and argues that it is out of step with the way the broader public thinks about morality and fails to address the issues defendants have raised. Courts should avoid wading into such controversial waters for two reasons. First, the judiciary has historically maintained neutrality on issues of significant public concern. Second, even if moral determinations are not factual, applying a standard of proof to at least some moral decisions at sentencing would change the outcome of the sentencer’s deliberations, and improve the legitimacy of the legal system. For the reasonableness of doubt depends on context; and moral questions—"are you certain the defendant deserves death?”—make salient the stakes relative to which a person should decide what to believe about ordinary empirical matters. On the resulting view, reasonable doubt in the final moral analysis is not just intelligible, but essential for correcting a bias in the structure of the bifurcated criminal trial that systematically disadvantages defendants: the tendency for de-contextualized "factual findings” in the guilt phase to control outcomes at sentencing. (shrink)

The consciousness of social security comes to a man when he feels that he is getting his basic rights. Human Rights are related to those rights which are related to man’s life, freedom, equality and self-esteem, are established by Indian constitution or universal declaration of human rights and implemented by Indian judiciary system. In other words, “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or (...) any other status.”1 We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. But we when come the present conditions of Indian society, it is painful to say we find lots of discrimination and violations of human rights is a common problem. In this paper it is an attempt is made to describe that casteism cause social insecurity and is a form of violation of human rights. (shrink)

Recent work in democratic theory has seriously questioned the dominant pluralist model of self-government and recommended the adoption of a ‘deliberative’ conception of constitutional democracy. With this shift in basic political theory, the objection to judicial review, often voiced in jurisprudential theory, as an anti-democratic instance of paternalism merits another look. This paper argues that the significant differences between four recent theories of constitutional review—put forward by Ely, Perry, Dworkin, and Habermas—are best understood as arising from different positions taken on (...) two cross-cutting distinctions that have been inherited from Locke and Rousseau: democratic processes as aggregative versus deliberative, and democratic legitimacy as substantive versus procedural. A reconstruction and critical evaluation of the four theories of judicial review, with special emphasis on their underlying theories of constitutional democracy, yields a set of criteria for adequate accounts of democratic processes, democratic legitimacy, and their relation to judicial review. I argue that the best understanding of constitutional review is yielded by Habermas’s theory because it combines a conception of popular sovereignty in terms of the collective process of citizens’ deliberative attempt to institutionalize the general will through law, with a resolutely proceduralist conception of democratic legitimacy. However, I also argue that some of the specific proposals Habermas makes concerning the institutionalization of constitutional review in an independent, non-accountable judiciary and the scope of duties for such a body need to be modified in the light of his overriding commitments to participatory deliberative processes and procedural legitimacy. (shrink)

Resources for Feminist Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 44-45, 1985 In this brief article, written in 1984 and published the following year, Lucinda Vandervort sets out a comprehensive agenda for enforcement of sexual assault laws in Canada. Those familiar with her subsequent writing are aware that the legal implications of the distinction between the “social” and “legal” definitions of sexual assault, identified here as crucial for interpretation and implementation of the law of sexual assault, are analyzed at length in (...) “Mistake of Law and Sexual Assault: Consent and Mens Rea” (1986), published at (1987-88) 2(2) Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 233 309. In that article the author argued that most mistakes about consent are not mistakes about a “fact” that may sometimes negative mens rea, but are actually mistakes about the law that afford accused no excuse under either Canadian common law or statutory criminal law. She argued further that consent must be interpreted as “voluntary agreement” and must be affirmatively and unequivocally communicated in order to operate as an effective waiver of a person’s legal right to be free from interference with his or her bodily integrity. That article was a central reference point in the consultations leading to the 1992 amendments to the sexual assault provisions in the Canadian Criminal Code and in some key decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada in sexual assault cases in the 1990’s. As a result of a gradual transformation of theoretical analysis of the law of mens rea and consent in Canada, culpable awareness is now understood by many jurists and criminal law theorists quite differently than it was twenty-five years ago. As Vandervort acknowledged in her 1984 Agenda for Action, however, clarity in legal theory and legal doctrine is no guarantee of how sexual assault laws will operate in practice. Theory and practice, doctrine and its implementation, often diverge. This phenomenon is still seen in some decisions taken at the trial, pre-trial, and pre-charge stages in sexual assault cases. Police, prosecutors, and many trial judges, like accused, may often be influenced by traditional attitudes about sexual consent and mistaken about the law of consent. Accordingly, in her recent work Vandervort re-visits and re-examines the exercise of discretion by police, prosecutors, and the judiciary. An example is her 2009 article “Legal Subversion of the Criminal Justice Process? Judicial, Prosecutorial and Police Discretion in R. v. Edmondson, Kindrat and Brown” in Sexual Assault Law, Practice & Activism in a Post-Jane Doe Era, edited by Elizabeth Sheehy (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2012). In this and some of her other recent work, the distinctions between social and legal norms and questions of fact and law, previously analyzed with the objective of clarifying the law, are used to control the effects of social ignorance and partiality in the handling of sexual assault complaints by decision-makers in the criminal justice system at trial and pre-trial. Lucinda Vandervort’s published and unpublished legal and philosophical writings on sexual assault and sexual assault law illustrate the development of a socio-legal scholar’s “Agenda for Action” into a principled, pragmatic, open-ended exercise in “institutional design.” Across two centuries, from the revolutionary era of the 18th century to the present, other radical egalitarians would recognize both the impetus for the project and many features of the political and cultural resistance to it. (shrink)

It could be argued that tort law is failing, and arguably an example of this failure is the recent public liability and insurance (‘PL&I’) crisis. A number of solutions have been proposed, but ultimately the chosen solution should address whatever we take to be the cause of this failure. On one account, the PL&I crisis is a result of an unwarranted expansion of the scope of tort law. Proponents of this position sometimes argue that the duty of care owed by (...) defendants to plaintiffs has expanded beyond reasonable levels, such that parties who were not really responsible for another’s misfortune are successfully sued, while those who really were to blame get away without taking any responsibility. However people should take responsibility for their actions, and the only likely consequence of allowing them to shirk it is that they and others will be less likely to exercise due care in the future, since the deterrents of liability and of no compensation for accidentally self-imposed losses will not be there. Others also argue that this expansion is not warranted because it is inappropriately fueled by ‘deep pocket’ considerations rather than by considerations of fault. They argue that the presence of liability insurance sways the judiciary to award damages against defendants since they know that insurers, and not the defendant personally, will pay for it in the end anyway. But although it may seem that no real person has to bear these burdens when they are imposed onto insurers, in reality all of society bears them collectively when insurers are forced to hike their premiums to cover these increasing damages payments. In any case, it seems unfair to force insurers to cover these costs simply because they can afford to do so. If such an expansion is indeed the cause of the PL&I crisis, then a contraction of the scope of tort liability, and a pious return to the fault principle, might remedy the situation. However it could also be argued that inadequate deterrence is the cause of this crisis. On this account the problem would lie not with the tort system’s continued unwarranted expansion, but in the fact that defendants really have been too careless. If prospective injurers were appropriately deterred from engaging in unnecessarily risky activities, then fewer accidents would ever occur in the first place, and this would reduce the need for litigation at its very source. If we take this to be the cause of tort law’s failure then our solution should aim to improve deterrence. Glen Robinson has argued that improved deterrence could be achieved if plaintiffs were allowed to sue defendants for wrongful exposure to ongoing risks of future harm, even in the absence of currently materialized losses. He argues that at least in toxic injury type cases the tortious creation of risk [should be seen as] an appropriate basis of liability, with damages being assessed according to the value of the risk, as an alternative to forcing risk victims to abide the outcome of the event and seek damages only if and when harm materializes. In a sense, Robinson wishes to treat newly-acquired wrongful risks as de-facto wrongful losses, and these are what would be compensated in liability for risk creation (‘LFRC’) cases. Robinson argues that if the extent of damages were fixed to the extent of risk exposure, all detected unreasonable risk creators would be forced to bear the costs of their activities, rather than only those who could be found responsible for another’s injuries ‘on the balance of probabilities’. The incidence of accidents should decrease as a result of improved deterrence, reduce the ‘suing fest’, and so resolve the PL&I crisis. So whilst the first solution involves contracting the scope of tort liability, Robinson’s solution involves an expansion of its scope. However Robinson acknowledges that LFRC seems prima facie incompatible with current tort principles which in the least require the presence of plaintiff losses, defendant fault, and causation to be established before making defendants liable for plaintiffs’ compensation. Since losses would be absent in LFRC cases by definition, the first evidentiary requirement would always be frustrated, and in its absence proof of defendant fault and causation would also seem scant. If such an expansion of tort liability were not supported by current tort principles then it would be no better than proposals to switch accident law across to no-fault, since both solutions would require comprehensive legal reform. However Robinson argues that the above three evidentiary requirements could be met in LFRC cases to the same extent that they are met in other currently accepted cases, and hence that his solution would therefore be preferable to no-fault solutions as it would only require incremental but not comprehensive legal reform. Although I believe that actual losses should be present before allowing plaintiffs to seek compensation, I will not present a positive argument for this conclusion. My aim in this paper is not to debate the relative merits of Robinson’s solution as compared to no-fault solutions, nor to determine which account of the cause of the PL&I crisis is closer to the truth, but rather to find out whether Robinson’s solution would indeed require less radical legal reform than, for example, proposed no-fault solutions. I will argue that Robinson fails to show that current tort principles would support his proposed solution, and hence that his solution is at best on an even footing with no-fault solutions since both would require comprehensive legal reform. (shrink)

This article examines the operation of “reasonable steps” as a statutory standard for analysis of the availability of the defence of belief in consent in sexual assault cases and concludes that application of section 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code, as presently worded, often undermines the legal validity and correctness of decisions about whether the accused acted with mens rea, a guilty, blameworthy state of mind. When the conduct of an accused who is alleged to have made a mistake about whether (...) a complainant communicated consent is assessed by the hybrid subjective-objective reasonableness standard prescribed by s. 273.2, many decision-makers rely on extra-legal criteria and assumptions grounded on their personal experience and opinion about what is reasonable. In the midst of debate over what the accused knew and what steps were “reasonable” given what the accused knew, the legal definition of consent in section 273.1 is easily over-looked and decision-makers focus on facts that are legally irrelevant and prejudice rational deliberation. -/- That is precisely what we see here; the result is often failure to enforce the law. The author proposes: -/- (a) that section 273.2 be amended to reflect the significant developments achieved in sexual consent jurisprudence since enactment of the provision in 1992; and -/- (b) that, in the interim, the judiciary act with resolve to make full and proper use of the statutory and common law tools that are presently available to determine whether the accused acted with mens rea in relation to the absence of sexual consent. (shrink)

