Syfte:  Syftet med studien är att belysa och analysera hur revisorn arbetar för att eliminera risken för att göra väsentliga fel i årsredovisningen. Studien ska även beskriva och skapa förståelse för Revisorsnämndens och små revisionsbyråers arbete och ställningstagande till kvalitetssäkring. Metod: Utifrån ett hermeneutiskt synsätt och med en kvalitativ metod utfördes personliga intervjuer med tre små revisionsbyråer och Revisorsnämnden. Vid val av informanter tillämpades ett strategiskt urval. I studien har en abduktiv ansats använts.  Slutsatser: Åtaganden för att god kvalitet ska uppnås i revisionen är revisionsprocessen, rotation på revisionsuppdrag vart sjunde år, tillämpning av analysmodell och etiska normer, FAR SRS:s kvalitetskontroller, internt kontrollsystem och kvalitetssäkring från RN. / Revisionskvalitet, kvalitetssäkring, etik, moral, trovärdighet, självständighet, oberoende, objektivitet, opartiskhet

En av de mest framstående fördelarna med skiljeförfarande som tvistlösningsmetod är att parterna har möjlighet att utse skiljemän som de känner förtroende för och som har sär- skild kompetens för tvistens avgörande. Enligt 8 § lagen (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande (LSF) ska en skiljeman vara opartisk, och om det finns omständigheter som rubbar förtro- endet för skiljemannens opartiskhet ska denne skiljas från sitt uppdrag. Om en skiljeman är partisk kan även skiljedomen klandras och upphävas. Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda skiljemäns (o)partiskhet enligt 8 § LSF samt att försöka fastställa gällande rätt för partiskhet i relationen mellan skiljeman och partsombud. Relationen mellan skiljeman och partsombud är inte reglerad i LSF men i rättspraxis finns vägledning för vilka omständigheter som kan vara av förtroenderubbande karaktär. HD har fastslagit att en hög standard ska gälla för den aktuella relationen. Enligt domstolen är det förtroenderubbande om en advokatbyrå där skiljemannen är anställd har en affärsmässigt betydelsefull relation med en part eller närstående till part i skiljeförfarandet. Vidare har HD anfört att det även kan vara förtroenderubbande för skiljemannens opartiskhet om en advokatbyrå medverkat till att en viss skiljeman ofta får skiljeuppdrag. Svea hovrätt har konstaterat att det även är förtroenderubbande om en delägare i en advokatbyrå tjänstgör som skiljeman i ett skiljeförfarande där ena parten är motpart i en annan tvist till ett annat företag som har skiljemannens advokatbyrå som ombud. Vidare har advokatetiska regler en preventiv funktion för att motverka partiska skiljemän. En advokat som handlar i strid med sådana regler är dock inte automatiskt att anse som partisk enligt 8 § LSF. / One of the most prominent advantages of arbitration as a form of dispute resolution is that the parties may appoint arbitrators who they have confidence in and that have particular expertise in the question of the dispute. According to 8 § of the Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA), an arbitrator must be impartial and an arbitrator shall be discharged if there exists any circumstance which may diminish confidence in the arbitrator's impartiality. The arbi- tration award may also be challenged and set aside, if the arbitrator is biased. This thesis aims to examine the arbitrators’ (im)partiality according to 8 § SAA, and to de- termine when the relationship between an arbitrator and a legal counsel is considered to undermine the confidence in the arbitrator's impartiality. The relationship between an arbitrator and a counsel is not regulated by SAA but circum- stances that diminish the confidence of the arbitrator’s impartiality have been subject to ju- dicial review. The Supreme Court has set high standards for the relationship in question. For example, it is according to the Court confidence diminishing if the arbitrator’s law firm currently has a significant commercial relationship with one of the parties in the arbitration as well as when a law firm contributes to that a particular arbitrator often receives assign- ments as an arbitrator. In addition, attorneys’ codes of conduct have a proactive function to prevent biased arbi- trators. However, a lawyer who violates such rules is not automatically seen as biased ac- cording to 8 § SAA.

