Student Name/ID Number: Duaa Nz

Unit Number and Title: Unit 7; Business Law

Academic Year: 2019

Unit Assessor: Mr. Irshad Ahmed Alvi

Assignment Title: Importance of the law & the legal system

Issue Date: 09-01-2019

Submission Date: 20-02-2019

Internal Verifier Name: Miss Parul Martin

Date: 09-01-2019

LO1

The legal system holds rules, processes, and groups by which public initiatives and private
endeavours could be carried out over legitimate means. In other words, is a system for
understanding and applying the laws. It explains the rights and responsibilities in a variety of
ways. 3 major legal systems of the world contains civil law, common law and religious law.
Other legal systems are: Jury system is a legal system for defining the facts at issue in a claim.
The tax system is a legal system for measuring and gathering taxes. The Electoral system is a
legal system for making self-governing choices. Legal system denotes to a process for
understanding and implementing the law. It elaborates the rights and responsibilities in a variety
of ways. 3 major legal systems of the world consist of civil law, common law and religious law.
Jury system is a legal system for shaping the facts at issue in a complaint. Tax system is a legal
system for measuring and collecting taxes. Electoral system is a legal system for making self-
governing selections.

Purpose of Law
In a society like the US, the law informs daily in a wide variety of methods and is imitated in
many divisions of law. Like, contract law controls contracts to exchange goods, facilities, or
anything else of value, so it contains everything from buying a bus ticket to trading choices on a
derivatives marketplace. Property law describes people’s rights and responsibilities toward
tangible property, including real estate and their other possessions, and intangible property, like
bank accounts and shares of stock. Tort law offers for recompense when someone or their
property is damaged, whether in a car accident or through defamation of character. Those are
fields of civil law, which compacts with arguments among individuals. Faults against a federal,
state, or local public itself are the subject of criminal law, which delivers for the administration
to punish the criminal.
The law attends several purposes. 4 principal ones are establishing values, maintaining order,
determining disputes, and protecting rights.

Establishing Standards
The law is a guidepost for slightly suitable behaviour in society. Some activities, are crimes
because society has determined that it will not stand certain behaviours that harm a person or
their property. Like, under a characteristic state law, it is a law-breaking to cause physical
damage to another individual without justification doing so normally establishes the crime of
assault.

Maintaining Order
This is an offshoot of establishing standards. Some appearance of order is essential in a civil
society and is so imitated in law. The law when enforced offers order reliable with society’s
strategies. Wildlife management laws, like, were 1 st passed in an effort to preserve game that had
closely been hunted into extinction during the 19th century. Such laws reflect the value society
places on protecting wildlife for future groups to enjoy.

Determining Arguments
Disputes are inevitable in a society comprised of individuals with different requirements, values,
and views. The law offers a formal means for resolving arguments the court scheme.

Defensive Liberties and Rights

The constitutions and acts of the US and its states offer for many liberties and rights. One
purpose of the law is to defend these many liberties and rights from defilements or unreasonable
interruptions through persons, establishments, or government. Like, subject to certain exclusions,
the 1st Amendment to the Composition forbids the government from making a law that prohibits
the freedom of speech. Someone who trusts that his free speech rights have been forbidden by
the government might pursue a remedy by transporting a case in the courts.

The evolution of law

This began before history was logged with laws built up one by one as arguments were settled. In
fact, the growth of rules in civilisation predates both courts and the written law. For thousands of
years, usual and private lawful schemes alone well-ordered human activities. The power of
customary law is found in the detail that it is reproduced in the conduct of individuals toward one
another. The further a civilisation moves away from customary and private law systems, the
better requirements for laws coercively enforced by the state. The law is basically discovered,
not made. Law is a complete discovery process connecting the historical experiences of
consecutive generations. Law imitates and embodies the experiences of all men who have ever
lived.

Sources of law
In the US, our laws come mainly from the Unite States. Constitution and the state compositions;
from statutory law from Legislature, the state legislatures, and local legislative bodies, from
common law, and from managerial rules and regulations. Executive orders and treaties are also
important sources of law. These are all main sources of law. As is true in any equality, United
States. Law reflects the will of the individuals who vote for legislatures to make the law. In this
way, United States. Law is also a reflection of public procedure.

