A profound dichotomy lies at the heart of this master’s thesis. It is a clash between a heuristic and fertile field of possibilities and a limited, even chained, concrete experience. Rooted in the works of Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Karl Mannheim (1893-1947), and Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005), this dissertation examines the influences of Ideology on the discursive and politico-philosophical realms surrounding the English constitution over the past one hundred and fifty years. Departing from a strictly pejorative conception of Ideology, it is an opportunity to witness various conceptions of the constitution overlapping and colliding while defining a discourse universe. By first recognizing the fertile material provided by the unwritten and customary nature of the English constitution, we chronologically approach the major currents of constitutional thought to highlight a fundamental antinomy between normative conservative approaches and their functionalist critique. Where the field could have flourished, we acknowledge an arc that, closing in on itself, limits the possibility of new discourses. Our research initially addresses the undeniable contribution of Albert Venn Dicey to the study of English constitutionalism. In response to this redefinition of the field of study, we delve into the functionalist approach, referring to William Robson, Ivor Jennings, and J.A.G. Griffith. Building upon this opposition, we examine the more modern responses of T.R.S Allan and Martin Loughlin while acknowledging the exhaustion of discourses. Thus, this master’s thesis is driven by a dual purpose. On one hand, we define various ideological approaches to the constitution historically and comparatively. On the other hand, we observe how these ideological discourses limit themselves and greatly restrict the discursive universe of constitutionalism. / Une dichotomie profonde est au cœur de ce mémoire. Un choc entre un champ des possibles heuristique et fécond et une expérience concrète limitée, voire enchaînée. Prenant racines dans les travaux d’Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Karl Mannheim (1893-1947) et Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005), ce mémoire s’intéresse aux influences de l’Idéologie sur les champs discursifs et politico-philosophiques entourant la constitution anglaise au courant des cent-cinquante dernières années. S’éloignant d’une conception strictement péjorative de l’Idéologie, c’est l’occasion de voir se chevaucher et s’entrechoquer diverses conceptions de la constitution tout en définissant un univers de discours. En reconnaissant d’abord un matériau fertile étant donné l’aspect non-écrit et coutumier de la constitution anglaise, nous abordons de manière chronologique les grands courants de pensée du constitutionnalisme pour faire ressortir une antinomie fondamentale entre l’approche conservatrice normative et sa critique fonctionnaliste. Là où le champ aurait pu proliférer, nous reconnaissons un arc qui, se refermant sur lui-même, limite la possibilité de nouveaux discours. Notre recherche aborde dans un premier temps, l’apport indéniable d’Albert Venn Dicey à l’étude du constitutionnalisme anglais. En réponse à cette redéfinition du champ d’étude, nous abordons l’approche fonctionnaliste se référant à William Robson, Ivor Jennings et J.A.G. Griffith. Sur la base de cette opposition, nous étudions les réponses plus modernes de T.R.S Allan et Martin Loughlin tout en reconnaissant l’épuisement des discours. Ce mémoire est donc animé par un double objet. D’une part, nous définissons diverses approches idéologiques de la constitution de manière historique et comparative. De l’autre, nous observons comment ces discours idéologiques se limitent en eux-mêmes et restreignent grandement l’univers discursifs du constitutionnalisme.

This diploma work deal with proposition of insurance portfolio for chosen bussines subjekt. In contains risk analysis and insurance portfolio proposition for pourposes of niminizing significant risk of the company by means of commercial insurance companies, so the risk jeopardizes the business activities of the company.

The thesis in question is titled “Readjusting Orthodoxy”. It constitutes a discourse in UK constitutional law although legal theoretic, historical, politicial, philosophical, and EU-related complementary themes are also present. It is founded upon, and driven by, two fundamental, inter-related premises. First, that it is the orthodox reading of the UK Constitution which best describes and explains the present constitutional arrangement: the UK Parliament is a sovereign institution sitting at the apex of the UK Constitution and vested with the right to make and unmake any law whatsoever. In the second place, that, notwithstanding the above, this very reading of the UK Constitution is currently deficient in terms of internal cohesion, is plagued by ingrained anachronistic dogmas and enjoys only a limited adaptability. From these premises emerges a third proposition; namely, that the UK constitutional discourse as a whole would stand to lose greatly should alternative constitutional theories that are less suited to describe and explain the current constitutional arrangement replace the orthodox reading of the Constitution by exploiting these conspicuous drawbacks. Thus, the present treatise argues that the orthodox reading should after critical evaluation be readjusted in the various ways to be proposed so as to be rendered coherent, consistent, impervious to the numerous challenges it currently faces and, ultimately, capable of continuing to offer the canonical account of the ever-changing UK Constitution.

This dissertation analyses the idea that parliament controls public money in parliamentary constitutional systems of government. That analysis proceeds through an historical and contemporary examination of the way legal practices distribute authority over public money between different institutions of government. The legislative and judicial practices concerning taxation, public expenditure, sovereign borrowing, and the government financing activities of central banks are selected for close attention. The contemporary analysis focuses on the design and operation of those legal practices in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia, in the context of the boom-bust-recovery economic conditions experienced between 2005 and 2016. The dissertation's ultimate claims are explanatory: that "parliamentary control" is a poor explanation of the distribution of financial authority in parliamentary systems of government and should be jettisoned in favour of an idea of "parliamentary ratification". An empirically engaged methodology is adopted throughout the dissertation and (historical and contemporary) public sector financial data enrich the legal analysis. The dissertation acknowledges the impact of, but remains agnostic between, different economic and political perspectives on fiscal discipline and public financial administration. The dissertation makes a number of original contributions. It provides a detailed examination of the historical development, legal operation and constitutional significance of annual appropriation legislation, and the legal regimes governing sovereign borrowing and monetary finance. It also analyses the way that law interacts with government behaviour in situations of economic emergencies (focusing on the Bank of England's public financing activities since 2008), and the institutional and doctrinal obstacles facing judicial involvement in disputes concerning public finance (focusing on the Australian judiciary's recent engagements with public expenditure legislation).