The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Justitia, symbol of the judiciary^[1][2] (statue at Shelby County Courthouse, Memphis, TN, United States)

The "Judiciary" (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. This branch of the state is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the "Supreme court" or "Constitutional court"), together with lower courts.

In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.

During last decades the judiciary became active in economic issues related with economic rights established by constitution because "economics may provide insight into questions that bear on the proper legal interpretation".^[3] Since many a country with a transitional political and economic system continues treating its constitution as an abstract legal document disengaged from the economic policy of the state, practice of judicial review of economic acts of executive and legislative branches began to grow.

In the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India for almost a decade had been encouraging public interest litigation on behalf of the poor and oppressed by using a very broad interpretation of several articles of the Indian Constitution.^[4]

Budget of the judiciary in many transitional and developing countries is almost completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial dependence of the judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and various privileges), and the private.^[5]

The term "judiciary" is also used to refer collectively to the personnel, such as judges, magistrates and other adjudicators, who form the core of a judiciary (sometimes referred to as a "bench"), as well as the staffs who keep the system running smoothly.

History[link]

After the French Revolution, lawmakers stopped interpretation of law by judges, and the legislature was the only body permitted to interpret the law; this prohibition was later overturned by the Code Napoléon.^[6]

In civil law jurisdictions at present, judges interpret the law to about the same extent as in common law jurisdictions^{[citation needed]} – though it may be acknowledged in theory in a different manner than in the common law tradition which directly recognizes the limited power to make law. For instance, in France, the jurisprudence constante of the Court of Cassation or the Council of State is equivalent in practice with case law.

Various functions[link]

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchist Capitalist City-state Communist Democracy Federacy Feudalism Mixed economy Dictatorship Directorial Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science Political scientists International relations (theory) Comparative politics
Public administration Bureaucracy Street-level bureaucracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (Legal doctrine) Public interest Foreign policy
Organs of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Electoral branch
Other topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation
Subseries Elections Electoral systems Voting Federalism Form of government Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

• In common or provinces^{[clarification needed]}, courts interpret law, including constitutions, statutes, and regulations. They also make law (but in a limited sense, limited to the facts of particular cases) based upon prior case law in areas where the legislature has not made law. For instance, the tort of negligence is not derived from statute law in most common law jurisdictions. The term common law refers to this kind of law.
• In civil law jurisdictions, courts interpret the law, but are, at least in theory, prohibited from creating law, and thus, still in theory, do not issue rulings more general than the actual case to be judged. In practice, jurisprudence plays the same role as case law^{[citation needed]}.
• In the United States court system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the federal Constitution and all statutes and regulations created pursuant to it, as well as the constitutionality of the various state laws; in the US federal court system, federal cases are tried in trial courts, known as the US district courts, followed by appellate courts and then the Supreme Court. State courts, which try 98% of litigation,^[7] may have different names and organization; trial courts may be called "courts of common plea", appellate courts "superior courts" or "commonwealth courts".^[8] The judicial system, whether state or federal, begins with a court of first instance, is appealed to an appellate court, and then ends at the court of last resort.^[9]
• In France, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the Council of State for administrative cases, and the Court of Cassation for civil and criminal cases.
• In the People Republic of China, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the National People's Congress.
• Other countries such as Argentina have mixed systems that include lower courts, appeals courts, a cassation court (for criminal law) and a Supreme Court. In this system the Supreme Court is always the final authority, but criminal cases have four stages, one more than civil law does. On the court sits a total of nine justices. This number has been changed several times.

See also[link]

• Bench (law)
• Constitutional economics
• Corruption
• Judicial independence
• Judicial review
• Legislature
• Rule According to Higher Law
• Rule of law

Further reading[link]

• Cardozo, Benjamin N. (1998). The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Feinberg, Kenneth, Jack Kress, Gary McDowell, and Warren E. Burger (1986). The High Cost and Effect of Litigation, 3 vols.
• Frank, Jerome (1985). Law and the Modern Mind. Birmingham, AL: Legal Classics Library.
• Levi, Edward H. (1949) An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Marshall, Thurgood (2001). Thurgood Marshall: His Speeches, Writings, Arguments, Opinions and Reminiscences. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.
• McCloskey, Robert G., and Sanford Levinson (2005). The American Supreme Court, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Miller, Arthur S. (1985). Politics, Democracy and the Supreme Court: Essays on the Future of Constitutional Theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Tribe, Laurence (1985). God Save This Honorable Court: How the Choice of Supreme Court Justices Shapes Our History. New York: Random House.
• Zelermyer, William (1977). The Legal System in Operation. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Notes[link]

Look up judiciary in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

v t e Law Core subjects Administrative law Constitutional law Contract Criminal law Equity Evidence Law of obligations Procedure Civil Criminal Property law Public international law Public law Restitution Statutory law Tort Other subjects Admiralty law Aviation law Banking law Bankruptcy Commercial law Companies law Competition law Conflict of laws Consumer protection Cyberlaw Election law Energy law Entertainment law Environmental law Family law Financial regulation Health law Immigration law Intellectual property International criminal law International human rights Labour law Military law Product liability Space law Sports law Tax law Trust law Unjust enrichment Wills Sources of law Constitution Custom Decree Edict Executive order Delegated legislation Rulemaking Precedent Case law Statute Legal systems Canon law Civil law Common law Chinese law Jewish law Roman law Russian law Sharia Socialist law Statutory law Xeer Legal theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Economic analysis History International legal theory Philosophy Sociology Legal institutions Bureaucracy Civil society Election commission Executive Judiciary Legal profession Legislature Military Police Category Index Outline Portal

