Search results

En este artículo se describen los procedimientos y el desempeño del órgano de administración electoral de Brasil –TSE– después de su instalación definitiva en 1946, y la gestión de las elecciones antes de esa fecha. Este análisis pone de relieve el papel del TSE en la conciliación política durante períodos críticos, antes y después del golpe militar de 1964, durante la transición del régimen militar (1974-1985) y durante el período posterior a 1985. Los «perdedores» en las elecciones durante estas tres etapas nunca cuestionaron la legitimidad del sistema de gestión electoral. En varias ocasiones, el TSE implementó la modernización del proceso electoral para reducir la tutela sobre los votantes y mejorar la confianza en el sistema. Por último, desde 2002, el TSE viene practicando la «judicialización» de la política. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT ; This article describes the operations and performance of Brazil's election management organ –the TSE– after its definitive installation in 1946, and its management of elections before that date. This analysis highlights the TSE's role in political conciliation during critical periods, before and after the military coup in 1964, during the transition from the military regime (1974-1985), and during the post-1985 period. The «losers» in elections in these three periods never contested the legitimacy of election system management. On several occasions, the TSE implemented modernization of the election process to reduce tutelage over voters and improve confidence in the system. Finally, since 2002, the TSE has practiced «judicialization» of politics.

EAEPE 2007. Conferência realizada no Porto, de 2-5 de novembro de 2007. ; The higher education system in Europe is currently under stress and the debates over its reform and future are gaining momentum. Now that, for most countries, we are in a time for change, in the overall society and the whole education system, the legal and political dimensions have gained prominence, which has not been followed by a more integrative approach of the problem of order, its reform and the issue of regulation, beyond the typical static and classical cost-benefit analyses. The two classical approaches for studying (and for designing the policy measures of) the problem of the reform of the higher education system - the cost-benefit analysis and the legal scholarship description - have to be integrated. This is the argument of our paper that the very integration of economic and legal approaches, what Warren Samuels called the legal-economic nexus, is meaningful and necessary, especially if we want to address the problem of order (as formulated by Joseph Spengler) and the overall regulation of the system. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/draft

Firstly, the author analyses the theory of sovereignty from the point of its birth and then he considers more recent theoretical challenges facing the notion of sovereignty in a globalised world. Particular attention is paid to soft law – that new, formally non-binding source of international law in the light of its factual influence on the desovereignisation of states. The author holds the position that the relativisation of the notion of sovereignty has been a process that began already in the 18th century and that has only additionally accelerated with new challenges posed by globalisation. The author argues for the only possible and proper use of the notion of sovereignty in its original meaning as an absolute, completely unlimited, and indivisible power. On the other hand, he takes a critical approach not only to the theory of constitutional pluralism but also to the ideas of the state's legal sovereignty. He pleads for rejection of separating different aspects of sovereignty, artificially distinguishing between the factual and legal sovereignty, as well as the external and internal sovereignty. While theoretically possible, it is of no practical use because the notion of sovereignty can only be correctly understood as a political and legal illimitability. For all other various modalities and attempts at relativising and grading sovereignty, from the 18th century to this day, different terms should be coined. Being mindful of the situation in most of the present-day states, the author advocates the introduction of the term "pseudo-sovereignty". ; Autor u radu polazi od analize teorije suvereniteta od trenutka njezina rađanja, ali pristupa razmatranju i novijih teorijskih izazova s kojima se susreće pojam suvereniteta u globaliziranom svijetu. Posebna je pozornost posvećena mekom pravu, tom novom, formalno neobavezujućem izvoru međunarodnog prava u svjetlu njegova faktičkog uticaja na desuverenizaciju država. Autor smatra da je relativizacija pojma suvereniteta proces koji je započet još u 18. stoljeću, a koji je samo dodatno ubrzan novim izazovima koje nosi globalizacija. U radu se autor zalaže za jedinu moguću i ispravnu uporabu pojma suvereniteta u njegovu izvornom značenju kao apsolutne, potpuno neograničene i nedjeljive vlasti. S druge strane, kritički pristupa teoriji ustavnog pluralizma, ali i idejama državnog pravnog suvereniteta. Zagovara odbacivanje razdvajanja različitih aspekata suvereniteta, umjetnog razlikovanja između faktičkog i pravnog suvereniteta, kao i vanjskog i unutarnjeg suvereniteta. To je teoretski moguće, ali praktično nekorisno jer se pojam suvereniteta može ispravno razumjeti samo kao politička i pravna neograničenost. Za sve druge različite modalitete i pokušaje relativizacije i gradacije suverenosti, od 18. stoljeća do danas, trebalo bi predvidjeti drugačije pojmove. Imajući u vidu stanje najvećeg broja današnjih država, autor zagovara uvođenje pojma "pseudosuverenitet"

