In November 2014 the Fourth Court for Administrative Matters ruled that OSINERGMIN give effect to Resolution of Disputes Transitional Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, which established the dealership ENERSUR Electricity generation has no responsibility for payment the use of a secondary power transmission system Chilca - Independencia, contrary to Law 28832 which ensures the efficient development of electricity generation.The Judiciary based its decision on an incorrect interpretation of the concession contract Electricity Transmission Red de Energía del Peru (REP) with the State to apply to ENERSUR. The decision of the judiciary is illegal, creates anti-technical precedent, violating the regulatory principles of independence, neutrality, competition, non-discrimination and harms millions of users to increase electricity tariffs for compliance. / En noviembre del 2014, el Cuarto Juzgado Especializado en lo Contencioso Administrativo dispuso que OSINERGMIN dé cumplimiento a la Resolución de la Sala Contencioso Administrativa Transitoria de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima, que estableció que el concesionario de Generación eléctrica ENERSUR S.A. no tiene responsabilidad de pago por el uso de un sistema secundario de transmisión1 eléctrica Chilca - Independencia, contraviniendo la Ley 28832 que asegura el desarrollo eficiente de la generación eléctrica. El Poder Judicial sustentó su decisión en una errada interpretación del contrato de la concesionaria de Transmisión Eléctrica Red de Energía del Perú (REP) con el Estado para aplicarla a ENERSUR S.A.Dicha decisión del poder judicial es ilegal, crea precedentes antitécnicos, viola los principios regulatorios de autonomía, neutralidad, libre competencia, no discriminación y perjudica a millones de usuarios al incrementar tarifas eléctricas para su cumplimiento.

The object of this thesis is Selected issues of evidence in civil contentious proceedings. Evidence itself occupies an important position in the civil procedure because it is a prerequisite for issuing a correct and fair court decision. The aim of this paper is to deal with the institutes of evidence procedure that lead the subjects of civil contentious proceedings for certain procedural activity in order to determine the facts and issue a decision in the case. The thesis is divided into six chapters, the first chapter includes an introduction and the last, sixth chapter includes the conclusion. The second chapter deals with basic questions of evidence in civil proceedings and is subdivided into four parts. Particular parts deal with the concept of evidence in civil proceedings, the object of evidence (which is delimited both positively and negatively), institutes facilitating the evidence in civil procedure (legal presumptions and fiction, preliminary question and discretion of the court) and the actual course of procedure of evidence in civil proceedings. The procedure of evidence is divided into several phases such as adduction of evidence, obtaining proofs, examinations of evidence by the court and finally, the evaluation of the evidence by the court. The third chapter deals with civil...

Si l’on reste dans les généralités, le droit français et le droit saoudien consacrent des solutions analogues aux entreprises en difficulté : ils prévoient l’un et l’autre la possibilité d’un traitement non contentieux des difficultés par le recours à un accord entre le débiteur et ses créanciers ; si ce traitement n’aboutit pas, une procédure collective sera mise en place. Mais la philosophie des deux systèmes est loin d’être la même : la principale préoccupation du droit français est de parvenir à sauver l’entreprise qu’il considère comme créatrice de richesses et d’emplois, alors que le droit saoudien n’a pour l’essentiel qu’une seule préoccupation, celle de sauvegarder les droits des créanciers. Pour réaliser les objectifs qu’il recherche, le droit français multiplie ses interventions en la matière, alors que le droit saoudien en reste à son règlement du 2 juin 1931 sur la faillite et à son décret sur la conciliation préventive de la faillite du 24 janvier 1996. A la complexité du système français du traitement des entreprises en difficulté correspond la simplicité du système saoudien. L’examen des problèmes de base en la matière conduit à s’interroger sur l’existence d’une troisième solution. / At a general level, French law and Saudi law provide similar solutions to companies facing financial difficulties: they both provide for the possibility of a non-contentious treatment of the difficulties through an agreement between the debtor and its creditors; if this process fails, an insolvency procedure will be initiated. However, the philosophy of the two systems is far from being the same: the main concern of French law is to achieve save the company, that it considers being creative of wealth and jobs, whereas Saudi law has essentially the concern of securing the creditors' rights. To achieve its objectives, French law has been very active in this area, while the Saudi law remains in its Regulation of 2 June 1931 on bankruptcy and its decree on preventive conciliation of bankruptcy dated 24 January 1996. Where the French insolvency system is complex, the Saudi one is simple. The analysis of the basic issues in this area leads to wonder whether a third route could be considered.

