No description available.

Santrauka Pilietybė pažymi ypatingą teisinį ryšį tarp asmens ir konkrečios valstybės, grindžiamą abipusėmis teisėmis ir pareigomis. Tai nacionalinės teisės kategorija, tačiau valstybių teisė reguliuoti pilietybės klausimus nėra absoliuti. Ji apribota bendrų pilietybės teisinio reguliavimo principų įtvirtinimu tarptautiniu lygiu, kuris reikalingas visuotinai pripažintoms žmogaus teisėms ir laisvėms apsaugoti. Valstybių įstatymais ar sudarytomis tarptautinėmis sutartimis nustatytas pilietybės teisinis reguliavimas turi užtikrinti žmogaus teisės į pilietybę įgyvendinimą, turi atitikti tarptautines konvencijas, tarptautinę paprotinę teisę ir visuotinai pripažįstamus su pilietybe susijusius teisės principus. Pilietybės daugetas reiškia, kad asmuo pilietybės ryšiu yra susietas su daugiau nei viena valstybe, kad daugiau nei viena valstybė pagal savo nacionalinę teisę suteikia savo pilietybę tam pačiam asmeniui ir laiko jį savo piliečiu. Tokia situacija paprastai susidaro dėl dviejų ar daugiau atskirų valstybių pilietybės įstatymų kolizijos arba dėl to, kad tam tikrų valstybių nacionaliniuose teisės aktuose, reguliuojančiuose pilietybės klausimus, nėra numatyta reikalavimo įgyjant jų pilietybę atsisakyti ankstesniosios. Ilgą laiką ir tarptautiniu, ir nacionaliniu mastu buvo stengiamasi vengti šio reiškinio, nes pilietybės daugeto atveju kyla praktinių teisių ir pareigų įgyvendinimo sunkumų karinės prievolės, diplomatinės gynybos, mokestinių prievolių, rinkimų ir kitose srityse. Tik... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Summary Citizenship Plurality: Contemporary Trends Citizenship denotes the existence of a specific legal tie between individual and a state conferring mutual rights and duties. It is a matter of domestic jurisdiction of states, but the freedom of states to regulate their citizenship is restricted by rules of international law to protect fundamentals human rights and freedoms. States citizenship laws must be consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to citizenship. Citizenship Plurality means that individual is the citizen of two or more different states at the same time. An individual may acquire more than one citizenship as a result of the conflicting citizenship laws of different states or of the conferment of citizenship by naturalization or any other manner, which does not result in the renunciation of a prior citizenship. For a long time considerable international and domestic effort has been directed toward avoiding or reducing these situations, because some of the problems may be affected by the lack of citizenship plurality in the area of obligations to military service, diplomatic protection, tax payments, election etc. Just nowadays these problems are no more threatened. Equalisation of rights between men and women, international migration, mixed marriages, globalization, EU integration and other factors are influencing legislation on tolerance toward citizenship plurality. More and... [to full text]

Thesis--Philipps-Universität Marburg/Lahn. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 231-236).

No description available.

The US is currently experiencing a confusing and problematic shift in politics under Donald Trump, who continues to disrupt the status quo of American democracy. Such a reality begs us to ask the question of what politics means, and what it should mean for the future. Throughout history, many philosophers and theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and Max Weber, have identified the meaning of politics as obedience and domination over others. However, such an interpretation is incredibly dangerous, closely aligning with the historical values of authoritarian and totalitarian governments. Political theorist Hannah Arendt provides a solution to this dilemma, exposing the much more productive explanation that politics can only be achieved through the realization of equality. Additionally, she demonstrates that the key to this political utopia lies within the personal, as her humanistic concept of ‘plurality’ sheds light on how true politics can be achieved within society. Further, through such recognition, we can illuminate the dangers that the world faces when authority figures do not possess such a quality.

No description available.

First Online: 21 March 2016. 12 month embargo. / This paper presents cross-domain evidence that natural language makes use of (at least) two ways of individuating collective entities that differ in terms of how they cohere. The first kind, which I call swarm reference, picks out higher-order collective entities defined in terms of the spatial and temporal configuration of their constituent individuals. The second, which corresponds to canonical cases of group reference (e.g. committee, team, etc.), makes use of non-spatiotemporal notions. To motivate this distinction, I present systematic differences in how these two types of collective reference behave linguistically, both in the individual and event domains. These differences support two primary results. First, they are used as tests to isolate a new class of collective nouns that denote swarm individuals, both in English, as well as other languages like Romanian. I then consider a crosslinguistically common type of pluractionality, called event-internal in the previous literature (Cusic 1981, Wood 2007), and show that its properties are best explained if the relevant verbs denote swarm events. By reducing event-internal pluractionality to a type of collective reference also available for nouns, this work generates a new strong argument that pluractionality involves the same varieties of plural reference in the event domain that are seen in the individual domain.