Secondary sources of law comprise reaffirmations of the law, law appraisal and journal articles,
uniform codes, and dissertations. These sources are created by legal scholars rather than by a
recognized, genuine law-creating authority. However, these sources are read through and often
effect those who are in the place to create law. Memberships of the judiciary, might refer a
repetition of law or law-review articles when making decisions. Likewise, state governments
often adopt whole or parts of unchanging acts, like the (UCC) Uniform Commercial Code. When
a body of secondary law is officially adopted by a genuine law-making authority, then it
becomes primary law. Like, adoption of the UCC by a state legislature alters the UCC from a
secondary source of law to a primary source of law in that state specifically, an act.
Statutory law
Law that’s written by a law-making body. It’s law that a government deliberately creates through
chosen representatives and an official law-making process. It’s up to the judiciary to understand
and apply statutory law, but the judiciary can’t create statutory law.

Common law
A body of unwritten laws based on legal examples recognised by the courts. Common law
effects the decision-making procedure in uncommon cases where the consequence cannot be
resolute based on current acts or written rules of law.

Common law vs. statute law vs. equity and different courts?
Duhaime’s legal dictionary has this to say about the differences:
Equity law became established after the common law to offset the rigid understandings medieval
English judges were giving out the common law. For 100 years, there were separate courts in
England and its dependents: one for common law and one for equity and the decisions of the
latter, where they conflicted, prevailed. The Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, the
Court of Appeal and Canada’s Supreme Court are all courts which can and do apply statutory
law and common law and equity.

Parliamentary Function of Law-making

Parliaments worldwide perform 3 core purposes, to signify countries interests, to pass laws and
to screen the movements of the administration. They perform a law-making function because, in
addition to presenting legislation on their own, they have the influence to alter, favour or reject
administration draft laws. This purpose is strongly related to the representation function in that it
is through the will of the people that the parliament obtains its authority in democratic countries.

The exact resources by which a legislature is engaged in the law-making process differs
depending on the type of governmental system. In Westminster systems, the decision-making
branch of administration progresses most draft laws and the main role of congress is to review,
amend and pass laws. Individual MPs can present draft laws but few of these draft laws influence
the group stage and even fewer are ever passed.

In high-level systems, individual MPs have a better chance to produce draft laws before they are
reviewed, edited and approved. Some hybrid systems have industrialised other methods of
emerging draft laws, including providing authority to parliamentary committees to improve and
present draft laws and, in rare cases, some legislatures allow citizen creativities to present draft
laws for discussion.

In most parliaments with enduring groups, planned legislation gets introduced formally on the
floor of the house, and then mentioned to one or more teams with authority over the legislation.
Westminster systems naturally hold draft laws on the floor for a second interpretation and a
discussion and vote on the draft law. After this, draft laws are mentioned to groups where
committee members characteristically work on practical details and alterations.

In diplomatic systems, draft laws presented are directly referred to committee, and those draft
laws over which more than one committee has authority might be stated to multiple committees.
An education draft law with financial inferences, like might be devoted to both the education and
finance committees. In political systems with a very huge size of legislation, most legislation
never gets outside committee.

If the parliament has 2 houses, draft laws might move through every house instantaneously, or
through the houses consecutively. 2 house parliaments usually plan methods of mixing different
kinds of the draft laws.

For a parliament to be able to capably fulfil its law-making purpose, MPs must have the size to
read and review draft legislation and amendments in order to interpret any policy changes and
analyse proposed new rules. The staff of the parliament, especially committee staff, need to be
well trained in legal drafting and legislative review processes. Committees also often rely on
external expertise to assess the exact scope of a draft law and its consequences from diverse
perspectives (for example legal, social, economic or environmental). This external expertise can
be from within respective political parties or from academia or civil society.

Legislative strengthening programs for parliaments may have a key component that targets
lawmaking capabilities. This type of assistance might include developing parliament-based
research services, strengthening library and information systems, supporting the identification
and engagement of expert consultants to committees, developing university intern programs for
assisting committees, and strengthening legislative-civil society partnerships.

