Search results

Preliminary Material /T.G. Leesen -- Introduction /T.G. Leesen -- I. Male Puberty /T.G. Leesen -- II. Res Mancipi /T.G. Leesen -- III. Specificatio /T.G. Leesen -- IV. Filius Praeteritus /T.G. Leesen -- V. Legatum Per Vindicationem (1) /T.G. Leesen -- VI. Legatum Per Vindicationem (2) /T.G. Leesen -- VII. Legatum Per Praeceptionem /T.G. Leesen -- VIII. Datio Tutoris /T.G. Leesen -- IX. Regula Catoniana /T.G. Leesen -- X. In Iure Cessio Hereditatis /T.G. Leesen -- XI. Condicio Impossibilis /T.G. Leesen -- XII. Stipulatio For A Third Person /T.G. Leesen -- XIII. Literal Contract /T.G. Leesen -- XIV. Emptio Venditio (1) /T.G. Leesen -- XV. Emptio Venditio (2) /T.G. Leesen -- XVI. Mandatum /T.G. Leesen -- XVII. Servus Communis /T.G. Leesen -- XVIII. Datio In Solutum /T.G. Leesen -- XIX. Novatio /T.G. Leesen -- XX. Actio Noxalis /T.G. Leesen -- XXI. Noxae Deditio /T.G. Leesen -- Conclusion /T.G. Leesen -- Appendix 1. Pomp., D. 1.2.2.47–53: Text And Translation /T.G. Leesen -- Appendix 2. The Leaders Of The Schools /T.G. Leesen -- Appendix 3. The Sabinians And The Proculians: Topoi /T.G. Leesen -- Bibliography /T.G. Leesen -- Source Index /T.G. Leesen.

This edition of the laws promulgated by successive Anglo-Saxon rulers over a period of five centuries was published in three volumes between 1903 and 1916 by the German historian Felix Lieberman (1851-1925), and is still regarded as authoritative. This unique body of early medieval legal writing, unparalleled in other Germanic languages, provides valuable source material for scholars of Old English and of legal history, and Lieberman's thorough engagement with the manuscripts has never been surpassed. His preface explains that owing to factors such as the extreme variability of Old English orthography, and the existence of both Latin and Old English versions of the same material, a traditional edition using just one base manuscript with a critical apparatus would have been too unwieldy. Volume 1 introduces the manuscripts, and gives several parallel versions of each text in Old English and Latin with a facing translation into modern German. Frederick Attenborough's The Laws of the Early English Kings (1922) is also reissued in this series

Frederick Levi Attenborough (1887-1973) studied at Cambridge and was a Fellow of Emmanuel College between 1920 and 1925. He later became the Principal of University College, Leicester. In 1922 Cambridge University Press published his edition of the early Anglo-Saxon laws, with a facing-page modern English translation. A few years earlier, Felix Lieberman had published his monumental three-volume Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, which is still the definitive specialist edition of the laws (as Attenborough rightly predicted), and which is also reissued in the Cambridge Library Collection. Attenborough explains that his work is for social and legal historians who do not read German, or do not require the full critical apparatus and contextual material provided by Lieberman. Attenborough's book covers the laws from Aethelbert to Aethelstan; in 1925 Cambridge published a continuation by Agnes Robertson, The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, which is also available

Preliminary Material /Asbjørn Eide , Jakob Th. Möller and Ineta Ziemele -- The Right to Peace Milestones in the Development of International Humanitarian Law /Daniel Thürer -- Post-War American International Law Scepticism: The International Criminal Court, Stockholm 1924 /Mark Weston Janis -- Peace as a Human Right: The Jus Cogens Prohibition of Aggression /Alfred de Zayas -- The Human Right to Peace /William A. Schabas -- Security and Human Rights in the Regulation of Private Military Companies: The Role of the Home State /Francesco Francioni -- The United Nations and Human Rights What Makes Democracy Good? /Lyal S. Sunga -- Is the United Nations Human Rights Council Living Up to the International Community's Expectations? /Markus G. Schmidt -- The UN Human Rights Council: The Perennial Struggle between Realism and Idealism /Bertrand G. Ramcharan -- Eight UN Petitions Procedures: A Comparative Analysis /Jakob Th. Möller -- The Legal Status of Views Adopted by the Human Rights Committee – From Genesis to Adoption of General Comment No. 33 /Geir Ulfstein -- Winter Break 2010: A Week in the Life of a Special Rapporteur /Martin Scheinin -- Legal and Judicial Shortcomings of the Surrogate State of "UNMIKISTAN" /Margrét Heinreksdóttir -- The Right to Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities – Innovations in the CRPD /Arnardóttir Arnardóttir -- Human Rights at the Regional Level The Council of Europe: A Champion in Monitoring Implementation of Human Rights Standards? /Petter F. Wille -- Flexibilising the Modes of Amending the European Convention on Human Rights: An Idea for a 'Statute' for the European Court /Krzysztof Drzewicki -- Strengthening of the Principle of Subsidiarity of the European Convention on Human Rights /Björg Thorarensen -- Presumption of Convention Compliance /Davíð Þór Björgvinsson -- The Right to Adequate Judicial Reasoning /Ragnar Aðalsteinsson -- Dialogue Between States and International Human Rights Monitoring Organs – Especially the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance /Lauri Hannikainen -- How Old Are You? Age Discrimination and EU Law /Allan Rosas -- NHRIs in the European Union: Status Quo Vadis? /Morten Kjærum and Jonas Grimheden -- Selected Examples of the Contemporary Practice of the Inter-American System in Confronting Grave Violations of Human Rights: United States and Colombia /Diego Rodríguez-Pinzón -- Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Prevention of Discrimination, Protection of Minorities, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Challenges and Choices /Asbjørn Eide -- Minority Protection in the African System of Human Rights /Michelo Hansungule -- Indigenous Peoples on the International Scene: A Personal Reminiscence /Lee Swepston -- Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Development /Rainer Hofmann and Juri Alistair Gauthier -- Principal Problems Regarding Indigenous Land Rights and Recent Endeavours to Resolve Them /Erica-Irene A. Daes -- Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples: Preserve or Protect? – That's the Question! /Mpazi Sinjela -- Redefining Sovereignty and Self-Determination through a Declaration of Sovereignty: The Inuit Way of Defining the Parameters for Future Arctic Governance /Timo Koivurova.

Demokratia ja tehokkuus muodostavat kunnallishallinnon keskeisimmän arvopohjan. Näiden välillä vallitsee tietynlainen jännite. Kauko Heurun väitöskirjassa tutkitaan oikeushistoriallisessa valossa kunnanvaltuuston asemaa tämän jännitteen sisällä. Siinä selvitetään kunnanvaltuuston vallan syntyhistoria sekä sen kehittyminen yhteiskunnallisen muutoksen osana. Kunnallishallinnossa on perinteisesti korostettu demokraattisia arvoja. 1990 -luvulla tässä tapahtui ratkaiseva muutos. Tällöin tehokkuusvaatimukset voimistuivat, ja niihin myös vastattiin. Maamme kunnallishallinto siirtyi erilaisten kokeilujen ja hallinnonuudistusten kautta uudenlaiseen kunnallishallintoon, jonka johtavana aatteena on tulosjohtamisen idea. Mitä pitemmälle tulosjohtamista on kunnallishallinnossa toteutettu, sitä enemmän valtuusto on menettänyt asemaansa kunnan päätösvallan käyttäjänä. Valtuuston valtaa on siirretty täytäntöönpanijoille tietoisesti, mutta sitä on siirtynyt myös salaisesti. Jokainen pelkän tavoitteen asettava valtuuston päätös, jota ei sidota keinovalikoimaan, siirtää valtuuston valtaa. Samoin tekee määrärahapäätös, jota ei sidota yhteen määrätarkoitukseen. Yleistymässä oleva käsitys valtuuston aseman heikkenemisestä saa tutkimuksellista vahvistusta. Kauko Heuru selvittelee yli 400 -sivuisessa väitöskirjassaan laajasti tämän kehityksen syitä. Tällöin hän osoittaa kunnallishallinnon kiinteän yhteyden yhtäältä valtioon ja toisaalta ajan yleisiin virtauksiin. Hän näkee, että 1980 -luvulla alkanut kunnallishallinnon uudistaminen ei ollut ilmiönä itsenäinen, vaan se liittyi kiinteästi uusliberalismin nousuun ja valtionhallinnon uudistamiseen. Kunnallishallinnon vahvistamisen nimissä tehdyt lainsäädännölliset uudistukset kuten normien purku, vapaakuntakokeilu ja kuntien valtionosuusjärjestelmän uudistaminen olivat tarkoitukseltaan ensisijassaq valtionhallinnon uudistamista. Valtion edustajat eivät kuitenkaan ajaneet kuntia muuttamaan hallintoaan, vaan tämän tehtävän hoitivat kuntien keskusjärjestöt. Ne aloittivat jo 1970 -luvulla määrätietoisen koulutus- ja muun ohjaustoiminnan mangeristisen kunnallishallinnon aikaansaamiseksi. Kaiken perustana oli uusliberalismi sekä amerikkalainen liiketaloustieteellinen tutkimus ja sen osakseen saama huomio OECD-maiden julkisessa hallinnossa. Kauko Heuru pohtii myös valtuuston aseman vahvistamista. Hän tulee siihen tulokseen, että nykyajan tehokkuuden ihannointi antaa vain vähän mahdollisuuksia siihen. Näistä merkittävämpänä on vallan ja vastuun jaon normatiivinen täsmentäminen. Tämä merkitsee nykyistä selkeämmän poliittisen johtajuuden luomista suomalaiseenkin kunnallishallintoon. Tutkija, jolla itsellään on pitkä kaupunginjohtajan virkaura, puoltaa pormestarityyppistä johtamisjärjestelmää. Tämän hän tekee nimenomaan valtuuston vallan kannalta. ; The study was designed to investigate the origins of the competency to use municipal decision-making power and its development in the light of the central development of municipal