History and Background: The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of South Africa dates back to 1909, when the Transvaal Disputes Prevention Act of 1909 was promulgated which applied only to the Transvaal. The Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924 established industrial councils and ad hoc conciliation boards and excluded black workers from the statutory definition of employee and this resulted in a dual industrial relations system that existed up to 1979. The history of statutory labour dispute resolution of Swaziland dates back to 1980 when the first Industrial Relations Act of 1980 was promulgated which established the first Industrial Court. Research Findings: The dispute resolution systems of South Africa and Swaziland contain both similarities and differences. Lessons for Swaziland include combining general and specific dispute resolution procedures, providing the right of a referring party to apply for condonation for late referral of a dispute, using conciliation-arbitration, making arbitration proceedings public hearings, influence of parties on the appointment of arbitrators, court adjudication, pre-dismissal arbitration, court adjudication by judges only, establishment of a constitutional court, full protection of protected strikes/ lockouts from interdicts, legalization of sympathy strikes, and removal of strikes/ lockout ballot. Lessons for South Africa include plural representation of parties at conciliation and arbitration, re-direction of some disputes by the Labour Court to the Commission for arbitration, reporting of labour disputes direct to the Head of State for determination.

Study One: Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) provide independent adjudication of parental appeals against Local Authority (LA) decisions. The Parent Partnership Service (PPS) and Disagreement Resolution Services (DRS) are both arranged to reduce disagreements and, specifically, to prevent tribunals. Study One aimed to explore parental experiences of Local Disagreement Resolution Services (LDRSs) including the PPS and DRS. A secondary aim of Study One was to identify barriers to and facilitators of disagreement resolution from a parental perspective. Methods: Study One utilised semi-structured interviews as a means of exploring seven parents' experiences and constructs. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in order to specify key themes relating to the resolution of disagreements about SEN. Results: Parents reported a sense of embattlement with the Local Authority that appeared to act as a barrier to the resolution of disagreements. Parents also identified a number of facilitators of disagreement resolution including: Feeling 'listened to'; Having access to a 'legitimate decision-maker'; and becoming better informed. A number of barriers to disagreement resolution were also reported, including but not limited to: a perception that no one is listening to them; a perception that LA staff lack independence; a perception that the LA cannot be trusted to deliver SEN provision. Study Two:Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunals (SENDIST) provide independent adjudication of parental appeals against Local Authority (LA) decisions. The Parent Partnership Service (PPS) and Disagreement Resolution Services (DRS) are both arranged to reduce disagreements and, specifically, to prevent tribunals. Study Two aimed to explore experiences of professionals working within Local Disagreement Resolution Services (LDRSs) including the PPS and DRS. A secondary aim of Study Two was to identify barriers to and facilitators of disagreement resolution from a professional perspective. A final aim of Study Two was to synthesise the perceptions reported by professionals in Study Two with those reported by parents in Study One. Methods: Study Two utilised semi-structured interviews as a means of exploring six LA-employed professionals' experiences and constructs. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in order to specify key themes relating to the resolution of disagreements about SEN. Findings emerging from Study Two were integrated with findings from Study One using the themes generated through thematic analysis. Results: Professionals reported a number of parental factors that were perceived to act as a barrier to disagreement resolution. These included but were not limited to: weak understanding of SEN systems and a lack of confidence to engage in mediation processes. Professionals did not identify any parental factors perceived to be conducive to disagreement resolution. A smaller number of facilitators of disagreement resolution were reported, including: early intervention; and face-to-face meetings. Synthesis of findings from Studies One and Two resulted in the creation of clusters of themes that can inform future policy and practice. Findings from Studies One and Two indicate that disagreement resolution is best supported where Local Authorities can promote: collaboration, information-sharing, and reassurance for parents.