No description available.

La résolution des litiges est couramment considérée comme une fonction exclusivement juridictionnelle. Les recours portés devant les juridictions sont appelés recours contentieux et la procédure juridictionnelle serait la procédure contentieuse. Devant l’administration, la procédure serait non contentieuse et les recours seraient des pétitions gracieuses. Or, tant l’administration française que l’administration colombienne tranchent quotidiennement des litiges dans l’exercice d’une fonction contentieuse qui n’est pas nouvelle. Dès lors, l’exclusivité juridictionnelle du contentieux n’est qu’une vision déformée de l’organisation du pouvoir. La résolution administrative des litiges est l’une des prérogatives de puissance publique dont dispose l’administration. Elle se caractérise par son caractère accessoire de la mission administrative principale; il s’agit d’un instrument de la réalisation des finalités de l’action administrative. L’administration tranche les litiges dans l’exercice de sa fonction administrative : les décisions administratives contentieuses n’ont pas force de chose jugée, pouvant être l’objet du contrôle juridictionnel qui décidera définitivement le litige. Cette fonction administrative est conforme à la théorie de la séparation des pouvoirs dont l’interprétation séparatiste ne se réalise ni en France ni en Colombie. Cependant, l’administration n’exerce pas sa fonction contentieuse à chaque fois qu’un recours administratif est exercé, qu’une procédure de sanction administrative est entamée ou qu’un litige opposant deux particuliers est porté à la décision de l’administration. L’activité contentieuse de l’administration exige qu’un véritable contentieux soit présenté à l’administration, que ce contentieux se matérialise devant l’administration et qu’elle tranche unilatéralement le fond du litige. Dans ce cas, l’administration n’exerce une fonction ni matériellement juridictionnelle ni quasi contentieuse, mais une véritable fonction contentieuse. / Dispute resolution activity is commonly considered as a wholly judicial function. Judicial actions against the administration and the procedure followed by Courts would be referred as “contentious”, while actions and procedures before administrative bodies would be described as “non-contentious”. Still, both Colombian and French administrations may resolve disputes on a daily basis as a result of longstanding “contentious” missions. Therefore, a vision that reduces this “contentious” to the solely judicial activity distorts this reality in power organization theory. The administrative resolution of disputes is an incidental prerogative of the public administration. It is characterized by its attachment to the main administrative mission, it is an instrument for the purposes of administrative action. The administration resolves disputes as part of its administrative function: administrative “contentious” decisions have not the force of a final judgment, and could be subject to judicial review. Administrative “contentious” missions seem to conform to a non-rigid vision of the separation of powers shared by Colombian and French systems. However, the administration does not performs a “contentious” activity every time an administrative action or an administrative sanction procedure is undertaken, or when it has to decide a controversy opposing two individuals. Administrative “contentious” activity demands a real “contentious” to be materialized before the administration, which also decides the bottom of the dispute. In that case, the administration does not perform a judicial or quasi-judicial mission, but just a real “contentious” mission