Firstly, the author analyses the theory of sovereignty from the point of its birth and then he considers more recent theoretical challenges facing the notion of sovereignty in a globalised world. Particular attention is paid to soft law – that new, formally non-binding source of international law in the light of its factual influence on the desovereignisation of states. The author holds the position that the relativisation of the notion of sovereignty has been a process that began already in the 18th century and that has only additionally accelerated with new challenges posed by globalisation. The author argues for the only possible and proper use of the notion of sovereignty in its original meaning as an absolute, completely unlimited, and indivisible power. On the other hand, he takes a critical approach not only to the theory of constitutional pluralism but also to the ideas of the state's legal sovereignty. He pleads for rejection of separating different aspects of sovereignty, artificially distinguishing between the factual and legal sovereignty, as well as the external and internal sovereignty. While theoretically possible, it is of no practical use because the notion of sovereignty can only be correctly understood as a political and legal illimitability. For all other various modalities and attempts at relativising and grading sovereignty, from the 18th century to this day, different terms should be coined. Being mindful of the situation in most of the present-day states, the author advocates the introduction of the term "pseudo-sovereignty". ; Autor u radu polazi od analize teorije suvereniteta od trenutka njezina rađanja, ali pristupa razmatranju i novijih teorijskih izazova s kojima se susreće pojam suvereniteta u globaliziranom svijetu. Posebna je pozornost posvećena mekom pravu, tom novom, formalno neobavezujućem izvoru međunarodnog prava u svjetlu njegova faktičkog uticaja na desuverenizaciju država. Autor smatra da je relativizacija pojma suvereniteta proces koji je započet još u 18. stoljeću, a koji je samo dodatno ubrzan novim izazovima koje nosi globalizacija. U radu se autor zalaže za jedinu moguću i ispravnu uporabu pojma suvereniteta u njegovu izvornom značenju kao apsolutne, potpuno neograničene i nedjeljive vlasti. S druge strane, kritički pristupa teoriji ustavnog pluralizma, ali i idejama državnog pravnog suvereniteta. Zagovara odbacivanje razdvajanja različitih aspekata suvereniteta, umjetnog razlikovanja između faktičkog i pravnog suvereniteta, kao i vanjskog i unutarnjeg suvereniteta. To je teoretski moguće, ali praktično nekorisno jer se pojam suvereniteta može ispravno razumjeti samo kao politička i pravna neograničenost. Za sve druge različite modalitete i pokušaje relativizacije i gradacije suverenosti, od 18. stoljeća do danas, trebalo bi predvidjeti drugačije pojmove. Imajući u vidu stanje najvećeg broja današnjih država, autor zagovara uvođenje pojma "pseudosuverenitet".

Political-institutional responses to the first wave of Covid-19 were more effective in Italy than in other parts of the world. Not so, at least in part, during the second wave. Precisely for this reason, it is urgent to have a greater awareness of the reasons for the success of the collective action to deal with Covid-19 in the first six months of 2020. The essay aims to analyze the "governance" of the first wave, observing four different circuits that had government action as their center: the government-regions circuit; the government-organized interests circuit: the government-experts circuit; the government-media circuit. Given the exceptional nature of the moment, it was not possible to activate the normal parliamentary debate, where, especially in the work of the committees, both territorial and sectoral interests are represented. However, when parliament is inhibited from acting, someone has to assume the responsibility of the decisions, otherwise the latter would be taken without adequate deliberative scrutiny. Cooperative federalism and neo-corporatism seem to have been the two new patterns of decision-making that emerged from this suspension of the parliamentary life. These patterns, which allowed the government action to succeed in the first wave of Covid-19, could nevertheless constitute a possible solution to the evils of our centralism and regionalism. ; Le risposte politico-istituzionali alla prima ondata del Covid-19 sono state in Italia più efficaci rispetto ad altre parti del mondo. Non così, almeno in parte, nella seconda ondata. Proprio per questo è urgente una maggiore consapevolezza delle ragioni del successo nell'azione collettiva di contrasto al Covid-19 nei primi sei mesi del 2020. Il saggio si propone di analizzare il 'metodo di governo' della prima ondata, osservando quattro diversi circuiti che avevano al loro centro l'azione del governo: il circuito governo-regioni; il circuito governo-interessi organizzati: il circuito governo-esperti; il circuito governo-media. Data l'eccezionalità del momento, non era possibile attivare il normale confronto parlamentare, dove, specie nel lavoro delle commissioni, vengono rappresentanti sia gli interessi territoriali sia gli interessi settoriali. Tuttavia quando il parlamento è inibito ad agire, come in situazioni di 'stato di eccezione', qualcuno deve svolgere questo stesso ruolo pena il rischio di decisioni senza adeguato vaglio delibe-rativo. Federalismo cooperativo e neocorporativismo sembrano essere state le due risposte che hanno consentito il successo dell'azione di governo nella fase della sospensione della vita parlamentare. Queste due modalità di decisione, che hanno caratterizzato la gestione della prima ondata del Covid-19, potreb-bero tuttavia costituire una possibile soluzione ai mali del nostro centralismo e del nostro regionalismo.

