Suchergebnisse

Already from the title of this dissertation can two important points be made. The first is that the dissertation is about the relationship between central and local government, more specifically in Sweden today. The second point is that this relationship is seen from a balance of power perspective, where the relative power of the actors is an empirical question rather than derived from a given hierarchical structure. Such a perspective is based on analysing the actors as interdependent. The central government can thus be dependent on the local government, as well as the other way around, and this interdependence can vary over time and between policy areas. This perspective differs from that of most studies, which often see the relationship either in terms of steering (that local governments are executing centrally determined policies) or local self-government (that the Swedish local governments has a constitutionally protected right to handle their own affairs within certain legal limits). I argue that both these perspectives take a hierarchical point of departure and are, to a large degree, static in their approaches, which means that they risk not discovering, or have problem explaining, changes in the relation between central and local government. To view the relationship between central and local government as interdependence leads to a focus on the resources that the actors possess. For public organisations the most relevant resources are: authority-related resources, financial resources, political resources, informational resources, and organisational resources. The central government has a power advantage concerning authority and financial and political resources while local governments generally have an advantage in terms of informational and organisational resources. The policy area chosen is Swedish refugee policy. The basic paradox within this area is that the central government grants the refugees asylum but cannot give them a place to live without the permission of the local government. This permission is accomplished through voluntary agreements signed between the National Integration Office and the local governments. It is then the local governments that integrate the refugees to Swedish society by providing housing, education, healthcare and so on while the central government is giving the local government a grant to cover the expenses. The central government has lacked political, informational and authority-related resources. The resource used to compensate for this has been the financial resource. By economic incentives the central government has encouraged local governments to increase their refugee reception. This has been the central government's universal weapon and has been used to reduce its vulnerability as well as its sensitivity. For local governments, authority-related and financial resources have been lacking. The resource that the local governments have had, all the way through the time period studied here, is the organisational resource. This is something that the central government simply cannot provide and this is why there is a relationship of interdependence – just as only the central government has authority in its power base, the local level is the only one with organisational resources.

Illegal hunting has constituted an expression of contested legitimacy of wildlife regulation across the world for centuries. In the following report, we critically engage with the state of the art on the illegal hunting phenomenon. We do so to reveal emerging scholarly perspectives on the crime. Specifically, we aim to capture the complexity of illegal hunting as a socio-political phenomenon rather than an economically motivated crime. To do so, we adopt a critical perspective that pays particular attention to the societal processes that contribute to the criminalization of historically accepted hunting practices. To capture perspectives on illegal hunting, fifteen researchers from various countries participated in an illegal hunting