Suchergebnisse

First published in 1903. ; "Printed in Great Britain." ; Mode of access: Internet.

The concept of religious tolerance and toleration has been the subject of much scholarly discussion for centuries. In the wake of the Reformation, however, it became a much more practical concept, with Europeans living next door to people perceived as heretics. A certain level of tolerance had to be achieved or else the entire continent would fall into a state of mass violence and disarray. Religious tolerance as a social practice was tested to its limits in the principality of Transylvania during the mid-sixteenth century. The multiconfessional state was home to five competing denominations and somehow managed to establish and maintain a certain level of peace in the region during the age in which religious warfare was rife throughout the continent. This article analyzes the unique emergence of the Unitarian, or anti-Trinitarian, confession in the Transylvanian principality, in order to answer broader questions on the concept of religious tolerance in early modern Europe. After initially outlining current thinking on the concept of religious tolerance, it describes the unique emergence of Unitarianism in Transylvania, aided greatly by political rulers. Challenging the idea of Transylvania being a haven for religious freedom in this time period, the article addresses contemporary debates surrounding the emergence of Unitarianism, namely in the 1567 Debrecen Reformed Synod. It also analyzes legal actions taken to sanction multiconfessionalism in the region, before ultimately situating this study within the broader context of religious tolerance in early modern Europe.

The implications of Canadian federalism for the regulation of lawyers for the federal government are largely overlooked in the literature and case law. This article argues that employees of the federal government can practice law without being licensed by the corresponding provincial law society (or any law society). However, if they happen to be licensed by a law society, they can be disciplined by that law society—unless and until Parliament adopts legislation immunizing them from law society discipline. The article also considers the possibility that Parliament could create a separate bar for federal government lawyers. It concludes that some form of regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction over federal government lawyers is necessary to protect the public interest and public confidence in federal government lawyers. Les implications du fédéralisme canadien sur la réglementation des avocats à l'emploi du gouvernement fédéral sont largement négligées dans la littérature et la jurisprudence. Dans le présent article, nous soutenons que les employés du gouvernement fédéral peuvent pratiquer le droit sans être autorisés par le barreau provincial correspondant (ou tout autre barreau). Cependant, s'ils sont autorisés par un barreau, ils peuvent être sanctionnés par ce dernier, à moins que le législateur n'adopte une loi les immunisant contre la discipline du barreau. Dans l'article, nous envisageons également la possibilité que le législateur crée un barreau distinct pour les avocats du gouvernement fédéral. Nous concluons qu'une certaine forme de compétence réglementaire et disciplinaire à l'égard des avocats du gouvernement fédéral est nécessaire pour protéger l'intérêt public et la confiance du public dans les avocats à l'emploi du gouvernement fédéral.