Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2009. / Title from title screen (site viewed January 5, 2010). PDF text: vi, 65 p. : ill. ; 645 K. UMI publication number: AAT 3359857. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in microfilm and microfiche formats.

Inaug.-diss.--Munich. / Lebenslauf. "Literatur": p. 121-123.

Inaug.-diss.--Greifswald. / Lebenslauf. At head of title: Romanische philologie. "Literatur": p. 3-5.

Thesis (doctoral)--University of Liverpool, 1988. / BLDSC reference no.: DX89326.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis investigates the sustainability of constitutional review practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) within a broader political and legal system of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in post-1997 era. Theoretical questions regarding the compatibility and workability of this type of review have been raised, particularly with respect to the constitutional interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law. Setting the scene against the background of thirteen years of implementation of the Hong Kong Basic Law, this thesis examines the challenge presented both to the HKSAR and the Chinese authorities working within the frame of ‘one country, two systems’. It examines practical and theoretical aspects of the interpretation of the Basic Law and of the nature of this unique constitutional relationship between the HKSAR and the PRC. This thesis explores the constitutional relations between the PRC and the HKSAR through the lens of constitutional jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Basic Law, whose interpretation has triggered huge debate in both Hong Kong and mainland China. This thesis finds that the cause for the disparity over the interpretation issue has its origins in the understanding of the fundamental concepts of sovereignty and constitution. The thesis concludes that the Hong Kong Basic Law provides the frame for a new type of constitutional relationship between the PRC and the HKSAR. The Basic Law does not solve the constitutional questions raised but rather serves as a basic framework through which the Central Authorities of the PRC and the HKSAR are enabled to evolve in an on-going process of constitutional norm-formation. My research also aims to contribute to the study on the special constitutional arrangements under the circumstances of Chinese political theory and legal system, and to offer reflections on the road towards constitutionalism in China.

This thesis endeavours to answer the following question: is there a viable and workable model for regulating workplace grievances and disciplinary action (EDG), the end objective of which is enhanced business competitiveness by encouraging partnerships at work, or greater levels of organisational commitment behaviour? This thesis argues that the answer to that question may be yes, if the regulation applied can encourage employers to deal with EDG in a way that employees are likely to perceive as fair. This is a challenging objective for law makers. Current regulation of EDG does not and probably cannot achieve the high levels of fairness perception that the partnership model requires. This thesis argues that, in order to rectify this problem, there must be a shift away from formulating employment regulation with a blinkered eye on worker protection, and towards a more sophisticated model which views worker protection against unfair treatment as beneficial in-so-far as it promotes fairness perceptions, and the resulting benefits of a productive and innovative workforce. This recalibration of the regulatory compass calls for a legal framework which allows the parties to formulate a reflexive and self-regulating approach to EDG; a framework according to which the parties will work to prevent and resolve disputes in a manner which accounts for their particular working environment, and the unique circumstances of each dispute or grievance. The new regulatory model that is proposed in this thesis will provide employers with the opportunity to be immune from the tribunals‘ jurisdiction relating to EDG. Immunity will apply where the employer can demonstrate that they have in place and follow certain methods and practices for managing EDG which are likely to lead to fairness at work, and therefore a higher degree of fairness perceptions.

This thesis explores and explains the development of the Creative Commons (CC) as an alternative to mainstream copyright protection. it argues that the distinctive characteristics of CC as a license based, configurable form of meta-regulation can be explained by consideration of the disciplinary background of the movement's founder (Lawrence Lessig) and as a consequence of the particular mode of development it undertook (e-mail discussions as commonly used in the arena of software development rather than traditional legal discussion) as well as the influence of a variety of pre-exisiting regulatory forms. The second part of the research reviews the inputs from multiple existing regulatory structures such as the Free Software Foundation and the Open Content movement, and de-constructs the process by which the CC is developed in practice. The thesis analyzes the trajectory of CC from a licensing project to a political project, the structural elements of the CC licences and the decision making process of their creation and development. This analysis helps to explain the apparent inconsistencies that have been expressed about the CC project and shows how Lessig's perspectives on regulation and meaning construction contribute to the empowerment of the creator and the attempt to provide regulatory tools instead of regulatory solutions. The thesis argues that imbalances in the existing Copyright system are symptoms of deeper structural problems of distantiation of the regulated subject from the process of regulation construction. CC therefore becomes an effort to increase access to the regulatory process and as a result ignites the creation of the Commons. instead of the regulation to be enforcing its normative content on the creative practice over the Internet, the CC approach allows the reverse to happen. The intellectual or creative commons are thus achieved as a secondary result of the ability to access the regulatory commons.

The emergence of free and open source software (FOSS) has posed many challenges to the mainstream proprietary software production model. This dissertation endeavours to address these challenges through tackling the following legal problem: how does FOSS licensing articulate a legal language of software freedom in support of large-scale collaboration among FOSS programmers who have to face a rather hostile legal environment underlined by a dominant ideology of possessive individualism? I approach this problem from three aspects. The first aspect examines the unique historical context from which FOSS licensing has emerged. It focuses on the most prominent “copyleft” licence—GNU General Public Licence—which has been shaped by the tension between the MIT-style hacker custom and intellectual property law since the 1980s. The second aspect tackles the legal mechanism of FOSS licences, which seems not dissimilar from other non-negotiated standard-form contracts. My analysis shows that FOSS licences do not fit well with the neoclassical contract model that has dominated software licensing jurisprudence so far. I therefore call for replacing the neoclassical approach with Ian Macneil’s Relational Contract Theory, which has remained conspicuously absent in the software licensing literature. The third aspect explores FOSS programmers’ authorship as manifested in FOSS licensing. It argues that the success of a FOSS project does not merely depend on the virtuosity of individual programmers in isolation. More importantly, a core team of lead programmers’ efforts are essential to channel individual authors’ virtuosity into a coherent work of collective authorship, which can deserve credit for the project as a whole. The study of these three aspects together aims to create a synergy to show that it is possible to graft a few collaborative elements onto the existing legal system—underpinned by a neoliberal ideology assuming that human beings are selfish utility-maximising agents—through carefully crafted licensing schemes.