From 1840 to the present, the Treaty of Waitangi has been a subject of some significance in New Zealand – a distinctive but subtle thread running through the fabric of the country’s history and shaping attitudes to race relations. A conviction strongly held by New Zealanders is that the treaty has made the country different from other nations, that it initiated an experiment in race relationships that has secured reasonable accord over the years. Only as the climate of public opinion has shifted slightly in the last twenty years and as Maori protest about failure to obtain treaty rights has become more strident have these convictions been challenged.

Univ., Diss.--Greifswald, 2005.

From 1840 to the present, the Treaty of Waitangi has been a subject of some significance in New Zealand – a distinctive but subtle thread running through the fabric of the country’s history and shaping attitudes to race relations. A conviction strongly held by New Zealanders is that the treaty has made the country different from other nations, that it initiated an experiment in race relationships that has secured reasonable accord over the years. Only as the climate of public opinion has shifted slightly in the last twenty years and as Maori protest about failure to obtain treaty rights has become more strident have these convictions been challenged.

Text in Afrikaans / Hierdie verhandeling is 'n poging om 'n teoretiese-prinsipiele uiteensetting te gee omtrent voorvonnisevaluering vanuit 'n penologiese gesigspunt. Met voorvonnisevalueringsverslae word daar gepoog om op 'n sinlike manier beide positiewe en negatiewe elemente van die individuele oortreder se persoonlike- en maatskaplike agtergrond en huidige situasie aan die lig te bring naamlik kenmerke van sy gedragspatrone sowel van sy sterk en swak eienskappe. Die hoofdoel van voorvonnisevalueringsverslae en voorvonnisondersoeke is om regters, landdroste en howe behulpsaam te wees met die bepaling van 'n gepaste en ge"individualiseerde straf. Sonder basiese en deeglike kennis van die oortreder as persoon sal enige verhoorhof in die duister 'n vonnis ople en die kanse vir 'n gepaste straf sal skraal wees. Benewens die wesenlike groei en belangstelling in voorvonnisevelueringsverslae wat deur proefbeamptes of korrektiewe beamptes voorberei word pleit verskeie skrywers vir die gebruikmaking van hierdie evalueringsverslae in die strafregsplegingstelsel veral wat betref jeugdiges, eerste oortreders en ernstige oortreders. / The dissertation will attempt a theoretic fundamental exposition of the role of the presentence evaluation as seen from a penological perspective. With presentence evaluation they attempt to take into consideration the positive as well as the negative elements which are present in the individual's personal and social background for example their day-to-day behaviour. The main purpose of the presentence evaluation report and presentence investigation is to aid the judges, prosecutors and the court in determining a suitable and individualized punishment. Without basic and complete knowledge of the offender as a person the court will not be able to deliver fair judgements and the changes that a suitable punishment will be given is limited. Due to a positive interest in this presentence evaluation report several writers insist of making use of this evaluation report in the criminal law justice system especially where youth, first time offenders and major offenders are concerned. / Penology / M.A. (Penologie)