law, including causal relationships and systematization of municipal law. The frame of reference consisted of the democratic values and efficiency values of local government. Up to the end of the 1980s local government in Finland can be regarded as a legal-administrative practice. In a closer analysis, we can distinguish three pha-ses: liberalism, rule-of-law and social state. In the beginning of the 1990s the Finnish state administration was refor-med in line with the managerial theory. The idea of management by results played a key role in this development. Local government was remodelled on the same con-cept. From the 1990s on we can speak of managerial local government. The entire legal-administrative period was characterized by the priority of democratic values in local government. While demands for efficiency grew, they we-re mainly responded to by detailed norm setting and direction by the state. The launch of management by results meant that efficiency values took precedence over democratic ones. If municipal decision-making power is understood as competency to form local intent, and if we assume as municipal laws have assumed that the exercise of this power resides in the local council, the introduction of managerial local go-vernment and management by results has not been possible without transferring aut-hority from the local council to the executive organization. The main reason was that local government activities had become increasingly target-oriented. This involved a demand to separate strategic and operational activities. According to the idea of ma-nagement by results, strategic activities cover the setting of general objectives, whe-reas concrete (case-specific) decisions should be made at the operational level. The level of strategic activities is formed by the work of the local council, and the level of operational activities by the work of the executive organization. The local council's (the local government's) decision-making power can be transferred legally to the executive organization within the limits of the law by a by-law. This is called delegation, whereas in the management-by-results system local decision-making power is factually transferred in other forms too. This happens either in a permissible manner or secretly, and the more the more generally the coun-cil has set the objectives and the more systematically strategic and operational acti-vities are separated. The most important tool for transferring the council's power is the municipal budget, even if the law does not recognize it as such. The introduction of the management-by-results system to local govern-ment broke the mechanisms that had protected the council's authority in the legal-administrative practice. Such mechanisms included general budget principles (no-tably the detail principle) and the inner logic of the dual principle of local govern-ment. The detail principle required that the municipal budget be detailed to the extent that none of the council's power could be transferred to the executive or-ganization through this way. For the purpose, the budget was to be divided in ap-propriations up to one designation. The inner logic of the dual principle corresponded to the perceptions of the rule of law and legal positivism about formal rational legal order; implementation was based on subsumptional logic rather than independent consideration. Expedien-cy, which thus was not conveyed from the decision to be implemented, did not reside with the executive organization. During the legal-administrataive local government, the number of muni-cipal officials increased steadily. However, we cannot speak of bureaucracy in the true sense of the word, because municipal offices existed mainly for executive func-tions only. During managerial local government, municipal officials became also executors of the self-government of local residents. Generally, it can be said that the further the idea of management by re-sults is taken in local government, the more the status of the council shifts from a decision maker to a legalizer of municipal activities. Along with the change the conceptual contents of municipal democracy have changed. The decision-making moment is no longer the sole basis of evaluati-on, rather, it is the moment when the consequences are seen. Newer research has anticipated a shift from representational democracy towards direct democracy, but it seems unlikely. Representational democracy still appears to have its chances. This requires increasing attention to the political functi-on of municipalities, including stricter normative definition of municipal authority and responsibility. In the end, the key issue is whether the Finnish local government will have a distinct political leader or not.

