Define: Secundum Aequum Et Bonum

“Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” is a Latin phrase that translates to “according to fairness and good conscience.” It is a legal principle that allows judges to make decisions based on what is fair and just, even if it goes against strict legal rules.

“Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” is often used when there is a gap or ambiguity in the law. Judges can use this principle to fill in the gaps and make decisions that align with fairness and good conscience.

Yes, in certain circumstances. If a judge determines that applying strict legal rules would lead to an unjust outcome, they can use “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” to deviate from the established laws and make a fair decision.

No, “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” is primarily used in civil law jurisdictions. Common law jurisdictions, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, rely more on precedent and statutory law.

While both principles aim to ensure fairness, “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” focuses on the overall fairness of a decision, while “In Dubio Pro Reo” presumes the innocence of the accused when there is doubt.

In some civil law jurisdictions, “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” can be applied in criminal cases, particularly when there are gaps in the law or when strict application of the law would lead to an unjust outcome.

Yes, the application of “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” is subjective and can vary depending on the judge’s interpretation of fairness and good conscience. It is also important to note that it should not be used to undermine the rule of law or established legal principles.

Yes, parties can argue for the application of “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” in their legal arguments, particularly when they believe that strict adherence to the law would lead to an unjust outcome.

Yes, “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” is recognized and applied in international law, particularly in cases where there is no specific treaty or legal provision to address a particular situation.

Decisions made based on “Secundum Aequum Et Bonum” can be appealed, just like any other legal decision. However, the grounds for appeal would typically be limited to procedural errors or misapplication of the principle, rather than challenging the judge’s interpretation of fairness.