Suchergebnisse

Nothing exceptional happened in front of the youth association building in Kalajoki on 9 September 1953. There was a minor confrontation between regional police forces and local youth, but hundreds of similar events happened in small municipalities across Finland. The event took about ten minutes, nobody was seriously hurt, and collective feelings quickly calmed down. However, after extensive investigations, the regional prosecutor thought otherwise and prosecuted half a dozen local men for rebellion against the state in January 1954. The district court agreed. The municipality was shocked, and the Finnish society was taken by surprise. The case ended up in Supreme Court. This book analyses why and how the last rebellion in the history of Finland occurred in a tiny municipality on the west coast of Finland. The analysis is based on historical microsociology that integrates the insights of microhistory and microsociology into event structure analysis and collective memory studies.

Preliminary Material /Asbjørn Eide , Jakob Th. Möller and Ineta Ziemele -- The Right to Peace Milestones in the Development of International Humanitarian Law /Daniel Thürer -- Post-War American International Law Scepticism: The International Criminal Court, Stockholm 1924 /Mark Weston Janis -- Peace as a Human Right: The Jus Cogens Prohibition of Aggression /Alfred de Zayas -- The Human Right to Peace /William A. Schabas -- Security and Human Rights in the Regulation of Private Military Companies: The Role of the Home State /Francesco Francioni -- The United Nations and Human Rights What Makes Democracy Good? /Lyal S. Sunga -- Is the United Nations Human Rights Council Living Up to the International Community's Expectations? /Markus G. Schmidt -- The UN Human Rights Council: The Perennial Struggle between Realism and Idealism /Bertrand G. Ramcharan -- Eight UN Petitions Procedures: A Comparative Analysis /Jakob Th. Möller -- The Legal Status of Views Adopted by the Human Rights Committee – From Genesis to Adoption of General Comment No. 33 /Geir Ulfstein -- Winter Break 2010: A Week in the Life of a Special Rapporteur /Martin Scheinin -- Legal and Judicial Shortcomings of the Surrogate State of "UNMIKISTAN" /Margrét Heinreksdóttir -- The Right to Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities – Innovations in the CRPD /Arnardóttir Arnardóttir -- Human Rights at the Regional Level The Council of Europe: A Champion in Monitoring Implementation of Human Rights Standards? /Petter F. Wille -- Flexibilising the Modes of Amending the European Convention on Human Rights: An Idea for a 'Statute' for the European Court /Krzysztof Drzewicki -- Strengthening of the Principle of Subsidiarity of the European Convention on Human Rights /Björg Thorarensen -- Presumption of Convention Compliance /Davíð Þór Björgvinsson -- The Right to Adequate Judicial Reasoning /Ragnar Aðalsteinsson -- Dialogue Between States and International Human Rights Monitoring Organs – Especially the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance /Lauri Hannikainen -- How Old Are You? Age Discrimination and EU Law /Allan Rosas -- NHRIs in the European Union: Status Quo Vadis? /Morten Kjærum and Jonas Grimheden -- Selected Examples of the Contemporary Practice of the Inter-American System in Confronting Grave Violations of Human Rights: United States and Colombia /Diego Rodríguez-Pinzón -- Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Prevention of Discrimination, Protection of Minorities, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Challenges and Choices /Asbjørn Eide -- Minority Protection in the African System of Human Rights /Michelo Hansungule -- Indigenous Peoples on the International Scene: A Personal Reminiscence /Lee Swepston -- Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Development /Rainer Hofmann and Juri Alistair Gauthier -- Principal Problems Regarding Indigenous Land Rights and Recent Endeavours to Resolve Them /Erica-Irene A. Daes -- Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples: Preserve or Protect? – That's the Question! /Mpazi Sinjela -- Redefining Sovereignty and Self-Determination through a Declaration of Sovereignty: The Inuit Way of Defining the Parameters for Future Arctic Governance /Timo Koivurova.