This edition of the laws promulgated by successive Anglo-Saxon rulers over a period of five centuries was published in three volumes between 1903 and 1916 by the German historian Felix Lieberman (1851-1925), and is still regarded as authoritative. This unique body of early medieval legal writing, unparalleled in other Germanic languages, provides valuable source material for scholars of Old English and of legal history, and Lieberman's thorough engagement with the manuscripts has never been surpassed. Volume 2 contains a dictionary of the Old English, Latin and French words found in the texts in Volume 1. The dictionary is presented in one alphabetical sequence, and is followed by a German glossary of legal terms listing references in the texts, other medieval works and later scholarship. Frederick Attenborough's The Laws of the Early English Kings (1922), providing a modern English translation of early Anglo-Saxon laws, is also reissued in this series

Das legislative Wirken Konstantins des Großen auf dem Gebiet des Privatrechts steht in dem Ruf, mit der bis zu Diokletian fortgeführten Tradition des klassischen römischen Rechts zu brechen. Der Vergleich der Rechtssetzung beider Kaiser leidet freilich unter einer erheblichen Asymmetrie der Überlieferung, weil von Diokletian vorwiegend Reskripte, von Konstantin dagegen nur allgemeine Gesetze erhalten sind. Während jene die gesamte Privatrechtsordnung abbilden, sind diese auf punktuelle Neuerungen beschränkt und vermitteln keinen Überblick über das zu Konstantins Zeit geltende Recht. Lässt es sich daher auch nicht in seiner Gesamtheit rekonstruieren, kann man in den Konstitutionen Konstantins doch gewisse übergreifende Züge ausmachen. Hervorstechend sind einerseits das Bemühen um die Verwirklichung der rechtsgeschäftlichen Absicht als Erscheinungsform einer dogmatisch konsequenten Rechtsfortbildung, die ungeachtet ihrer rhetorischen Verbrämung in Konstantins Gesetzgebung vorherrscht. Andererseits stoßen wir auf das gegenläufige Streben nach Rechtssicherheit als dominierendes Element unter den politisch motivierten Entscheidungen. Konstantin wird dabei nicht zugunsten der beteiligten Privatrechtssubjekte, sondern allein im öffentlichen Interesse an Vermeidung und Beschleunigung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten tätig. / »Utilitas Constantiniana. Private Law Legislation at the Beginning of the Fourth Century« -- The legislative work of Constantine the Great in the area of private law has the repute of breaking with the tradition of classical Roman law continued up to Diocletian. The comparison of the legislation of both emperors suffers, though, from the asymmetry of the transmission, because only regular laws with selective innovations by Constantine have been preserved. Nevertheless, one can identify overarching traits: on the one hand, the effort to realise the intention behind legal transactions as part of a dogmatically consistent further development of the law, on the other hand, the opposing striving for legal certainty as the dominant element among the politically motivated decisions.

