Date of publication: 2017-08-24 11:39
Extensive referencing and bibliography indicate wide research, a correct approach and the use of these sources as evidence to back up the student 8767 s argument.
Such recognition was permitted without reference to Article 6 in Drozd and Janousek. However, in Pellegrini v Italy, the ECtHR held that the Italian court could not recognise a judgment obtained in a Vatican City court in contravention of Article 6 standards. This was so despite a Concordat between Italy and the Vatican requiring such recognition. Pellegrini can be considerably demarcated from the Soering/Drozd line of cases, which requires a flagrant breach to have occurred in the non-Contracting State, the underpinning theory being the “reduced effect of public policy.” Instead, Pellegrini requires full compliance with Article 6 standards as if the foreign court were party to the ECHR, such that failure to review a judgment against which standards is a risky practice.
Avoid making the conclusion too repetitive as it may lose its essence. Do not begin with “in conclusion”. Try to keep the conclusion as general as possible. Although a concluding paragraph is seen as an unnecessary repeat of ideas, it is in reality a fundamental essay element with its own rationale.
The final example is where individuals use chat-rooms to form electronic contracts. Chat-rooms are electronic fora where individuals congregate at the same time to have real time conversations. Once an individual types a short message, the message is sent from that individual's computer through the communications lines to the chat-room network. The network adds the message to a incessant stream of messages that are instantly read and responded to by other individuals in the chat-rooms. Similar to talking over the telephone or face-to-face, messages sent through a chat-room provide almost instantaneous conversation. However, the message usually appears and is gone within a minute, and thereby no message is saved.
The conclusion to my dissertation, different from my Juridical Review version, is as below. Given the recent Supreme Court criminal law decision of Cadder v HMA, for which see the ScotsLawBlog Cadder article , the final words on getting human rights right attract even greater significance.
Erich Gasser v MISAT concerned the validity of a choice-of-court agreement in favour of the Austrian courts where one party had first seised the Italian courts by way of negative declaration. Second seised, the Austrian Court sought a reference from the ECJ on, inter alia, whether it must stay its proceedings under lis pendens where the proceedings in the court first seised generally take an unreasonably long time, such that there may be a breach of Article 6.
It is a myth that academic writing requires a ‘sophisticated’ style with long sentences, complex expressions, and technical jargon. Avoid overlong sentences and cut out redundant words and phrases.
This is illustrated in the following example.
. Framework under Article 6
. Conflict with Lis Pendens: Erich Gasser
. Delay in the Italian Court
. A Clash of Treaties
. Future Application
. Conflict with Forum non Conveniens
. General Operation
. First Limb of Spiliada
. Second Limb of Spiliada
The second type of communication is that that is facilitated by the World Wide Web. Businesses can establish websites for the purpose of selling goods and services and included in these websites may be advertisements for goods and services and details of how customers may order or purchase goods. Pitiyasak offers the example of the site. This website advertises many products such as books, etc., and invites customers to make a purchase offer by completing a form on the website. This form incorporates the credit card details of the customer. Amazon verifies the credit card details and makes a claim for payment of the agreed amount with the bank or the credit card company.
In everyday conversations, you are not normally expected to provide a detailed analysis of the topic. For instance, if someone asks you ‘What do you think of devolution?’ they want to know whether you are for or against, and they would be bored if you went into an analysis of the current debate. In academic writing, the priorities are reversed. The reader is not interested in your personal opinion, but wants to know what are (a) the main issues to be considered, and (b) the various lines of argument that can be developed. You must put the reader in the position to form his/her own judgement based on the evidence and arguments that you have presented. Your claims or conclusion are less important than how you arrived at them.
In consultation with your supervisor, draw up an initial reading list, making sure that this is wide-ranging, relevant and as up-to-date as possible. Approach this reading with specific questions in mind if not, you will waste a lot of valuable time reading irrelevant information.