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

La crise de la justice existe depuis plusieurs décennies en France, en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles, et touchent de plus en plus d’autres États comme la Chine. Les mêmes causes, la libéralisation économique, politique et sociale produisent les mêmes effets : l’augmentation du contentieux, du coût du procès et de la longueur des procédures, même si le degré de la maladie est différent d’un système juridique à un autre. Régler les différends autrement est alors devenu une nécessité. Une nécessité, en terme d’accès à la justice et de garantie des droits, mais également en terme de coût non seulement pour le justiciable, mais aussi pour l’État, qui a conduit à faire évoluer le système judiciaire en favorisant l’émergence voire la réémergence d’un nouveau mode de régulation sociale : l’alternative dispute resolution (ADR) ou les modes amiables de résolution des différends (MARD) qui sont tous deux des modes informels, non judiciaires de résolution des différends. Néanmoins, les MARD sont loin d’être une copie conforme de l’ADR notamment en raison des différences culturelles juridiques et judiciaires qui existent au sein de chaque système juridique, et dans laquelle cette voie alternative évolue. Malgré des spécificités fondamentales, il existe de nombreuses convergences dans la mise en œuvre et les modalités de fonctionnement des processus amiables en France, en Angleterre, au Pays de Galles, et en Chine. Avec les modes amiables de résolution des différends ou l’alternative dispute resolution, la conception de la justice est différente de celle dictée par la justice traditionnelle. La solution n’est plus dictée par un tiers extérieur, mais par les justiciables eux-mêmes, seuls, ou avec l’aide d’un tiers qu’ils auront personnellement choisi. Cette liberté donnée aux parties constitue une caractéristique intrinsèque des modes amiables. Loin d’être isolé, ils viennent enrichir la réponse judiciaire aux différends. Ils peuvent être utilisés seuls ou en articulation avec l’institution judiciaire. / The crisis of justice existed for decades in France, England and Wales, affecting more and more countries like China. The same causes, economic, political and social liberalization, produce the same effects: increased litigation, the cost of the trial and the strength of the proceedings, even if the degree of the disease is different from a legal system to another. Resolve disputes otherwise then became a necessity. A necessity in terms of access to justice and guarantee of rights, but also in terms of cost not only for court users but for the state, which has led to change the legal system by promoting the emergence or the re-emergence of a new mode of social regulation: alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or alternative methods for resolving disputes (MARD), which are both informal methods, non-judicial dispute resolution. However, the MARD is far from being a copy of the ADR particularly because of legal and judicial cultural differences that exist in each legal system, in which the alternative phenomenon evolves. Despite these fundamental differences, there are many similarities in the implementation and operating procedures of the amicable process in France, England, Wales, and China. With ADR or MARD, the concept of justice is different from litigation. The solution is not dictated by an external third party, but by the parties, alone or with the help of a third party that they have personally selected. The freedom given to the parties is a specificity of the amicable modes. Far from being isolated, they enrich the judicial response to the dispute. They can be used alone or in coordination with the judiciary.

Avec l’accroissement des échanges transfrontaliers entre entreprises associées et des moyens de contrôles des transactions internationales par les administrations fiscales, les risques de différends en matière de prix de transfert augmentent nécessairement. Si ces conflits ne sont pas résolus, ils peuvent entraîner des doubles impositions, principalement économiques, et constituer des obstacles pour la libre circulation des biens et des services dans une économie globalisée. Les contribuables et les Etats ont donc besoin de procédures efficaces pour résoudre ces situations, unanimement dénoncées par les organisations internationales et les contribuables. Or les procédures actuelles ne sont pas totalement satisfaisantes. La Commission européenne, puis l’O.C.D.E ont récemment mené des travaux d’envergure visant à en améliorer les mécanismes. Le règlement de la double imposition en matière de prix de transfert est incontestablement un sujet d’actualité. Ces travaux invitent à une analyse critique de l’ensemble des mécanismes internationaux de règlement de la double imposition résultant de la correction des prix de transfert. Ces procédures sont étudiées, les causes de dysfonctionnement recherchées et des mesures d’amélioration sont proposées, notamment à la lumière des récents travaux des organisations internationales. La première partie est consacrée à la procédure amiable dans le cadre des conventions fiscales bilatérales. L’analyse menée suit une approche chronologique des étapes de la procédure, depuis son ouverture jusqu’à la mise en oeuvre de l’accord amiable. La seconde partie traite des voies nouvelles de règlement des doubles impositions que constituent la médiation, la conciliation et l’arbitrage en matière fiscale. Une large place est consacrée à l’arbitrage qui est analysé tant sur le plan conventionnel, puisqu’il a été récemment intégré dans les conventions modèles O.C.D.E. et O.N.U., que dans le cadre de la convention européenne d’arbitrage. Cette étude fait largement référence à l’approche de l’O.C.D.E. et des principaux Etats partenaires de la France. Néanmoins, il ne s’agit pas là d’un exercice de droit comparé mais seulement d’une mise en exergue d’autres pratiques pour servir le propos. / With increasing cross-border trade between associated enterprises and means of control of international transactions by the tax authorities, the risk of disputes over transfer pricing necessarily increase. If these conflicts are not resolved, they can lead to double taxation, mainly of economic nature, and constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods and services in a globalised economy. Taxpayers and States therefore need effective procedures to resolve these situations, unanimously denounced by international organizations and taxpayers. However, current procedures are not entirely satisfactory. The European Commission and the O.E.C.D. have recently completed extensive work to improve the mechanisms. Dispute resolution in transfer pricing is certainly a hot topic. A critical analysis of all international settlement mechanisms of double taxation arising from transfer pricing adjustments is conducted. These procedures are examined, the causes of dysfunction sought and improvement measures are proposed, particularly in light of recent work of international organizations. The first part is devoted to the mutual agreement procedure under bilateral double tax treaties. The analysis is carried out following a chronological approach of the stages of the procedure, from its opening till the implementation of the mutual agreement. The second part deals with the new ways of resolving transfer pricing double taxation that are mediation, conciliation and arbitration in tax matters. Emphasis is on arbitration that is analysed both in conventional terms, as it has recently been integrated into the O.E.C.D. and U.N. model conventions, and as part of the European arbitration convention. This work makes extensive reference to the O.E.C.D and France key partners’ approaches. Nevertheless, it is not a work of comparative law but only examples to illustrate other practices