workshop in Copenhagen 16-17th June 2014. A primary contribution of the research workshop was to bring together criminologists, sociologists, anthropologists and geographers, each equipped with their own research perspective, to engage in a critical and interdisciplinary discussion on how to apprehend and constructively address the challenges of illegal hunting in contemporary society. A majority of those that attended were primarily based in the Nordic and the UK context, which motivated a strong focus on the illegal hunting that currently takes places in these countries. Similar trends of illegal hunting were identified across Europe, many of which traced from EU legislation on the reintroduction of large carnivores or other controversial wildlife conservation projects. In the workshop, proceedings took the form of individual presentations, plenary discussions and group work. Common themes that emerged from these presentations were: illegal hunting as communicating socio-political resistance; the targeting of specific species based on its symbolism or environmental history; illegal hunting as symptom of class struggles; the role of rewilding and domestication of nature on wildlife regulation; corruption, complicity and conflicts of loyalty in enforcement, and discrepancies and discontinuities in legality. These themes were framed in an understanding of illegal hunting as a complex, multifaceted expression that transgresses livelihood based motivation. Critical discussions conceptualised illegal hunting as a crime of dissent. This meant situating crimes as everyday forms of resistance against the regulatory regime. In so doing, the relationship between hunters and public authorities was highlighted as a potential source of disenfranchisement. In this interactionist perspective, illegal hunting tells us not just about the rationales of the offenders. It also elucidates the broader context in which non-compliance with regulation serves as symptoms of democratic and legitimacy deficits on the state level. Erratic transitions in legislation and a subsequent discord between legal, cultural and moral norms in society were identified as factors that contribute to the conflict. Crucially, the research workshop and the report contribute with three perspectives. First, it emphasizes the need to uncover the grey areas of complicity in wildlife crime. Previously corruption, bribery and selective law enforcement have been associated with wildlife trafficking in the global south, but this understanding is too blunt for the complicity that exists in many other contexts. Here conflicts of loyalty exist across several strata of society and differ in degrees. In highlighting this fact, we show a more opaque and contingent climate of complicity around illegal hunting in Northern Europe and elsewhere. Second, as crimes of dissent seeking to publicise injustices, illegal hunting and its associated resistance tactics are counterproductive by constituting a 'dialogue of the dead'. With this is mean that such communication is prone to distortion, misunderstanding and exaggeration and does no favors to hunters. There is consequently a need to move to a clarity of messages, as in institutionalised diogue processes. Third, hunting regulation cannot be seen in isolation to the broader differences in society in terms of values, economic factors and development. Research questions for future scholarship concluded the workshop and are summarized in the report. In terms of illuminating the junctures at which additional research is needed, these questions may provide important guidance. Above all, the report is intended as help for policy-makers, wildlife managers and law enforcement in better understanding and responding to the complexities of illegal hunting. We hope this will lead to more long-term preventative measures that address the core of the issue rather than proximate causes. The workshop was organized by the Environmental Communication Division of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. The event constituted a part of the FORMAS funded research project Confronting challenges to political legitimacy of the natural resource management regulatory regime in Sweden - the case of illegal hunting in Sweden whose members include Erica von Essen, Dr. Hans Peter Hansen and Dr. Helena Nordström Källström from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Professor Tarla R. Peterson from Texas A&M University and Dr. Nils Peterson from North Carolina State University.

