Thesis--University of Florida. / Description based on print version record. Typescript. Vita. Bibliography: leaves 106-111.

Les fondations philanthropiques sont la source d’un intarissable questionnement, au sein duquel les règles de droit sont largement sollicitées. Que l’on songe à la création, au fonctionnement ou à la disparition des fondations… Un examen approfondi du droit positif permet de montrer que les règles de droit classiques sont souvent inadaptées au dynamisme que requiert la pratique philanthropique. À partir des résultats de cette analyse, la recherche d’une optimisation entre les règles juridiques et les véhicules d’actions d’intérêt général peut être envisagée. Cette optimisation pourrait être obtenue de plusieurs manières complémentaires, par l’amélioration de l’accessibilité des fondations à des financements multiples, par l’observation des organismes à but non lucratif concurrents de la fondation, par l’édification d’une éthique de la fondation, et par la rénovation de sa fiscalité. La fondation philanthropique apparaît ainsi, au fil de l’étude, comme un véritable laboratoire de recherche appliquée en droit fiscal, en droit administratif, et en droit comparé / French Philanthropic foundations are the source of endless questions, in which the laws governing them are sought. Think of the creation, operation or disappearance of foundations... This thorough review of positive foundation law shows that the classical laws are often inadequate for the dynamism required by philanthropic practice. This work investigates the optimization between legal rules and vehicles of public interest, which could be obtained in several complementary ways : by improving the accessibility of foundations to multiple financing, by the stricter observation of non-profit organizations competing with the foundation, by building an ethics of foundations, or by the renovation of its taxation system. The philanthropic foundation appears throughout the study as a true research laboratory for tax law, administrative law, and comparative law

Thesis (LLM (Mercantile Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis discusses the meaning of public purpose and public interest in s 25 of the Final Constitution. The main question that is asked is: how does ‘public purpose’ differ from ‘public interest’, and what impact did the Final Constitution have on the interpretation and application of the public purpose requirement in expropriation law in South Africa? This question is investigated by looking at how the courts have dealt with the public purpose requirement, both before and during the first years of the constitutional era in South African law, and also with reference to foreign law. The thesis shows that the position has not changed that much yet because the interpretation of this requirement has not received much attention in constitutional case law. The main focus is to show that the reason for the interpretation problems surrounding this requirement is the apparent conflict between the formulation of the public purpose requirement in the Final Constitution and in the current Expropriation Act of 1975. It is pointed out that the efforts that were made to resolve the problem failed because the Expropriation Bill 2008 was withdrawn. Consequently, it is still unclear how the public purpose requirement has been changed by s 25(2) of the Constitution, which authorises expropriation for a public purpose or in the public interest. This apparent lack of clarity is discussed and analysed with specific reference to the different types of third party transfers that are possible in expropriation law. Comparative case law from Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the European Convention on Human Rights is considered to show how other jurisdictions deal with the public purpose requirement in their own constitutions or expropriation legislation, with particular emphasis on how they solve problems surrounding third party transfers. In the final chapter it is proposed that the Expropriation Bill should be reintroduced to bring the formulation of the public purpose requirement in the Act in line with s 25(2) and that expropriation for transfer to third parties could be in order if it serves a legitimate public purpose or the public interest (e g because the third party provides a public utility or for land reform), but that expropriation for economic development should be reviewed strictly to ensure that it serves a more direct and clear public interest than just stimulating the economy or creating jobs. / AFRIKAANS OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis bespreek die betekenis van openbare doel en openbare belang in a 25 van die Finale Grondwet. Die belangrikste vraag is: hoe verskil ‘openbare doel’ van ‘openbare belang’, en watter impak het die Finale Grondwet op die interpretasie en toepassing van die openbare doel-vereiste in die Suid-Afrikaanse onteieningsreg gehad? Die vraag word ondersoek met verwysing na die howe se hantering van die openbare doel-vereiste voor en gedurende die eerste jare van die nuwe grondwetlike bedeling, asook met verwysing na buitelandse reg. Die tesis toon aan dat die posisie nog min verander het omdat die interpretasie van die vereiste in die grondwetlike regspraak nog nie veel aandag gekry het nie. Daar word aangetoon dat interpretasieprobleme rondom hierdie vereiste ontstaan as gevolg van die oënskynlike teenstrydigheid tussen die formulering van die openbare doel-vereiste in die Finale Grondwet en in die huidige Onteieningswet van 1975. Daar word geargumenteer dat pogings om die probleem op te los gefaal het omdat die Onteieningswetsontwerp 2008 teruggetrek is. Dit is daarom steeds onduidelik hoe die openbare doel-vereiste deur a 25(2) van die Grondwet, wat onteiening vir ‘n openbare doel of in die openbare belang toelaat, verander is. Hierdie oënskynlike gebrek aan sekerheid word bespreek met verwysing na die verskillende gevalle waarin eiendom onteien en dan aan derde partye oorgedra word. Regsvergelykende regspraak van Australië, Duitsland, die Verenigde Koninkryk, die Verenigde State van Amerika en die Europese Konvensie op Mensregte word oorweeg om te wys hoe ander regstelsels die openbare doel-vereiste in hulle grondwette of onteieningswetgewing interpreteer, spesifiek ten aansien van die oordrag van eiendom aan derde partye. In die laaste hoofstuk word aan die hand gedoen dat die Onteieningswetsontwerp weer ter tafel geneem moet word om die bewoording van die openbare doel-vereiste in die Onteieningswet in ooreenstemming met a 25(2) te bring. Daar word ook aan die hand gedoen dat onteiening vir oordrag aan derde partye in orde kan wees as dit ‘n geldige openbare doel of die openbare belang dien (bv omdat die derde party ‘n openbare diens lewer of in belang van grondhervorming), maar dat onteiening vir ekonomiese ontwikkeling streng hersien moet word om te verseker dat dit ‘n meer direkte en duidelike openbare belang dien as bloot om die ekonomie te stimuleer of om werk te skep.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Education is among the industries shifting today to answer evolving global needs and opportunities. Influential organizations and thought leaders are calling for reimagining of teaching and learning. To prepare students for college and professions, an increasing number of K-12 independent schools are beginning to focus on deep learning experiences and building key “21st century skills” and competencies. These schools are also interested in their public purpose both as institutional citizens of their local communities and to connect their students to local and global communities. These connections provide students with an authentic context for application of learning and for community contribution. There is also now an opportunity to coordinate curricular goals with developmental goals related to students’ social-emotional growth and social responsibility. This study used online surveys taken by students and their teachers to explore whether high school courses with public good themes and experiences in independent schools nurture the development of 21st century skills in students. The eight skills studied were: Critical thinking, collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, self-direction, global connections, local connections, and the use of technology. The skills were measured through frequency ratings of forty-eight classroom practices. Findings show that both students and teachers believe these courses do nurture each skill – some with greater emphasis. Students reported critical thinking, communication, self-direction and making local connections as the skills most learned in their courses, while teachers reported that students most learned these same skills with the addition of collaboration. Teachers use a number of practices in the classroom to develop 21st century skills and most students found the practices relevant to their course.