This edition of the laws promulgated by successive Anglo-Saxon rulers over a period of five centuries was published in three volumes between 1903 and 1916 by the German historian Felix Lieberman (1851-1925), and is still regarded as authoritative. This unique body of early medieval legal writing, unparalleled in other Germanic languages, provides valuable source material for scholars of Old English and of legal history, and Lieberman's thorough engagement with the manuscripts has never been surpassed. Volume 3 provides introductions to each set of laws presented in Volume 1, and detailed line-by-line explanatory notes that complement the dictionary and glossary of terms found in Volume 2. Frederick Attenborough's The Laws of the Early English Kings (1922), providing a modern English translation of early Anglo-Saxon laws, is also reissued in this series

Letter from the burgermasters and City Council of Ravensburg to Archduke Sigismund of Austria, December 17, 1484 -- Guarantee of good behavior (Urfehde), Ravensburg, October 23, 1484 -- Instruction from Bishop Georg of Brixen to his ecclesiastical subordinates, July 23, 1485 -- Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, September 21, 1485 -- Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Archduke Sigismund, September 21, 1485 -- Letter from Archduke Sigismund of Austria to Bishop Georg of Brixen, October 8, 1485 -- Letter of Biship Georg of Brixen to Sigismund Sämer, parish priest in Axams, undated (mid-October, 1485) -- Vernacular protocol -- Latin protocols against the seven accused women -- Latin articles of suspected crimes and list of questions for further investigation of the seven suspects after their release -- Record of the proceedings against the seven accused women, October 29-31 and November 3, 1485 -- Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, November 14, 1485 -- Letter from Bishop Georg of Brixen to an unnamed parish priest in Innsbruck, November 14, 1485 -- Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Brother Nicolas, February 9, 1486 -- Letter of Bishop Georg of Brixen to Institoris, February 9, 1486 -- The Brixen memorandum.

Der Autor erschließt einen lateinischen Rechtstext aus dem späten 6. oder 7. Jh., eine kurze Zusammenfassung des damals unter den Römern im Frankenreich geltenden Rechts. Der Text ist in einer einzigen Handschrift aus dem 8. Jh. erhalten und vieles dort ergibt keinen Sinn; deshalb glaubte man, ihn vernachlässigen zu können. Der Unsinn ist das Ergebnis einer Kette von Abschriften, deren Schreibern vor allem an einer schönen Schrift gelegen war, der Sinn des Niedergeschriebenen kümmerte sie nicht. Die ursprüngliche Fassung lässt sich rekonstruieren, was hier erstmals unternommen wird. Dabei haben sich mannigfache Abweichungen vom Ausgangstext, der ›Lex Romana Visigothorum‹ aus dem frühen 6. Jh. ergeben, aber auch von anderen späteren Kurzfassungen derselben, mehr Abweichungen und interessantere als in allen vergleichbaren Texten. Die Übersetzung aus einem frühmittelalterlichen Latein erleichtert das Verständnis und der Kommentar hält die Abweichungen von jener ›Lex Romana‹ fest und erörtert sie. / »Scintilla de libro legume. Roman Vulgar Law under the Merowingians According to the Fulda Epitome of the Lex Romana Visigothorum. Reconstruction, Translation, and Commentaries«: The author deciphers a legal text in Latin that summarises the law in effect under the Romans in the Frankish Realm from the 7th century, whose content has only been preserved in a corrupt manuscript from the 8th century. The original version, however, can be reconstructed, as was done here. Various deviations from the original text, the Lex Romana Visigothorum from 506 AD, were made to modernise certain regulations. The German translation facilitates our understanding, and the commentaries explain and discuss such deviations.