One third of all food produced for human consumption globally is lost or wasted, making food waste a major problem from both an economic, social and environmental perspective. One way of preventing food waste is through legislation. In Sweden, food inspectors have been recommended to work according to the general rules of consideration (GRC) in the Swedish Environmental Code to reduce food waste. However, there is a lack of published information on whether the GRC are applied to reduce food waste at present, and, if so, how this works in practice. Moreover, the lack of a common standard for food waste quantification is a problem recognized by researchers. Thus, the present study aimed to examine whether and how the GRC are or can be applied to prevent food waste. More specifically, the goal was to investigate the attitude of municipal supervisory authorities and other relevant actors towards applying the GRC in food control, and to identify opportunities and / or obstacles to this. This is expected to contribute with knowledge that in the long term can generate supervisory approaches for reduced food waste. A qualitative research method was used including self-administered questionnaires. Answers were obtained from 11 municipalities and six additional actors including courts, national authorities and a private law firm. After a thematic analysis of the data, this was sorted to describe 1) The current situation in municipal supervision / the current application of the GRC according to other actors 2) The attitude towards applying the GRC in supervision for food waste reduction 3) The attitude towards suggested supervisory practices for reducing food wastage. The results showed that most of the actors surveyed did not apply the GRC to food waste currently, and none of them had issued injunctions to prevent food waste. Nevertheless, it was found that applying the GRC to food control could be possible, according to some practical experience in the field and the majority of the respondents' attitudes. No apparent unsolvable obstacles were identified. How the application of the GRC to food waste would work in practice remains to be solved, though. Consequently, the link between the current situation, the attitudes towards applying the GRC in food control as well as the attitudes towards suggested supervisory practices, was found to be ambiguous. Legal contradictions justify the need for further research, which could pursue the development of a supervisory approach for food waste prevention. ; En tredjedel av all mat som produceras globalt går förlorad eller slösas bort, vilket gör matsvinn till ett omfattande problem ur både ett ekonomiskt, socialt och miljömässigt perspektiv. Ett sätt att förebygga matsvinn är genom lagstiftning. I Sverige har livsmedelsinspektörer rekommenderats att arbeta enligt de allmänna hänsynsreglerna i miljöbalken för att minska matsvinnet. Det saknas emellertid publicerad information om huruvida hänsynsreglerna används för att minska matsvinn för närvarande, och hur detta i så fall fungerar i praktiken. Dessutom är avsaknaden av en gemensam standard för kvantifiering av matsvinn ett problem enligt forskare. Den aktuella studien syftade således till att undersöka om och hur miljöbalkens hänsynsregler tillämpas eller kan tillämpas för att förebygga matsvinn. Mer specifikt var målet att undersöka de kommunala tillsynsmyndigheternas och andra relevanta aktörers inställning till att tillämpa hänsynsreglerna i livsmedelskontroll och att identifiera möjligheter och / eller hinder för detta. Detta förväntas bidra med kunskap som på lång sikt kan generera tillsynsstrategier för minskat matsvinn. En kvalitativ forskningsmetod användes med självadministrerade frågeformulär. Svar erhölls från 11 kommuner och sex ytterligare aktörer, såsom domstolar, nationella myndigheter samt en privat juristbyrå. Efter en tematisk analys av den insamlade datan sorterades denna för att beskriva 1) Den aktuella situationen i kommunal tillsyn / den aktuella tillämpningen av hänsynsreglerna enligt andra aktörer 2) Inställningen till att tillämpa miljöbalkens hänsynsregler i tillsyn för att förebygga matsvinn 3) Attityden gentemot föreslagna tillsynspraxis för att förebygga matsvinn. Resultaten visade att majoriteten av de undersökta aktörerna inte tillämpade hänsynsreglerna på matsvinn för närvarande, och att ingen hade skrivit förelägganden för att förebygga matsvinn. Praktiska erfarenheter inom området samt majoriteten av respondenternas attityder avslöjade dock att det skulle kunna vara möjligt att tillämpa hänsynsreglerna mot matsvinn inom livsmedelskontroll. Inga uppenbart olösliga hinder identifierades. Hur tillämpningen av hänsynsreglerna på matsvinn skulle gå till i praktiken återstår dock att lösa. Följaktligen kunde det konstateras att kopplingen mellan den nuvarande situationen, respondenternas inställning till att tillämpa hänsynsreglerna i livsmedelskontrollen samt attityderna gentemot föreslagna tillsynspraxis var tvetydig. Juridiska motsättningar motiverar behovet av ytterligare forskning, som kan driva utvecklingen av en tillsynsstrategi för förebyggande av matsvinn.

학위논문(석사)--서울대학교 대학원 :법과대학 법학과,2019. 8. 이동진. ; Throughout all the world, insolvency, at its essence, is about the treatment and disposition of prepetition claims and postpetition claims. Bearing in mind the distinctive features of prepetition claims and postpetition claims where the former are generally classified as insolvency claims subject to restrictions as per insolvency procedures while the latter as administration claims granted the rights to be paid irrespective of insolvency procedures, one may well assert that the actual amount of realized payment will consequently be different by a significant margin. Thus, it does matter to classify straddle claims before and after the order for relief. In South Korea, the part-fulfillment test(일부구비설) is widely accepted as a common view. In pursuant to the part-fulfillment test, once a particular debt in question is affirmatively established as insolvency claims, other claims that do not fall into the category of insolvency claims but nevertheless fulfill the requirement of administration claims are deemed administration claims. Even if the claims are unliquidated, contingent, unmatured, disputed, they can be classified as insolvency claims when the significant part of the claims are fulfilled prepetition. It seemingly is due to the reception of the Japanese insolvency acts which has eventually resulted in South Korean insolvency frameworks adopting the relevant Japanese legal theories and precedents that developed on the basis of the part-fulfillment test. But the word 'the significant part of the claims' is too vague to establish a clear and consistent criterion. Among the cases of the Supreme Court of South Korea, some cases contradict each other. In Japan, a scholar following the part-fulfillment test even admits that the test has its defects as some cases of the Supreme Court of Japan are inconsistent. The 'theory of deduction(控除説)' in Japan, based on the study of history of theories about classifying claims, criticizes the present common view in Japan, the part-fulfillment test, and suggests that the claims subject to insolvency risks be insolvency claims and the claims free from insolvency risks be administration claims. It may sound like a tautology, but it pinpoints that the present part-fulfillment test is far from realizing the essence of treatment and disposition of claims, using the word 'the significant part of the