For task 2, do you all think it is an immunity, a right in the positive content or a right in the negative content? I'm thinking it is a right, but I'm sure whether it is in the positive content or I the negative. Can you maybe explain which one you chose and why? Mainly cause I'm a bit confused between the two now
In my opinion, it is that there was indeed a difference of treatment but which was made between ordinary and special schools and not roma and non roma pupils
updated 1 month ago
sorry guys, but am I the one only having troubles answering in the text boxes for the assignment ? When I start writing on the 1st box, my text is typed in the second box... any ideas on how to solve this, if anyone has encountered this problem ? Thank you
Found a solution, if it can help anyone. You have to type in the previous box, in order to have the text typed in the next box. So for the first bow, you must start writing on the 4th box.
1 month ago
hello, for task 3 of the assignment my reconstruction looks like this:
but I feel like, I missing the big picture here, would anyone give me advice to improve my reconstruction? Thank you
1) Czech did not offer proper safeguards to education to take care of the disadvantaged class
2) Therefore (Roma) pupils were put into schools offering a more basic curriculum.
Schools which compounded theirs difficulties rather than tackle their real problems or to male efforts in order to integrate them into ordinary schools
Therefore those pupils will be more limited in theirs jobs opportunities
The legislation applied had disproportionated prejudicial effects on the Roma community
Therefore the Roman community suffered the same discriminatory treatment.
Therefore Czech Republic violated art. 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol 1
I worked with that lecture, and yes, that is the exact same.
1 month ago
art. 14 grants immunity, but I do not remember how do we state that someone has immunity (against?) everyone;
I mean for a right you can use "a right against x", but for immunity I do not know what's the appropriate word, if anyone can help me with that?
If I understood correctly, an immunity is against someone's disability, right? If so, are you then saying that the applicant has an immunity against everyone's disability? This confuses me, because originally I was considering article 14 to grant a right in the negative content - "the right against 'x' to not discriminate..."
1 month ago
Is Judge Sikuta's main argument a legal syllogism?
Premise (1) is accepted by the Court [Paragraph 17, second sentence].
Premise (2) and (3) are accepted by the Court [Paragraph 13, first sentence].
Premise (4) rejected [acceptance of the risk does not entail consent]
(5) Rejected [there was countervailing considerations]
Premise (6) is rejected
Premise (7) is rejected
Premise (8) is accepted
(9) is accepted
Premise (10) is rejected [Paragraph 20]
(11) is rejected
Two arguments. Therefore the reconstruction is as following:
(1) Accepting employment at schools for children with behavioral problems implies accepting the risk of minor assaults.
(2) Participating in sporting activities implies accepting the risk of minor assaults.
(3) Participants of contact sports validly consent to the risk of suffering minor assaults.
(4) Excepting to suffer minor assaults and knowingly accepting the risk are reasons for voluntary participation to count as valid consent to the risk of suffering minor assault.
Therefore, (5) unless there are countervailing considerations, employers of special school validly consent to the risk of suffering minor assaults.
(6) There are no countervailing considerations.
Therefore, (7) voluntary acceptance of employment in a school for children with special needs counts as valid consent to the risk of suffering minor assault.
(8) Whenever valid consent to the risk of suffering minor assault is given, allegation of assault should be dealt by courts only if the violence reaches a level reaches a level at which a criminal sanction is appropriate.
Therefore, (9) In the present case, the allegation of assault should be dealt by a court only if the violence has reached a level at which criminal sanction is appropriate.
(10) In the present case, the violence has not reached a level at which criminal sanction is appropriate.
Therefore, (11) the present case should not be dealt by a court.
(Universal Modus Ponens)
Is the answer on question nr 2 of week 1: ‘which centuries mark the emergence of unified national law on continental Europe?’
- 19th and 20th centuries or
- 20th and 21th centuries?
I am doubting since Tamanaha says 20th and 21th centuries, but we learned in the legal history course that codification movements already arose in the 19th century...
check under course materials > potential quiz questions > quiz Q&A if you haven't done already (in any case, it is written there that you should check the lecture; an example of a legal convergence would be European Consumer Protection