Kansalaisosallistuminen YVA-menettelyssä Ympäristövaikutusten arviointimenettelyn (YVA) yksi keskeinen tavoite on lisätä kansalaisten tiedonsaantia ja osallistumista ympäristövaikutuksiltaan merkittävissä hankkeissa. YVA-menettelyllä pyritään tuomaan kansalaisten näkemykset, huolet ja toiveet mukaan suunnitteluun ja päätöksentekoon mahdollisimman varhaisessa vaiheessa. YVA edustaa väitöstutkimuksessa modernia vuorovaikutteista ympäristöpolitiikan ohjauskeinoa ja osallistumisen välinettä. Väitöstyön ensimmäisenä tutkimustehtävänä oli luoda YVAan osallistumisen analyysille teoreettinen viitekehys: millaista demokratia- ja suunnitteluideaa YVA voi edustaa ja millainen politiikkaverkosto YVA on kansalaisosallistumisen kannalta. Toisena tutkimustehtävänä analysoitiin YVAan osallistumisen historiallista kehittymistä ja muutoksia Suomessa. Kolmantena tutkimustehtävänä tarkasteltiin osallistumisen käytännön toteutusta sekä arvioitiin osallistumisen vaikuttavuutta. Lisäksi analysoitiin vaikuttavuuden mahdollisia esteitä, miten läpinäkyviä ja avoimia YVA-menettelyt ovat ja miten hyväksyttävänä osallistumisvälineenä YVAa pidetään. Osallistumisen kannalta olennainen seikka on YVAn institutionaalisuus: se on julkishallinnon luoma väline, jonka lisäksi toimenharjoittajalla on keskeinen YVA-menettelyn käytännön toteuttajan rooli. Tämä luo osallistumisen kannalta rakenteita, joissa korostuu toimijoiden väliset epäsymmetriset valta-asemat. YVA-menettelystä tulee helposti kaikille osapuolille vallan käytön ja politiikan tekemisen väline ja niin osallistumisen järjestämistä kuin itse osallistumista ohjaavat toimijoiden poliittiset intressit ja tavoitteet. YVA on parhaimmillaan eri osapuolten välinen avoin keskusteluareena, joka lisää suunnittelun ja päätöksenteon läpinäkyvyyttä, mutta YVA on myös poliittisen kamppailun areena. Suomen YVA-lainsäädännössä osallistumisella on aina ollut tärkeä rooli. Suomalaisessa YVA-järjestelmässä on korostettu kansalaisten osallistumismahdollisuuksia. Ajan saatossa myös kriittisyys laajaa osallistumisoikeutta ja useita osallistumismahdollisuuksia kohtaan on lieventynyt. Haaste on kuitenkin siinä, että osallistumisen toteutus määritellään laissa väljästi, eikä lainsäädäntö takaa laadukasta osallistumista tai varsinkaan sen vaikuttavuutta. Toinen havaittu haaste on YVAn ja osallistumisen suhde päätöksentekoon. YVAn ulkopuoliset päätöksentekojärjestelmät ja edustuksellisen vallankäytön rakenteet eivät ole muuttuneet, ja siksi YVAn vaikuttavuus voi jäädä vähäiseksi. Vaikka YVA edustaisikin osallistuvaa demokratiaa ja toteuttaisi vuorovaikutteista ja moniäänistä suunnittelua, voi osallistumisen merkitys vesittyä ja kansalaisten osallistumisaktiivisuus hiipua. Ilmiöön liittyy myös tarpeetonta kriittisyyttä. Osallistumisen vaikuttavuus ei ole kertaluonteista, vaan se on usein välillistä ja ajoittuu prosessin eri vaiheisiin. Osallistumisen merkitystä ja vaikutuksia ei aina tunnisteta. YVAsta ei ole muodostunut Suomessa laajojen joukkojen osallistumisvälinettä. Ennemminkin YVAan osallistuvat tyypillisesti harvat kansalaisaktiivit, jotka hyödyntävät YVAn lisäksi lukuisia muitakin osallistumisen ja vaikuttamisen keinoja. Osallistujien määrän sijaan huomio tulee kuitenkin kiinnittää sisältöön ja suunnittelun moniäänisyyteen. Olennainen kysymys on se, millaisen roolin kansalaiset ja maallikkoasiantuntijuus voivat saada perinteisesti asiantuntijavetoisessa suunnittelukulttuurissa. ; Public participation in environmental impact assessment Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a policy instrument based in law and used to prevent harmful environmental impacts, increase public information access, and improve public participation opportunities. EIA is an open process for discussion and participation of different actors: it increases the transparency and broadens the information base of environmental policy planning and decision making. One aim of EIA is to incorporate citizens views and opinions, concerns and desires into planning at an early stage. EIA is a process of identifying and evaluating potential impacts from proposed activities. It is also an interactive and communicative policy instrument and should facilitate direct participation. EIA is an example in the development process of direct participation in Finland during 1990 s. In this study EIA is approached as a participation instrument. Public participation is the perspective from which the EIA-process is analysed. The aim of the research is to examine participation in EIA both a theoretical and empirical way, and to interpret and explain the operation logic and efficacy of participation. There are three main research tasks in the study. The first task is to create a theoretical framework for analysis of public participation in EIA. For this purpose, the theoretical and