Organization of the Judiciary:

Organization of the judiciary is different in different states according to judicial requirements of

each state. The structure of judiciary is very vast in each state consisting of a network of courts
with differing jurisdictions and judicial powers to administer justice for common people. Judicial
is totally separate and independent in some states while in some other it is combined to some
extent with the executive. In federal state „ there are two structures i.e. one for the federation or
the central government and the other for the units or provinces, such as the U.S. judicial system.
However, judicial systems ordinarily differ in parliamentary and presidential forms of
government as well as in federal and unitary systems; hut still there are limited similarities
indifferent systems. Mostly judicial organisations and structures are different in different
countries with basic variations but the functions of the judicial organisation are similar in all
states except the former USSR. Nowhere judicial organisation is final but it is subject to change
by statutory provisions for reforming the systems from time to time. The British judicial system
is based on customary law generally known as the English Common Law, consisting of common
law, statute law, equality and case law: but recently a new source of law, namely the community
law based on common laws for the entire European Community has been added. American
judicial organisation is unique in nature and is the first ever federal judicial system, based on the
principles of separation of powers, judicial supremacy and judicial review. In America, there are
two establishments of the judicial system i.e. Federal Courts and State Courts; but
constitutionally the federal courts are superior to state courts. In Pakistan, there is single judicial
organisation despite federal system of government. The judicial systems adhere to similar
principles for their organizations in the modern world. There systems are based on lower courts
or the courts of first instance- at the bottom with limited powers and jurisdiction but the courts of
appeal or high and supreme courts at the top with exclusive jurisdiction to decide all matters at
appellate level and of constitutional nature. The courts of the following types are found in
different systems:

– Civil Courts;

– Criminal Courts;

– Special Courts;

– Administrative Courts

Civil Courts are those courts which deal with litigation in civil matters i.e. when civil rights of a
citizen are infringed upon by another citizen or sometimes the state. But in criminal cases, the
cause of action arises from the breach or violation of state laws by individual or a body of
individuals e.g. breach of peace, violence against life or property of a person etc. At lower level
civil cases are tried by civil judges or other judges but criminal cases are tried by Magistrates or
criminal courts of first instance. But appellate and final courts have jurisdictions in both civil and
criminal cases.
Special courts are established for special and particular matters which are excluded from
ordinary courts. In some cases they follow a different procedure. These special courts are
generally set up for military, industrial sector, taxation, labour, customs and excise etc.

Administrative Courts are also special courts in nature which are established for trial of public
servants and state functionaries according to special administrative laws. Courts are also
classified as Constitutional and Legislative courts. Constitutional courts are generally established
in such states whose systems are governed by written constitutions providing for the creation of
such courts with particular jurisdiction and powers e.g. American Supreme Court and’ Supreme
and High Courts of Pakistan etc. These courts have powers to interpret constitutions. Legislative
Courts are the creation of various statutes/ acts of legislatures. These courts are completely
regulated by legislative and statutory provisions.

Types of courts

There are many different types of courts and many ways to classify and
describe them. Basic distinctions must be made between criminal and civil
courts, between courts of general jurisdiction and those of limited jurisdiction,
and between appellate and trial courts. There are also constitutional, federal,
and transnational courts.
Criminal courts
Criminal courts deal with persons accused of committing a crime, deciding whether
they are guilty and, if so, determining the consequences they shall suffer. The
prosecution of alleged offenders is generally pursued in the name of the public
(e.g., The People v. …), because crimes are considered offenses not just against
individual victims but also against society at large. The public is represented by an
official such as a district attorney (often called a prosecutor), procurator,
or police officer. Although courts are also agencies of the state, they are neutral in
criminal proceedings, favouring neither the prosecution nor the defense. The
impartiality of the court is strongly reinforced where juries are used to decide the guilt
or innocence of the defendant.