claims'. However, the theory of deduction also leaves much to be desired to set a clear and consistent criterion. In the United States, timing problems of claims in insolvency have been an important research theme, making use of a substantial balancing test. Thus, the arguments in the United States serve as a good reference. The theories of the United States do not apparently dichotomize, but virtually distinguish contractual claims from non-contractual claims. When it comes to contractual claims, the claimants voluntarily enter the contracts considering insolvency risks, so it is easy to determine whether the claimants bear the insolvency risks in accordance with their intention. In contrast, as of non-contractual claims, the claimants often get the claims involuntarily. It is hard to determine, based only on the claimants' intention, whether they should be burdened with insolvency risks. Therefore, dichotomy is desirable. In case of contractual claims, almost all federal courts of appeals and scholars adopt the performance test in the United States. As of non-contractual claims, there are the accrued state law test, the conduct test, the relationship test, and the fair contemplation test in the United States. Most of federal courts of appeals follow the relationship test, while most of scholars support either the conduct test or the fair contemplation test. For contractual claims, including the ones based on executory contracts, we can accept the performance test as it is. The part contributed to a debtor prepetition by a claimant abandoning exceptio non adimpleti contractus is subject to the insolvency risks and should be treated as insolvency claims. The part induced to do business with a debtor postpetition is beneficial for the estate and thus should be treated as administration claims. For efficiency, prepetition claims should be cut off from post-insolvency as sunk costs, while postpetition claims should receive priority to induce entities to enter new business with a debtor so as to foster reorganization. In case of non-contractual claims, it is hard to tell whether the claims are supposed to bear insolvency risks or not. It is a matter of policy. Unless it is the case where Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act in South Korea excludes explicitly the non-contractual claims from insolvency claims, prepetition claims should be classified as insolvency claims and postpetition claims administration claims. While the meaning of 'claims' for insolvency is defined in a unique sense under the United States Bankruptcy Code so as to put a great weight on that specific point of time, Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act in South Korea yet omits to define the meaning of 'claims' for insolvency, making it unnecessary to be obsessed with as to when a claim arises. For insolvency in South Korea, I hereby propose the relationship test that does not stick to the point when a claim arises. Rather, I suggest a more flexible solution that allows bifurcation of claims. If the part of the claim occurring before the order for relief creates a relationship, such as contact, exposure, impact, or privity, between the claimant and the debtor, then the part of the claim is insolvency claim. At the same time, the purposes of the acts on which the claim is based, the entity benefitted by the expense, and so forth, should be considered. Prepetition claims should be cut off to encourage a fresh start of the debtor, but that does not mean that the debtor is free to commit torts or gain unjust enrichments. Though it is quite theoretical, postpetition claims that the claimant gains involuntarily because the debtor fails to block a relationship between them should be treated as administration claims so that the estate shoulders the expense. As a result, insolvency can proceed with efficiency and equity. The representatives and the social insurance programs for future claimants can satisfy due process concerns. If there is a conflict between insolvency and other public interest policy, mandatory provisions override in case of contractual claims while insolvency takes priority in case of non-contractual claims. ; 채무자가 도산절차에 들어간 경우, 채무자에 대한 채권의 발생원인이 도산절차개시 전후 어느 쪽에 귀속되는지에 따라 도산절차상 취급을 달리하는 것은 전 세계 도산법의 공통적인 특징이다. 