Search results

Abstract: Who is responsible for the protection of human rights in Kosovo?Human rights are central in the international community's missions in Kosovo. Moreover, Kosovo's 2008 Constitution lists eight directly applicable human rights instruments, along with detailed instructions on how they are to be interpreted in line with developments at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). And yet, human rights protection is lacking in the region. Potential violations attributable to the local authorities can be adjudicated, but only through the national courts, which raises questions of independence and impartiality. Meanwhile, NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR) and the European Union's Rule of Law Programme (EULEX) enjoy immunity against prosecution by the domestic courts while still wielding some executive and judicial power. EULEX has an internal human rights panel, modelled on the less-than-successful panel established to hold the UN's Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) accountable, while KFOR has no similar judicial body. This article maps which options individuals have for addressing human rights violations in Kosovo and where the system still has its weaknesses. Additionally, it traces how the jurisdictions have changed in the past 15 years and proposes a way forward to fill the lacunae that remains.

Vol. 2: 2005: National land planning and sectoral development strategies. - 2006. - X,300 : Ill., graph. Darst., Kt., Tab. - (NIRA Research Report ; 0602). - ISBN 4-7955-54-X

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

It is obvious that most of the agricultural production in the world is under the control of farm households (or family farms). This book aims to translate the characteristics of the farm household as an economic entity, into an economic theory. The book was originally written in Japanese, but various modifications have been made and new information added to the English version. The author defines the farm household as an economic entity which is a complex of the farm firm, the labourer's household and the consumer's household, and whose behavioural principle is utility maximization. The main purpose of the book is to construct a theoretical model of the decision-making behaviour of the farm household. For this purpose the method of subjective equilibrium analysis, which was used by J.R. Hicks for the consumer's household and the firm in Value and Capital, has been applied to the farm household. The major motif of the book may therefore be called ``Hicksian motif''. In analyzing the subjective equilibrium of the farm household, this book extends the Marshallian concepts of consumer's surplus and producer's surplus, by developing the three new concepts of labourer's surplus, self-employed producer's surplus and consumer's surplus. The analyses using the five concepts of economic surplus are the minor motif of the present book, which the author calls ``Marshallian motif''. Another important characteristic of this book lies in the presentation of newly developed theories of land rent. The author has tried to integrate the theory of leasehold tenancy (i.e. fixed rent tenancy) and that of share tenancy with subjective equilibrium theory of the farm household. In his foreword, John W. Longworth of the International Association of Agricultural Economists says ``From time-to-time an academic treatise appears which is truly different. This is one such book. It presents a self-contained normative theory of the farm household which is much more than just an elegant development of Hicksian and Marshallian ideas. Professor Nakajima introduces new concepts and develops a simple model of the farm household. He then extends this model in various ways to examine the subjective equilibrium of farm households under a wide range of economic circumstances. The exposition is clear and logic with each step in the argument explained in detail using both rigorous mathematical notation and easy to follow diagrams ... With this book Nakajima is making his Life's Work available to non ...

香港大学では、機関リポジトリである「香港大学スカラーズ・ハブ(研究者網の中核)」推進に向けた強固な手法を構築するために、様々な取組みがおこなわれてきました。香港の主要な研究資金提供機関である、大学補助金委員会(University Grants Committee)からの要請により、香港大学は現在、全ての学部に対して「知識交換(Knowledge Exchange)」への参加を義務付けています。この取組みには、香港大学が知識と技術を生み出し、それらを企業、政府および地域社会と共有するという活動が含まれています。スカラーズ・ハブを香港大学における「知識交換」の牽引役とするために、現在香港大学に属している各研究者のウェブページ「ResearcherPages」が開設されました。このページでは、現在のビブリオメトリクスおよびスコーパスとウェブオブサイエンスからの共同研究者の目録をインポートすることができます。共同研究者、文献引用者、そしてダウンロード数を表した図が、各著者毎に構築されており、データベースのフィールドには、各著者の契約研究分野およびメディア対応分野・言語が表示されます。スカラーズ・ハブでは、一貫性のある形で、香港大学の全ての研究者の指標を閲覧することができます。香港大学の「知識交換」に従事する必要性、同分野の研究者の中で突出したいと願う自然な気持ちが、指標そして読者数を増加させようという、香港大学の著者の強固な意欲を生み出しているのです。この結果として、スカラーズ・ハブへの論文登録数は増加しています。 ; At the University of Hong Kong, several endeavours have converged to create a robust method of populating its institutional repository, "The HKU Scholars Hub". At the request of the main funder of research in Hong Kong, the University Grants Committee, HKU now requires all its faculties to show "Knowledge Exchange (KE)", which includes the act of making HKU generated knowledge and skill sets accessible to business, government and the community. In order for the Hub to become a vehicle of HKU KE, ResearcherPages for each current HKU researcher have been added, which import current bibliometrics and lists of collaborators from Scopus and Web of Science. Maps of collaborators, citers, and downloads are created for each author. Fields are displayed for each author, for contract research, and subjects on which media spokesmanship are available. The Hub shows these metrics in a consistent manner for every HKU researcher across the university. The need to comply with HKU KE, and the natural desire to stand out among one's peers has created strong incentive among HKU authors to increase these metrics, and their readership. The population rate of the Hub has increased accordingly. ; published_or_final_version ; Digital Repository Federation International Conference 2009, Tokyo, 3-4 Dec 2009, p. 90-95