The role of the criminal court in civil-law systems is quite different from its role in
common-law ones. Civil-law countries assign a more active role to the judge and a
more passive role to counsel. Instead of being passive recipients of evidence produced
by the prosecution and the defense, judges in civil-law systems often direct the
presentation of evidence and even order that certain evidence be produced. Thus,
procedure in civil-law systems is considered inquisitorial. Judges in this system have
an independent responsibility to discover the facts. In the common-
lawcourts, adversary procedures tend to prevail; the lawyers for both sides bear
primary responsibility for producing evidence and do most of the questioning of
witnesses. Advocates of the adversarial system hold that a just outcome is most likely
to result when all possible relevant information—good (tending to exonerate) and bad
(tending to incriminate)—is placed before an impartial adjudicator (the judge or
the jury). Self-interest motivates both the defense and the prosecution to provide all
possible evidence relevant to its side of the case. Where the jury system is used, the
jury is supposed to constitute an unbiased sample of ordinary people predisposed to
favouring neither the defense nor the prosecution, and the judge serves as a “legal
referee” who ensures that proper legal procedures are followed (e.g., barring the
introduction of illegally obtained evidence, such as coerced confessions, or other
information deemed inadmissible). The adversarial system, and its
associated conception of justice, is a pillar of the common-law tradition, as evidenced
in the U.S., British, and Canadian systems of criminal justice.
If a defendant is found guilty, he is sentenced, again according to lawand within limits
predetermined by legislation. The objective of most punishment is not so much to
wreak vengeance upon the offender as to rehabilitate him and to deter others from
committing similar acts. Hence, the most common sentences are fines, short terms of
imprisonment, and probation (which allows the offender freedom under state
supervision). In extremely serious cases, the goal may be to prevent the offender from
committing further crimes, which may call for a long term of imprisonment (e.g., life
in prison without the possibility of parole) or even capital punishment. During the last
third of the 20th century, however, the death penalty began to disappear from many
criminal codes throughout the world; nonetheless, it remains in effect and is imposed
widely in several countries, including the United States, Iran, and China.
Civil courts
Civil courts (not to be confused with the civil-law legal system) deal with “private”
controversies, particularly disputes that arise between individuals or between private
businesses or institutions (e.g., a disagreement over the terms of a contract or over
who shall bear responsibility for an automobile accident). The public is not ordinarily
a party to the litigation (as it is in criminal proceedings), for its interest is limited to
providing just and acceptable rules for making decisions and a forum where the
dispute can be impartially and peacefully resolved. These factors are important
because the use of the civil courts is voluntary.
The government may be involved in civil litigation if it stands in the same relation to a
private party as another individual might stand. If a government postal truck hits a
pedestrian, for example, the government might be sued civilly by the injured person;
or if the government contracted to purchase supplies that turned out to be defective, it
might sue the dealer for damages in a civil court. In such proceedings, however, the
government acts as a private party.

The objective of a civil action is not explicitly punishment or correction of the

defendant or the setting of an example to others but rather restoration of the parties so
far as possible to the positions they would have occupied had no legal wrong been
committed. The most common civil remedy is a judgment for monetary damages, but
there are others, such as an injunction ordering the defendant to do—or to refrain from
doing—a certain act or a judgment restoring property to its rightful owner. For
example, a celebrity might obtain an injunction against an alleged “stalker” requiring
that the person not come within a certain distance of the celebrity at any time.
Civil claims do not ordinarily arise out of criminal acts. A person who breaks his
contract with another or who causes him a physical injury through negligence may
have committed no crime (i.e., no offense against the public has been committed) but
only a civil wrong for which he may not be prosecuted criminally by the public. There
are, however, areas of overlap, for a single incident may give rise to both civil liability
and criminal prosecution. In some countries (e.g., France), both types of responsibility
can be determined in a single proceeding under a concept known as adhesion, by
which the injured party is allowed to assert his civil claim in the criminal prosecution,
agreeing to abide by its outcome. This removes the necessity of two separate trials. In
common-law countries, there is no such procedure (even though civil and
criminal jurisdiction may be merged in a single court). Two separate actions must be
brought independent of each other. For example, in the United States in the mid-
1990s, former football star O.J. Simpson was tried in a California criminal court on a
charge of having murdered his ex-wife and her friend; although he was acquitted in
that litigation (in which a guilty verdict required proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”),
in a subsequent civil suit (in which a guilty verdict required proof by a
“preponderance of the evidence”), he was found liable and was ordered to pay
restitution to the families of the victims. In the United States, such collateral civil
lawsuits have become attractive to victims of alleged crimes, particularly because the
standard of proof in civil courts is dramatically lower than it is in criminal courts.