The author discusses the reasons for relativization of the national minorities protection policy of the Council of Europe and the European Union in light of the problems with national minorities protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The minorities protection policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina had implications for minority rights protection in Hungary and Croatia after Croatia's accession to the EU . The European Union, the Council of Europe and other European institutions defined their position towards minority rights in light of the European Court for Human Rights decision in the Sejdić and Finci case. The decision specified mandatory constitutional changes in terms of equal protection of national minority rights. According to the demanded constitutional revisions, the representatives of national minorities would have a right to compete for legal and executive positions in the entire Bosnia and Herzegovina. Before the ECHR decision, only representatives of the three constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats could be nominated for positions in the legislature and in the executive institutions. The Council of Europe mediated by CoE Parliamentarian Assembly and Committee of Ministers threatened to suspend BiH membership to the CoE until the decision was implemented. At the same time, coordinated European Union institutions made the ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) negotiated with Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2008 conditional upon the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci decision. The threat wasn't carried through and BiH became presiding country of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 2014. In the meantime, the newly elected European Parliament as well as recently appointed European Commission accepted the SAA although the Sejdić-Finci decision was not incorporated in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ; Evropska unija, Savjet Evrope i druge evropske institucije bitno su odredile svoj odnos prema Bosni i Hercegovini u odnosu na primjenu Odluke Evropskog suda za ljudska prava "u slučaju Sejdić i Finci", koji nalaže obavezu ustavnih promjena u pravcu zaštite jednakosti prava pripadnika nacionalnih manjina. Tim promjenama i predstavnici nacionlanih manjina imali bi pravo da budu kandidovani na sve pozicije zakonodavne i izvršne vlasti u Bosni i Hercegovini. Do odluke u spomenutom slučaju, poznatom kao "Sejdić – Finci", samo su pripadnici tri konstitutivna naroda u Bosni i Hercegovini – Srba, Bošnjaka i Hrvata, mogli da budu kandidovani za te funkcije. U više navrata Savjet Evrope je posredstvom Parlamentarne skupštine ili Komiteta ministara prijetio suspenzijom, čak i izbacivanjem Bosne i Hercegovine iz ove međunarodne organizacije. Istovremeno, čak i koordinisano, institucije Evropske unije raznih nivoa uslovljavale su ratifikaciju Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju (SAA ), postignutog još 2008. godine, isto primjenom navedene odluke. Prijetnja se odnosila na nepriznavanja izbornih rezultata na lokalnim izborima 2012. i opštim izborima 2014. godine. To se nije desilo, a u međuvremenu BiH je bila zemlja – predsjedavajuća Komiteta ministara Savjeta Evrope. Novoizabrani saziv Evropskog parlamenta i nova Evropska komisija prihvatili su Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju nakon opštih izbora u BiH 2014, iako odluka Evropskog suda za ljudska prava nije primijenjena. Predmet rada biće razlozi relativizacije manjinskih politika Savjeta Evrope i Evropske unije u politikama zaštite prava nacionalnih manjina u BiH. Time su postale vidljive i upozoravajuće i druge politike relativizacije položaja i prava nacionalnih manjina, poput Mađarske i Hrvatske, do čega je došlo nakon prijema ove dvije države u Evropsku uniju.

Tutkimuksessa selvitetään, missä määrin työpaikkojen työsuojeluvalvontaa toteutetaan alueellisesti eri tavalla eli toteutuuko valvonta työpaikoilla yhtenäisesti eri puolilla Suomea. Tutkimuksen ennakko-oletuksena on, että merkittävä syy työsuojeluvalvonnan alueelliseen erilaisuuteen on valvonnan organisointi viiden itsenäisen aluehallintoviraston työsuojelun vastuualueen tehtäväksi. Työsuojeluhallintoa ja työsuojeluvalvonnan toteutumisen yhtenäisyyttä työpaikoilla ei ole tutkittu tieteellisesti 2000-luvulla. Tämä tutkimus arvioi työsuojeluhallinnon rakennetta ja valvonnan toteutumista sekä hallinnon että työpaikkojen näkökulmasta. Tutkimus antaa sekä tieteellisesti perusteltuja teoreettisia että hallinnon asiakkaiden näkökulmia työsuojeluhallinnossa käynnissä olevaan valvonnan yhtenäistämiskehitykseen. Tutkimuksen teoreettisena viitekehyksenä on hallinnon evaluaatiotutkimus, joka tarkoittaa hallinnon toimivuuden arviointia käyttäjä- ja