Search results

Ralph Balson (1890–1964) was an English plumber and house painter who emigrated to Australia in 1913 and subsequently became a key member of Sydney's artistic avant-garde. He is credited with having the first solo exhibition of purely abstract painting in Australia in 1941. Despite his role in developing Australian non-objective painting, Balson remained principally a house painter, working on his art practice at weekends. In 1955 he retired on a state pension and became a full-time artist.Balson's artistic education and methods were critically shaped by his working-class background. He did not travel abroad until 1960 and was an avid auto-didact. His materials, palette, techniques and compositional strategies were likewise informed by his trade. Balson's profession as a painter-decorator made him conspicuous within the predominantly middle-class Sydney art scene, though his painting partner Grace Crowley considered it an advantage in their pursuit of constructive painting. This paper explores the impact of Balson's trade on his trajectory towards pure abstraction. While his art was at odds with the predominantly figurative mode of class-conscious art in Australian Modernism, we argue that it is embedded in the experience of class through its creative adaptation of labour into aesthetics.

Researched and prepared by Brian Powell and edited by Leslie Fox (SPNEA Conservation Center). ; Date of publication is unclear.

32Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Admissibility of applicant's complaint — German courts' decisions declaring applicant's action inadmissible under Chapter 6, Article 3(1) and (3) of Settlement Convention — Whether amounting to denial of access to court — Whether limitation on applicant's right pursuant to legitimate aim — Whether proportionate — Interpretation and application of Chapter 6, Article 3(1) and (3) of Settlement Convention — Whether applicant's interest outweighing public interest — Whether impairment to very essence of applicant's right of access to court — Whether applicant having a fair hearing in Federal Constitutional Court — Whether Germany violating Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950Human rights — Right to property — Admissibility of applicant's complaint — Confiscation of painting belonging to applicant's father by former Czechoslovakia in 1946 while on Czechoslovak territory — German courts declaring applicant's claims of ownership of painting inadmissible — Germany returning painting to Czech Republic — Whether interference with applicant's "possessions" — Whether Germany violating Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention on Human RightsHuman rights — Prohibition of discrimination — Admissibility of applicant's complaint — Nationality — Whether discrimination against applicant as Liechtenstein national — Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights complementing other substantive provisions of Convention and its Protocols — Whether Article 14 applicable — Whether Germany violating Article 14Treaties — Interpretation — Jurisdiction — Settlement Convention — Chapter 6, Article 3(1) and (3) of Settlement Convention excluding German jurisdiction — Treaty of 12 September 1990 on Final Settlement — Amendments to Treaty by Agreement of 27 and 28 September 1990 — Suspension and termination of Settlement Convention — Preservation of Chapter 6, Article 3(1) and (3) of Settlement Convention with respect to Germany — Exclusion of German jurisdictionRelationship of international law and municipal law — Settlement Convention, Chapter 6, Article 3 — Interpretation — Whether excluding German jurisdiction — German courts dismissing applicant's complaint — Confiscation of painting belonging 33to applicant's father — Whether constituting measure under Chapter 6, Article 3(1) and (3) of Settlement Convention — Whether provisions set aside by Treaty on Final Settlement, 1990 — Interest of applicant versus vital public interest — Whether German courts' interpretation of municipal law, including as to international law, compatible with European Convention on Human RightsWar and armed conflict — Second World War — Germany capitulating on 8 May 1945 — Occupation — Four Allied Powers assuming supreme authority in Germany — Allied Declaration of 5 June 1945 — Convention on Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation, 1952 — Settlement Convention amended by Schedule IV to Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in Federal Republic of Germany, 1954 — Particular status of Germany under international law after Second World War — Germany lacking full authority of sovereign State over its internal and external affairs — Treaty on Final Settlement, 1990 — Preservation of Chapter 6, Article 3(1) and (3) of Settlement Convention with respect to Germany — Political union of Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic on 3 October 1990 — Reunification of Germany — Germany obtaining full sovereign State authority

Technological innovations invariably lead to legal questions being raised; the sphere of digitalization of physical documents and securities by use of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies does not constitute an exception. While solutions for many questions can be found within the existing legal framework, some developments call for legislative measures. This paper examines the hurdles in connection with the issuance and transfer of securities by virtue of a mere digital transaction and the approaches of the Liechtenstein and Swiss legislator to overcome them. Both have recognized that entries in distributed ledgers may fulfill the same main functions as the possession of a physical document. While the focus of the selective legal adaptations in Switzerland is on the use of DLT and securities law, the Liechtenstein legislator strives towards a holistic legal and regulatory framework for the entire token economy by introduction of a new set of rules. ; Le innovazioni tecnologiche portano inevitabilmente a sollevare questioni legali; l'ambito della digitalizzazione dei documenti fisici e dei titoli attraverso l'uso di blockchain e di altre tecnologie a registro distribuito non costituisce un'eccezione. Mentre le soluzioni per molte questioni possono essere trovate all'interno del quadro giuridico esistente, alcuni cambiamenti richiedono misure legislative. Questo paper esamina gli ostacoli esistenti in relazione all'emissione e al trasferimento di titoli in forza di una semplice transazione digitale e gli approcci del legislatore del Liechtenstein e di quello svizzero per superarli. Entrambi hanno riconosciuto che le caratteristiche dei registri distribuiti possono adempiere alle stesse principali funzionidel possesso di un documento fisico. Mentre in Svizzera si tratta di un adattamento normativo selettivo riferito all'uso della DLT e al diritto dei titoli, il legislatore del Liechtenstein cerca di creare un quadro giuridico e normativo olistico per l'intera economia token attraverso l'introduzione di un nuovo set di regole.