Suchergebnisse

The term 'vulnerability' is often used in law and policy to refer to disadvantaged, marginalized or excluded human beings. This book explores how a vulnerability focus in basic assistance policies can contribute to substantive equality and therefore to the realization of universal human rights in the migration context. It concentrates on the potential that such a vulnerability focus can have to mitigate stigmatization and stereotyping and to facilitate socio-economic participation

This study seeks to shed light on the prohibition of abuse of rights in Article 17 ECHR in order to contribute to a more coherent interpretation of this provision. To that aim it studies the abuse clause from different perspectives. First, it looks at the historical background of the provision to examine what motivated the drafters to include this prohibition. Then it moves on to the case law of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights and to legal doctrine, revealing the difficulties and inconsistencies in the current interpretation of the abuse clause. Next, it analyses the interpretation of prohibitions of abuse in other human rights documents to see whether parallels can be drawn with the interpretation of Article 17 ECHR. Subsequently, it addresses the concepts of "abuse of rights" and "militant democracy" and examines the extent to which they offer a framework for understanding the abuse clause. Based on the insights obtained from these different perspectives, this study puts forward a proposal as to how Article 17 ECHR can best be applied in the future

Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights prescribes that individual applications must be directed against one of the Convention States. Consequently, private actors involved in proceedings against other private actors before domestic courts must complain about State (in)action in their application to the European Court of Human Rights. In other words, originally 'horizontal' conflicts must be 'verticalised' in order to be admissible. Although such verticalised cases make up a large portion of the Court's case law, the particular nature of these cases, as well as procedural issues that may arise in them, has not received much attention. To fill this gap, this book offers a detailed examination of verticalised cases coming before the Court. The characteristics of and the Court's approach to verticalised cases are explored by means of an in-depth analysis of four types of verticalised cases (cases related to one's surroundings; cases involving a conflict between the right to reputation and private life and the right to freedom of expression; family life cases; and employer-employee cases). On the basis of this analysis, it is argued that the Court's current approach to verticalised cases poses problems for private actors, Convention States and the Court itself. In presenting recommendations for the resolution of these problems, the book concludes with a proposal for a new approach to verticalised cases, consisting of a redesigned third-party intervention procedure.

In opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) is door een onderzoeksteam van Erasmus School of Law onderzoek gedaan naar de vraag of naast mishandeling ook openlijke geweldpleging (art. 141 lid 1 Sr) tegen politieagenten en andere functionarissen onder het taakstrafverbod zou moeten vallen. De aanleiding van het onderzoek is de toezegging van de regering op een wetsvoorstel voor de uitbreiding van het taakstrafverbod met mishandeling tegen agenten en andere functionarissen. De vraag is echter of er voldoende aanleiding is om ook de lichtste variant van openlijke geweldpleging (artikel 141 lid 1 Sr) onder dit verbod te laten vallen. Concluderend blijkt uit het onderzoek: nu het veelal gaat om lichte zaken, is er geen aanleiding om openlijke geweldpleging jegens politieagenten en andere publieke functionarissen onder het taakstrafverbod te laten vallen

The aim here is to understand better the governing organizations of Us & high schools in a democratic environment. The Law for U Government Reform is studied & its model of government characterized in terms of ideal models. A small empirical research project was set up to investigate how the rules relative to departmental councils function to reach the objectives they are assigned. One must distinguish between the allotment of responsibility for making decisions on subjects that relate to the U's "output" (teaching, research, degrees) & matters that are related to the U "input." Three conceptions of authority & three models of U government must be noted: (1) the "professional" model (decisions rest with the best qualified scientific personnel), (2) the "corporate" model (every section of the U contributes to the government), & (3) the "council" model (all responsibilities are vested in the whole U). The Law for U Government Reform aims at working out the corporative model. Research must concentrate on the relationship between goals & implementation, & not on evaluating the goals set up by the Law. By & large, nonscientific personnel are represented in the councils. The student position on these councils is strong due to the absenteeism of other members. Propositions initiated by students or nonscientific personnel are a small minority of the adopted propositions. Propositions opposed by a majority of the scientific personnel present are always adopted. The main student input is found in the area of teaching goals. It is doubtful that the intended democratization of decision-making can be effectively accomplished in the framework of the departmental councils. 6 Tables, Appendix. HA Tr & Modified by A. Orianne.

Majority rule has various applications. In parliamentary theory, it intervenes at the level of relations between assembly & gov, & again, in elections. We find it in democratic theory where the majority of the people must approve decisions of the constitutional organs. Finally, it is employed in the decisionmaking process of the assemblies, & it is this aspect which forms the object of the present study. Since antiquity the majority principle has been generally observed in the decisions of deliberating bodies; but it was not until the 16th cent that it triumphed in England & France. In Switzerland up to the 16th cent majority rule was in effect, disappeared for a while, & then reappeared after the transition from confederation to federation. In Holland, majority rule was applied with certain restrictions from the 16th cent on. Poland had the 'liberum veto' up to the beginning of the 19th cent. From a theoretical viewpoint, the jurists of the Middle Ages based their justification of majority rule on an old Roman adage, & Canon Law has also made an important contribution to this doctrine. The authors of the 18th cent elaborated a legal theory based on rational fictions & on the doctrine of the Social Contract in particular. Among the moderns, 3 principal schools can be distinguished: those who, with Duguit, give a utilitarian basis to the principle, those who see in it a sublimated power, particularly sociol'ts, & finally the theoreticians who accept the principle for ethical reasons. The problem has increased in importance with the existence of international org's where at present, the majority principle is applied only exceptionally. (Translated by Z. Dana from IPSA).