Criminal protection of an unbiased and impartial court Abstract This thesis deals with the criminal protection of an unbiased and impartial court. Although the thesis deals mainly with issues in criminal law, I consider it necessary to address the independence and impartiality of the court under constitutional law. I also focus, at least briefly, on guarantees of independence and impartiality in our legal order, and how this intersects with selection of new judges, the financial security of judges, non-depositability and non-translatability of the judge, and so forth. A judge may have two roles in criminal law: a perpetrator and a subject the attack. The first role is the judge who commits the crime in connection with the performance of their office. I analyse the offences of Accepting Bribes, Abuse of Competence of Public Official and Negligent Obstruction of Duty of Public Official. On the other hand, the legislator tries to punish crimes affecting the independence and impartiality of the judiciary when the attack is directed at the judge. There are several crimes, where the judge is the subject of the attack, whether it is Bribery, Indirect Corruption, or Interfering with Independence of Courts, Violence against Public Official etc. However, protection of the judiciary can also be found in other...

A imprescindibilidade da atuação do magistrado na fase preliminar da persecução penal como garantidor dos direitos fundamentais do investigado é inegável. A consecução desse mister acarreta, porém, o comprometimento da imparcialidade objetiva do juiz para o julgamento do mérito. A atribuição das funções de atuar na fase de investigação preliminar e durante o processo a julgadores distintos foi o caminho que muitos ordenamentos trilharam para lidar com essa problemática. A mesma solução foi adotada pelo Projeto de Código de Processo Penal brasileiro PLS nº 156/2009, ao prever a figura do juiz das garantias, responsável pelo controle da legalidade da investigação criminal e pela salvaguarda dos direitos individuais. Essa figura, consentânea ao principio acusatório consagrado pela Constituição Federal de 1988, assegura a imparcialidade de forma muito mais efetiva, preservando o distanciamento do julgador dos elementos colhidos durante a investigação criminal. / The indispensability of the judges involvement in the preliminary stage of criminal prosecution as a guarantor of the inquired person fundamentals rights is undeniable. However, this intervention compromises the impartiality of the judge on the judgment of the merits. The allocation of duties to act to different judges in the preliminary investigation phase and during the case was the way that many law systems have fallowed to handle this problem. The same solution was adopted by the Bill of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure PLS nº 156/2009. The Bill provides the figure of the guarantee judge, which controls the legality of the criminal investigation and ensures the protection of individual rights. The guarantee judde, in accordance to the accusatory principle settleed in the Federal Constitution, assures a more effective impartiality preserving the distance of the judge from elements collected during criminal investigation.

A imprescindibilidade da atuação do magistrado na fase preliminar da persecução penal como garantidor dos direitos fundamentais do investigado é inegável. A consecução desse mister acarreta, porém, o comprometimento da imparcialidade objetiva do juiz para o julgamento do mérito. A atribuição das funções de atuar na fase de investigação preliminar e durante o processo a julgadores distintos foi o caminho que muitos ordenamentos trilharam para lidar com essa problemática. A mesma solução foi adotada pelo Projeto de Código de Processo Penal brasileiro PLS nº 156/2009, ao prever a figura do juiz das garantias, responsável pelo controle da legalidade da investigação criminal e pela salvaguarda dos direitos individuais. Essa figura, consentânea ao principio acusatório consagrado pela Constituição Federal de 1988, assegura a imparcialidade de forma muito mais efetiva, preservando o distanciamento do julgador dos elementos colhidos durante a investigação criminal. / The indispensability of the judges involvement in the preliminary stage of criminal prosecution as a guarantor of the inquired person fundamentals rights is undeniable. However, this intervention compromises the impartiality of the judge on the judgment of the merits. The allocation of duties to act to different judges in the preliminary investigation phase and during the case was the way that many law systems have fallowed to handle this problem. The same solution was adopted by the Bill of the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure PLS nº 156/2009. The Bill provides the figure of the guarantee judge, which controls the legality of the criminal investigation and ensures the protection of individual rights. The guarantee judde, in accordance to the accusatory principle settleed in the Federal Constitution, assures a more effective impartiality preserving the distance of the judge from elements collected during criminal investigation.