Commentators of the judicial decisions of Justice Holmes have often situated the decisions inside the doctrines of freedom of expression and the rules and tests approach to legal analysis. This Paper situates his judgments in the context of a political theory. Drawing from his articles, lectures and correspondence, the Paper highlights Holmes’ reaction to the idealism and rationalism of the intellectual current before him. His view of human nature, conditioned by his war experience, is elaborated. The Paper especially examines his (...) theory of political struggle with the process-oriented view that the dominant social groups invariably become the political elite. The Paper then connects his theory of human nature to his legal doctrines, the role of the judiciary, the nature of the state, and a legal right. (shrink)

Certain principle aspects of the fundamental science state in Ukraine as of 2014 were analyzed. It was shown that no awareness exists in the country that the main although not unique task of the science consists in the creation of new knowledge. The special attention was paid to state academies of science, in particular, to the National academy of science of Ukraine. It was demonstrated that the active law concerning science as well as the project of the new law have (...) substantial shortcomings from the judiciary viewpoint and inhibit a free progress of science in line with general trends of the developed countries. The existing status of the autonomous state academies, being a peculiar symbiosis the non-governmental organization and state institution, was criticized. The concept of a scientific elite was analyzed, which was used to determine its true level. Certain scientometric data on the Ukrainian science were presented. A very unsatisfactory situation with social sciences and humanities was shown. Criteria were discussed for the future audit of the Ukrainian science in order to reform it in the European style. (shrink)

Many scholars believe that it is procedurally undemocratic for the judiciary to have an active role in shaping the law. These scholars believe either that such practices as judicial review and creative statutory interpretation are unjustified, or that they are justified only because they improve the law substantively. This Article argues instead that the judiciary can play an important procedurally democratic role in the development of the law. Majority rule by legislatures is not the only defining feature of (...) democracy; rather, a government is democratic to the extent to which it provides egalitarian forms of political participation. One such form of participation can be the opportunity to influence the law through the courts, either directly by participating in a case or indirectly by advocating litigation. Arguing from several examples, this Article shows that judicial decision-making allows different voices to be heard that may not necessarily have influence or power in majoritarian legislative structures or popular initiatives. Giving citizens the opportunity to change, to preserve, and to obtain authoritative clarification of the law through the courts can thus make a government procedurally more democratic. (shrink)

The Holistic Governance Model (HGM): A Blueprint for the Future -/- Introduction -/- Governments today face increasing challenges, from economic instability and climate change to corruption and social inequality. No single government system has fully solved these issues, but by integrating the best aspects of existing models, we can create an optimal governance system. -/- The Holistic Governance Model (HGM) is a hybrid system that combines elements from Social Democracy, Technocracy, Semi-Direct Democracy, China’s Whole-Process People’s Democracy, and the Modified Westminster (...) System. It leverages AI-driven policy-making, technocratic expertise, direct citizen participation, and long-term national planning to create a balanced, efficient, and just government system. -/- 1. Core Foundations of the Holistic Governance Model -/- The HGM is built on six fundamental pillars, ensuring that governance is efficient, democratic, and sustainable. -/- 1.1. Economic System: A Hybrid of Capitalism and State Planning -/- Inspired by: Singapore (Technocracy), China (State-Controlled Development), Nordic Model (Social Welfare), and Switzerland (Financial Stability) ✅ Key Industries Under State Control: The government regulates healthcare, energy, and transportation while allowing free-market innovation. ✅ Smart Capitalism: Entrepreneurs and businesses thrive, but AI-driven economic planning ensures fair wealth distribution. ✅ Universal Basic Assets (UBA): Instead of universal basic income (UBI), citizens receive free housing, education, and healthcare, ensuring financial security. ✅ AI-Assisted Economy: AI predicts recessions, optimizes budgets, and prevents financial crises. -/- 1.2. Political System: A Dynamic Semi-Direct Democracy -/- Inspired by: Switzerland (Direct Democracy), Westminster System (Parliament), and Singapore (Meritocratic Leadership) ✅ Two-Tier Voting System: -/- General Elections: Citizens vote for representatives every 4-5 years. -/- National Referendums: Citizens directly vote on major policies twice a year. ✅ Technocratic Advisory Board (TAB): A non-political panel of scientists, economists, and AI experts advises the government. ✅ Decentralized Local Governance: Cities and regions have autonomy while aligning with national laws. -/- 1.3. Education & Human Development: AI-Powered Lifelong Learning -/- Inspired by: Nordic Model (Free Education), Singapore (STEM Focus), and China (AI Integration) ✅ Free Public Education for Life: Every citizen has access to continuous learning, including college and skill retraining. ✅ AI-Based Personalized Learning: Students use AI tutors that adapt to their learning pace. ✅ Ethics & Critical Thinking Curriculum: Courses in philosophy, logic, and decision-making prevent misinformation and ignorance. -/- 1.4. Healthcare & Social Welfare: AI-Driven Preventive Medicine -/- Inspired by: Nordic Model (Universal Healthcare), Singapore (Tech-Driven Healthcare), and China (Mass Coverage) ✅ Government-Funded Universal Healthcare: Citizens receive free basic healthcare, with private options available. ✅ AI & Robotics in Medicine: AI diagnoses diseases early, reducing medical costs. ✅ Preventive Healthcare Policy: Citizens receive incentives for maintaining good health (fitness programs, nutrition plans). -/- 1.5. Environmental & Energy Policies: The Green Industrial Revolution -/- Inspired by: China (Renewable Energy Expansion), Nordic Model (Sustainability Laws), and Singapore (Urban Planning) ✅ Mandatory Green Technology Adoption: Businesses must comply with strict eco-friendly policies. ✅ Carbon Credit Economy: Citizens and companies earn rewards for reducing carbon footprints. ✅ 100% Renewable Energy by 2050: The government funds solar, wind, and AI-optimized energy grids. -/- 1.6. Law & Order: AI-Governed Justice & Anti-Corruption Measures -/- Inspired by: Switzerland (Independent Judiciary), Singapore (Strict Law Enforcement), and China (AI in Governance) ✅ AI-Assisted Judiciary: AI helps judges analyze case laws for fair, unbiased rulings. ✅ Zero-Corruption Policy: Public officials caught in corruption face lifetime bans from government service. ✅ Balanced Civil Rights & Security: -/- Freedom of Speech: Citizens can express opinions, but disinformation is regulated. -/- AI Surveillance for Security: AI prevents crime while protecting privacy. -/- 2. Government Structure of HGM -/- 2.1. Executive Branch: The President, Prime Minister, and Technocrats -/- President (Elected by Public Vote) → Oversees national policies and international relations. -/- Prime Minister (Elected by Parliament) → Manages daily governance. -/- Technocratic Economic Council → Expert-led economic planning. -/- AI-Assisted Policy Bureau → Uses AI for healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental policies. -/- 2.2. Legislative Branch: Semi-Direct Parliament -/- Lower House (Elected Officials) → Creates laws based on citizen participation. -/- Upper House (Experts & Regional Representatives) → Reviews laws for scientific and ethical validity. -/- Referendum System → Citizens directly vote on key national issues. -/- 2.3. Judicial Branch: AI-Assisted Supreme Court -/- Independent Court System → Ensures justice and constitutional balance. -/- AI Legal Analysis → AI helps judges analyze previous cases and evidence. -/- 3. Implementation Strategy: How to Apply HGM Worldwide -/- To implement HGM, a phased approach is needed: -/- Phase 1 (0-5 Years): Research & AI Integration -/- ✅ Establish an HGM Global Research Center to develop AI governance models. ✅ Pilot AI-assisted economic planning in select countries. -/- Phase 2 (5-10 Years): Education & Public Awareness -/- ✅ Introduce HGM-based education systems (critical thinking, AI governance). ✅ Encourage political reforms to adopt hybrid governance models. -/- Phase 3 (10-20 Years): Nationwide Policy Implementation -/- ✅ Countries gradually adopt the HGM framework, with AI monitoring national progress. ✅ Global partnerships for climate change action and digital economy growth. -/- Phase 4 (Beyond 20 Years): Global Standardization -/- ✅ Establish an HGM Alliance for international cooperation. ✅ Implement AI-driven global policies on poverty, sustainability, and digital rights. -/- 4. Why the HGM is the Future of Governance -/- The Holistic Governance Model (HGM) offers the most advanced, efficient, and democratic government system by combining AI governance, citizen participation, economic stability, and social equality. -/- Conclusion: A Government System for the 21st Century -/- The Holistic Governance Model (HGM) combines the best government systems into a single, optimized model. By implementing AI, technocracy, direct democracy, and long-term planning, HGM ensures: ✅ Efficient economic management ✅ Social equality without excessive taxation ✅ Democratic participation with AI-driven transparency ✅ Sustainable environmental policies ✅ Corruption-free governance -/- If adopted globally, HGM could transform human civilization into a more just, advanced, and sustainable society. -/- . (shrink)

In spite of his post-World War II works on international law, which seems more purely juridical, Hans Kelsen continues to put forward in his vast body of work an implicit – and sometimes even explicit – juridical objectivism and pacifism. Especially before and during the second World War he makes – by means of many moral-political writings – an effort for a more effective assurance of international peace. The fact that Kelsen regards the law as the pre-eminent means to achieve (...) the end of peace, is – in view of the tradition running from Hobbes to Kant – still not very innovating. But the primary and central role he assigns to the judiciary in order to guarantee international peace is on the other hand really original. To bring out Kelsen’s juridical objectivism and pacifism, I restrict myself in this article to his plea before and during the second World War for the judicial primacy in the international legal order. In that plea, which is spread over many writings and founded by several arguments, I distinguish however three main convincing arguments – namely an evolutionary, a technical and a moral-political argument – for the establishment of an international court with compulsory jurisdiction as the ‘guardian of international peace’. The fact that Kelsen’s original plea is still relevant to our times, is already evident from the post-World War II UN-system of peace-enforcement, which still functions little satisfactorily and of which the existing plans of reform go no further than strengthening the position of the Security Council, the current hardly effective ‘maintainer of world peace’. (shrink)