This dissertation analyses the ability of Chinese lawyers to use administrative litigation to protect individuals and groups from an authoritarian state that frequently infringes on their rights. These plaintiffs fill administrative courts in China, opposing the overzealous tactics of police, challenging the expropriation of their land, and disputing the seizure and demolition of their homes. Empirically, it relies on several unique data sources in a mixed-methodological approach. Qualitative and small-n quantitative data from 126 interviews with a random sample of Chinese lawyers and 52 additional interviews are supplemented by documentary sources. These findings are then tested against official data and a large survey of Chinese lawyers. This research demonstrates that administrative litigation is part of a polycentric authoritarian system that helps the Chinese state to monitor its agents, allows limited political participation, and facilitates economic development (Chapter One). By giving ordinary Chinese a chance to hold their local governments accountable in court, administrative litigation represents a significant step towards rule of law, but its limited scope means that it has not been accompanied by dramatic liberalisation (Chapter Three). In part, this is because the most prolific and successful administrative litigators are politically embedded lawyers, insiders who challenge the state in court but eschew the most radical cases and tactics (Chapter Four). The tactics that allow politically embedded lawyers to successfully litigate administrative cases rely on and contribute to China’s polycentric authoritarianism by drawing in other state, quasi-state, and non-state actors (Chapter Five). Multinationals in China are largely failing to contribute to the development of China’s legal system because they readily accept preferential treatment from the Chinese state as an alternative to litigation (Chapter Six). While administrative litigation bolsters China’s polycentric authoritarianism in the short term, it offers tremendous potential for rationalisation, liberalisation, and even democratisation in the long term.

Existing scholarship suggests terrorism is an ineffective method of political contestation; groups rarely achieve their political objectives and are often disrupted by the security services. These findings invite us to look again at the dominant rational choice paradigm, which suggests that terrorism is selected as the best strategy to achieve predetermined goals. Unpicking the assumptions underpinning this model using historical case studies, comparative analysis and typology development, this thesis broadens our interpretation of what those who use terrorism seek to achieve. It does so via a tripartite framework. First, employing a new reading of American pragmatist thought, interpreting militant group goals as culturally and socially mediated problems opens up a new vista of outcomes, in particular examining the way terrorism seeks to change relations between people. Second, using Social Movement Theory as its organising framework, an empirically derived typology of militant groups sets out the background political conditions and organisational characteristics of 28 dormant groups. Using existing models of interpreting outcomes to assess these historical cases demonstrates the unmet challenges of providing robust explanations for why terrorism ends and what it achieves. Third, the thesis explores the promise of a mechanism and process-led approach to explaining outcomes. It does so through in-depth examination of two historical case studies: Kach and the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army. Despite being classified as failures, using largely neglected primary sources, the case studies reveal a range of fascinating and important outcomes that still resonate in Israel and Yemen today. Most of these methodological and conceptual tools are being applied to the question of terrorism's outcomes for only the first or second time. In doing so, this thesis offers greater depth than existing scholarship on how terrorism ends, by looking beyond measures such as success and failure in interpreting outcomes, whilst affording greater breadth through its ability to make comparative assessments at the level of mechanisms and processes. The result is a more detailed and robust set of explanations as to how terrorism ends and what it achieves, illustrated through detailed historical case studies of two interesting, yet often neglected, groups.