Impartiality has long been a core norm of United Nations peacekeeping. However, since 2000 the dominant conception of impartiality has changed, leading to more coercive forms of peacekeeping. Claims to impartial authority are no longer based exclusively on terms to which all parties consent. Instead, they are premised on a more ambitious and expansive set of norms related to human rights, around which consensus is presumed but not always affirmed. This dissertation critically examines the change in both the conception and practice of impartiality, which, it argues, is an integral part of the emergence of a more assertive liberal internationalism. In doing so, it challenges dominant constructivist approaches within IR that conceive of norms as linear and static. It advances a framework for a multi-level analysis of impartiality as a “composite” and “contested” norm. Through this framework it elucidates the macro-level politics surrounding the norm’s institutionalisation at the UN, as well as the micro-level politics surrounding its implementation in the specific case of the UN mission in Congo (MONUC). The analysis of the processes of both institutionalisation and implementation reveals an absence of consensus over the norm itself, and over the purposes of and actions involved in contemporary peacekeeping. This contestation, together with varying expectations and incentives created by the norm amongst local actors, frequently results in unintended consequences, which are contrary to the norm’s original intent. And yet, despite these consequences, the very nature of assertive impartiality makes it difficult for those who claim such authority to change course. Given that the legitimacy of peacekeeping derives both from whether it is seen to reflect and promote shared values, as from the degree to which it is actually effective, this difficulty raises troubling questions for peacekeeping itself and for the UN, the institution to which it has become so symbolically linked. This dissertation argues that, ultimately, the UN’s role may be to reflect, rather than to resolve, the differences of normative interpretation among its member states. It concludes that a more practical and prudent conception of impartiality – one which recognises that impartiality is necessarily and inextricably political – will be necessary if scholars and practitioners alike are to navigate the normative tensions inherent to a more assertive liberal international order.

Nées dans l'incertitude, les autorités administratives indépendantes semblent aujourd'hui durablement implantées dans le paysage institutionnel français. Le succès remporté par la catégorie juridique ne saurait, toutefois, éluder les questions que posent ces instances vis-à-vis des principes fondateurs de la démocratie moderne. Au regard des schémas ordinaires de la théorie de la représentation, les autorités administratives indépendantes constituent, en effet, une déviation du système démocratique. Pourtant, une conception renouvelée de la théorie politique permet d'établir ces organismes comme de potentielles entités démocratiques. En dehors des rouages traditionnels de l'Etat, la formule institutionnelle révèle la possibilité d'une démocratie enrichie et ressourcée. Reste que, sous peine de ruiner l'originalité de l'objet juridique, les pouvoirs publics et les corps constitués doivent prendre la mesure du phénomène par un ajustement du contrôle juridictionnel et un aménagement du contrôle politique. / Despite uncertain beginnings, independent administrative authorities now appear implanted once and for all in the French institutional landscape. However, the success of this legal category must be confronted with the founding principles of modern democracy. By comparison with the dominating theory of representation, independent administrative authorities constitute, in fact, a deviation from the democratic system. Yet a renewed conception of political theory enables these organisations to be considered as genuine democratic entities. Beyond traditional state structures, their institutional configuration reveals the possibility of an enriched and revitalised democracy. Nevertheless, both government and state bodies must take stock of the impact of this phenomenon by adjusting both judicial and political controls; otherwise, the originality of this legal subject could be ruined.

This diploma thesis concentrates on the issue of the legal position of arbitrator in international commercial arbitration proceedings. In chapter one of the first part the author concentrates on the origins and history of arbitration proceedings and international arbitration proceedings in Greek and Roman Antiquity, in the Middle Ages, in the modern age until now. Within the historical development the thesis also describes individual international agreements which govern international commercial arbitration as such. In this chapter the author also asks fundamental questions concerning the principles of the functioning of arbitration proceedings. In its second chapter the thesis first concentrates on defining ADR and arbitration proceedings with an emphasis given on the finding of nodal points between ADR and arbitration proceedings. The author tends to the opinion that the arbitration proceedings are part of ADR. In the following part of this chapter the thesis concentrates on an analysis of the international element in contractual obligations and the elementary difference between the international arbitration proceedings and the in-country arbitration proceedings. In the first chapter of the second part the author proceeds to the analysis of fundamental requirements for the person of arbitrator....

A Justiça como Imparcialidade de Brian Barry propõe uma teoria de justiça imparcial como única solução legítima para uma sociedade encontrar princípios com os quais todos possam consentir. Essa concepção de justiça não pode impor aos indivíduos um comportamento de primeira-ordem. Ao contrário, deve se referir unicamente às instituições e estas devem acomodar as diversas concepções de Bem da sociedade. Se a sociedade for capaz de encontrar tais princípios, então será possível a vida em sociedade com tolerância mútua. Esta dissertação explora as razões de Barry para escolha dessa abordagem e aponta possíveis desafios não resolvidos por sua teoria. / Brian Barrys Justice as Impartiality conceives a theory of impartial justice as the only legitimated solution to a society who wants to find principles according to those everybody might consent. This theory should not impose a first-order behavior to individuals. Moreover, such concept of justice must be impartial in regard to individuals conceptions of good. This dissertation explores the reasons that led Barry to choose this approach, and suggests possible challenges unsolved by his theory.

