Thesis (J. Sc. D.)--Columbia University, 1936. / Vita. Published also without thesis note. "Table of cases": p. xi-xvii. Includes bibliographical references (p. xix-xxvii).

Thèse--Université de Louvain. / Errata slip, laid in. "Bibliographie": p. 1-5.

Inaug.-diss.--Freiburg-Breisgau. / Lebenslauf. "Literaturverzeichnis": p. [ix]-xv.

Thèse--Neuchâtel. / "Bibliographie": p. 224-227.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Münster (Westfalen), 2004.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2005--Mainz.

LL.M. / The main objective of the South African interrogation procedures during corporate insolvency is to trace and recover all corporate assets. The focus of such procedures is therefore on gathering information rather than investigating any probable causes of the insolvency and failure of the company, as English legislation prescribes. At present in South Africa no reasons have to be supplied to creditors, contributors or the public to explain the failure of companies. This situation contributes to the hesitant and sceptical attitude of the public towards companies and their reluctance to invest in companies. This aspect of our insolvency law can also have a negative impact on the level of foreign investment. The question therefore arises on how the insolvency industry should deal with the various challenges that such a situation presents, which entails at the same time challenging the general effectiveness of the South African insolvency system in its entirety.

This thesis examines the promises and challenges of internal dispute resolution (IDR) in the corporate workplace of Canada and the United States. The focus of inquiry is twofold: a theoretical and socio-historical study of the corporation followed by a practical analysis of dispute resolution of human or civil rights. The examination of the role of the corporation begins with a review of the statutory and jurisprudential underpinnings of the "corporate person," which have legitimized the corporation and its powerful place in society. Such power, sanctified by the law, impacts not only society at large but also employees of the corporation. Internalization of legal systems into the corporate workplace has shifted some dispute resolution responsibilities from the public to the private domain, relegating further power to the corporation. This public to private shift has deputized the corporation as an enforcer of its employees' civil rights. Two predominant theories of the corporation - the Contractarian and Communitarian - provide understanding about power relationships among the corporation and its constituents. U.S. and Canadian courts and legislatures have demonstrated a preference for the Contractarian theory, which holds that the corporation is a nexus of contracts, and that firm managers should prioritize its contract with its shareholders, governing the corporation so as to maximize shareholder wealth. A careful examination of corporate theory and governance illustrates the corporation's conflict of interest in holding shareholder interests primary while resolving employment disputes. The power differential between the corporation, as agents of its shareholder principals, and employees presents the greatest challenge in equitably resolving employment disputes. The practical aspects of internal dispute resolution in the corporate workplace focus on the potential benefits and risks to employees. In-house mediation, with certain procedural safeguards, has potential for benefits that outweigh risks to individual employees. Building on principles and structures of formal procedural fairness found in courts of law and administrative tribunals, five essential features can best guarantee fairness in IDR: voluntary participation, retention of employees' right to judicial review, prohibition against reprisal for raising the dispute, use of an external mediator, and oversight of the corporation's IDR program by a neutral, external body. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

LL.M. (Human Rights Law) / The idea of “development” being a legitimate universal human entitlement is not a new phenomenon. The emergence of this concept can be traced back to a number of universal norms which emerged from the United Nations (UN) legal framework since its creation in 1945.These norms include principles such as: greater democracy and representation in international relations; the economic complementarities of independent States; individuals as beneficiaries of social, economic and political development; respect for human rights; and the interrelationship between human rights and development.1 These principles provided the background against which the first UN working group on the Right to Development started elaborating a legal framework aiming at providing a binding solution to the conflict between industrialized States and developing States concerning the distribution of the world’s resources in 1970. At that time, the atmosphere at the UN Commission on Human Rights was highly charged with ideological positioning. Socialist countries pressed for peace and disarmament; developing States for development and an end to apartheid; Western industrialized States for establishing damage control machinery to scrutinize violations of civil and political rights.2 In 1977, the Commission on Human Rights submitted to the U.N Secretary General its first proposal which considered the suggestion of the UN Working group on the Right to Development. The proposal suggested that the “universal entitlement to development” was a prerogative of States on behalf of their populations.3 This proposal was rejected in 1979 by the conservative North American, European members of the U.N, and other committee members.

No description available.