Suchergebnisse

During the 17th and 18th century the German nobility called a planned marriage a pro-ject of marriage, because marriages had a long phase of planning, in which more then two people were involved. Noble projects of marriage had at least the function to create ever-lasting friendship between two noble families. This custom was part of the economic and po-litical strategies of the families involved and had often effects on the development of whole territories. Noble projects of marriage consequently concerned the family law as well as the law of the nobility and the church.I shall discuss the strategies of marriage of a special social group, the so-called Cath-olic German Reichsritterschaft during the 17th and 18th centuries. This noble group was re-garded as a strong partner of the German Imperial Catholic Church, the Reichskirche. Last but not least its members owed their remarkable political careers to the Church, but their idea of marriage were never-the-less in opposition to the canonical marriage laws; in fact, in planning exactly these political careers, which they owed to the Church, their concept of marriage clashed with the impediments to marriage that too close kinship posed. My paper aims at ana-lysing the marriage law of the Church as a papal instrument of influence over this special group of nobles. ; During the 17th and 18th century the German nobility called a planned marriage a pro-ject of marriage, because marriages had a long phase of planning, in which more then two people were involved. Noble projects of marriage had at least the function to create ever-lasting friendship between two noble families. This custom was part of the economic and po-litical strategies of the families involved and had often effects on the development of whole territories. Noble projects of marriage consequently concerned the family law as well as the law of the nobility and the church.I shall discuss the strategies of marriage of a special social group, the so-called Cath-olic German Reichsritterschaft during the 17th ...

De siste ti årene har enkelte avgjørelser i norsk barnevern skapt sterke internasjonale reaksjoner. Våren 2016 demonstrerte over 8000 personer i elleve land i forbindelse med en sak som angikk en norsk-rumensk familie. Denne artikkelen undersøker tre saker som har gitt Norge betydelige diplomatiske utfordringer (India 2011, Russland 2014 og Romania 2016). Artikkelen ser på hvorfor sakene utløste så sterke reaksjoner, og redegjør for hvordan norske myndigheter håndterte sakene. Vi beskriver også gjeldende norsk lovverk og prosedyrer på feltet. Et viktig funn i vår undersøkelse er at alle sakene kan knyttes til andre sterke drivkrefter i det aktuelle landet. Det er kombinasjonen av en dramatisk familiehistorie i møte med en større politisk agenda som gjør sakene så kraftfulle og betente i de enkelte landene. I materialet vi legger frem, finner vi også tegn til læring og forbedring i Utenriksdepartementets (UD) håndtering, og også utvikling og forbedring i måten UD har samarbeidet med andre deler av embetsverket på. Samtidig stiller artikkelen spørsmål ved hvorfor et sentralt verktøy i arbeidet med å håndtere denne type saker (ratifiseringen av Haagkonvensjonen), kom på plass så sent.
Abstract in EnglishDiplomatic Controversies Sparked by Decisions of the Norwegian Child Welfare Service: A Preliminary AssessmentDecisions taken by the Norwegian child welfare services have in the past decade, in some cases, created strong international reactions. In the spring of 2016, over 8,000 people in eleven countries demonstrated in connection with a case involving a Norwegian-Romanian family. This article examines three issues that have presented significant diplomatic challenges to Norway (India 2011, Russia 2014 and Romania 2016). The article looks at why the cases triggered such strong reactions and explains how the Norwegian authorities handled these cases. It also outlines the relevant Norwegian legislation and judicial procedures in the field. The paper finds that the three controversial cases assessed linked with other strong driving forces or national political issues in the country in question. In the material we present, there is also evidence of learning and improvement in the way the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs handled these challenges, and there also seems to have been improvement in the way the Ministry of Foreign Affairs collaborated with other parts of the civil service. At the same time, the article questions why a key tool in dealing with these types of cases (The 1996 Hague Convention) was ratified so late in Norway.