• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 2
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

The meaning of 'Organ of State` in South African law

Mdumbe, Moses Fanyana 30 June 2003 (has links)
`Organ of state' as a constitutional concept was first introduced by the 1993 Constitution, in which it was defined as including any statutory body or functionary. In their interpretation of this notion, the courts and academic writers invoked the tests developed at common law in order to determine its meaning. The commentators, on the one hand, used a variety of tests. The courts, on the other hand, subscribed to what has come to be known as the `control test'. The 1996 Constitution followed with a comprehensive definition of `organ of state'. This notion is also employed in other laws by direct reference or incorporation of the definition in section 239 with slight adjustments. Regrettably, the limited approach developed by the court in their interpretation of the notion of `organ of state' for the purposes of the 1993 Constitution has spilled over to the interpretation of the concept under the 1996 Constitution. The question is whether this is justifiable. The constitutional definition of `organ of state' makes it clear that other institutions and functionaries are organs of state on the basis of what they are and others by virtue of the functions they are engaged in. Therefore strict adherence to the control test or any other test could unjustifiably limit the application of the Constitution. / Jurisprudence / LL.M.
2

The meaning of 'Organ of State` in South African law

Mdumbe, Moses Fanyana 30 June 2003 (has links)
`Organ of state' as a constitutional concept was first introduced by the 1993 Constitution, in which it was defined as including any statutory body or functionary. In their interpretation of this notion, the courts and academic writers invoked the tests developed at common law in order to determine its meaning. The commentators, on the one hand, used a variety of tests. The courts, on the other hand, subscribed to what has come to be known as the `control test'. The 1996 Constitution followed with a comprehensive definition of `organ of state'. This notion is also employed in other laws by direct reference or incorporation of the definition in section 239 with slight adjustments. Regrettably, the limited approach developed by the court in their interpretation of the notion of `organ of state' for the purposes of the 1993 Constitution has spilled over to the interpretation of the concept under the 1996 Constitution. The question is whether this is justifiable. The constitutional definition of `organ of state' makes it clear that other institutions and functionaries are organs of state on the basis of what they are and others by virtue of the functions they are engaged in. Therefore strict adherence to the control test or any other test could unjustifiably limit the application of the Constitution. / Jurisprudence / LL.M.
3

Technik und Bildung in der verwissenschaftlichten Lebenswelt

Lumila, Minna 02 June 2023 (has links)
Die Studie versucht, Husserls Modell einer nicht-wissenschaftlichen Lebenswelt für pädagogische Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Technik und Bildung in der verwissenschaftlichen Welt zu öffnen. Sie diskutiert Entwicklungsprobleme der Spätmoderne unter pluralen Fragestellungen und führt Ansätze und Traditionen zusammen, die unterschiedliche Wege zur Weiterentwicklung der modernen Bildungstheorie beschritten haben. Im Zentrum steht die Frage, wie moderne Technik einerseits als lebensweltliche Entfremdung des Menschen problematisiert und andererseits als Produkt menschlicher Freiheit und Weltgestaltung gewürdigt werden kann. In vier Kapiteln werden die methodischen Ansätze und Antworten vorgestellt, die der Philosoph und Pädagoge Eugen Fink (1905–1975), der Philosoph Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), der Philosoph und Erziehungswissenschaftler Theodor Litt (1880–1962) und der Soziologe Helmut Schelsky (1912–1984) auf die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Bildung und Technik gegeben haben. Im Durchgang durch ihre Positionen wird ein Konzert erarbeitet, dessen Originalität darin liegt, Abstimmungsprobleme von Bildung, Technik und Lebenswelt aus postdualistischer, praxistheoretischer sowie posthumanistischer Perspektive zu thematisieren. / The study attempts to open Husserl's model of a non-scientific lifeworld for pedagogical investigations of the relationship between technology and “Bildung” in the scientific world. It discusses developmental problems of late modernity under plural questions and brings together approaches and traditions that have taken different paths to the further development of modern “Bildungs”-theory. The central question is how modern technology can be problematized on the one hand as the alienation of human beings from the world of life and on the other hand be appreciated as a product of human freedom and the shaping of the world. Four chapters present the methodological approaches and answers that philosopher and educator Eugen Fink (1905–1975), philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), philosopher and educationalist Theodor Litt (1880–1962), and sociologist Helmut Schelsky (1912–1984) have given to the question of the relationship between education and technology. In the course of their positions, a concert will be developed whose originality lies in addressing the coordination problems of “Bildung” (education), “Technik” (technology) and “Lebenswelt” (lifeworld) from a post-dualist, praxis-theoretical as well as post-humanist perspective.

Page generated in 0.0541 seconds