Courts of general jurisdiction

Although there are some courts that handle only criminal cases and others that deal
with only civil cases, a more common pattern is for a single court to be vested with
both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Examples of such courts include the High Court
of Justice for England and Wales and many of the trial courts found in U.S.
states. Canada is an instructive example, because the federal government has
the exclusiveauthority to legislate criminal laws, while the provinces have the
authority to legislate civil laws. Virtually all cases, criminal and civil, originate in the
provincial courts. Often these tribunals are called courts of general jurisdiction, which
signifies that they can handle almost any type of controversy, though in fact they may
not have jurisdiction over certain types of cases assigned to specialized tribunals (e.g.,
immigration cases). Often such courts are also described as superior courts, because
they are empowered to handle serious criminal cases and important civil cases
involving large amounts of money. In addition, most high appellate courts (e.g., the
U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of last resort in the U.S. states) are courts of
general jurisdiction, hearing both civil and criminal appeals.
Even if a court possesses general or very broad jurisdiction, it may nevertheless be
organized into specialized branches, one handling criminal cases, another handling
civil cases, another handling juvenile cases, and so forth. The advantage of such an
arrangement is that judges can be transferred from one type of work to another, and
cases do not fail to be heard for having been instituted in the wrong branch, since they
can be transferred administratively with relative ease.

Courts of limited jurisdiction

There are many kinds of specialized tribunals, varying from country to country. Some
deal only with the administration of the estates of deceased persons (probate courts),
some only with disputes between merchants (commercial courts), and some only with
disputes between employers and employees (labour courts). Many of the
constitutional courts of the democracies that emerged in the 1990s in central and
eastern Europe also have limited jurisdiction, confined to disputes grounded in
the constitution. Although all these courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they may
exercise substantial power.
Juvenile courts, empowered to deal with misconduct by children and sometimes also
with the neglect or maltreatment of children, are a particularly notable court of limited
jurisdiction. The procedures of juvenile courts are much more informal than those of
adult criminal courts, and the facilities available to them for the pretrial detention of
children and for their incarceration, if necessary, after trial are different. Because
children are assumed not to be fully capable of rational thought, they are deemed less
culpable for their actions, and the emphasis in juvenile courts is therefore usually on
saving children, not punishing them. American attitudes are bifurcated on the subject
of juvenile law; on the one hand, when minors are victims or can potentially be
victimized, law and society typically agree that the purpose of the law is to protect the
innocent. This is evident in laws designed to protect minors from exposure to obscene
material and from sexual predators and in divorce and custody law. When, however,
minors commit a violent act, public and political sentiments often change, and the
minor is no longer seen as innocent and deserving of the protection of the law. While
some may seek to rehabilitate the youth and desire lenientpunishment, others consider
a youth of any age who commits a crime as “mature enough to commit the crime,
mature enough to be sentenced accordingly.”
Traffic courts also deserve mention because they are so common and affect so many
people. They process motor vehicle offenses such as speeding and improper parking.
Their procedure is summary and their volume of cases heavy. Contested trials are
quite infrequent.

