Self-study
I'm not understanding why D is the correct answer choice for this question, help is appreciated!
My thinking:
Given that the author states that the Maya have to rely on other countries' precedents because "courts in Belize have not yet ruled on... indigenous rights" and that there is an "absence of relevant precedent in Belize's case law" I don't know how the author's purpose can then be to suggest that "the courts of Belize have relied upon the sorts of common law precedents that the Maya argue should be applied."
In my head, it is inconsistent to suggest that there is both an absence of "relevant" precedent in Belize law (meaning nothing even close can be applied) and to suggest that Belize courts have "relied... upon the sorts of... precedent the Maya argue should be applied."
Where am I messing up? Thanks!
1
3 comments
The difference here isn't the word precedent, but the modifiers: precedent in case law and common law precedents. There's not been a case that went through Belize's courts where they made a ruling that has become a precedent (a precedent in case law). There are, however, precedents in common law, and Belize's courts have relied on common law precedents in other cases. (The common law precedents became case law precedents when they were used in cases.)
There are two uses of precedent which is confusing. The first refers to a lack of precedent in relation to how courts in Belize view indigenous rights. The second refers to the precedent (established practice) of Belize looking to other common law countries for "advice" when considering their own judicial decisions. Answer choice D refers to this second precedent.
The first is a problem in the passage which needs a solution. The second is what the Maya's want to happen in this case, since it would mean Belize would look to other common-law countries (Aus, Can, U.S) which have a judicial precedent of recognising indigenous peoples rights. The Maya want this.
——————————
Also, the full answer to D is: "The courts of Belize have relied in analogous situations upon the sorts of common-law precedents that the Maya argue should be applied". The bit you cut out is paramount. It hasn't happened yet in this case—it's happened in the past and the Maya want it to happen again here (as the precedents in other common-law countries work in their favour).