The public library is challenged by changing technologies and the spread of commercial strategies which undermine the purpose of the institution. The library must remain a key part of mass communication in a democracy, and a thriving network of branch libraries ensures that every small community has a place which enhances communication for the public good. The architecture of the library shapes how visitors interact with the collection and with each other, and the building can be designed to enhance the communication taking place inside it. The building can also convey institutional values through its built form, such as the celebration of plurality. Spatial metaphor is a primary means by which architecture can communicate complex ideas. This thesis explores generalizable strategies for the design of branch libraries, and tests them through the design of a particular branch in Edmonton, Alberta.

This practicum is an exploration of the meaning of spirituality in the discourse of landscape architects as a means of understanding how people experience the urban and public realm in a relational and community driven approach. The spiritual is discussed as a relationship between the dualisms of the ordinary and extraordinary and the strange and familiar. Further, multicentered neighbourhoods build attachment to place in diverse and unique ways that build strong communities that embrace difference and seek to embody those at the margins of society. Further communities that strive for plurality create broad openness that is welcoming and inclusive. Finally, the relational city is designed from a place of generosity such that territorial bounds are loosened and communities operate with great empathy. The neighbourhoods of Wolseley, Armstrong’s Point and West Broadway are explored in narrative and imagery to actualize the theory and create cause for five design interventions concluding each chapter. / February 2016

Com o intento de fundar a metafísica rumo ao conhecimento certo, Descartes rejeita a história precedente da filosofia. Com efeito, esta carrega consigo uma pluralidade de opiniões e disputas, o que é inaceitável face à unidade da verdade e da razão. Por isso, o progresso da filosofia em direção ao futuro só pode se dar mediante uma ruptura com o passado, ruptura que se opera por meio da dúvida metódica. Leibniz, ao contrário, defende que o avanço do conhecimento rumo à descoberta de novas verdades pode e deve retomar o que já foi anteriormente estabelecido. Isto porque, à diferença de Descartes, o autor da Monadologia possui uma outra concepção da relação entre pluralidade e unidade, o que se pode constatar de maneira privilegiada na sua tese de que cada mônada ou ser criado representa o universo inteiro de uma determinada perspectiva. Ora, como todas as representações possuem o mesmo referente o mundo , todas são verdadeiras e harmônicas entre si, de modo que o que varia é a maneira como o mundo é representado, isto é, os graus de distinção presentes na representação. Deste modo, a pluralidade dos sistemas filosóficos redunda em diferenças (de modo que uns são mais perfeitos do que outros e que haja determinadas partes mais relevantes do que outras dentro de um mesmo sistema), mas não em uma heterogeneidade radical. Ora, justamente sem a consideração de que há alguma conveniência subjacente na diversidade das filosofias, não é possível a tentativa de conciliação do que haveria de melhor entre elas, isto é, se há uma heterogeneidade irredutível, como Descartes considera, não há qualquer ponto de transigência. Assim, a fim de dar conta de como este projeto de conciliação das filosofias é possível, examinar-se-á nesta dissertação a tese de que cada mônada representa o universo inteiro de uma determinada perspectiva, exame no qual se enfatizará as noções leibnizianas de espírito, de conhecimento e de sistema / Willing to found metaphysics toward right knowledge, Descartes denies the preceding Philosophy history on the basis that the plurality of opinions and disputes this Philosophy holds is not acceptable under the unity of true and reason. As a result, Philosophy cannot evolve toward the future unless by breaking up with the past, a rupture that operates by way of the methodic doubt. Leibniz, in contrast, advocates that the evolution of knowledge toward the discovery of new truths can and should resume what was established antecedently. This is so because, unlike Descartes, the author of Monadology conceives the plurality-unity relationship in a different way, which one has the privilege to infer from his thesis that each monad or created being represents the entire universe from a certain perspective. Now, since all representations have the same referent the world , all are true and harmonic in relation to each other, and thus what varies is how the world is represented, i.e., the degrees of distinction in the representation. Therefore, the plurality of philosophic systems results in differences (where one is more perfect than another and certain parts are more relevant than others within a system) but not in a radical heterogeneity. Indeed, precisely without considering that some convenience underlies the diversity of philosophies, one cannot attempt to conciliate them in what would be the best in them, i.e., if an irreducible heterogeneity does exist, as Descartes proposes, then there is no point of convergency. Therefore, in order to apprehend how this project of conciliation of philosophies is possible, this paper will address the thesis that each monad represents the entire universe from a certain perspective, with an emphasis on Leibnizs notions of spirit, knowledge, and system