Constitutional courts
The democratic transition that occurred in many parts of the world in the late 20th
century resulted in the proliferation of courts charged with constitutional adjudication,
though the formal powers of these high courts vary considerably from one country to
another. Some are specialized courts of constitutional review, usually called the
constitutional court or constitutional tribunal (e.g., Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany,
and Greece); others blend the functions of judicial review of legislation and cassation,
or the review of lower-court decisions (e.g., Ireland, the United States, Denmark); and
still others exercise only the power of cassation (France [see Cour de Cassation],
Belgium, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom). Some countries have multiple high
courts with various functions and powers. Italy, for example, has a Constitutional
Court with the sole power to exercise constitutional review and a Supreme Court of
Cassation with the power to review the decisions of ordinary courts for consistency
with the law. Egypt also maintains a Court of Cassation that monitors the uniformity
of lower-court fidelity to the law, but only its Supreme Constitutional Court has the
authority to declare laws unconstitutional and to determine and rule upon legislative
intent. In Japan the Supreme Court is the only court explicitly permitted to exercise
judicial review. Its authority is limited to cases involving conflicting parties and
therefore does not entertain questions brought by government officials. The role
orientation of the Japanese judge and judicial system is conflict resolution; as such,
the courts are reluctant to exercise judicial review or engage in judicial activism. In
most systems, the power to strike down acts of the national legislature is centralized in
a specialized tribunal; in a small number of countries, including Portugal and the
United States, it is decentralized, or “diffused,” with every court empowered to
exercise judicial review over legislation.
The precise circumstances under which a national high court can exercise the power
of judicial review also vary considerably. Some courts, exercising what is called
“concrete” judicial review (incidenter, or a review incidental to deciding a case), can
strike down legislation only in a particular case. Other courts are empowered to
engage in “abstract” judicial review (the review of a law on constitutional grounds
without application to a particular pending case). Of the courts with the power of
abstract review, some can exercise it prior to a statute’s taking effect (i.e., a priori
review), while others exercise it only after the law has taken effect (a posteriori
review). Many of the architects of the constitutions of the democracies that emerged
in the 1990s in central and eastern Europe opted for a strong, centralized form of
judicial power, with the power of judicial review residing in a constitutional tribunal,
typically with the power to engage in both abstract and concrete review.
Constitutional courts in France and Germany may exercise abstract judicial review.
Arguably, Portugal’s constitutional tribunal has the greatest jurisdiction, exercising
both concrete review of lower-court decisions and abstract review of all laws and
legal norms. The U.S. Supreme Court avoids advisory opinions and therefore does not
engage in abstract judicial review.
Courts in federal systems
Many countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, and Japan, have unitary judicial
systems in which all courts (i.e., regular courts as distinguished from administrative
bodies) fit into a single national hierarchy of tribunals along the lines just described.
Other countries, organized on a federal basis, tend to have more complicated court
structures, reflecting the fragmentation of governmental powers between the central
authority and local authorities. In the United States, for example, there are 51 separate
judicial systems, one for each state and another for the federal government. To a
limited extent, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is exclusive of that exercised by
the state courts, but there are large areas of overlap and duplication. Unless state laws
or state constitutions conflict with national laws or the national constitution, state
courts are the final arbiters of the meaning of state law. At the top level is
the Supreme Court of the United States, which hears appeals not only from the lower
federal courts but also from state courts insofar as they present federal questions
arising under the Constitution of the United States or under federal statutes or treaties.
If a case in a state court involves only a question of state law—for example, the
interpretation of a state statute—the ultimate authority is the state supreme court, and
no appeal is possible to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court structure in a federal form of government need not be as complicated as that in
the United States. It is possible to have only one set of courts for the country, operated
by the central government and handling all cases that arise under state law as well as
federal law. Germany is also a federal republic, dividing power between the federal
and state systems. At the national level, there are five supreme courts and one
constitutional court. The supreme courts represent separate jurisdictions (civil and
criminal, general administrative, employment and trade-union disputes, social policy,
and financial matters and taxation).
Another possibility is for each state or province to have its own system of courts,
handling all questions of federal as well as state law, and for the central government to
maintain only a single supreme court to decide questions as to the relationship of the
central authority and the local authorities or as to the relationship between the local
authorities themselves. This pattern is found in Canada and Australia.
Another complication resulting from a federal form of government is that questions
involving conflict of laws arise with great frequency. Such questions concern the
choice to be made between the law of one jurisdiction and that of another as the rule
for a decision in a particular case. Even in a unitary system, such problems cannot be
avoided; for example, a court in the United Kingdom may be called upon to try a case
arising from a transaction that took place in France and to decide whether British or
French law should govern. Such problems arise much more often, however, in federal
systems, where laws differ from state to state and people move about very freely.
Their activities in one state sometimes become the subject of a lawsuit in another, and
the court is required to decide which law should apply.
Transnational courts

