User talk:Lucifer(sc)

Welcome!
Hi Lucifer(sc), and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 16:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pursuer
Pursuer / Defender - it was my understanding that whilst "accused" is used in certain reporting, the correct legal term was defender and the correct term for plaintiff was pursuer in all cases of first instance. Davidkinnen 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Scots law
I have reverted Mais Oui!'s edit to Scots law to your version, and added a lengthy explanation at his talk page--George Burgess 08:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Conflict
Because the purpose of Conflict is to determine whether any given civil court has the jurisdiction to hear the case and, if so, which of the several possible laws to apply (both local and foreign), the Conflict rules should not be a part of the private law in the municipal system. Those rules should stand above and apart from the local private law, and apply international principles and concepts rather than represent the lex fori parochial attitudes. Because all aspects of policy on jurisdiction and procedure in such cases directly bear on limits to territorial sovereignty and the extraterritorial application of foreign laws, Conflict is usually considered a part of public law. But, in some states where the conflict system is underdeveloped, the rules are not consolidated into a metasystem, but are piecemeal constitutents in each subject area of private law. So, to be accurate, you have to refer to both possibilitites. But, for the lay reader, it would be otiose to explain it. David91 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I must be flagging because I cannot quite understand why the statement that Conflict is public in some states and private in others is contradictory. It is a simple matter of classification (in the non-Conflict sense of the word, of course). However, if you think that lay readers will understand the issues, I will redraft the introduction tomorrow when I am less tired. However, I will volunteer the observation that your focus seems to be on detail rather than the "big picture". For a moment, let us think about what happens in any domestic case when a court is asked to accept a contract or a tort case alleging breach of contract that also amounts to breach of a duty of care. Is the decision as to how to classify the cause of action determined by reference solely to the law of contract or to the law of tort, or is there a metasystem that regulates the relationship between the two overlapping subject areas? Now apply this to a case that requires a domestic court to choose as lex causae one of two competing foreign laws, either or both of which may involve legal concepts differing materially from the local laws. Although the subject matter at issue will be ultimately be determined by whichever private law is selected, the process of selection is not usually considered a part of any given private law because that may be construed as having prejudged which private law system to apply. You correctly identify public policy as a key factor in this area of law, but that is ordre public rather than run-of-the-mill policy, again stepping up the the metalevel to avoid the implication that the policies of any one of the states involved are being accorded preferential treatment. You obviously have some legal understanding, so I will not labour the point further. David91 18:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now introduced an explanatory passage which I hope that lay people will have a chance of understanding. Please let me know what you think. David91 18:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not feel any pressure. As and when you feel better, we can talk again. David91 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The question of renvoi is actually most instructive in that it distinguishes between the private substantive law of the target state and its conflict rules as a separate system. When I was active in this field, we always used to make a distinction not between public and private, but between municipal and international, i.e. between those parts of the law that were indelibly local and those parts that were outward looking (even in dualist states). But, whatever the terminology, the point is that the Conflict rules are not a part of the private substantive law except in underdeveloped legal systems (which, in the EU, are disappearing fast). Whether the status finally shades over to public or remains in limbo in the private is not so relevant. Because I am long retired, housebound and gave my library away, I cannot offer immediate authority for this analysis. It is something I have "known" since time immemorial. Since I am no longer that creative, I suppose I read it somewhere in the dim and distant past but I cannot remember where. David91 15:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As to the latest edits to the PIL page, I was being cautious because of the date (April 1). I do not know how real this edit is. But thank you for the moral support. David91 16:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck in your career. I will watch your progress from the other end of the age spectrum with interest. I will simply say that you seem to have the right attitude of mind. As you accumulate experience, you will gain perspective on what you know. At present, it is all too close to you. Give it another ten years and you will begin to feel a more complete understanding of what you know. David91 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the PIL front, I have offered you a preliminary definition to shoot at, so get shooting. I have been meaning to look at Public for some time but other things have seemed more important. If you find any more disasters, let me know. If I see anything on your lex fori, I will refer them to you. David91 16:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Private international law to Conflict of laws move
The move itself wasn't minor, see and. I did screw up the redirect on PIL though and when back and fixed it -- that was a minor edit, see. --Ben Houston 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also of potential note, I created an Category:Conflict of laws category and moved a lot of articles into it from the more general and overloaded Category:International law category. I do not have any law training thus if you ever had time to verify the contents of the new category, that would be appreciated.  --Ben Houston 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also just to be clear, the new cat "Conflict of laws" is a subcat of "International law", thus I am not trying to protray it as not part of international law but rather as a definable component of international law -- similar to how Category:International criminal law is a subcategory of "Lnternational law". --Ben Houston 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Employment tribunal
While I find such short stubs to be irritating when I am looking for imformation, I don't object to them in theory, I was trying to point out to others that more work needed to be done in order to bring it up to wikipedia's standards. Although you probably should have added a bit more, in any case, its all futile because it has become a redirect again anyway. Dev920 16:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

72.10.98.30 vandalizing English law
I have checked out where the vandalism is coming from that you have reported. It is coming from a person from Connecticut, who, in my opinion, might have been sent by Shane McMahon to vandalize. Do you know why they're doing it? If it is, I sure wish that Elliot Stabler and Olivia Benson from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit would arrest the perpetrator. Were there any racial slurs or smart remarks? --D.F. Williams 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy See
No matter what objections of a theoretical nature anyone may raise, it is a fact that the Holy See is recognized as a subject of international law by other subjects. They hold diplomatic relations not with Vatican City State but with the Holy See. If the other subjects of international law recognize the Holy See as a subject of international law, then it is a subject of international law.

The Holy See's sovereignty has been recognized explicitly in many international agreements and is particularly emphasized in article 2 of the Lateran Treaty of 11 February 1929, in which "Italy recognizes the sovereignty of the Holy See in the international field as an inherent attribute of its nature, in conformity with its tradition and the requirements of its mission in the world."

The Holy See was recognized as a person in international law long before the signing of the Lateran Treaty, which first established the Vatican City State. The very fact that the Holy See (which then had no territorial base) was one of the two parties to the negotiating and signing of the Lateran Treaty was based on its capacity to act relevantly in the international domain.

Even when the Pope was sovereign of the Papal States in central Italy, he had a recognized spiritual sovereignty as well as a territorial sovereignty. It was not on account of the latter that he held precedence over the Emperor and the other rulers of nations, that his envoys were received with the highest honours, that the papal court was considered one of the most coveted diplomatic posts. And after the complete loss of temporal power in the nineteenth century, the Pope continued to exercise the active and passive right of legation, as well as being called upon as arbiter and mediator by states for the settlement of international conflicts.

It is thus false to say that the Holy See "has always had temporal sovereignty over at least some land, even if now it is rather small." You ask: "Should it not simply be regarded as a rather unusual form of state?" Perhaps indeed it (the Holy See or the Catholic Church, which are closely connected but not identical) should. Provided that this expression is not mistakenly understood to imply that its sovereignty and personality are in some way dependent on also possessing a 40-hectare statelet with which nobody would be interested in establishing diplomatic relations or giving it weight in international relations.

This is at least how I see the situation of the Holy See in international affairs. Lima 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)