The issue of COVID-19 has affected the economy and society of the country. So the government is taking various steps to prevent it by pushing laws of isolation and quarantine, as well as enforcing restrictions and community activities (PPKM). This study aims to clarify the analysis, policy, and political budget handling of COVID-19 in Kupang City. Research methodology is qualitative, with the type of cases used to study and analyze situations affecting individuals and groups dealing with COVID-19 in great detail. According to research findings, the Kupang city government has relocated its budget and refocused on regulating COVID-19 through Regional Regulation Number 3 of 2020 on the regional allocation of Kupang City Year 2021 budget as described by Regulation Mayor (Perwali) Kupang. The letter number 98 revised return becomes the Guardian Number 5 of 2021 Regarding Modifications to Regulations Mayor Kupang Number 98 of 2020 Regarding Explanation Budget Kupang City Regional Income and Expenditure. The Kupang city government received funds through policy total of 80,051,530,953 that were entered into Shopping Not Expected (BTT) for natural and artificial disasters (covid19 handling). From the side, implementation policy causes the spread of Covid-19 to be handled slowly since data information is not synchronized with the number of cases in the field. The policy has not held Covid-19 in Kupang City effectively because of the Kupang City DPRD's insufficient political control, the government's responsiveness, the Prosecutor's Team's aggressiveness toward the Covid-19 task force, and public compliance.

The article argues that Doyle's interpretation of Kant's first definitive article in Perpetual Peace is mistaken. I distinguish between Kant's pragmatic argument (his democratic peace proposition) & his a priori, or transcendental claim. Both are distinct from Doyle's approach which emphasizes institutional restraint & shared cultural norms. Doyle must be criticized for taking Kant's transcendental claims as statements that can be verified empirically. I propose that we drop Doyle's juxtaposition of liberal & illiberal as a fallacy of essentialism. Kant's distinction between republican & despotic is a methodological abstraction belonging to ideal theory (the system of rights). Kantian nonideal theory (his political philosophy) sees the distinction among states as a matter of degree rather than kind. Kant favors an inclusive global federation encompassing liberal as well as nonliberal states, rather than an exclusive federation & "separate peace" of liberal states. Adapted from the source document.

'This volume successfully exposes the "ghostly presence" of democracy in the field of geography and shows the value of thinking about democracy geographically. It is a major contribution to serious examination of a normative political issue from a geographical perspective. This is welcome above all because geography is a field whose cultural and economic branches, though often claiming the appellation "critical", are currently dominated by unexamined radical political fantasies' - John Agnew, University of California, Los Angeles In an historically unprecedented way, democracy is now increasingly seen as a universal model of legitimate rule.This work addresses the key question: How can democracy be understood in theory and in practise? In three thematically organised sections, Spaces of Democracy uses a critical geographical imagination (informed by thinking on space, place, and scale) to interrogate the latest work in democratic theory. Key ideas and concepts discussed include globalization and transnationalism; representation; citizenship; liberalism; the city and public space; and the media. This volume comprises commissioned work by leading academics investigating democracy. Historical and comparative, animated by wider debates on globalization, it will facilitate the critical discussion of core questions on citizenship, the state, and democracy. Spaces of Democracy is essential reading for students of human geography, political science/international relations, and political sociology.