Although courts with jurisdictions that traverse national boundaries have been in

existence for quite some time (e.g., the International Court of Justice [ICJ] was
established in 1945, replacing an international court that was created after World War
I), generally they have been too weak to warrant much attention. More recently,
however, transnational courts such as the European Court of Justice (the high court of
the EU) and the European Court of Human Rights have become quite powerful, and
the ICJ has garnered an enhanced reputation. These courts generally
enforce treaty obligations and related interstate agreements.
The European Court of Justice is sometimes credited with having created a variety of
new individual rights for citizens of the EU, often superseding national laws (e.g.,
rights to gender equality). Indeed, the European Court of Justice has been successful
in declaring the laws of the EU to be superior to national laws and thereby
undermining the long-established principles of parliamentary sovereignty (as in the
United Kingdom). Many observers believe that no single institution has been more
instrumental in creating a united Europe than the European Court of Justice.
The International Criminal Court (ICC), which began sittings in 2002, represents a
specialized type of transnational court devoted to prosecuting criminal activity.
Created in part in response to the war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda in the 1990s (separate international tribunals were established to prosecute
allegations of war crimes in each conflict), the ICC was empowered to try individuals
accused of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Because of the
nonparticipation of several major countries (e.g., China, Russia, and the United
States), however, many observers questioned whether the ICC could effectively
prosecute and deter such crimes.

The common law differs from statutory law because it is mainly based on precedent. Statutory
law is a more formal body of the legal system that consists of written legislation. This legislation
will mainly be based on rules and regulations either mandating or prohibiting certain behaviors
of the general public. Common law, on the other hand, will allow judges to decide cases based
on the rulings of prior cases with similar circumstances.

P3
Legislation and Regulations
There is little doubt that pharmaceuticals need to be regulated, primarily because consumers are
not able to assess the efficacy, safety, and quality of pharmaceuticals before buying them.
Therefore, the government needs to establish an appropriate body to perform the assessment that
consumers cannot conduct. To achieve this, it must pass legislation and regulations to govern and
enforce the efficacy, safety, and quality of pharmaceuticals.

What is the difference between legislation and regulations? Legislation is passed by the
legislative body of a country, and establishes the general framework of principles within which
the government is expected to act and within which regulations are issued. Regulations are
issued by the government, by an individual minister, or by a designated authority within, or
under the supervision of, a ministry. While the process of preparing or reviewing legislation is
usually long and complex, the preparation and updating of regulations is a more dynamic
process.

Therefore, legislation does not need - and in fact should not - include detailed indications and
prescriptions, but should only state general principles that do not require regular updating.
Details of application of such general principles are included in regulations. For example,
legislation can establish the requirement for registration fees and indicate which operational
body, e.g., the minister of health, should determine the amount and extent of the fees. Then,
regulations issued by, in this example, the minister of health, will indicate and keep up to date
the fee system.

The introduction of computer-assisted drug registration is a major undertaking. Therefore, before

embarking in such an enterprise, it is necessary to carry out a critical review of existing
legislation and regulations in order to ensure their efficiency and the adequate empowerment of a
regulatory authority. The review should identify weaknesses in the laws and, if necessary, make
proposals for changes. It should also clarify the framework, in terms of scope of activities and
enforcement powers, in which the regulatory authority will operate. In addition, the legal review
should check that the regulations ensure the best possible outcome of the legislation. A published
review also helps to ensure transparency of regulatory decisions, and helps to make decision
makers aware of the legal scope and limitations of regulatory work.

WHO has created model legislation for drug regulation that can be used for drafting or updating
legislation (see Annex 7). In reviewing legislation for the drug registration procedure, there are
some specific points that should be considered, and these are listed in Annex 3. It is very
important to ensure that the legislation and regulations support the work of the regulatory
authority, rather than hindering it, either directly or indirectly.

Law
The Data Protection Act contains a set of principles that organisations, government
and businesses have to adhere to in order to keep someone’s data accurate, safe,
secure and lawful.
These principles ensure data is:

 Only used in specifically stated ways

 Not stored for longer than necessary
 Used only in relevant ways
 Kept safe and secure
 Used only within the confines of the law
 Not transferred out of the European Economic Area
 Stored following people’s data protection rights

This comes into practice in business particularly when you recruit staff, amend staff
records, market your products or services, or use CCTV.