En vertu de la règle du principe dispositif qui s’applique au procès administratif, le litige est la chose des parties : la matière de l’instance est fixée par les écritures que les parties rédigent et qu’elles soumettent au juge administratif. L’essence de l’office de ce juge consiste à trancher le litige en répondant juridiquement aux prétentions et à l’argumentation développées par les parties dans leurs écritures. L’étendue de son intervention est donc tributaire de la formulation des écritures qu’il devrait se borner à interpréter littéralement, et ce même lorsqu’elles sont maladroitement rédigées. Pourtant, le juge s’autorise à les interpréter extensivement ou restrictivement. Les raisons qui président à ce choix sont incertaines. L’un des enjeux de cette recherche est de les clarifier. Elle doit aussi déterminer l’étendue de ce pouvoir, et notamment son caractère – est-ce une faculté ou une obligation ? –, les éléments des écritures susceptibles d’être interprétés, les parties dont les écrits peuvent être appréciés, les méthodes mobilisées, ou encore ses limites et les contrôles auxquels il est soumis. Mais, à cause du rôle central des écritures dans le procès administratif, leur interprétation peut avoir d’importantes conséquences sur cette instance. Certaines interprétations peuvent même la déstabiliser. La recherche doit donc envisager les mécanismes permettant de corriger ces déséquilibres. En interprétant les écritures des parties, le juge participe à la fixation de la matière de l’instance. Dès lors, cette étude doit, plus fondamentalement, contribuer à déterminer l’auteur de cette substance : les parties ou le juge ? / According to the principle of party autonomy that rules the administrative trial, the litigation is the thing of the parties: the disputed matter is set out in the contentious writings the parties submit to the administrative judge. The essence of the office of this judge is to settle the disputed by legally answering the claims and arguments developed by the parties in their written pleadings. The scope of his intervention is therefore dependent on the wording of the contentious writings, which the judge should confine himself to literally interpreting, even when they are badly written. However, he allows himself to interpret them extensively or restrictively. The reasons for this choice are uncertain. One of the stakes of this research is to clarify them. It must also determine the scope of that power, and in particular its character - is it a possibility or an obligation? -, the elements of the written submissions likely to be interpreted, the parties whose writings can be assessed, the methods used, or its limits and the controls to which it is subject. But, because of the central role of the written pleadings in the administrative process, their interpretation can have important consequences on this instance. Some interpretations can even destabilize it. This research should therefore consider ways to correct such imbalances. In interpreting the parties’ written submissions, the judge participates in the determination of the disputed matter. Consequently, this study must, more fundamentally, contribute to determining the author of this matter: the parties or the judge?

No description available.

自1990年代中起國大陸經濟發展欣欣向榮之際，城市治理議題則圍繞在國家如何平抑發展中可能的基層動亂。本研究選取中國大陸經濟發展前沿城市的上海基層社區--居民委員會選舉作為觀察主題，直接選舉的推動是否會影響社區政治中黨國的單一獨斷？學習效果(learning effects)的理論預設是，隨著選舉演練次數和民眾政治參與的增加，會引發「批判公民」(critical citizens)意識的興起。這樣的理論預設是否能在上海基層選舉中看到？ 本研究觀察2003年到2012年的居委會換屆選舉。發現近年來，社區民眾對黨國的挑戰並未因為選舉限制的不斷增強而退卻，反之，民眾會利用選舉過程來挑戰官方威權或是作為社區事務發聲的管道。社區民眾如何在嚴酷的制度環境中發起對當權者的政治挑戰？本文將從居委會選舉中的選舉競爭，分析民眾挑戰執政當權所使用的資源稟賦。最後，通過基層競選觀察獲得的啟發是，民眾權利意識的提升，使得黨國忠誠不再凌駕一切。開放直接選舉的制度效果，如現代化理論所昭示的，存在學習效應並且在中產階級社區最為明顯。 / Undergoing the dramatic development of economic and social change in China, local governments pay great strength on the issue of governance for preventing any potential contentious activities. Facing the challenges of local governance, the Chinese governments adopt “Direct elections" for reducing the tension between state and society. In Urban city, direct elections as an important political reform, have been initiated in Residential Committee. Under the CCP party-state system, the local elections have been under severe surveillance. The negative result sharply deduces citizens’ political efficacy, especially on the manner of the participating in voting and political confidence towards local governments. However, in recent years, we observed that some Residential Committees in Shanghai experienced electoral competitions. In these cases, citizens organized the campaign to challenge the authority. The main questions are below: why Chinese people challenge the local authority? And how do they mobilize the campaign? Finally, how should we evaluate these political subjects? Based on these experiences, I conclude that the social-economical development may bring positive consequences on Chinese political reform.