일반적으로 도산절차개시 전에 발생한 채권은 도산채권으로서 도산절차상 제약을 받게 되고, 도산절차개시 후에 발생한 채권은 관리채권으로서 도산절차와 상관없이 변제받을 수 있어 실현할 수 있는 변제액에 큰 차이를 가져온다. 따라서 채권발생의 원인이 도산절차개시 전후에 걸쳐 있는 경우 그 채권을 분류하는 작업은 매우 중요한 의미를 가진다. 현재 우리나라의 통설과 판례는 일부구비설이다. 기본적으로 일부구비설에 따라 도산채권이 되는지 먼저 판단하고, 도산채권에 해당하지 않는 경우 관리채권의 요건을 충족한다면 관리채권이 된다는 입장이다. 도산절차개시 전에 채권의 내용이 구체적으로 확정되지 않았다 하더라도, 청구권의 주요한 발생원인이 도산절차개시 전에 갖추어져 있으면 도산채권이 되고, 그렇지 않은 경우는 관리채권이 될 수 있다는 것이다. 이는 우리나라의 도산 관련 법제가 2005. 3. 31. 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률 제정 전부터 일본의 도산 관련 법제를 계수하면서 일본의 통설과 판례인 일부구비설을 수용한 결과로 보인다. 그러나 '청구권의 주요한 발생원인'이라는 용어는 추상적이고 모호해서 구체적이고 일관된 기준을 제시해주고 있는지에 관해서는 의문이 있다. 우리나라의 대법원 판례 중에서도 결론이 서로 모순되어 보이는 경우가 있다. 일본에서도 유사한 사안임에도 최고재판소 판례가 모순된 결론을 내는 경우가 있다며 일부구비설 내에서도 그 한계를 자인하는 견해가 있을 정도이다. 현재 일본의 통설을 비판하면서 등장한 일본의 공제설은 학설사적 검토를 바탕으로, 채무자의 도산 위험을 부담하여야 하는 채권은 도산채권, 그렇지 않은 채권은 관리채권이 된다는 취지로 주장한다. 동어반복에 불과하다는 비판이 가능하지만, 적어도 '청구권의 주요한 발생원인'이라는 추상적인 용어로는 일부구비설의 본질을 충분히 담아내지 못한다는 문제의식은 경청할 가치가 있다. 그러나 이 역시 구체적이고 일관된 기준을 제시하는 데에는 부족함이 있다. 한편 미국에서는 유구한 도산법의 역사 속에서 실질적인 이익형량을 통해 도산채권과 관리채권을 분류하려는 노력을 계속해왔다. 따라서 그 기준을 세우는 데 미국의 논의는 참고로 삼을 가치가 있다. 미국에서는 명시적으로 논의가 이원화된 것은 아니지만, 사실상 계약상 채권과 비계약상 채권을 나누어 본다. 계약상 채권은 채권자가 채무자의 도산 위험을 고려해 자발적으로 거래에 나선다는 점에서 비교적 쉽게 채권자의 의사를 기준으로 도산 위험의 부담 여부를 가릴 수 있다. 반면 비계약상 채권은 채권자가 비자발적으로 채권자가 되는 경우도 많다는 점에서 채권자의 의사만을 기준으로 도산 위험의 부담 여부를 쉽게 판별하기 어렵다. 따라서 이원화된 분류법은 타당성이 있다. 미국에서 계약상 채권의 경우 채권자의 반대급부 이행을 기준으로 하는 반대급부이행기준설이 통설․판례이다. 비계약상 채권의 경우 연방순회항소법원의 판례는 최종적인 권리 발생을 요하는 권리발생시설, 채무자의 행위를 기준으로 하는 채무자행위시설, 채권자와 채무자의 관계 설정 시를 기준으로 하는 관계시설, 채권자가 채권의 발생 가능성을 숙고할 수 있었던 시점을 기준으로 하는 숙고가능시설로 나뉜다. 주류적인 판례는 관계시설을 따르고, 학설은 주로 채무자행위시설과 숙고가능시설로 양분된다. 계약상 채권의 경우 쌍방미이행 쌍무계약에 기한 경우를 포함해 반대급부이행기준설을 그대로 수용할 수 있다고 생각된다. 채권자로서 가장 강력한 담보인 동시이행의 항변권을 포기하고 도산절차개시 전 채무자의 재산에 공여한 부분은 도산 위험을 부담하는 도산채권이 된다. 도산절차개시 후 채무자의 이행 선택으로 새로이 거래로 유인된 부분은 도산절차개시 후 모든 이해관계인에게 이익이 되기 때문에 관리채권이 된다. 도산절차를 효율적으로 운영하기 위해 도산절차개시 전의 채권은 매몰비용으로 도산절차개시 후와 단절시켜야 하지만, 도산절차개시 후의 채권은 완전 변제를 보장해주어야 채권자가 새로이 거래에 응할 것이기 때문이다. 비계약상 채권의 경우는 도산 위험을 부담하여야하는 지위를 쉽게 구별하기 어렵다. 결국 이는 정책적 결단의 문제인데, 우리나라의 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률이 명시적으로 비계약상 채권을 도산채권에서 배제하고 있는 경우가 아닌 이상 도산절차개시 전 채무자로 인한 부분은 도산채권, 도산절차개시 후 채무자로 인한 부분은 관리채권으로 보아야 한다. 미국의 경우 연방도산법상 채권의 개념을 달리 정의하고 있으므로 그 시점을 기준으로 하여야 하지만, 우리나라의 경우 채무자 회생 및 파산에 관한 법률에서 채권의 개념을 달리 정의하고 있지 않으므로 시간 좌표에서 점 개념이 아닌 선 개념으로 파악하면 된다. 이러한 견지에서 관계시설을 따르는 미국의 주류적인 판례가 채권자가 채무자와 접촉(Contact), 노출(Exposure), 영향(Impact), 긴밀함(Privity) 등 관계를 설정했는지 여부를 기준으로 하는 것에 착안해 관계설을 제시한다. 물론 이 때 채권 발생의 근거가 되는 법령의 목적, 비용에 대응되는 이익의 향유 주체 등도 고려해야 할 것이다. 도산절차개시 전 발생한 채권은 단절시켜 채무자의 새 출발의 기회를 부여해야 하지만, 도산절차개시가 채무자의 불법행위, 부당이득을 완전히 허용한다는 뜻은 되지 않는다. 다소 의제적이나, 도산절차개시 후 관리인이 채권자와의 접촉 등을 방지하지 못해 새로이 채권자가 비자발적으로 채권을 가지게 된 부분은 관리채권으로 취급하여 이해관계인이 부담할 비용에 포함되도록 하여야 한다. 그럼으로써 도산절차가 효율적이고 공정하게 진행될 수 있다. 적법절차 보장의 문제는 장래 채권자의 이익을 대변하는 대표자를 파견하도록 하고, 그 재원을 일원화하여 사회 보험으로 관리하는 방안을 제안한다. 도산법과 공익적 성격을 가진 다른 법령이 충돌할 때에, 계약상 채권의 경우는 강행규정이 우선하도록 하면 되지만, 비계약상 채권의 경우는 기본적으로는 도산법의 이념이 우선하도록 하는 것이 타당하다고 생각된다. ; 목 차 제 1 장 서 론 1 제 2 장 우리나라의 논의 8 제 1 절 일반론 8 1. 일반적인 경우 8 2. 쌍방미이행 쌍무계약의 경우 9 제 2 절 구체적 사례 12 1. 서설 12 2. 계약상 채권의 사례 13 3. 비계약상 채권의 사례 34 제 3 절 검토 46 1. 사례 유형별 검토 46 2. 일반론 차원의 검토 56 제 3 장 일본의 논의 60 제 1 절 일본의 도산법 개관 60 제 2 절 일반론 64 1. 일반적인 경우 64 2. 쌍방미이행 쌍무계약의 경우 70 제 3 절 구체적 사례 73 1. 서설 73 2. 개별 사례 73 제 4 절 정리 및 시사점 88 1. 정리 88 2. 시사점 92 제 4 장 미국의 논의 94 제 1 절 미국의 도산법 개관 94 제 2 절 일반론 98 1. 판례 98 2. 학설 101 제 3 절 구체적 사례 105 1. 서설 105 2. 비계약상 채권의 사례 106 3. 계약상 채권의 사례 124 제 4 절 정리 및 시사점 136 1. 정리 136 2. 시사점 141 제 5 장 종합적 검토 143 제 1 절 새로운 기준의 모색 143 1. 서설 143 2. 논의의 축 144 3. 도산법이 다른 공익적 성격을 가진 법령과 충돌할 경우 148 4. 적법절차 보장의 문제 150 5. 구체적인 채권의 구별기준 설정 152 6. 적법절차 보장의 문제에 대한 대안 170 7. 소결 178 제 2 절 사례별 해결 179 1. 서설 179 2. 계약상 채권의 사례 179 3. 비계약상 채권의 사례 187 제 6 장 결론 195 참고문헌 199 Abstract 208 ; Master