The United Kingdom's Parliamentary Bill 'Fraud Trials (Without a Jury) 2007', failed. Nevertheless, fraud trials without a jury do take place and there is much evidence to support this. Today the UK still does not support fraud trials without a jury, even though fraud in the UK today is the highest amount of fraud globally. The longer version of this paper is submitted here since it has become urgent that UK fraud trials be examined as a matter of urgency. On (...) page 87 of this complete paper (cut down for The Criminal Lawyer in 2008) a U.S study of 46 corporate fraud trials revealed that the defendants were CEOs, President, Chairman, Senior Vice Presidents, Chief Financial Officers, but only one entity reach trial stage. After the ce Arthur Anderson LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), and the Lehman Brothers SEC case and the SEC v. Bank of America Corp., 653 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2009, and the Report by the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry on the 2008 financial crash, a global financial disaster was predicted and George Osborne, UK Chancellor pleaded for leniency for HSBC Bank frauds, threatening a global meltdown. The U.S. judiciary increased its volume of Deferred Prosecution Agreements and the UK followed suit. So, in year 2022, there is global financial meltdown and the UK has the highest rate of fraud in the world with few successful convictions. This paper is very relevant today as we must stop using deferred prosecution agreements and seek more convictions and harsh jail sentences for those financial fraudsters who have created this meltdown. -/- *When this paper was written, UK fraud was estimated at £40 million and some experts suspected twice that amount. Today UK fraud is in the billions of pounds annually. (shrink)

Why Governments Become Corrupt: The Role of Power, Education, and Moral Values -/- Corruption is one of the most persistent problems in governance, affecting societies across different political and economic systems. It undermines democracy, weakens institutions, and diverts resources meant for public welfare into private hands. While corruption is often associated with greed and abuse of power, its roots go much deeper, extending to failures in the educational system and the erosion of family moral values. This essay explores the reasons (...) behind government corruption and how systemic failures in education and morality contribute to its persistence. -/- 1. Power Without Accountability -/- One of the primary reasons governments become corrupt is the unchecked power held by officials. When political leaders and bureaucrats operate without sufficient oversight, they are more likely to misuse public funds, manipulate policies, and engage in bribery or favoritism. In many countries, weak democratic institutions fail to impose consequences on corrupt individuals, allowing them to act with impunity. The absence of transparency in decision-making processes further enables corruption to thrive, as citizens are kept in the dark about how their governments operate. -/- 2. Weak Legal and Political Institutions -/- Corruption flourishes in environments where legal frameworks exist but are not enforced. Many countries have anti-corruption laws, yet enforcement is selective or non-existent. This failure is often due to political interference in the judiciary, where corrupt leaders appoint judges who will protect them from prosecution. Furthermore, when law enforcement agencies themselves are corrupt, they fail to investigate and punish those in power. This creates a vicious cycle where corruption becomes the norm rather than the exception. -/- 3. The Role of Greed and Self-Interest -/- Human nature, particularly the pursuit of wealth and status, plays a significant role in government corruption. Many officials prioritize their personal and political interests over the welfare of the people they serve. Bribery, embezzlement, and fraud become tempting options for those seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of society. Additionally, political patronage—where politicians use their power to reward loyal supporters with government positions or contracts—further entrenches corruption. -/- 4. The Failure of the Educational System -/- One of the overlooked causes of corruption is the failure of the educational system to instill ethical values and critical thinking. Education is supposed to shape responsible citizens, but in many countries, the system is focused on rote learning rather than teaching morality, civic responsibility, and ethical leadership. Schools and universities often do not provide students with the tools to question authority, recognize corruption, or demand transparency from their leaders. -/- Moreover, when the education system itself is corrupt—through bribery in admissions, fake diplomas, or unqualified teachers—it sets a dangerous precedent. Students grow up believing that success can be achieved through dishonest means, reinforcing the idea that corruption is an acceptable part of life. Without a strong moral foundation in education, future generations are more likely to participate in or tolerate corrupt practices. -/- 5. The Decline of Family Moral Values -/- Family plays a crucial role in shaping an individual’s ethical beliefs and behaviors. However, in many societies, traditional moral values that emphasize honesty, integrity, and accountability are declining. Parents, preoccupied with economic survival, may fail to teach their children the importance of moral principles. In some cases, families themselves engage in corrupt behaviors—such as paying bribes to secure jobs or influencing government officials for personal gain—sending the message that corruption is a necessary survival strategy. -/- Religious and cultural institutions, which once played a significant role in promoting ethical behavior, have also lost influence in many societies. As materialism and individualism grow stronger, the collective responsibility for upholding moral values weakens. When individuals lack strong moral guidance from their families and communities, they are more likely to justify corrupt actions when they gain positions of power. -/- 6. Economic Pressures and Low Salaries -/- Economic hardship can also drive corruption, especially in developing nations where government employees are underpaid. When officials struggle to meet their basic needs, they may resort to accepting bribes, embezzling funds, or engaging in illicit activities to supplement their income. In such environments, corruption becomes a survival mechanism rather than just a moral failure. -/- 7. Corporate Influence and Political Lobbying -/- The influence of powerful corporations over government policies is another major driver of corruption. Large businesses often fund political campaigns, expecting favorable policies in return. This results in leaders prioritizing corporate interests over public welfare. When governments are captured by private interests, policies that should benefit the majority are distorted to serve a wealthy elite. -/- 8. The Lack of Civic Engagement and Public Awareness -/- When citizens do not actively participate in governance or demand accountability, corrupt leaders face little resistance. A disengaged population allows corruption to thrive because there is no pressure for change. In many cases, people feel powerless or fear retaliation for speaking out against corrupt officials. Strengthening civic awareness through education, media, and public activism is essential in the fight against corruption. -/- Solutions: Restoring Integrity Through Education and Morality -/- To combat corruption effectively, reforms must address not only political and legal structures but also educational and moral foundations: -/- Strengthening the Educational System: Schools must incorporate ethics, civic responsibility, and critical thinking into their curriculum. Teachers should emphasize honesty and accountability, ensuring that students understand the long-term consequences of corruption. -/- Rebuilding Family Moral Values: Families must take a more active role in teaching children about integrity and social responsibility. Parents should set examples by refusing to participate in corrupt practices. -/- Enforcing Strong Anti-Corruption Laws: Governments must ensure that laws against corruption are applied equally, regardless of political or economic status. Independent judicial bodies should oversee investigations and prosecutions. -/- Improving Transparency in Governance: Public access to government transactions and decision-making processes must be expanded to reduce opportunities for corruption. Digital tools, such as open data platforms, can help track government spending and prevent misuse of funds. -/- Encouraging Citizen Participation: People must be empowered to hold their leaders accountable. This includes supporting investigative journalism, encouraging whistleblowers, and engaging in peaceful protests or advocacy movements. -/- Conclusion -/- Government corruption is a complex issue rooted in systemic failures, economic pressures, and ethical erosion. While power, greed, and weak institutions contribute to corruption, the failure of the educational system and the decline of moral values play an equally significant role. Addressing corruption requires a multi-faceted approach that not only strengthens laws and institutions but also reforms education and restores ethical foundations within families. Only through a collective effort to instill integrity at all levels of society can corruption be effectively minimized, paving the way for just and accountable governance. -/- . (shrink)

-/- Balanced Governance System (BGS) -/- A governance model based on the Universal Law of Balance in Nature -/- 1. Foundational Principles -/- This system operates under three core laws derived from your universal formula: -/- 1. The Law of Balance in Nature – Governance decisions must create equilibrium between economic, social, environmental, and ethical factors. -/- 2. The Law of Systems Integrity – Every system in governance must function without corruption, misinformation, or ideological bias. -/- 3. The Feedback Mechanism (...) Principle – Governance must continuously adjust based on real-time feedback from citizens, scientific data, and AI-driven analytics. -/- 2. Government Structure -/- A. The Council of Balance (Supreme Decision-Making Body) -/- Composition: Scientists, philosophers, engineers, economists, and ethicists (not politicians). -/- Function: -/- Ensures that all policies and laws align with the law of balance in nature. -/- Uses AI-powered real-time monitoring to detect economic, environmental, or social imbalances. -/- Has the power to reject laws and policies that create imbalance. -/- B. The Triad of Governance (Three Pillars of Power) -/- Instead of a traditional executive, legislative, and judicial system, the BGS has a three-branch governance structure designed to maintain balance: -/- 1. The Adaptive Leadership Council (ALC) – Executive Branch -/- Function: Implements policies while adjusting them in real-time based on societal and environmental feedback. -/- Composition: -/- Members selected through merit-based exams, not elections. -/- Trained in natural law, systems engineering, ethics, and governance balance. -/- AI-driven decision-making assistants support leaders in detecting errors and biases. -/- Key Difference from Traditional Governments: -/- No single head of state (like a president). Instead, an Adaptive Leadership Panel rotates power. -/- Cannot pass policies that violate balance principles, ensuring no corporate or ideological influence. -/- 2. The Collective Intelligence Assembly (CIA) – Legislative Branch -/- Function: Proposes, refines, and adjusts laws based on scientific, ethical, and public feedback. -/- Composition: -/- 50% of seats occupied by citizen representatives (selected through public consensus). -/- 30% occupied by scientists, engineers, and ethicists to ensure laws are factually correct. -/- 20% occupied by AI-assisted governance advisors who analyze real-time data on societal balance. -/- Key Features: -/- No traditional voting on laws – instead, policies must pass a scientific and ethical balance test before implementation. -/- Feedback-driven policy revisions: Laws are automatically reviewed based on real-world effects rather than waiting for elections. -/- 3. The Ethical Judiciary Board (EJB) – Judicial Branch -/- Function: Ensures laws and policies do not violate the law of balance in nature. -/- Composition: Judges with backgrounds in science, ethics, and law. -/- Key Differences from Traditional Systems: -/- Decisions are not based solely on legal precedent, but on scientific and ethical balance analysis. -/- AI monitoring detects judicial biases, corruption, or imbalanced rulings. -/- 4. Checks and Balances Based on Feedback Loops -/- A. Public Decision-Making Hubs (PDMH) – Direct Citizen Involvement -/- Real-time data collection centers where citizens provide feedback on policies. -/- Ensures that public sentiment and local issues directly influence governance. -/- Prevents elite control by decentralizing decision-making. -/- B. AI-Governance Monitoring System -/- Tracks societal imbalances in wealth, resource distribution, misinformation, and environmental sustainability. -/- Alerts the Council of Balance when imbalance is detected. -/- Prevents manipulation of governance by corporate or elite interests. -/- C. Leadership Qualification System -/- No direct elections – instead, leaders must pass strict merit-based exams in: -/- 1. Scientific understanding of governance -/- 2. Ethical decision-making -/- 3. Systems thinking and balance analysis -/- Preventing corruption: Any leader caught violating balance principles is immediately removed. -/- 4. Election and Governance Selection Process -/- A. Selection of Leaders -/- Citizens do not vote for politicians – instead, governance operates like a scientific system: -/- 1. Potential leaders undergo years of training in natural law, systems balance, and ethical leadership. -/- 2. AI-based governance simulations test their ability to maintain balance in crisis scenarios. -/- 3. Public approval panels ensure leaders align with societal needs before final selection. -/- B. Citizen Participation in Lawmaking -/- Citizens propose laws through digital governance platforms. -/- All proposals undergo a balance verification process before being accepted. -/- 5. Economic and Social Policy -/- A. Balanced Economic System -/- Wealth is capped to prevent extreme economic inequality. -/- AI-driven resource distribution models ensure fair allocation of wealth. -/- Taxation is dynamic – corporations are taxed based on environmental and social impact. -/- B. Education System Reform -/- Universal education on the law of balance in nature from childhood. -/- Critical thinking and ethical decision-making are core subjects. -/- C. Media and Information Integrity -/- No corporate-owned media – all news is fact-checked by independent AI and public review. -/- Misinformation prevention laws ensure truth-based governance. -/- 6. Global Integration and Expansion -/- Phase 1: Educational Reform -/- The universal formula is integrated into education worldwide to prepare future generations. -/- Phase 2: Local Governance Testing -/- Small-scale implementations in cities to refine and perfect the system. -/- Phase 3: International Adoption -/- Governments worldwide gradually shift to this model as education improves. -/- The United Nations and other global bodies are encouraged to adopt balanced governance principles. -/- Conclusion -/- This government system eliminates corruption, misinformation, and elite control, ensuring that all decisions align with the law of balance in nature. Instead of relying on elections and party politics, governance operates through scientific integrity, real-time feedback, and public involvement. -/- . (shrink)

