Suchergebnisse

Inhaltsübersicht; Inhaltsverzeichnis; Teil 1: Einleitung 1; A. Einführung 1; I. Begriffsbestimmung 1; II. Gesellschaftliche und rechtliche Bewertung in den USA 2; III. Vereinbarkeit mit der deutschen Rechtskultur 3; 1. Gesellschaftliche Bewertung 3; 2. Rechtliche Bewertung 4; B. Gegenstand und Ziel der Untersuchung 5; I. Status des Anzeigenden 5; II. Identität des Anzeigenden 5; III. Qualität des angezeigten Verhaltens 6; IV. Status des Anzeigenempfängers 6; V. Verursacher des angezeigten Verhaltens 7; VI. Eingrenzung 7; C. Methodische Umsetzung 8

his article attempts to bring coherence to the confusion of state whistleblower causation standards by: (1) explaining the causation standards presently used in federal whistleblower protection statutes; (2) identifying the proliferating causation standards used in whistleblower claims brought under state law; (3) assessing the most commonly used causation standards, including exploring the tort causation doctrine and theory that underlie some of these standards; and (4) proposing a uniform standard for causation in state whistle- blower litigation.

This Article examines the relationship among whistleblowing, corporations, and international peace. The Author attempts to establish that whistleblowing is a vital part of transparency and good government. In Part II, the Author examines the rationale for whistleblowing. Part III addresses the cultural dimensions of whistleblowing and its practicability for global organizations. Finally, the Author looks at the advantages of whistleblowing in relation to both corporations and peace efforts.

Penultimate version accepted for publication ; Whistleblowing is the act of disclosing information from a public or private organization in order to reveal cases of corruption that are of immediate or potential danger to the public. Blowing the whistle involves personal risk, especially when legal protection is absent, and charges of betrayal, which often come in the form of legal prosecution under treason laws. In this article we argue that whistleblowing is justified when disclosures are made with the proper intent and fulfill specific communicative constraints in addressing issues of public interest. Three communicative constraints of informativeness, truthfulness and evidence are discussed in this regard. We develop a 'harm test' to assess the intent for disclosures, concluding that it is not sufficient for justification. Along with the proper intent, a successful act of whistleblowing should provide information that serves the public interest. Taking cognizance of the varied conceptions of public interest, we present an account of public interest that fits the framework of whistleblowing disclosures. In particular, we argue that whistleblowing is justified inter alia when the information it conveys is of a presumptive interest for a public insofar as it reveals an instance of injustice or violation of a civil or political right done against and unbeknown to some members of a polity. ; Project: 'Change of Direction. Fostering Whistleblowing in the Fight against Corruption' co-funded by the Internal Security Fund of the European Union (Grant Agreement Number: HOME/2014/ISFP/AG/EFCE/7233); SFRH/BPD/108669/2015 ...