Agreement on guilt and punishment This master's dissertation focuses on a relatively new juridical institute of the criminal procedural law, which is agreement on guilt and punishment. This institute was incorporated in the Czech legal system by the Act No. 193/2012 Coll., which took effect from 1st September, 2012. The main purpose for the incorporation was acceleration and efficiency of criminal proceedings as well as lightening the burden of courts, which are overloaded due to excessive amount of new cases. The master's dissertation is divided into five chapters. The first chapter is devoted to the inclusion of plea bargaining in the system of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on the institute of agreement on guilt and punishment in comparison with other diversions. A brief introduction to the basic principles of retributive and restorative justice is also included in this chapter. The second chapter covers the historical development of incorporating plea bargaining into Czech legislation and the legislative process itself. The basic arguments both in and against favour of the institute are outlined, especially taking into account the principles of Czech criminal proceeding. The third chapter contains a detailed analysis of relevant legislation and is divided into two parts, the first focusing...

Le traitement préventif et amiable des difficultés des entreprises est la solution idoine pour préserver des entreprises viables, apurer le passif et sauvegarder les emplois. Le législateur français, à travers la mise en place d’un arsenal juridique qui favorise le traitement précoce des difficultés des entreprises, a pu faire un pas géant vers la dissipation et l’éclipse de l’esprit répressif et pénal au profit des mesures de prévention et de réparation des dommages. Cette nouvelle conception de réaction prompte contre les difficultés des entreprises a trouvé un véritable engouement auprès du législateur marocain. / The precautionary and amicable treatment of difficulties of firms is suitable resolution to preserve viable firms, audit debit and safeguard jobs. The French legislator, across the installation of a juridical armory which favours the precocious treatment of difficulties of firms, could make a huge step towards clearing up and eclipse of repressive and criminal mind to the advantage of the measurements of prevention and repairing of successive damage in said difficulties. This new comprehension of prompt reaction against difficulties of firms found a true infatuation to the Moroccan legislator.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:25:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Laura B Hinz.pdf: 636019 bytes, checksum: 27181af552088e6600e4864c630af26a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-05-09 / This text analyses the mechanisms of solution of interpersonal conflicts with special attention for conciliation and mediation practiced by the judges in a labor execution process. This activity, realized mainly in audiences dated for this finality, shows that the pacificator effect is bigger than the solution given by a sentence. It s also an important opportunity for the agilization the course of the judicial process. According to this, the introduction of legal mechanisms to turn this propose mandatory and to introduce specifically disciplines in law school must turn better the professional actuation and will contribute for the better image of Judiciary / Discutem-se neste trabalho as formas de solução de conflitos intersubjetivos com especial atenção à conciliação e a mediação realizada por magistrados em sede de execução trabalhista. Mostra-se que tal atividade, desenvolvida principalmente em audiências agendadas para esta finalidade, têm efeito pacificador mais abrangente que o verificado pela solução jurisdicional pura e simples. Demonstra-se, também, que, ainda que as partes não se conciliem, a prática da audiência em execução se revela um importante meio de agilização do trâmite processual. É com essas premissas que se considera viável a introdução de mecanismos legais para tornar obrigatória a oportunidade da mencionada audiência, além da inclusão, também obrigatória, de disciplinas específicas no curso de graduação em Direito, visando a uma maior efetividade da atuação profissional e do Poder Judiciário como um todo

Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão (1801-1856) foi um dos mais eminentes políticos do Partido Conservador do período monárquico brasileiro. Foi agraciado visconde e marquês de Paraná, nos anos de 1852 e 1854, respectivamente. O ápice de sua carreira foi a presidência do Ministério da Conciliação, entre 1853 e 1856. A trajetória política de Carneiro Leão a partir de 1842 é o objeto central desta dissertação. Não se pretendeu, todavia, recontar sua vida de forma linear, nem simplesmente relembrar laudatoriamente seus serviços ao Império do Brasil. Este trabalho buscou, sobretudo, questionar e desconstruir a memória que uniu indivíduo e Estado e influenciou muitas interpretações sobre cinco importantes acontecimentos políticos do Oitocentos brasileiro: a formação do Regresso conservador; as revoltas de 1842; a Rebelião Praieira; a intervenção na região do Rio da Prata e, por fim, o Ministério da Conciliação. Cada um desses assuntos foi tratado detalhadamente nos quatro capítulos desta dissertação. / Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão (1801-1856) was one of the most eminent politicians of the Conservative Party of Brazilian monarchical period. He was honored with the titles of viscount and marquis of Paraná in 1852 and 1854, respectively. The apex of his career was the chair of the Conciliation Cabinet, between 1853 and 1856. The political career of Carneiro Leão since 1842 is the main subject of this dissertation. However, it was not intended to recount his life in a linear basis, nor simply laudatorily recall his services to the Brazilian Empire. This study aimed, above all, to question and deconstruct the memory which united the individual and the State and influenced many interpretations of five major political events of the Brazilian Eighteenth Century: the formation of the Regresso; the riots of 1842; Praiera Rebellious; intervention on the Platine region and, finally, the Conciliation Cabinet. Each one of these issues was discussed in detail in four chapters of this dissertation.