Refined Proposal for Sortition-Based Governance in the Philippines -/- A Hybrid Model with a High-Standard Filtering Mechanism for Selecting Leaders, Including the President & Prime Minister -/- To eliminate political dynasties, corruption, and incompetence, this refined proposal replaces national elections for the President and Prime Minister with an advanced sortition system that ensures only the most highly qualified individuals are selected. -/- 1. Key Features of the Sortition-Based Philippine Government -/- ✔ Strict Qualification Filtering – Only the most competent and (...) ethical candidates are considered. ✔ Advanced Sortition – Instead of elections, top leaders are randomly selected from a pre-vetted pool of highly qualified individuals. ✔ Hybrid Governance Model – A Prime Minister (Head of Government) and a President (Head of State) for better governance balance. ✔ Transparent Selection Process – Sortition is automated, verifiable, and publicly monitored using AI & blockchain technology. ✔ Non-Renewable Terms – Prevents long-term political control and career politicians. ✔ Citizen Participation – Involves the public in decision-making through citizen assemblies and local councils. -/- 2. Government Structure with Sortition for the Philippines -/- A. The Head of State: President (Selected via Sortition, Not Elections) -/- The President will serve as the ceremonial Head of State, responsible for: ✅ Representing the country internationally. ✅ Appointing officials based on meritocratic recommendations. ✅ Ensuring the balance of power between government branches. ✅ Vetoing laws that violate the Constitution and Universal Law of Balance. -/- Selection Process for the President -/- 1. Strict Filtering Process – Only candidates who meet the highest standards of education, experience, and integrity qualify. -/- 2. Meritocratic Shortlisting – A national committee of scholars, scientists, and governance experts ranks candidates based on leadership skills, ethical track record, and knowledge. -/- 3. Randomized Selection from the Top 10 Candidates – Using a publicly transparent, blockchain-based lottery system. -/- 4. Final Public Confirmation – The selected candidate must pass a public review process before assuming office. -/- Term Length: 6 years, non-renewable (to prevent career politicians). -/- B. The Head of Government: Prime Minister (Selected via Sortition, Not Elections) -/- The Prime Minister will be the Head of Government, responsible for: ✅ Managing the executive branch and national policies. ✅ Implementing laws and overseeing economic programs. ✅ Ensuring efficiency and ethical governance. -/- Selection Process for the Prime Minister -/- 1. Qualification Screening – Candidates must have at least 10 years of government or leadership experience and pass a national competency exam. -/- 2. Parliamentary Nomination – The Citizen Assembly (Congress) will nominate 10 highly qualified candidates based on merit and leadership performance. -/- 3. Final Selection via Sortition – The Prime Minister is randomly selected from the top 3 nominees. -/- 4. Public Oath of Accountability – The selected Prime Minister must take a binding public oath to serve with integrity. -/- Term Length: 4 years, renewable once (to allow stability but prevent long-term control). -/- C. The Legislature (Citizen Assembly & Senate Reform) -/- 50% of House Representatives & Senate will be selected via sortition among highly qualified candidates. -/- 50% will be elected through regional voting to maintain some democratic representation. -/- Term Length: 4 years, non-renewable for randomly selected officials. -/- D. The Judiciary (Courts & Justice System) -/- Judges, Justices, and Ombudsman officials will be randomly selected from a pool of the most qualified lawyers and legal scholars. -/- A randomly selected Citizen Oversight Panel will monitor the judiciary to prevent corruption. -/- E. Local Government (Governors, Mayors, Councils) -/- Governors & Mayors: Selected through sortition from qualified candidates (instead of elections). -/- City & Barangay Councils: -/- 50% selected via sortition among qualified candidates. -/- 50% elected through local voting. -/- 3. Filtering Mechanism: Who Can Be Included in the Sortition Process? -/- To ensure only highly qualified candidates are included in the random selection pool, strict requirements must be met. -/- A. General Qualifications (Applies to All Government Positions) -/- ✅ Minimum Education: Bachelor’s degree in law, economics, governance, or a related field. ✅ Advanced Competency Exam: Must pass a rigorous national leadership exam designed by experts. ✅ Proven Leadership Experience: At least 5–10 years of experience in public service, business, governance, or military leadership. ✅ Ethical and Clean Record: No history of corruption, abuse of power, or criminal activity. ✅ Public Service Commitment: Must sign a legally binding contract to serve with integrity and undergo regular performance reviews. -/- After meeting these qualifications, candidates enter the sortition lottery system for selection. -/- 4. Implementation Plan for the Philippines -/- Step 1: Public Awareness & Education -/- Mass education campaign through universities, media, and schools. -/- Conduct town halls and citizen debates on the benefits of sortition. -/- Step 2: Pilot Program at the Local Level -/- Implement sortition in barangay and city councils first. -/- Monitor effectiveness and citizen satisfaction. -/- Step 3: Constitutional Reform -/- Amend the 1987 Constitution to legalize sortition-based governance. -/- Establish the National Sortition Oversight Commission (NSOC) to manage the system. -/- Step 4: Full Nationwide Implementation -/- Expand sortition to the national government. -/- Introduce performance evaluation mechanisms to ensure accountability. -/- 5. Addressing Common Concerns -/- Concern 1: Will Random Selection Be Manipulated? -/- ✅ Solution: Use blockchain & AI-based selection systems to ensure full transparency. -/- Concern 2: Will Unqualified People Be Chosen? -/- ✅ Solution: Only highly vetted candidates enter the sortition pool, preventing unqualified individuals from being selected. -/- Concern 3: How Will This Be Accepted by Filipinos? -/- ✅ Solution: Implement small-scale trials, showing the positive effects of sortition before full implementation. -/- Concern 4: Will the Philippines Lose Stability Without Elections? -/- ✅ Solution: The hybrid model ensures some elected officials remain while transitioning to a sortition-based system. -/- 6. Expected Benefits for the Philippines -/- ✔ Eliminates corruption and political dynasties. ✔ Ensures only competent and ethical leaders govern. ✔ Prevents career politicians from controlling the country. ✔ Restores public trust in government. ✔ Reduces the influence of money in politics. -/- Final Conclusion: A New Democratic Model for the Philippines -/- This sortition-based system with strict filtering ensures that only the most capable Filipinos lead the country. By removing political dynasties, election fraud, and corruption, we create a fair, transparent, and efficient government. -/- . (shrink)