asiakasnäkökulmasta. Työsuojeluhallinto toteuttaa työpaikoille kohdistuvaa työsuojeluvalvontaa työsuojelutarkastuksina, jolloin hallinnon asiakkaita ovat työpaikat ja niiden työnantajat ja työntekijät. Pääasiallisena tutkimusaineistona ovat valvontatietojärjestelmä Veran raportit ja niistä tehdyt 27 valvonnan alueellista vertailua sekä henkilöhaastattelut, jotka kohdistuvat 52:een työsuojeluhallinnon, työmarkkinajärjestöjen ja työpaikkojen työsuojeluhenkilöön. Tutkimuksessa on kolme päälukua: työsuojeluhallituksen aika 1973-1993, itsenäisten alueellisten työsuojeluviranomaisten aika vuodesta 1993 lähtien sisältäen työmarkkinajärjestöjen roolin työsuojeluvalvonnassa ja valvonnan alueellinen vertailu. Tutkimusmatkani kohti yhtenäistä työpaikkojen työsuojeluvalvontaa alkoi työsuojeluhallituksesta, joka perustettiin vuonna 1973 osana hyvinvointivaltion rakentamista ja valtiojohtoista suunnitteluoptimismia. Valtiollinen työsuojelu koottiin yhden ministeriön alaisuuteen. Työsuojeluhallituksen aikana oli keskusjohtoinen, ainakin osittain yhtenäinen työsuojeluvalvonta, mutta keskusviraston toiminta ei onnistunut, koska työnantajat vastustivat sitä koko ajan pitäen sen toimintaa konspiratiivisena, vehkeilevänä. Työsuojeluhallitus lakkautettiin vuonna 1993 osana keskusvirastojärjestelmän purkamista 1990-luvun alun taloudellisen laman seurauksena. Valtion harjoittamaa sääntelyä purettiin hallinnon kaikilla sektoreilla, ja hallintoa madallettiin lähemmäksi asiakasta. Valtion merkitystä vähennettiin koko yhteiskunnassa ja hyvinvointivaltiosta tehtiin kilpailuvaltio, jolloin markkinaliberalismi ja New Public Management voimistuivat. Työsuojeluhallituksen lakkautuksessa tehtiin ehkä muutakin politiikkaa; pirstaloimalla valvovaa hallintoa heikennettiin samalla työpaikoille kohdistuvaa keskitettyä valvonnan voimaa. Itsenäisten alueellisten työsuojeluviranomaisten aikana vuodesta 1993 lähtien entisten työsuojelupiirien ja nykyisten aluehallintoviraston työsuojelun vastuualueiden toiminnallinen itsenäisyys korostui. Hallinnon toiminnassa näkyy, ettei työsuojeluvalvonnalla ole yhteistä keskusjohtoa. Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön työ- ja tasa-arvo-osasto, jonka alaisuuteen työsuojelu keskushallinnossa kuuluu, toteuttaa Kansainvälisen työjärjestön ILO:n (International Labour Organization) sopimusten tulkintaa, että työsuojeluhallinto on riippumaton valvontatehtävää suorittaessaan eikä ministeriö siten puutu valvonnan alueellisiin menettelytapoihin. Tutkimus käsittelee myös työsuojeluhallinnon laajaa yhteistyötä työmarkkinajärjestöjen kanssa. Järjestöt osallistuvat kaikkeen päätöksentekoon, jossa käsitellään hallinnon tavoitteita, painopisteitä, valvontaohjeita ja resursseja. Tutkimuksessa arvioidaan edustuksellisen demokratian näkökulmasta korporatiivisen etujärjestövaikutuksen ja hallinnon suhdetta riippumattoman työsuojeluvalvonnan päätöksenteossa ja toimeenpanossa. Tarkastuskertomuksiin perustuva alueellisen valvonnan vertailu osoittaa, että työsuojeluvalvonta on eriytynyt vastuualueittain. Työpaikkojen kunnossaolo määritellään usein eri tavalla, joten tarkastajien valvoma työturvallisuuden minimitaso ei toteudu yhdenmukaisesti koko maassa. Siten velvoitteita korjata tai poistaa työturvallisuusepäkohtia annetaan eri tavalla ja lopputuloksena on se, ettei työnantajia kohdella tasapuolisesti. Tutkimuksen johtopäätöksenä on, että työsuojeluvalvonta on osa kansallista hallintotoimintaa ja laillisuusvalvontaa, ei alueellista tai paikallista hallintoa. Työsuojelu ei eroa toimialoittain maantieteellisesti, koska eri ammattialojen työ on pääpiirteissään samanlaista koko maassa ja niiden työturvallisuus ei juurikaan eroa maantieteellisesti. Tämän vuoksi myös työsuojeluvalvonnan pitäisi olla yhdenmukaista koko maassa. Suomeen pitäisi perustaa Pohjoismaiden mallin mukainen työsuojelun keskusorganisaatio, joka koordinoisi yhtenäistä laillisuusvalvontaa samalla tavalla kuin Poliisihallitus, Syyttäjälaitos ja uusi Tuomioistuinvirasto koordinoivat toimialojensa laillisuusvalvontaa ja toiminnan menettelytapoja. ; This study examines the extent to which workplace occupational safety and health (OSH) enforcing is carried out differently across the Finnish regions, in other words whether workplace enforcing is uniform across Finland. The presupposition of the study is that an important reason for the regional disparity in labour inspection is the decentralized organization of the inspection to by the five independent divisions of occupational health and safety of the regional state administrative agency. The OSH administration and the uniformity of the implementation of OSH in the workplace have not been scientifically studied in the 21st century. This study assesses the structure and implementation of the OSH administration from the perspective of