La fin de la guerre froide amorça une nouvelle ère de privatisation, de libéralisation et de dérégulation sans précédent. L’internet et les nombreuses autres avancées technologiques ont rapproché les citoyens du monde à un degré impressionnant. Le monde au XXIème siècle semble être plus interdépendant que jamais. De nombreuses problématiques contemporaines dépassent largement les contrôles et les frontières étatiques, des problématiques reliées par exemple aux investissements étrangers directs, aux droits de l’homme, à l’environnement, à la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, etc. La globalisation des marchés marque par ailleurs le recul de l’État face aux acteurs non étatiques. La société civile et les multinationales surgissent dès lors en tant que véritables partenaires dans l’ordre juridique international. Cela est illustré notamment par l’accès accordé aux multinationales/investisseurs à la justice internationale économique. Ces derniers ont la capacité de poursuivre un État qui violerait leurs droits marchands découlant d’un TBI devant une juridiction arbitrale internationale. Qu’en est-il par contre des droits non marchands violés par les investisseurs ? Cette étude explore les motifs militant pour un accès de la société civile à la justice internationale économique. Le but d’un tel accès serait d’opposer les droits non marchands, suscités par des problématiques inhérentes à la globalisation des marchés, à la fois à l’égard des États et à l’égard des multinationales, et auxquelles aucune réponse étatique unilatérale ou interétatique ne peut remédier adéquatement. / The end of the cold war marked an unprecedented new era of privatisation, liberalisation, and deregulation. Internet and the numerous technological advancements have brought citizens of this world closer at an astonishing degree. The world in the XXIst century seems more interdependent than ever before. A number of contemporary problematic issues significantly bypass State controls and borders. They are for instance related to foreign direct investment, human rights, the environment, corporate social responsibility, etc. Globalisation marks the State’s retreat in favour of non-state actors. In this light, civil society and multinationals appear as significant partners in the international legal order. This is in part reflected in the access given to multinationals/investors to international trade law justice. They have the capacity to file claims against states in front of international arbitration jurisdictions for violations of their trade rights as provided under BITs. However, what about the non-trade rights that may have been violated by investors? The present study explores the motives that would justify civil society’s access to international trade law justice. The purpose of such access would be to stand for non-trade rights, raised by problematic issues inherent to globalization, against States and multinationals, and that cannot be remedied solely through unilateral nor interstate efforts.

La fin de la guerre froide amorça une nouvelle ère de privatisation, de libéralisation et de dérégulation sans précédent. L’internet et les nombreuses autres avancées technologiques ont rapproché les citoyens du monde à un degré impressionnant. Le monde au XXIème siècle semble être plus interdépendant que jamais. De nombreuses problématiques contemporaines dépassent largement les contrôles et les frontières étatiques, des problématiques reliées par exemple aux investissements étrangers directs, aux droits de l’homme, à l’environnement, à la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, etc. La globalisation des marchés marque par ailleurs le recul de l’État face aux acteurs non étatiques. La société civile et les multinationales surgissent dès lors en tant que véritables partenaires dans l’ordre juridique international. Cela est illustré notamment par l’accès accordé aux multinationales/investisseurs à la justice internationale économique. Ces derniers ont la capacité de poursuivre un État qui violerait leurs droits marchands découlant d’un TBI devant une juridiction arbitrale internationale. Qu’en est-il par contre des droits non marchands violés par les investisseurs ? Cette étude explore les motifs militant pour un accès de la société civile à la justice internationale économique. Le but d’un tel accès serait d’opposer les droits non marchands, suscités par des problématiques inhérentes à la globalisation des marchés, à la fois à l’égard des États et à l’égard des multinationales, et auxquelles aucune réponse étatique unilatérale ou interétatique ne peut remédier adéquatement. / The end of the cold war marked an unprecedented new era of privatisation, liberalisation, and deregulation. Internet and the numerous technological advancements have brought citizens of this world closer at an astonishing degree. The world in the XXIst century seems more interdependent than ever before. A number of contemporary problematic issues significantly bypass State controls and borders. They are for instance related to foreign direct investment, human rights, the environment, corporate social responsibility, etc. Globalisation marks the State’s retreat in favour of non-state actors. In this light, civil society and multinationals appear as significant partners in the international legal order. This is in part reflected in the access given to multinationals/investors to international trade law justice. They have the capacity to file claims against states in front of international arbitration jurisdictions for violations of their trade rights as provided under BITs. However, what about the non-trade rights that may have been violated by investors? The present study explores the motives that would justify civil society’s access to international trade law justice. The purpose of such access would be to stand for non-trade rights, raised by problematic issues inherent to globalization, against States and multinationals, and that cannot be remedied solely through unilateral nor interstate efforts.

