Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
|italic title = |
|italic title = |
||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment''''', 1 (2023), (often abbreviated as ''MoC v. MoE'', or ''CvE'', in text and as Culture v. Environment in speech) was the first ever [[Kuduk]] [[Tribal Council]] Court case, and currently the only case in which both sides of the case are Ministries of the [[National Assembly (Kuduk)|Assembly]]. The dispute in ''CvE'' revolves around opposing laws passed independently by the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of the Environment surrounding the traditional hunting of cetaceans in the [[Rotantic Ocean|Rotantic]] [[Tribes of Kuduk]]. In its ruling, the Tribal Council established cuts on the power of the [[Ministry of the Environment (Kuduk)|Ministry of the Environment]] by limiting its |
'''''Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment''''', 1 (2023), (often abbreviated as ''MoC v. MoE'', or ''CvE'', in text and as Culture v. Environment in speech) was the first ever [[Kuduk]] [[Tribal Council]] Court case, and currently the only case in which both sides of the case are Ministries of the [[National Assembly (Kuduk)|Assembly]]. The dispute in ''CvE'' revolves around opposing laws passed independently by the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of the Environment surrounding the traditional hunting of cetaceans in the [[Rotantic Ocean|Rotantic]] [[Tribes of Kuduk]]. In its ruling, the Tribal Council established cuts on the power of the [[Ministry of the Environment (Kuduk)|Ministry of the Environment]] by limiting its sui juris to species that are considered endangered or threatened. Since the rotantic cetaceans of Kuduk fall under neither category, the Tribal Council ruled in favor of the [[Ministry of Culture (Kuduk)|Ministry of Culture]], citing that the Ministry of the Environment's law restricting the traditional hunting of cetaceans in the Rotantic Tribes was an overreach of its jurisdiction. |
||
''MoC v MoE'' has been described as an important first case in "determining the future jurisdictions and powers of the Ministries."<sup>[[Kuduk|[1]]]</sup> The case established an important limit on the |
''MoC v MoE'' has been described as an important first case in "determining the future jurisdictions and powers of the Ministries."<sup>[[Kuduk|[1]]]</sup> The case established an important limit on the jurisdictions of the ministries, namely that laws that are pass by a ministry outside its sui juris can be overridden by the ministry who holds the rightful sui juris. |
||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
Revision as of 21:40, 18 September 2023
| MoC v. MoE | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Tribal Council |
| Full case name | Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment |
| Decided | 15th September, 2023 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Tribal Council |
Ministry of Culture v. Ministry of the Environment, 1 (2023), (often abbreviated as MoC v. MoE, or CvE, in text and as Culture v. Environment in speech) was the first ever Kuduk Tribal Council Court case, and currently the only case in which both sides of the case are Ministries of the Assembly. The dispute in CvE revolves around opposing laws passed independently by the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of the Environment surrounding the traditional hunting of cetaceans in the Rotantic Tribes of Kuduk. In its ruling, the Tribal Council established cuts on the power of the Ministry of the Environment by limiting its sui juris to species that are considered endangered or threatened. Since the rotantic cetaceans of Kuduk fall under neither category, the Tribal Council ruled in favor of the Ministry of Culture, citing that the Ministry of the Environment's law restricting the traditional hunting of cetaceans in the Rotantic Tribes was an overreach of its jurisdiction.
MoC v MoE has been described as an important first case in "determining the future jurisdictions and powers of the Ministries."[1] The case established an important limit on the jurisdictions of the ministries, namely that laws that are pass by a ministry outside its sui juris can be overridden by the ministry who holds the rightful sui juris.