both the administration and the workplace. The study provides a scientifically justified analysis covering both theoretical and customers' perspectives on OSH management and the ongoing integration of health and safety enforcement. The chosen theoretical approach of the study is the administrative evaluation framework, which means assessing the functionality of administration from the user and customer perspective. The Labour Inspectorate carries out workplace safety inspections in the form of occupational safety inspections, whereby the customers of the administration are the workplaces and their employers and employees. The main research material are OSH inspection database Vera reports and personal interviews carried out with 52 persons in the job protection administration, labour organizations and employment OSH personnel. The study consists of three main empirical chapters: the Labour Protection Board, the Central Office 1973-1993, the independent Regional Labour Inspectorate since 1993, including the role of labour organizations in labour inspection and the regional comparison of labour inspection. Shift towards an integrated job labour inspection started with the Labour Protection Board which was established in 1973 as part of the construction of the welfare state during the era of optimism in state-directed planning State labour protection was brought together under one ministry. The Labour Protection Board the system was center-led, at least regarding uniform occupational health and safety enforcing, but the Board's operations were not successful, mainly because the employers were opposed to it throughout its existence. The Labour Protection Board was abolished in 1993 as part of the dismantling of the central office system that followed the economic recession in the early 1990s. State regulation in all sectors of government was decentralized and administration was brought closer to the customers. The role of the state was diminished in society as a whole and the welfare state became a competitive state, with neoliberalism and New Public Management becoming stronger. Other objectives were also part of the decision to abolish the Labour Protection Board; at the same time, the fragmentation of supervisory authorities weakened the efficiency of workplace control. The era of the independent regional labour inspectorates since 1993 underlines the functional independence of the former OSH Inspectorate and the current division of occupational health and safety of the regional state administrative agency. The operation shows that there is no common central management for labour enforcement. The Department for Work and Gender Equality of the Social and Health Ministry, which is responsible for occupational safety in central administration, interprets International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions as meaning that the labour administration is independent in carrying out its supervisory function. Thus, the Ministry does not interfere with regional control procedures. The study also deals with the extensive co-operation between the labour protection administration and the labour market organizations. Trade unions are involved in all decision-making concerning management objectives, priorities, control guidelines and resources. The study examines the influence of corporatist interest groups and the governance of occupational health and safety enforcing decision-making and implementation from the perspective of representative democracy. A comparison of regional control based on inspection reports shows that OSH control of occupational health and safety has varied between the regional divisions. The condition of workplaces is often defined differently, so the minimum level of occupational safety supervised by inspectors is not uniformly applied throughout the country. Thus, obligations to remedy or eliminate occupational safety deficiencies in workplaces are given different treatment and the result is that employees are not treated equally. The conclusion of the study is that health and safety control should be in the competence of national administration and judicial review, not regional or local administration. Occupational safety and health does not differ geographically by industry, as the work of the various occupations is broadly similar throughout the country and there is little geographical variation in occupational safety. For this reason, labour inspection should also be uniform throughout the country. Finland should set up the Nordic model of a more centralized OSH system, which would coordinate an integrated review of legality in the same way as the National Police Board, the Prosecutor's Office and the Court of Justice co- ordinate the law enforcement and operational procedures of their respective sectors.