Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
ISSN: 0119-1527
In: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Band 33, Heft 1, S. 73
SSRN
In: The Hamlyn Lectures
Lord Pannick celebrates advocacy: that controversial legal issues are decided in court after reasoned argument in which the participants refrain (usually) from shouting, personal insults or threats, and the points on each side of the debate are tested for their relevance, their accuracy, and their strength. The book seeks to identify the central characteristics of good and bad advocacy with the aid of examples from courtrooms in the UK and abroad. Lord Pannick also examines the morality of advocacy - that the advocate sets out views to which he does not necessarily subscribe, on behalf of clients for whom she may feel admiration, indifference, or contempt. Lord Pannick seeks to answer the question he is often asked - more by friends than by judges - 'How can you act for such terrible people?'. Finally, he addresses the future of advocacy, arguing it should and will survive pressures for efficiency and technological developments.
In: Strategic Research and Political Communications for NGOs: Initiating Policy Change: Accenture-Stiftung, Germany, School of Communication Management, International University in Germany, Bruchsal, the Banyan, India, S. 150-166
In: Political and Civic Leadership: A Reference Handbook, S. 307-318
In: Marine corps gazette: the Marine Corps Association newsletter, Band 82, Heft 8, S. 51
ISSN: 0025-3170
This presentation describes the basics of political advocacy. In a simple format, this presentation describes what advocacy is and how it can be used to help the climate crisis.
BASE
In: Journal of Global Responsibility, Band 1, Heft 1, S. 85-97
PurposeThe purpose of this exploratory paper is to examine how affiliates of a Japanese Social Welfare Corporation, a national nonprofit organization (NPO) which provides services for social improvement, have utilized electronic techniques for advocacy purposes and explores the factors that identify those organizations which are likely to be most successful at adopting this resource.Design/methodology/approachThe total number of affiliates investigated was 320, representing the entire country. For these affiliates, advocacy was part of their mission statement. A survey was conducted among representatives of these affiliates.FindingsThree crucial explanatory factors in differentiating those affiliates that adopt new techniques from those that do not were identified. These are: "perceived time spent on government accountability demands," "use of professionals," and "perceived effectiveness." Furthermore, by showing that time spent by nonprofit affiliates on government accountability demands reduces the time available to them for learning how to implement electronic techniques for advocacy purposes, the empirical results suggest that Japanese NPOs are put under pressure by statutory accountability demands and, consequently, their advocacy practice (as one of the most important mission‐based activities within the nonprofit sector) is being jeopardized.Practical implicationsThis research will help state and local government policy makers towards a better understanding of their nonprofits so that statutory accountability demands do not longer obstacle nonprofits to enhance their advocacy functions.Originality/valueThe originality of this study lies primarily in the fact that it was the first time that this type of research has been conducted on Japanese nonprofits.
The collection of information necessary for decision-making is often delegated to agents (e.g. bureaucrats, advisors, lawyers). If both the pros and cons of a decision have to be examined, it is better to use competing agents instead of a single agent. The reason is that two conflicting pieces of information cancel each other out. Using two agents, each searching for one cause yields full information collection at minimum costs. This provides a rationale for advocacy in political and judicial systems. In this paper, we provide a rationale for the sequential nature of information collection in advocacy systems. If two agents search simultaneously, the incentive to continue searching is affected by the information found by the other agent. This forces the principal to leave rents to the agents. If agents search sequentially, the reward can be made conditional on the information found in earlier stages. This reduces the cost of information collection. However, sequential advocacy implies either a more sluggish decision-making process or a less-informed decision.
BASE
In: The Protection Roles of UN Human Rights Special Procedures, S. 190-199
In: Dialog 8
In: Advocacy
In: Handreichung