How to Spot a Potentially Dangerous Future Leader -/- Leadership plays a critical role in shaping the future of societies, nations, and even the world. While great leaders bring stability, progress, and balance, dangerous leaders can lead to authoritarianism, oppression, and societal collapse. History has shown that early warning signs of destructive leadership are often ignored until it is too late. Understanding these warning signs can help prevent the rise of leaders who threaten human rights, democracy, and the well-being of (...) their people. This essay explores the key characteristics of a potentially dangerous future leader and how individuals and societies can recognize and respond to them. -/- 1. Extreme Authoritarian Traits -/- One of the most obvious signs of a dangerous leader is a strong inclination toward authoritarianism. Such individuals often seek to centralize power, dismantling institutions that limit their authority. They may show a disregard for the rule of law, manipulating or bypassing legal systems to consolidate their control. A dangerous leader is intolerant of dissent, using censorship, intimidation, or direct repression to silence critics. They often work to weaken checks and balances, eliminating opposition parties, controlling the judiciary, or suppressing the media. By doing so, they remove any obstacles to their absolute authority, creating a system that serves their personal interests rather than the public good. -/- 2. Manipulative and Deceptive Behavior -/- A potentially dangerous leader is highly skilled in deception and manipulation. They often use demagogic speech, relying on emotional appeals rather than facts to influence the masses. Fear-mongering is a common tactic, where they exaggerate threats—real or imagined—to justify their actions. Instead of taking responsibility, they shift blame to minorities, foreign nations, or political opponents, creating scapegoats to distract from their own failures. They may also engage in double standards, saying one thing in public while doing the opposite in private. This inconsistency erodes trust and fosters a culture of confusion and division. -/- 3. Dangerous Ideology and Policies -/- Another key warning sign is the promotion of divisive or extremist ideologies. Dangerous leaders thrive on division, creating an “us vs. them” mentality to justify discrimination or violence. They reject scientific reasoning and expert advice, favoring policies based on personal beliefs or populist rhetoric. This disregard for rationality can lead to disastrous consequences in areas such as healthcare, economics, and environmental policies. Additionally, they often propose radical solutions that ignore balance, promoting extreme nationalism, reckless economic policies, or aggressive military expansion. While such actions may gain short-term popularity, they often lead to long-term instability. -/- 4. Cult of Personality -/- Many dangerous leaders seek to establish a cult of personality, portraying themselves as infallible figures who are beyond criticism. They demand blind loyalty from followers, punishing those who question their decisions. Such leaders often rewrite history or distort reality to fit their narrative, creating propaganda that glorifies their achievements while erasing their failures. This cult-like following makes it difficult for people to see the leader’s flaws, as they become emotionally invested in their idealized image. In extreme cases, societies under such leaders begin to view dissent as betrayal, further deepening the leader’s grip on power. -/- 5. Disregard for Human Rights -/- A major red flag is the leader’s attitude toward human rights. Dangerous leaders often justify the suppression of freedoms in the name of national security, stability, or economic growth. They encourage violence, either through direct orders or by subtly endorsing extremist groups that act on their behalf. Journalists, activists, and opposition figures are often imprisoned or killed under their rule. The suppression of free speech and the persecution of minorities become normalized, as the leader consolidates power through fear and intimidation. -/- 6. Economic and Social Recklessness -/- While dangerous leaders may promise prosperity, their policies often prioritize short-term popularity over long-term stability. They may engage in reckless spending, unsustainable economic projects, or corruption to maintain loyalty among their supporters. Rather than promoting balance in governance, they focus on immediate gains that ultimately lead to financial crises or social unrest. Surrounding themselves with unqualified loyalists, they weaken institutions and reduce the efficiency of government operations. Over time, their failure to uphold the universal law of balance in nature leads to systemic collapse. -/- Conclusion -/- History has repeatedly shown the devastating consequences of dangerous leaders. From Adolf Hitler’s rise in Germany to authoritarian figures in modern times, societies have suffered greatly when warning signs were ignored. Recognizing these patterns early can help prevent future disasters. Education, critical thinking, and institutional safeguards are key to ensuring that power remains balanced and that leadership serves the people rather than personal ambition. By staying vigilant and promoting awareness, individuals and societies can prevent dangerous leaders from gaining power and ensure a future of stability, fairness, and progress. -/- . (shrink)

The Disadvantages of Frequent Leadership Changes in a Democratic System and a Balanced Governance Model -/- A democratic system, while promoting freedom and representation, often faces the challenge of frequent leadership changes. While democracy allows for periodic elections to ensure accountability and public participation, constant shifts in leadership can create instability. These rapid transitions can disrupt governance, economic stability, policy continuity, and social harmony, violating the universal law of balance in nature. To address this issue, governance must integrate principles of (...) stability, feedback mechanisms, and systemic balance. This essay explores the disadvantages of frequent leadership changes, the impact of political dynasties, and proposes a comprehensive governance model based on the universal formula of balance in nature. -/- 1. Policy Discontinuity and Lack of Long-Term Vision -/- Frequent leadership changes disrupt the continuity of governance, causing policy reversals and inefficiencies. Leaders with short terms often focus on immediate political gains rather than long-term national development. This short-sighted governance creates instability, preventing a country from maintaining a stable equilibrium. Just as a natural ecosystem collapses when its cycles are constantly interrupted, a government that lacks consistency in its policies struggles to achieve long-term progress. -/- Solution: To ensure stability, governments should implement a National Development Framework (NDF) that remains independent of political cycles. This framework should be based on scientific and natural balance principles, ensuring that leadership transitions do not lead to abrupt policy shifts. By institutionalizing long-term national policies, a country can maintain stability even when leadership changes. -/- 2. Economic Instability and Market Uncertainty -/- Unstable leadership leads to inconsistent economic policies, creating uncertainty in markets, industries, and job security. Frequent changes in administration disrupt investment plans and economic growth, much like how an organism suffers if its homeostasis is repeatedly disturbed. -/- Solution: A Balanced Economic Model (BEM) should be implemented, ensuring that economic policies remain stable and independent of political influence. Governments should establish independent economic councils that enforce long-term economic strategies based on sustainability and scientific economic models. This will create a predictable economic environment, encouraging investment and growth. -/- 3. Political Polarization and Societal Divisions -/- Frequent leadership transitions intensify political rivalries, leading to societal divisions rather than unity. Political parties focus on securing power rather than governance, creating an imbalance in the decision-making process. This disrupts the feedback mechanism between governance and society, similar to how neural imbalances in the brain lead to disorders. -/- Solution: To mitigate political divisions, governments should shift focus from partisan politics to collective governance. Leaders should undergo training in the universal law of balance as part of their political education. Establishing a National Leadership Training Institute (NLTI) will ensure that all political candidates understand governance rooted in systemic balance, reducing political conflicts. -/- 4. Weak Institutional Strength and Corruption Susceptibility -/- Frequent leadership changes weaken governing institutions, as each administration reshapes them to fit its political agenda. When key institutions such as law enforcement, the judiciary, and economic regulators are frequently altered, their effectiveness is compromised. This is similar to a mechanical system in which continuous tampering with critical components leads to failure. -/- Solution: To strengthen institutional integrity, key governing bodies must remain independent of political influence. A Governance Stability Act (GSA) should be introduced to prevent sudden policy overhauls and ensure gradual, well-balanced transitions. Independent oversight bodies must be reinforced to maintain stability in institutional frameworks. -/- 5. Costly and Frequent Elections Leading to Resource Drain -/- Elections require significant financial and logistical resources, diverting funds that could be used for national development projects. Frequent election cycles result in inefficient allocation of resources, similar to an organism wasting energy on unnecessary processes rather than survival and growth. -/- Solution: A Hybrid Governance Model should be adopted, reducing the frequency of elections while ensuring accountability through performance-based metrics. Leaders should be evaluated based on governance assessments that determine their effectiveness rather than relying solely on political cycles. This model ensures stability while maintaining democratic accountability. -/- 6. Lack of Accountability for Leaders -/- Short-term leaders often make decisions without facing long-term consequences, leading to reckless governance. This lack of accountability disrupts systemic balance, similar to how an uncontrolled chemical reaction leads to instability. -/- Solution: Governments should implement accountability mechanisms that track leaders’ decisions over time. A Governance Oversight Council (GOC) should be established to evaluate long-term governance impact, ensuring that leaders remain responsible for their actions beyond their term in office. -/- 7. The Advantages and Disadvantages of Political Dynasties -/- Political dynasties, where power is concentrated within a single family, have both positive and negative impacts on governance. -/- Advantages: -/- Continuity and Stability – Political dynasties can maintain policy continuity and long-term governance, reducing frequent leadership changes. -/- Experienced Leadership – Families with political backgrounds often pass down knowledge and governance expertise. -/- Efficient Decision-Making – Less political competition within a dynasty can lead to quicker decision-making processes. -/- Disadvantages: -/- Concentration of Power – Political dynasties may lead to authoritarian rule, suppressing democratic participation. -/- Corruption and Nepotism – The absence of checks and balances can result in favoritism, inefficiency, and misuse of public resources. -/- Limited Political Diversity – Restricting leadership opportunities to a few families discourages fresh ideas and innovative policies. -/- Solution: To address the imbalance caused by political dynasties, a Balanced Political Representation Act (BPRA) should be implemented. This act would: -/- 1. Limit Consecutive Family Rule – Restrict family members from holding key leadership positions simultaneously. -/- 2. Enhance Political Competition – Encourage merit-based leadership selection processes rather than inheritance of power. -/- 3. Establish Governance Ethics Training – Ensure all political leaders undergo governance education focused on ethical leadership and systemic balance. -/- A Holistic Governance Model Based on the Universal Law of Balance -/- To address the issues caused by frequent leadership changes and political dynasties, governance must adopt a holistic, balanced, and feedback-based system aligned with the universal formula of balance in nature. This requires: -/- 1. Governance Training on Natural Balance – All leaders must be educated on the universal law of balance to ensure scientifically informed governance. -/- 2. Sustainable and Adaptive Leadership Structure – Leadership transitions should be structured to ensure continuity and stability in governance. -/- 3. Institutional Independence and Stability – Core institutions must be protected from political instability to maintain effective governance. -/- 4. Data-Driven Decision Making – Governments should use real-time feedback mechanisms, similar to how adaptive systems self-regulate for stability. -/- Conclusion -/- Frequent leadership changes in democratic systems create governance instability, policy discontinuity, economic uncertainty, and political divisions. Additionally, political dynasties, while offering stability, can also lead to power imbalances. By integrating principles of systemic balance and stability, nations can achieve effective governance while maintaining democratic values. Implementing long-term frameworks, strengthening institutions, and adopting performance-based leadership models will ensure that governance aligns with the universal law of balance in nature. Through this approach, democracy can evolve into a more stable and efficient system that serves the long-term interests of society. -/- . (shrink)

