Abuse of Power
In: International affairs, Band 45, Heft 3, S. 584-584
ISSN: 1468-2346
2317815 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: International affairs, Band 45, Heft 3, S. 584-584
ISSN: 1468-2346
In: The economic journal: the journal of the Royal Economic Society, Band 115, Heft 504, S. F244-F261
ISSN: 1468-0297
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 70, Heft 4, S. 844-845
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: Israel affairs, Band 8, Heft 4, S. 25-44
ISSN: 1743-9086
In: The political quarterly, Band 60, Heft 1, S. 38-49
ISSN: 1467-923X
In: Conflict, security & development: CSD, Band 12, Heft 3, S. 227-248
ISSN: 1478-1174
In: Administration & society, Band 19, Heft 3, S. 267-284
ISSN: 1552-3039
If we are to succeed in crafting appropriate solutions to prevent abuses of administrative discretion, we must pay serious attention to three major perspectives that shape the exercise of administrative authority: the perspective of lawmakers, who create at least four different kinds of discretion; the perspective of clients, who may suffer from one or more of five major forms of administrative abuse; and the perspective of practitioners, who are influenced in varying ways by the moral propensities of the work setting. The article concludes with a brief discussion and illustration of how these multiple perspectives need to be taken into account when devising solutions to prevent various abuses of administrative discretion.
In: Indian journal of public administration, Band 40, Heft 4, S. 579-589
ISSN: 2457-0222
In: Children and youth services review: an international multidisciplinary review of the welfare of young people, Band 22, Heft 11-12, S. 951-971
ISSN: 0190-7409
In: American political science review, Band 99, Heft 1, S. 29-43
ISSN: 1537-5943
Debates about globalization have centered on calls to improve accountability to limit abuses of power in world politics. How should we think about global accountability in the absence of global democracy? Who should hold whom to account and according to what standards? Thinking clearly about these questions requires recognizing a distinction, evident in theories of accountability at the nation-state level, between "participation" and "delegation" models of accountability. The distinction helps to explain why accountability is so problematic at the global level and to clarify alternative possibilities for pragmatic improvements in accountability mechanisms globally. We identify seven types of accountability mechanisms and consider their applicability to states, NGOs, multilateral organizations, multinational corporations, and transgovernmental networks. By disaggregating the problem in this way, we hope to identify opportunities for improving protections against abuses of power at the global level.
In: Child abuse & neglect: the international journal ; official journal of the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Band 58, S. 12-23
ISSN: 1873-7757
In: International affairs, Band 49, Heft 1, S. 98-98
ISSN: 1468-2346
In: European journal for sport and society: EJSS ; the official publication of the European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS), Band 16, Heft 3, S. 229-246
ISSN: 2380-5919
In: Adoption & fostering: quarterly journal, Band 10, Heft 3, S. 13-18
ISSN: 1740-469X
In: International affairs, Band 45, Heft 4, S. 712-713
ISSN: 1468-2346