The principle of higher standards
The principle of higher standards
The principle of higher standards
I A brief introduction
Experience shows that all branches of law have its origin in the quest for equality. The first commercial trades demanded equality even before security , that should be observed between parts in any contract. The civil law always looked for equality among litigators. The labour law used to review aspects of equality in working, since economic disparities tend to produce unfair obligations to employees.
In public branches the premise is even more certain: tax, constitutional and administrative laws are focused on regulating state power. Drafting processes to literally keep a ground of equality amid civilians and the public organs or entities. This search method go forward the complex web of rules, selecting each one that should prevail, even though they're all perfectly valid and current rules. A matter of interpretation, therefore.
Immigration phenomenon is no longer an exception to that view. All around the world, treaties pointing equal treatment for crossborders have been signed. Inside Mercosouth. Bolivia and Chile's jurisdiction, a related rule, known in Brazil as Decrees ns 6.964/09 and 6.975/09 [1], establishes a higher standards criteria for all case readings. For certain, a tough overruling at sovereignty and discretion power theories.
An overview of international private law doctrine would surely suggest that such kind of concept works the same way as diplomatic framework does: at the usual reciprocity environment. But it doesn't. It goes far beyond, predicting that all public agents must search and choose the most favorable norm, in order to support the immigrant's pretension. A new ground zero on the topic, for sure.
II General basis for higher standards
Since the principle of higher standards ends up restricted by territories, by Congress or, in some particular cases by Presidential willingness (f.i. Constitution of The Republic of Cuba, art. 90 [2]), it may take certain theoretical risks to unfold it. Nevertheless, it seems that there's a general system ground basis that can't be mismatch anymore.
The worldwide jurisprudence and doctrine accepts that major democratic or at least republican - constitutional systems provide naturalization as a merely procedure for the acquisition of citizenship. But, what if once popular will has declined immigration as a truly possibility, for why reason it has been held as a single political matter, instead of being subject of cognitive jurisdiction? Maybe the link Norberto Bobbio [3] among others - had predicted, between popular and democratic volition, would be settle down on judges' hands. A healthy way of approaching the sovereignty concept from its ideal meaning: the majority will of a given nation, mediated by the most qualified professionals to do so, when voting is not feasible.
__________
[1] Article 11. This Agreement shall be applied without prejudice to the intern standards and internal devices of each State Party that are more favorable to immigrants.
[2] Article 90. The duties of the State Council: [...] 11. ratify and denounce international treaties.
[3] Italian philosopher. See his Dictionary of politics. Oxford. New York, 2003.
Things to Consider when renting an office Emotions Associated With Being Dumped Wrestling Greatness Spending your penny wisely Why The Labrador Retriever Is Such A Popular Breed How Should You Keep Encouraged Even though Starting Your Company The Vessel Speaks Mac versus PC – Lets Consider the Facts The Benefits of Living in Nashville Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy Sniff Out Great Vintage Star Wars Figure The Power of Framing How to Get Abs within a Month