The Holistic Governance System (HGS): A New Form of Government -/- The Holistic Governance System (HGS) is a new form of government that combines the strengths of successful systems while minimizing their weaknesses. It blends democracy, strategic planning, economic efficiency, and strong social welfare policies to ensure balanced governance. -/- Core Principles of HGS: -/- 1. Balanced Democracy: A hybrid system that combines representative democracy, direct democracy, and meritocratic leadership to ensure efficient governance. -/- 2. Strategic Economic Growth: A regulated (...) free market economy combined with state-led investment in key industries, following Singapore and China’s development model. -/- 3. Strong Social Welfare: A universal healthcare and education system based on the Nordic model (Norway, Sweden). -/- 4. Technological and Scientific Leadership: Investment in research, artificial intelligence, and green energy to drive national progress. -/- 5. Corruption-Free Governance: Strict anti-corruption laws similar to Singapore’s model to ensure ethical leadership. -/- 6. Civic Participation: Switzerland’s direct democracy elements, allowing citizens to vote on key national policies. -/- 7. National Stability and Global Neutrality: Following Switzerland’s model, HGS avoids unnecessary global conflicts while maintaining strong economic and diplomatic ties. -/- 8. Smart Population Management: Inspired by China and Singapore, a planned approach to population control, urban planning, and sustainable resource use. -/- 9. Education-Based Leadership Training: Leaders must undergo specialized training in economics, philosophy, and governance (meritocratic system). -/- Government Structure of HGS: -/- 1. Head of State: The Strategic Council (Meritocratic Leadership) -/- Instead of a single president or monarch, a Strategic Council composed of seven highly qualified experts governs the nation. -/- These experts are selected based on intellectual merit, leadership skills, and public approval. -/- They serve fixed 10-year terms (non-renewable) to ensure long-term stability while preventing dictatorship. -/- The council’s decisions are subject to public referendums (Switzerland model) for major national policies. -/- 2. Legislative System: Balanced Parliament + Direct Democracy -/- A bicameral system (two chambers): -/- The People’s Assembly (elected by citizens). -/- The Expert Senate (selected from scholars, scientists, and experienced policymakers). -/- Public Referendums are held twice a year, allowing citizens to vote on critical policies. -/- 3. Economic System: Balanced Market Economy + State Investment -/- Private businesses operate freely, but key sectors like healthcare, education, and strategic industries are managed by the government. -/- State-led economic planning ensures sustainable development (like Singapore & China). -/- High-tech industries and green energy receive major state investment. -/- 4. Social Welfare: Universal Services for Citizens -/- Free healthcare & education (like Norway, Sweden). -/- Guaranteed basic income to prevent poverty. -/- Affordable housing programs (government-regulated). -/- 5. Judiciary: Independent Supreme Court + AI Oversight -/- Courts are fully independent to prevent political interference. -/- AI-driven legal analysis ensures fair and unbiased rulings (Singapore model). -/- 6. Military & Foreign Policy: Neutrality + Strong Defense -/- Switzerland-style neutrality (no unnecessary wars). -/- Small but advanced military, focused on defense and cyber security. -/- Advantages of HGS Over Current Governments: -/- How HGS Could Be Implemented: -/- 1. Pilot City-States: The system could be tested in a small, independent city-state before being adopted by larger nations. -/- 2. Gradual Reform: Countries with failing governments could transition by adopting HGS policies step by step (e.g., start with anti-corruption laws, economic reform, and education improvement). -/- 3. AI-Assisted Governance: Technology would be used to analyze policies, reducing bias and human error. -/- Conclusion: -/- The Holistic Governance System (HGS) offers the best of democracy, meritocracy, economic planning, and social welfare while minimizing corruption, inefficiency, and instability. It creates a government that is stable, effective, and fair, allowing both economic growth and citizen well-being. -/- . (shrink)

-/- Populism: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern Democracy -/- Populism is one of the most frequently used yet often misunderstood terms in contemporary political discourse. It has influenced elections, swayed public opinion, and reshaped national policies across the globe. At its core, populism is a political strategy or approach that aims to represent the interests and voice of the “common people” in opposition to a perceived corrupt elite or establishment. While it can reinvigorate democracy and bring neglected issues to the (...) forefront, populism also poses significant risks to democratic institutions and social cohesion. -/- Defining Populism -/- Populism does not function as a comprehensive ideology like conservatism or socialism. Rather, it operates as a political logic or style, often characterized by a dichotomy between “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite” (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017). Populist leaders claim to embody the general will of the people and typically frame their opposition as illegitimate or morally inferior. This approach often involves direct appeals to the masses, with disdain for traditional institutions like the judiciary, media, or political parties. -/- Populism can manifest across the ideological spectrum. Left-wing populism tends to focus on economic justice, inequality, and class struggle, while right-wing populism often emphasizes nationalism, cultural identity, and skepticism toward immigration or globalism. Regardless of political leaning, populism fundamentally seeks to mobilize people against established centers of power. -/- Historical Origins and Global Spread -/- The term “populism” originated from the U.S. People’s Party in the late 19th century. This movement represented the grievances of rural farmers against banks, railroads, and industrial monopolies (Kazin, 1995). Populism later gained prominence in Latin America through leaders like Juan Perón in Argentina and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, who blended charismatic leadership with policies aimed at empowering the poor and working class. -/- In the 21st century, populism has reemerged as a powerful force globally. In Europe, populist parties have capitalized on discontent stemming from economic crises, refugee influxes, and dissatisfaction with the European Union. In Asia and Africa, populist leaders have gained popularity by challenging colonial legacies, elite corruption, and foreign influence, often promising national revival and self-sufficiency. Populist movements have also gained traction in North America, where distrust in traditional political systems continues to grow. -/- The Appeal of Populism -/- Populism thrives in environments of crisis, inequality, and mistrust. Economic instability, unemployment, cultural change, and political disillusionment create fertile ground for populist narratives (Inglehart & Norris, 2016). Populist leaders offer clear, emotionally resonant messages that speak directly to people’s fears, frustrations, and hopes. -/- The modern media landscape, particularly the rise of social media, has intensified the populist surge. Populist figures often bypass traditional media outlets to communicate directly with their supporters, spreading simple, relatable messages that may resonate more than complex policy debates (Moffitt, 2016). This direct connection fosters a sense of authenticity and responsiveness, further building trust among followers. -/- Criticisms and Dangers -/- Despite its potential to increase democratic engagement, populism carries several risks. First, by dividing society into binary opposites—good versus evil, people versus elite—it tends to polarize the political landscape. This can lead to the erosion of democratic dialogue, compromise, and mutual respect. -/- Second, populist leaders often challenge the legitimacy of democratic institutions. By attacking the press, judiciary, or electoral processes, they may consolidate power and undermine checks and balances (Levitsky & Ziblatt, 2018). Some populist regimes have curtailed civil liberties, weakened the rule of law, or manipulated elections under the guise of fulfilling the people’s will. -/- Third, populism can result in unrealistic promises and short-term policies. Leaders may appeal to emotional grievances without addressing underlying structural problems. When results fail to materialize, disillusionment can set in, potentially fostering instability or extremism. -/- Feasible Solutions -/- To mitigate the dangers of populism while addressing its root causes, a multi-pronged approach is essential: -/- 1. Strengthen Democratic Institutions: Governments should reinforce the independence and credibility of democratic institutions—such as courts, electoral commissions, and public broadcasters. Transparent, accountable institutions build public trust and can resist manipulation by populist actors. -/- 2. Promote Inclusive Economic Policies: Economic inequality fuels populist discontent. Policymakers should implement inclusive policies that promote equitable access to jobs, education, and healthcare. Investment in rural areas and marginalized communities can reduce the perception of systemic neglect. -/- 3. Improve Political Communication and Civic Education: Citizens need to understand how democracy functions and how their participation matters. Educational systems should promote critical thinking, media literacy, and awareness of democratic norms to make citizens more resistant to demagoguery and misinformation. -/- 4. Address Legitimate Grievances Responsibly: Rather than dismissing populist concerns outright, mainstream parties and institutions should listen to citizens’ real frustrations—whether they stem from globalization, immigration, or corruption—and address them through practical and evidence-based policy solutions. -/- 5. Encourage Transparent and Ethical Leadership: Ethical governance, anti-corruption measures, and public accountability are key to countering the appeal of populists who promise to “clean up the system.” Leaders must lead by example to restore faith in politics. -/- 6. Foster Social Dialogue and Unity: Building platforms for dialogue between different social, ethnic, and political groups can reduce polarization. Promoting mutual understanding and cooperation, especially at the local level, fosters social cohesion and resilience against divisive rhetoric. -/- Conclusion -/- Populism is a complex and dynamic force in modern democracy. It reflects genuine grievances and has the capacity to rejuvenate political engagement. However, it also poses serious risks if it erodes democratic norms, institutions, and societal unity. The challenge for democratic societies is to respond constructively: by listening, reforming, and educating—rather than by repressing or ignoring. -/- If the root causes of populism are addressed with empathy, transparency, and sound policy, its energy can be redirected into positive democratic renewal rather than destructive division. Only through this balanced approach can democracies survive and thrive in an age of uncertainty and change. -/- References -/- Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash. Harvard Kennedy School. -/- Kazin, M. (1995). The Populist Persuasion: An American History. Cornell University Press. -/- Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing. -/- Moffitt, B. (2016). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford University Press. -/- Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. -/- . (shrink)

