GEA Business law

I need an explanation for this Law question to help me study.

Instructions for #GEA1:

The concept of judicial review was pioneered by the United States. Some maintain that one of the reasons the doctrine was readily accepted in this country was that it fit well with the checks and balances designed by the founders. Today, all established constitutional democracies have some form of judicial review—the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws—but its form varies from country to country.

For example, Canada’s Supreme Court can exercise judicial review but is barred from doing so if a law includes a provision explicitly prohibiting such review. France has a Constitutional Council that rules on the constitutionality of laws before the laws take effect. Laws can be referred to the council for prior review by the president, the prime minister, and the heads of the two chambers of parliament. Prior review is also an option in Germany and Italy, if requested by the national or a regional government. In contrast, the United States Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions; the Supreme Court will render a decision only when there is an actual dispute concerning an issue.


(1) Research judicial review in either: (1) the countries mentioned above or (2) any other country (Switzerland, Australia, Japan).

(2) In a minimum 250-word post, please:

(a) describe the laws/statutes/rules/court cases governing judicial review of the country you chose;

(b) describe the judicial review process;

(c) from the country you researched, can you find an example of judicial review protecting human rights? (If not, please find an example from another country – an example of the United States is fine); and

(d) propose at least one action (that is not already in place) that the country can take to better promote human rights.

Research Information/Suggestions:

1. Please use reliable and credible search engines (please do not use Wikipedia).

2. This website has great information on research skills: (Links to an external site.).

3. I suggest using either Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis which can be found under Databases once you log into the USF Library network.

4. Don’t hesitate to ask a Librarian for assistance!


1. You may use the APA, MLA or Turabian format. For information on how to cite your research, please visit this website: (Links to an external site.).

2. Please put your citations into your assignment. The citations do not count towards the word count.


#GEA1 (General Education Assignment)

#GEA1 (General Education Assignment)

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch, Findings, Example, and ProposalAssignment submission describes: (1) the laws and (2) the process of judicial review. The submission also gives an example of how judicial review protects human rights. Finally, there is one proposal of promotion of human rights.

10.0 to >6.0 pts

Full Marks

The four assignment requirements were met in the submission.

6.0 to >2.0 pts


Some but not all of the four assignment requirements were discussed.

2.0 to >0 pts

No Marks

Just one of the assignment requirements were discussed or there was no post at all.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism, Citations, and Word CountProfessional vocabulary and professional writing style were used throughout the discussion. Text is free of spelling errors and contains appropriate citations. Word count is met.

10.0 to >6.0 pts

Full Marks

Great professional writing style is used in the assignment, citations are appropriate, and the word count is met.

6.0 to >2.0 pts


Good professional writing style with few grammatical errors. Citations are not appropriate or missing.

2.0 to >0 pts

No Marks

Unprofessional writing style and grammatical errors. No citations.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEnhanced Gen Ed Human and Cultural Diversityview longer description

threshold: 1.0 pts

1.0 ptsSatisfactory: Student satisfactorily demonstrates human and cultural diversity attributes by demonstrating effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts.

0.0 ptsUnsatisfactory: Student does not satisfactorily demonstrate human and cultural diversity attributes.

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEnhanced Gen Ed Problem Solvingview longer description

threshold: 2.0 pts

3.0 ptsProficient: Student demonstrates the ability to construct a clear and insightful problem statement and to identify multiple approaches to solve a problem that indicate insightful comprehension of the problem and carefully addresses multiple contextual factors and thoroughly reviews results relative to the problem with specific consideration of need for further work.

2.0 ptsDeveloping: Student demonstrates the ability to construct a problem statement, proposes multiple solutions that suggest comprehension of the problem, some of which apply within a specific context, and reviews results relative to the problem with some consideration of need for further work.

1.0 ptsNovice: Student demonstrates a limited ability to identify a problem statement and approaches for solving the problem, provides vague and cursory solutions that do not directly address a problem, and reviews results superficially with no consideration of need for further work.

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEnhanced Gen Ed Critical & Analytical Thinkingview longer description

threshold: 2.0 pts

3.0 ptsProficient: Student identifies and states problems clearly and completely in understandable terms, carefully and comprehensively evaluates the relevance of assumptions and questions the viewpoints of experts when presenting a position, and formulates conclusions based on a thorough and logical thought process that reflects careful analysis of appropriate assumptions and evidence.

2.0 ptsDeveloping: Student identifies problems to be considered critically with some omissions or lack of clarity, gathers mostly appropriate information to develop coherent arguments, and questions some conventional assumptions and often considers opposing viewpoints when formulating conclusions.

1.0 ptsNovice: Student demonstrates some awareness of assumptions when identifying positions, states problems in simple terms without much clarification, generally accepts viewpoints of experts as fact without question, and routinely reaches conclusions not consistently tied to some of the available information.

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEnhanced Gen Ed Communicationview longer description

threshold: 2.0 pts

3.0 ptsProficient: Student demonstrates a thorough understanding of required context and is able to create a skillfully developed presentation that provides relevant, detailed, and compelling assertions supported by credible and relevant sources.

2.0 ptsDeveloping: Student demonstrates an adequate understanding of required context and is able to explore ideas that are fairly-well developed in a presentation that is mostly organized and includes basic use of relevant sources to support ideas.

1.0 ptsNovice: Student is able to develop simple ideas in portions of the assignment, provides a basic, somewhat organized presentation, and attempts to use sources to support ideas with some attention to context.