|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Should this page not be disambiguated? It brings together some issues relative to the jurisdiction of courts, although territorial and personal jurisdiction are dealt with elsewhere under [personal jurisdiction] and potentially [jurisdiction in rem], with some issues relative to executive jurisdiction. May I suggest that there be the following pages:
1. Territorial and personal jurisdiction;
2. Subject-matter jurisdiction;
3. Jurisdiction in rem;
4. Executive jurisdiction; and
5. Labor unions and voluntary organisations.
Ariwara 13:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
The definition of jurisdiction here is hopelessly complicated. If you did not understand jurisdiction, this definition would be very confusing. Jurisdiction is the power to issue a ruling on a matter. The article should start with a simple, common sense definition. Later in the article, we can get into the subtle nuances. Ibnsina786 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the addition that "the European Union signed the Brussels Convention in 1968". In 1968 there was no EU by that name. Even today, I don't think the EU, as an entity, can sign a treaty, though its individual member nations can. In 1968, the association was much looser, and I'm sure that back then there was no central authority that could sign treaties. Does it mean that the member nations (of the EEC or whatever) signed the Convention? JamesMLane 10:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, I was hurrying through thinking about something else. You are quite right. Thank you for pointing out my error. David91 12:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I had the time so I rewrote this page to make it more comprehensive and better structured. As with all my work here, I now rely on other readers to point out all my errors and to clarify all my obscurities. Let us really move this page into the best possible state. And, I moved the non-law reference to jurisdiction to the page on Labor unions in the United States where it is not completely comfortable but more potentially relevant. David91 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Jurisdiction in USA
Suggest this section is moved to its own page. Current page deals with jurusidiction in an abstract, world-wide sense. It could never deal with all countries of the world, so why even have one.--Gazzetta 11:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Criminal jurisdiction page is almost entirely U.S. based so the civil material could be consolidated there if you think it better to have country-specific pages. I prefer to try to generalise the principles as much as possible but include enough from the areas I am familiar with in the hope that others who have greater knowledge of different areas will add them to make the page genuinely comprehensive. David91 15:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The section at Jurisdiction#Franchise Jurisdiction is a little confusing to me. Is the Franchise Jurisdiction the "franchise", or is the Hereditament the franchise. (The link on this page is to the disambiguation page.) Is there another page that defines it? If not then Jurisdiction#Franchise Jurisdiction is the definition and franchise should not be linked (and maybe it should be bolded). I'll update the dismabiguation page according. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 12:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- I confess that I was also disconcerted to see this appear (even as history, it is really obscure), but I am not going to say that it should not appear somewhere in an encyclopedia. Were it not for there being an antipathy against dab pages, I would have posted it as a stub making three pages with criminal jurisdiction, four with jurisdiction in rem, five with personal jurisdiction, six with special jurisdiction (wow there are so many of them) but I did not think anyone would ever expand it so I ended up leaving it here. No perhaps there should be a dab page. What say you? And the answer to your question is that the right to exerise the jurisdiction over the territory specified and the people living thereon was transmissible upon the death of the holder like any other estate over land. David91 13:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The external link explains franchise jurisdiction pretty well. A franchise jurisdiction was a kind of franchise and a franchise in turn was a kind of hereditament (property). To confuse matters it could also be appurtenant to another kind of property. (If you are a programmer you can think of the "kind of" hierarchy as a class hierarchy and the appurtenance hierarchy as an object inclusion hierarchy --- that's a good way to quickly get a grasp on medieval property law). In other words a franchise, including a jurisdiction, could be bought, sold, or (most commonly) inherited as part of a larger property such as a manor or part of a larger franchise such as a municipal or colonial corporation. However the franchise might involve a privatized administrative territory, such as a hundred or county, or the territory might be defined in the charter, in which case the franchise jurisdiction might not be appurtenant to anything.
- If there were a "history of jurisdiction" article this section would work better there, but short of that the best place for it is the general article on jurisdiction. Jurisdiction as a form of property is the historical precursor of all subsets of modern jurisdiction (territorial, personal, subject matter, etc.) I don't find a general article on English legal history, otherwise it could go there, although jurisdiction was also often treated as property on the Continent and elsewhere, but that isn't covered by the franchise jurisdiction section or the referenced paper. Franchise jurisdiction is definitely an important piece of legal history that needs to be in Wikipedia.
188.8.131.52 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to sound other Users out on merging the State (law) article into this one: they really are the same thing, are they not? Or at least so similar that both concepts would benefit from a unified presentation. The State article is currently carrying a disputed tag, see also its talk page: Talk:State (law). What do other people think? --Mais oui! 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- They are related but are very different things. Jurisdictions tend to be very circumscribed by the people, subject matter, and so on that they cover, whereas states are generally far broader, an umbrella term for all the legal processes in a territory as well as military and other governmental functions. Jurisdictions typically involve one phase of the legal process (such as policie or courts). Whereas a "state" tends to describe a related bundle of citizenship and law-making authorities as well as various police and court jurisdictions, i.e. all phases of the legal process. In international law a "state" is deemed to have sovereignty, i.e. is able to be a party to treaties, but police or court jurisdictions are not. A variety of jurisdictions (for example those of international legal bodies like the WTO or the International Criminal Court) are not coterminous with any state.184.108.40.206 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since this proposal is no longer being discussed I am removing the header from the article.220.127.116.11 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)