The combination of analytical sensitivity and selectivity provided by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS), with advanced statistical interrogation by principal component analysis (PCA), has allowed a significant advancement in the forensic discrimination of pen, pencil and glass materials based on trace characterisation.

Text in Afrikaans / Hierdie verhandeling is 'n poging om 'n teoretiese-prinsipiele uiteensetting te gee omtrent voorvonnisevaluering vanuit 'n penologiese gesigspunt. Met voorvonnisevalueringsverslae word daar gepoog om op 'n sinlike manier beide positiewe en negatiewe elemente van die individuele oortreder se persoonlike- en maatskaplike agtergrond en huidige situasie aan die lig te bring naamlik kenmerke van sy gedragspatrone sowel van sy sterk en swak eienskappe. Die hoofdoel van voorvonnisevalueringsverslae en voorvonnisondersoeke is om regters, landdroste en howe behulpsaam te wees met die bepaling van 'n gepaste en ge"individualiseerde straf. Sonder basiese en deeglike kennis van die oortreder as persoon sal enige verhoorhof in die duister 'n vonnis ople en die kanse vir 'n gepaste straf sal skraal wees. Benewens die wesenlike groei en belangstelling in voorvonnisevelueringsverslae wat deur proefbeamptes of korrektiewe beamptes voorberei word pleit verskeie skrywers vir die gebruikmaking van hierdie evalueringsverslae in die strafregsplegingstelsel veral wat betref jeugdiges, eerste oortreders en ernstige oortreders. / The dissertation will attempt a theoretic fundamental exposition of the role of the presentence evaluation as seen from a penological perspective. With presentence evaluation they attempt to take into consideration the positive as well as the negative elements which are present in the individual's personal and social background for example their day-to-day behaviour. The main purpose of the presentence evaluation report and presentence investigation is to aid the judges, prosecutors and the court in determining a suitable and individualized punishment. Without basic and complete knowledge of the offender as a person the court will not be able to deliver fair judgements and the changes that a suitable punishment will be given is limited. Due to a positive interest in this presentence evaluation report several writers insist of making use of this evaluation report in the criminal law justice system especially where youth, first time offenders and major offenders are concerned. / Penology / M.A. (Penologie)

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.

For a variety of historical, cultural and political reasons, the Islamic headscarf has become an increasingly controversial matter in Europe. This is particularly the case in France, where the Parliament passed, in March 2004, a piece of legislation that prohibits students from wearing the Muslim veil—together with any other ‘conspicuous’ religious sign—in the classroom. Although Statute 228/2004 proved highly controversial and attracted unprecedented media attention, it was overwhelmingly supported by French MPs as a response to popular opposition towards religious insignia at school and was heralded as a ‘liberating’ piece of legislation that faithfully reasserted the beloved French principle of laïcité. Overseas, the new law was less favourably perceived and was often accused of being discriminatory and of violating the students’ freedom of religious expression. This thesis compares the French and American attitudes towards religious symbolism in general and the Islamic veil in particular. As in other matters, at first sight these two countries seem to adopt a very different—if not opposite—approach to religion and the Muslim veil, and so much so that their positions are often described as ‘irreconcilable’. This thesis will argue that this is hardly the case. Indeed, it will show that, at least before the passage of Statute 228-2004, the French and American legal systems adopted a substantially similar approach that appeared respectful of a veiled student’s right to wear religious insignia. This, the work will also suggest, is not surprising, for contrary to popular belief, the American conception of secularism is in many respects stricter than the French idea of laïcité, with the result that French ‘exceptionalism’ on matters of religion is hardly a convincing ground for justifying the new piece of legislation. The fundamental value of a Franco-American comparison, this work will suggest, ultimately lies with the fact that such a comparison demolishes a good portion of the popular myths surrounding the affaire des foulards: that the French legal system is fiercely secular; that the American one is strongly ‘religious’; and that France was, in 2004, confronted with a veritable ‘veil emergency’ that rendered the passage of the new statute all but inevitable.