Julio Alak
Minister of Justice and Human Rights of Argentina
Incumbent
Assumed office July 8, 2009
President	Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
Preceded by	Aníbal Fernández
Mayor of La Plata
In office December 10, 1991 – December 10, 2007
Preceded by	Pablo Pinto
Succeeded by	Pablo Bruera
Personal details
Born	(1958-01-09) January 9, 1958 (age 54) Benito Juárez, Buenos Aires
Nationality	Argentine
Spouse(s)	Marita Scarpino
Alma mater	National University of La Plata

Julio César Alak (born January 9, 1958) is an Argentine politician, the former mayor of the Buenos Aires Province capital of La Plata, and currently the nation's Attorney General.

Life and political career[link]

Alak was born in Benito Juárez, a pampas town in Buenos Aires Province. He worked as a journalist while studying law at the University of La Plata, and joined Chacho Álvarez and other center-left Peronists supporting Antonio Cafiero in the APU. Alak taught Public Law at the university and established a private practice. He married Marita Scarpino and had three children. Alak joined the Justicialist Party in 1984.^[1]

Alak became the President of the La Plata branch of the party in 1988, and was nominated its mayoral candidate in 1991. He won the election, narrowly defeating the incumbent UCR mayor, and held the post until the 2007 election.

Tenure as mayor and stadium controversy[link]

In the 1990s, Alak pushed through the construction of a new stadium for La Plata, over the objections of the two major football clubs, which chose to remain in their home fields.

Concurrently, Alak sponsored a minor club, La Plata FC, which some claimed was part of an Alak patronage scheme. Significant sums were allegedly spent from the city budget for activities related to that club, which has virtually no following. For some time, it was thought that it would be the only side to play in the new stadium, which was used mainly for concerts.

When a security regulation forbidding wooden stands came into effect in 2005, Estudiantes de La Plata relocated their home games to the Bosque (the field of rival side Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata), and later to the Quilmes stadium. The municipality has refused to allow Estudiantes an upgrade of their field, and ignored a court order that allowed its operation until a better solution was found. This behavior triggered animosity in the Estudiantes fan base.

In 2006, Gimnasia's stadium was banned as well, and their management transferred their games to the new stadium, over fans' objections. In April 2006, Alak intervened against a judicial order that would have allowed the re-opening of both fields.^[2] In August 2006, an agreement has been reached to allow remodeling Estudiantes' field, using newer technologies, to allow for a 20,000 sitting room capacity.

Critics argue that while millions went into the construction of the stadium, which the city did not need, thousands of poor people live in its shadows without receiving proper municipal services.^[3]

When Estudiantes obtained the 2006 Apertura title, Alak invited the team to an official ceremony but the players declined to attend, claiming that the pressure from the crowd would not allow them to reach his office; actually, the players were at the Cathedral, 200 m (650 ft) from City Hall, and so the refusal to attend was perceived as a rebuke of Alak.^[4]

Prior to the 2007 provincial election, Alak signed Estudiantes legend Juan Ramón Verón to a post as children sports services coordinator. Estudiantes fans puzzled over the designation, which is perceived as cementing Alak's alignment with candidate Daniel Scioli and an attempt to heal the rift between Estudiantes and Alak's administration.^[5][6]

La Plata FC was dissolved only three months after Alak left office.^[7]

National government career[link]

Initial results of the October 28, 2007, election indicated that Alak finished behind opposition candidate Pablo Bruera who took 25% to Alak's 20%.^[8] Sensing defeat, Alak's campaign operators attempted to suggest a link between Bruera and the killing of three policemen in La Plata, which took place nine days before the election; all investigations were inconclusive as of voting day, however (three suspects were detained and subsequently released).^[8]

Alak was named to the Board of Directors of Aerolíneas Argentinas, on February 14, 2008, as the Argentine Government's representative on the air carrier's board,^[9] and served as its CEO following the air carrier's July 2008 nationalization.^[10]

Following the ruling Front for Victory's defeat in the 2009 mid-term elections, Alak was tapped to replace Attorney General Aníbal Fernández, who had been appointed the President's Cabinet Chief, effective July 8.^[11]

Justice Minister Alak spearheaded more vigorous laws against terrorism, money laundering, and market manipulation during his tenure,^[12][13] as well as stepped up prosecutions of Dirty War perpetrators.^[14]

References[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Julio Alak

v t e Government of Argentina President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner Vice President Amado Boudou Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers Juan Manuel Abal Medina Ministers Florencio Randazzo (Interior) Héctor Timerman (Foreign Relations) Arturo Puricelli (Defense) Hernán Lorenzino (Economy) Julio de Vido (Federal Planning and Public Utilities) Julio Alak (Justice and Human Rights) Nilda Garré (Security) Alberto Sileoni (Education) Lino Barañao (Science, Technology and Innovative Production) Carlos Tomada (Labor, Employment and Social Security) Juan Luis Manzur (Health) Alicia Kirchner (Social Development) Débora Giorgi (Industry) Norberto Yauhar (Agriculture) Carlos Enrique Meyer (Tourism)