methodological triangulation is made in the study. There are four main parts in the triangulation. Firstly, the elements of participative and deliberative democracy and communicative planning theories are combined. This theoretical discussion shows what kind of democracy and planning EIA can represents. Secondly, network analysis and evaluation are integrated in the methodological triangulation. The concepts of policy networks and intervention theory are used in theoretical and methodological manner. The outcomes of theoretical and methodological triangulation are criteria of deliberative EIA and four policy network models of EIA as an instrument of public participation: 1) EIA as a negotiation process; 2) EIA as a technical process of information collection, 3) EIA as an information instrument; and 4) EIA as tool for controlling of participation. While the theoretical part of the thesis has its own analytical objectives, these policy network models are utilized with evaluation criteria in the empirical part of the study. The second research task is to analyse the historical development of participation in Finnish EIA legislation. The focus of this part is on the long lasting political process and arguments behind the enacting of Finnish EIA Act in 1980 s and 1990 s. The most important amendments of EIA legislation and the international and national reasons behind them are also considered. According to results of this part of thesis, the role of participation has been central to the Finnish EIA system. Even if the EIA Act was implemented in Finland relatively late in 1994, the legislative foundation for public participation has always been strong. Though the implementation of participation is defined in a flexible way, Finnish EIA legislation supports public participation and in principle creates possibilities for deliberative democracy. The third research task is to evaluate public participation in two case studies. This part includes following questions: 1) what kind of objectives do different actors seek from participation; 2) how does participation impact EIA and what are the obstacles of effective participation; and 3) how transparent and acceptable is the EIA process? The two cases used, the EIA of a road project and the final disposal of nuclear waste, show how much the aims, the implementation and the effectiveness of public participation can not only vary between different projects, but also during the planning process in one certain project. Notably, in the nuclear waste case, the nature of top-down instrument of EIA was clearly observed, while the developer of the project assumed a dominant role. The three elements of policy network (actors, arenas and agenda) were defined by the developer. Even if participation was carried out with great visibility, professional implementation and sufficient resources, the impact of public participation and lay people expertise was not so essential, while the economic and political interests of the project and the role of experts were in central role. In this case study EIA represents the policy network model of controlling of participation: the role of governance was more important than deliberative participation. In the road case the planning situation was more open. There did not seem to be the same need to define and control participation and the agenda of the EIA. The contribution of citizens was used in planning in a more effective manner. The EIA assumed a more traditional role ­ as an information distribution tool, and as a place for open discussion and effective participation. The case studies suggest that the legislative base can not alone guarantee the effectiveness of public participation. Most important factor is the attitude of main actors. Each EIA process is unique and general theories of participation in EIA are difficult to create. In practice, the EIA is more or less an institutional process of power division between different actors, and the developer has the central role. EIA is an open arena that allows political disagreements to form and emerge into the open. However, EIA can also be used to promote political interests. EIA and participation can be harnessed by the proponent, but EIA can also feed the so called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) phenomenon. It is also possible, that policy instruments like EIA create a new elite ­ active lay experts. Theoretical ideas of deliberative democracy or communicative planning are challenging to implement in practice. At the same time it is important to estimate the criteria and expectations concerning participation. One can see, that EIA has lot of deliberative potential, but the main challenges are in the relationship between EIA and decision making, and in the structures of political power and decision making outside of EIA.