A Raffle-Based Selection System in a Presidential Government: A Feasible Alternative? -/- Introduction -/- Democratic elections are the foundation of modern governance, yet they come with major flaws, such as excessive campaign spending, political corruption, and the influence of wealthy elites. In a presidential system, where the executive (the president) is directly elected and serves as both the head of state and head of government, an alternative method of leadership selection could improve governance. A raffle-based selection system, or sortition, where (...) highly qualified candidates are randomly chosen, offers a radical yet potentially effective solution. -/- To make such a system feasible in a presidential government, it must be carefully designed to ensure competency, democratic legitimacy, and public accountability. This essay explores how a raffle-based selection system could be integrated into a presidential system, its advantages and challenges, and comprehensive solutions to ensure its practicality. -/- Problems with the Traditional Election System in a Presidential Government -/- Before considering alternatives, we must analyze the weaknesses of traditional elections in a presidential system: -/- 1. High Campaign Costs – Running for president requires massive funding, often limiting viable candidates to the wealthy or those backed by large corporations. -/- 2. Corruption and Special Interests – Political donors influence policy decisions, creating governance that serves the elite rather than the public. -/- 3. Manipulative Political Strategies – Elections are often won through emotional appeal, misinformation, and populist rhetoric instead of sound policies. -/- 4. Political Polarization – A two-party or multi-party system can create deep divisions, making governance inefficient and adversarial. -/- Given these issues, a raffle-based system could offer a more fair and meritocratic way of selecting leaders in a presidential system. -/- How a Raffle-Based Selection System Can Work in a Presidential Government -/- A presidential system consists of three main branches: -/- 1. The Executive (President, Vice President, and Cabinet) – The head of government, responsible for national policy and administration. -/- 2. The Legislature (Congress, Parliament, or National Assembly) – Lawmakers who create and regulate policies. -/- 3. The Judiciary – Ensures laws are interpreted fairly and justly. -/- A raffle-based system could apply primarily to the selection of the president, vice president, and key executive officials, using a multi-stage filtering and selection process to ensure that only highly competent leaders are chosen. -/- Proposed Multi-Stage Selection Process: -/- 1. Candidate Qualification Stage: -/- Candidates must apply or be nominated based on strict qualifications: -/- Educational background in governance, law, economics, or public administration. -/- At least 10-15 years of leadership experience in government, business, or civil service. -/- A clean ethical and criminal record, verified through independent investigations. -/- Completion of governance and policy assessments to ensure knowledge and competence. -/- 2. Formation of a National Candidate Pool: -/- All qualified candidates are placed into a national selection pool. -/- Regional quotas may be used to ensure diversity (e.g., candidates from different provinces or ethnic groups). -/- 3. Randomized Selection Process: -/- A publicly monitored raffle system randomly selects the President and Vice President from the pool of highly qualified individuals. -/- 4. Appointment of the Cabinet: -/- The selected President appoints Cabinet members from the same qualified pool, ensuring a government composed of experienced professionals. -/- This approach removes costly elections, prevents political manipulation, and ensures competency-based leadership, while maintaining the core structure of a presidential government. -/- Advantages of a Raffle-Based System in a Presidential Setup -/- 1. Eliminates Expensive and Corrupt Election Campaigns -/- No need for campaign spending, ensuring equal opportunity for all competent individuals. -/- Prevents corporate and special interest control over government decisions. -/- 2. Ensures Equal Representation and Diversity -/- Leaders are chosen from a national pool, preventing domination by political dynasties or elite families. -/- Regional quotas ensure fair representation of different ethnic, economic, and regional groups. -/- 3. Minimizes Political Polarization -/- Leaders are selected based on merit, not party ideology, reducing political divisions. -/- Encourages a focus on national interests rather than party loyalty. -/- 4. Encourages Competency-Based Governance -/- Only highly skilled and experienced individuals can qualify, ensuring meritocratic leadership. -/- Prevents unqualified but popular candidates from winning through emotional appeal or misinformation. -/- 5. Increases Government Stability -/- With no re-election pressures, the President can focus on governance rather than campaigning. -/- Fixed leadership terms ensure stability, reducing the risk of frequent political conflicts. -/- Challenges and Solutions for Implementing Sortition in a Presidential System -/- While promising, this system faces key challenges that must be addressed through comprehensive solutions: -/- 1. Public Trust and Democratic Legitimacy -/- Challenge: People may perceive a raffle-based system as undemocratic because they are not voting for their leaders. Solution: -/- Public education campaigns to explain that only highly qualified individuals will be selected. -/- Introduce a citizen veto option, allowing the public to reject a randomly chosen leader if they fail a public approval process. -/- Make the selection process fully transparent, with live broadcasting and independent oversight. -/- 2. Accountability of Leaders -/- Challenge: Without elections, how can a President be held accountable to the people? Solution: -/- Implement fixed single-term limits (e.g., 6 years) to prevent extended rule. -/- Establish citizen oversight committees to monitor presidential performance. -/- Allow a public impeachment mechanism if a leader violates ethical standards or abuses power. -/- 3. Risk of Unfit Leaders -/- Challenge: Even with filtering, some selected individuals may lack leadership skills. Solution: -/- Provide mandatory governance training before they assume office. -/- Appoint experienced advisors to guide the President and ensure informed decision-making. -/- 4. Ensuring Government Efficiency -/- Challenge: A randomly selected leader may struggle to work with legislators or government agencies. Solution: -/- The President selects a Cabinet from the same qualified pool, ensuring a team of competent officials. -/- Maintain strong legislative checks and balances, allowing Congress to oversee executive actions. -/- 5. Resistance from Political Parties and Traditional Politicians -/- Challenge: Political elites may resist this system as it threatens their power and influence. Solution: -/- Introduce the system gradually, starting at local government levels. -/- Transform political parties into policy advisory groups rather than election machines. -/- Implementation Roadmap for a Presidential System -/- 1. Pilot Testing in Local Governments -/- Implement sortition for mayors and governors before expanding to the national level. -/- 2. Gradual Expansion to Cabinet-Level and National Leadership -/- Apply sortition to ministerial positions before extending it to the presidency. -/- 3. Full National Adoption with Oversight Mechanisms -/- Introduce a fully functional raffle-based presidential system with public monitoring and legislative oversight. -/- Conclusion -/- Replacing elections with a raffle-based selection system in a presidential government presents a bold yet viable alternative to traditional democracy. By eliminating costly campaigns, reducing corruption, and ensuring competent governance, sortition could enhance the efficiency of the executive branch. However, careful public education, transparency, and accountability measures are necessary to ensure legitimacy and success. If properly executed, this model could revolutionize presidential governance and create a fairer, more effective political system. -/- . (shrink)

CONSTITUTION OF THE BALANCED GOVERNANCE SYSTEM (BGS) -/- PREAMBLE We, the people, in recognition of the universal law of balance in nature and the necessity of governance founded upon equilibrium, integrity, and collective intelligence, establish this Constitution to ensure a just, harmonious, and sustainable society. -/- ARTICLE I: FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES -/- Section 1. The Law of Balance in Nature All governance decisions must maintain harmony between economic, social, environmental, and ethical considerations, ensuring no imbalance that leads to human suffering or (...) ecological destruction. -/- Section 2. The Law of Systems Integrity All governmental systems and processes must operate free from corruption, misinformation, ideological bias, or undue influence from corporate or special interests. -/- Section 3. The Feedback Mechanism Principle Governance must be dynamic, continuously adjusting policies and decisions based on real-time feedback from citizens, scientific analysis, and AI-driven monitoring systems. -/- ARTICLE II: STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT -/- Section 1. The Council of Balance (Supreme Decision-Making Body) -/- 1. Comprised of scientists, ethicists, economists, and engineers, selected based on merit and expertise. -/- 2. Ensures that all policies align with the law of balance in nature. -/- 3. Has the power to veto or reform policies that create systemic imbalance. -/- Section 2. The Triad of Governance (Three Pillars of Power) -/- 1. The Adaptive Leadership Council (ALC) – Executive Branch -/- Implements policies while adjusting them in real time based on feedback mechanisms. -/- Members are selected through rigorous merit-based exams, ensuring competency. -/- Power is distributed across a rotating panel rather than a single executive leader. -/- 2. The Collective Intelligence Assembly (CIA) – Legislative Branch -/- Proposes and refines laws based on citizen input, scientific analysis, and ethical considerations. -/- Comprised of citizen representatives (50%), scientists and ethicists (30%), and AI-assisted governance advisors (20%). -/- No law may be passed without passing a balance verification process. -/- 3. The Ethical Judiciary Board (EJB) – Judicial Branch -/- Ensures all laws and policies adhere to the law of balance in nature. -/- Judges must be trained in science, ethics, and law, with AI-assisted monitoring for impartiality. -/- Court decisions must consider systemic balance, not merely legal precedent. -/- ARTICLE III: CHECKS AND BALANCES -/- Section 1. Public Decision-Making Hubs (PDMH) -/- Localized centers for citizen engagement and real-time policy feedback. -/- Citizens can propose policies or adjustments based on their lived experiences. -/- Section 2. AI-Governance Monitoring System -/- Detects imbalances in economy, resource distribution, misinformation, and societal well-being. -/- Automatically alerts the Council of Balance when interventions are required. -/- Section 3. Leadership Qualification and Accountability -/- All leaders must undergo rigorous training in governance balance and ethics. -/- Any leader found violating the law of balance is immediately removed and barred from future governance roles. -/- ARTICLE IV: ELECTION AND GOVERNANCE SELECTION -/- Section 1. Leadership Selection Process -/- 1. Governance is not determined by elections but through merit-based qualification. -/- 2. Candidates must pass extensive testing in scientific governance, ethical decision-making, and crisis management simulations. -/- 3. Final selection includes public approval panels to ensure leaders reflect the people’s needs. -/- Section 2. Citizen Participation in Lawmaking -/- 1. Laws are proposed via direct citizen input through digital governance platforms. -/- 2. AI-assisted systems ensure proposals align with balance principles before formal review. -/- ARTICLE V: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POLICY -/- Section 1. Balanced Economic System -/- 1. Wealth is regulated to prevent extreme economic inequality. -/- 2. AI-driven models ensure fair distribution of resources and taxation based on environmental and societal impact. -/- Section 2. Education System Reform -/- 1. Universal education must include teachings on the universal law of balance in nature. -/- 2. Critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and governance principles are mandatory subjects. -/- Section 3. Media and Information Integrity -/- 1. All information must be verified through independent, non-corporate fact-checking bodies. -/- 2. Misinformation campaigns are actively countered through transparent governance communication. -/- ARTICLE VI: GLOBAL INTEGRATION AND ADOPTION -/- Section 1. Phased Implementation -/- 1. Phase 1: Educational reform to prepare society for balanced governance. -/- 2. Phase 2: Local governance test cases to refine systems before national adoption. -/- 3. Phase 3: International expansion through global cooperation. -/- Section 2. United Nations and Global Adoption -/- 1. Governments are encouraged to transition toward balanced governance principles. -/- 2. Global treaties will be developed to ensure international cooperation in maintaining societal balance. -/- ARTICLE VII: AMENDMENT PROCESS -/- Section 1. Dynamic Constitutionality -/- 1. This Constitution is subject to periodic review and amendment based on real-time societal needs. -/- 2. Amendments must pass the balance verification process before implementation. -/- CONCLUSION This Constitution establishes a governance system that prioritizes balance, fairness, and ethical integrity, ensuring that decision-making is rooted in science, ethics, and real-time citizen engagement rather than political or corporate interests. We, the people, commit to upholding these principles for the sustainable and harmonious evolution of society. -/- . (shrink)

Spinoza's moral philosopher represents his most concerted attempt to come to terms with the great philosophical questions of the existence and identity of God, the nature and origin of the human mind concerning God, the origin and nature of emotions, the power of emotions as they restrict freedom of choice. His ethics is derived from his metaphysics and psychology. His belief that everything emanates from a perfect and infinite God made him conclude that evil does not exist. Further, he argues (...) that anything that happens could have happened otherwise since it emanated from the unchangeable laws of nature. The surest part of happiness according to Spinoza is the study of philosophy and meditation. Arising from the foregoing, this discourse views Spinoza's doctrine as running contrary to human nature. For maintaining that everything is fated and determined including human disposition implies that all human actions can, therefore, be said to be amoral. The corollary of the above is that institutions such as law court, police, prisons, and judiciary, Christianity and Islam are superfluous, irrational and serving no purpose. Consequently, his postulates smack of a moral lacuna. (shrink)