Submitted by Maicon Juliano Schmidt (maicons) on 2015-06-17T12:23:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcelle Coelho do Rosario.pdf: 838471 bytes, checksum: bdb8dc1b2154965b3d843277f9c3bf6b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-06-17T12:23:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcelle Coelho do Rosario.pdf: 838471 bytes, checksum: bdb8dc1b2154965b3d843277f9c3bf6b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-24 / Milton Valente / A Empatia Judicial integra hoje o conjunto dos temas mais debatidos na atualidade. O presidente americano Barack Obama foi contribuinte expoente para que a discussão galgasse o píncaro. Suas declarações manifestando o desejo de que o judiciário americano pudesse ser composto por juízes empáticos, causaram efervescência nos meios político, jurídico e social. A participação da empatia no processo de tomada de decisão judicial tem sido discutida qualquer que seja a vertente escolhida. Estudos científicos, e não científicos, concorrem com inúmeras conceituações de empatia, bem como, com entendimentos múltiplos sobre seu emprego no processo judicial ser, ou não, desejável e moral. Até a presente data, não há consenso sobre o tema. Mas sobre qual conceito de empatia recaem essas discussões? Empatia é ou não uma emoção? Uma vez definido tal conceito, seria ele aplicável a todas as demandas judiciais? Estaria, assim, o uso da empatia judicial, necessariamente comprometendo o dever legal e moral de imparcialidade dos magistrados? A empatia judicial imprime um enviesamento nas decisões? Decisões judicias devem ser justificadas somente pelas leis? Para os que respondem afirmativamente a questão anterior, como tratar os chamados casos difíceis (hard cases), que emergem da sociedade contemporânea e que ainda não se encontram contemplados na legislação? Desta forma, a presente pesquisa tem por objetivo responder esses questionamentos. A hipótese pesquisada é da empatia como ferramenta essencial ao processo de tomada de decisão judicial, empatia judicial. O presente trabalho defenderá a empatia como desejável ao processo de tomada de decisão judicial, porém não pertencente ao grupo das emoções (embora as emoções sejam elementos do processo), mas como uma habilidade cognitiva, e a imparcialidade do magistrado como o resultado objetivo da empatia judicial. Foram utilizados como textos-base as obras Against Empathy e Is Empathy necessary for morality?, de Jesse Prinz, que oferece uma extensa argumentação contra a empatia judicial; In defense of judicial empathy, de Thomas M. Colby que executa brilhante defesa, e Paradoxos e ambiguidades da imparcialidade judicial: entre “quereres” e “poderes”, de Bárbara G. L. Baptista, resultado de notável pesquisa sobre os dilemas da imparcialidade judicial no Brasil. / The Judicial Empathy includes today the set of most debated topics recently. American President Barack Obama was an exponent contributor so this discussion could reach its pinnacle. His statements expressing the wish that the American judiciary would be composed of empathetic judges, caused unrest in the political, legal and social environments. The participation of empathy in the judicial decision-making process has been discussed whatever the chosen strand. Scientific and non-scientific studies compete with countless empathy conceptualizations, as well as multiple understandings about its usage in the judicial process to be, or not, desirable and moral. So far, there is no consensus on the subject. But what empathy concept those discussions are being referred to? Is empathy an emotion or not? Once defined this concept, would it be applicable to all judicial needs? Thus, the use of judicial empathy necessarily compromising the legal and moral duties of impartiality of the judiciary? The judicial empathy applies a bias to the decisions? Judicial decisions must be justified only by laws? To those who answer yes to the previous question, how to treat the so-called hard cases, that emerge from the contemporary society and that are not yet contemplated in the legislation? Thus, this research aims to answer the above mentioned formulations. The researched hypothesis is empathy as an essential tool to the judicial decision-making process, judicial empathy. This work will defend the empathy as desirable to the judicial decision-making process, however not belonging to the group of emotions (though the emotions are elements of this process), but as a cognitive skill, and the impartiality of magistrate as the result of judicial empathy. Were used as background paper the works Against Empathy and Is Empathy necessary for morality? by Jesse Prinz, who offers an extensive argument against judicial empathy; In defense of judicial empathy, by Thomas M. Colby which executes a brilliant defense, and Paradoxos e ambiguidades da imparcialidade da judicial: entre "quereres" e "poderes", by Bárbara G. L. Baptista, the national impartiality bible.