Among the many problems facing u.s. immigration law is a crisis of discretion and judicial deference. Through two recently passed laws, the United States Congress and the President have seriously limited judicial review o f discretionary immigration decisions o f the Board ofImmigration Appeals. This Article focuses on this preclusion of judicial review of discretionary agency decisions. The Article begins with an examination ofdiscretion from a theoretical perspective, and goes on to examine areas o f immigration law in which discretion (...) was traditionally most imponant. That examination is followed by a discussion of immigration-law scholarship and critique. The Article concludes that what is needed in U.S. immigration law is greater restraint, and calls on the Judiciary to provide more oversight regarding discretionary agency decisions. (shrink)

In this paper an attempt is made to draw out an outline of present social evils generated from Caste-Discrimination and this system is the misinterpreted conception of Varynavyavastha where the four varnas are divided on the basis of division of labour and since history it converted to caste system. With these Human Rights issues are directly related and human rights are an important concept in civilized and democratic society. But from the part of Government and judiciary the above said (...) both are separated and cannot be treated equally and it can be see in the latest examples of inhuman acts with Dalits in Haryana. First this paper also highlights the schemes and policies of the government to eliminate this system and their failure in part of unavailability to socially deprived persons. These policies are only in the paper form and cannot become part of practical concerns. Secondly these problems related to caste- discrimination can be solved only by social awareness and social interaction among different communities but not only by policies and schemes. Since independence there is not a single case of social awareness programme conducted by political parties and government and this become the root cause of social inequality till now. The present examples of violation and injustice with poor and deprived persons show the failure of our judiciary system and so-called democratic & secular society. With this background some recommendations will be discussed in the last of the paper so that a humane society can be modeled according to our constitutional commitment of social equality, freedom and brotherhood. (shrink)

Religion and culture are interwoven and this can be seen among the Oron people in their use of the shrine as a socio-cultural and ethical institution. The shrine is an embodiment and the symbol of the very traditional religion of the people. As such, the shrine serves as a medium through which the norms, values, ethics, taboos, and morals are taught and enforced. There is also a great relationship between religion and justice as the shrine (Afi/Obio) as an ethical institution (...) serves as a tribunal of justice by the deities, divinities, and ancestors under the guidance and administration of the priest in tackling and resolving criminal activities, disputes as well as restoring social order and justice in Oron traditional society. The Oron Afi/Obio (Shrine) method of administering justice is beyond the Empirical application of the modern judiciary system that relies on physical facts and shreds of evidence, while the shrine, also, uses spiritual methods that involve Oath taking, incantation and necromancy. Globalization rather than modifying the lapses and loopholes of this system in the parlance of morality, ethics, and health has led to its abolition and break down. This work adopts the qualitative method. This work as primary research uses the conflict theory, phenomenological and Historical method. It identifies globalization as a threat to the traditional justice system and recommends that the shrine is a multi-faceted institution whose function can be adopted and applied to the Nigerian legal system where there is no or little evidence and oath swearing for politicians in our contemporary society. (shrink)

This paper concerns two topics which, I hope to show, are vitally connected. One is the distinctive importance of appellate adjudication in the legal system of United States. The other is the workings of entangled concepts in the law. That appellate adjudication is important in some sense may seem obvious to everybody (to a few it will seem obvious that appellate adjudication is unimportant). My point will be that via appellate adjudication courts engineer entangled legal concepts, and it is this (...) aspect of appellate adjudication that is both crucial and unique to it, at least in the U.S. legal system. Entangled concepts intertwine description and evaluation; entangled legal concepts facilitate and constrain legal reasoning and legal judgments, in ways that distinguish legal adjudication from pure politics or the implementation of public policy. In the paper itself, I demonstrate more fully what it is for a legal concept to be an entangled one and how entanglement supplies guidance in adjudication. I also broach how entanglement in legal concepts and engineered entanglement have significance for legal pedagogy; appellate adjudication; the respective roles of the judiciary, the legislature, and administrative agencies; the erosion of the distinction between so-called public law and so-called private law; and our understanding of the fact/value distinction. -/- Understanding more specifically the nature of the entanglement at work in appellate adjudication requires much closer scrutiny of appellate opinions than we usually give. I examine carefully the background to MacPherson v. Buick and Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s particular re-engineering of ‘negligence’ and ‘duty,’ entangled concepts belonging to the same legal taxonomy. Via this scrutiny, I demonstrate the flaws in the engineering of some concepts in the buildup to MacPherson, and how these flaws led to those concepts’ collapse and ultimately to Cardozo’s re-engineering of ‘negligence’ and ‘duty.’ I also explain why careful understanding of the engineering of entangled legal concepts can make us appreciate that even the most successful of such concepts have within in them the grounds for their own obsolescence. -/- To show that conceptual engineering of entangled concepts occurs outside the context of state common law, I also examine how the U.S. Supreme Court has engineered ‘commerce’, itself an entangled concept. The recent decision regarding the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act makes this example particularly timely. This secondary example also clarifies the nature of entanglement and engineering it. -/- This article concerns appellate adjudication in any area of law. I maintain that whether we are dealing with private law or public law, common law or statutory law or Constitutional law, the defining feature of appellate adjudication is its continuous engineering and reengineering of entangled legal concepts. The merger of fact and value in these concepts explains both the fertility of appellate adjudication and the constraints judges work with when they work with legal concepts that entangle fact and value. (shrink)

The separation of powers principle deeply heritaged in the US constitutionalism affected and continues to influence the law and public policy in the nation. The tripartite scheme of government was quarreled over the history how we have to perceive any best adequate interaction among the Congress, Executive and Judiciary. The Constitution itself merely quibbles on this point, and the Supreme Court justices, in some cases, would not be done as a clear cut for the scope of constitutional power conferred (...) on each branch. As the stare decisis is a rule in the common law countries, it is less prospective to anticipate that a quantum leap can be made for the new paradigm of constitutional government in the US. In this challenge, the paper deals with the sensitive area of three powers involving the issue of presidential privilege and immunity, justiceability and standing, as well as judicial control of public agencies. In the course of discussion, several landmark cases were illustrated to make a point for the angulated controversies, typically involving the pressing pubic issues and officers of absolute or qualified immunity. Given the diverse structure of government, the US model had been followed by many new born republics in 20th centuries. The author would wish that the paper provides a comparative lesson for the circle of those countries. (shrink)

In current legal and political atmospheres, when governments are embracing notions such as pollution prevention and the three ”R’s” – reduce, reuse and recycle, while discarding command and control types of regulatory enforcement, some may be surprised to learn that since 1971 Pennsylvania law has permitted the exemption of corporate assets from capital stock valuation for the purpose of paying capital stock taxes, if the assets are devoted to pollution control or abatement. Straightforward though the idea of tax exemption for (...) pollution control assets may seem, the execution of the statutory exemption, together with the regulation which was promulgated thereunder, yields a wide variety of hermeneutic fruit under the scrutiny of the judiciary and the advocacy of lawyers. (shrink)

This paper explores the legal issues of embargo centering on judicial review of the trade administration. Embargo, one type of trade regulation, has a distinctive nature in that it involves an entire forestall of the importation from foreign countries. It is also distinguished from other tools of trade regulation, including anti-dumping tariffs, countervailing measure on the subsidies since it entangles with other complex considerations of diplomacy, national security, public health, and environmental policy. Therefore discretion from the trade administration, notwithstanding the (...) president, is widely vested in that authority, who are responsible for an enforcement of the individual statute, yet can be evaded from stern control of the judiciary. Aside from the standard of review on substantial issues, judicial review relating with the embargo also entails a myriad of jurisdictional questions between the federal court and the court of international trade. In view of the U.S. role and current escalation of the trade issues in the international community, active engagement of the court as well as harmonization within the international plane need to be furthered along with the development of trade environment. For the export nations including Korea, embargo has a pounding impact on the national economy that also enhances a need for the reasonable administration of justice for the predictability and stability of the exporters. (shrink)

The modern form of government resort their legitimacy to democracy and Republican concept. In any viable way, the political power no longer entertains the dynasty or any divinity from the religion. Then who are responsible to make us fateful if we are any kind of citizen in a polity. Often it is true that the government has to be an amalgam of power elites, and divided for a limited government. The modern democratic constitutionalism considered this aspect any most in primacy (...) to defend or promote their privileges or vision. This root context of civil interaction around 17th and 18th centuries has underlain the modern form of democratic state. Within the concern of these two points, the paper has explored the main feature of limited government in the liberal constitutionalism, which deals with the separation of powers principle, distribution of governmental powers and some of controversies involving the social legislation and role of public officers. I hope that it could be a lesson for the public officer of both camps, one as realistically and the other in the context of analogical insights. Hopefully, I may expect that the following research may be bred in socialist tension of states about how the public officers are structured to act and could liberate themselves to progress. (shrink)

The Paris Convention on Climate Change is a convention under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that deals with greenhouse gas emission reduction, coordination and financing issues. The Convention shall enter into force from 2020. The Paris Climate Convention is an international environmental law with stronger social norms than other international law areas. Furthermore, the national characteristics of the norm have been doubled as a result of adopting the nationally determined contribution as the most important mechanism. In this (...) context, this paper examines the issues of the Paris Climate Convention at the international legal level. We examine the issue of enhancing normative efficiency through international trials of the Paris Convention and the International Court of Justice. Second, we examine possible conflicts between the Paris Climate Convention and the WTO law. This is to look at the bilateral issues between the WTO and the Parisian climate treaty, which represents the interests of developmentalists in the basic framework of the confrontation between developmentalists and environmentalists. Of course, when the two norms are in harmony, the normative effectiveness of the Paris Climate Convention is increased. Third, we briefly discuss the role of the domestic courts in raising the Paris Climate Convention, human rights issues, and normative effectiveness. In the end, the Paris Climate Convention enhances the normative effectiveness and suggests ways for lawyers and key actors to move forward. (shrink)