Communities sometimes hold private property rights in or adjacent to a protected area. Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 (the Constitution) protects a person's private property in that the state may not unfairly deprive or expropriate such private property. The interest in the environment are protected by section 24 of the Constitution which entails that every person has the right to an environment that is not harmful to one's health or well-being and also that the environment has to be preserved for present and future generations. National parks are the most valuable natural resource in terms of nature conservation that South Africa has, as these parks harvest natural resources to be preserved for present and future generations. The question that arises is which restrictions are placed on owners in respect of nature conservation, and what the constitutionality of such restrictions is. The answer this question is somewhat difficult as both the right to property and the right to a safe and clean environment are both fundamental rights in the Constitution, and these rights deserve protection. That being said, it is important to understand that no right in the Bill of Rights is an absolute right and all rights are subject to limitations. Such limitations should adhere to the requirements set out in section 36 of the Constitution. A limitation of any constitutional right will be accepted if it is proportional. Section 36(1) of the Constitution amounts to a general proportionality test to ensure that any right contained in the Bill of Rights is only limited by a law of general application and if such limitation is reasonable and justifiable. The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) as well as the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPA) can be seen as laws of general application. NEMPA especially implies that private property holders may be deprived of their property, if it is situated in or adjacent to a protected area in order to conserve the environment, and this will also not be arbitrary as the private property holders are still allowed to reside on the land in question. NEMA as well as NEMPA makes provision that property may be expropriated for environmental purposes subject to compensation and the provisions of the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. Limitation of property rights in order to protect and conserve the environment can thus not be seen as unconstitutional or unfair. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Communities sometimes hold private property rights in or adjacent to a protected area. Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 (the Constitution) protects a person's private property in that the state may not unfairly deprive or expropriate such private property. The interest in the environment are protected by section 24 of the Constitution which entails that every person has the right to an environment that is not harmful to one's health or well-being and also that the environment has to be preserved for present and future generations. National parks are the most valuable natural resource in terms of nature conservation that South Africa has, as these parks harvest natural resources to be preserved for present and future generations. The question that arises is which restrictions are placed on owners in respect of nature conservation, and what the constitutionality of such restrictions is. The answer this question is somewhat difficult as both the right to property and the right to a safe and clean environment are both fundamental rights in the Constitution, and these rights deserve protection. That being said, it is important to understand that no right in the Bill of Rights is an absolute right and all rights are subject to limitations. Such limitations should adhere to the requirements set out in section 36 of the Constitution. A limitation of any constitutional right will be accepted if it is proportional. Section 36(1) of the Constitution amounts to a general proportionality test to ensure that any right contained in the Bill of Rights is only limited by a law of general application and if such limitation is reasonable and justifiable. The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) as well as the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPA) can be seen as laws of general application. NEMPA especially implies that private property holders may be deprived of their property, if it is situated in or adjacent to a protected area in order to conserve the environment, and this will also not be arbitrary as the private property holders are still allowed to reside on the land in question. NEMA as well as NEMPA makes provision that property may be expropriated for environmental purposes subject to compensation and the provisions of the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. Limitation of property rights in order to protect and conserve the environment can thus not be seen as unconstitutional or unfair. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Government authority can, for public benefit purpose, take private ownership of land by compulsory purchase. Primary aim of this study is how to protect private land owners rights in spite of governments power of acquiring land. Bangladesh, as for details study, is a most densely populated country in the World. International best standards of practicing guidelines by FAO-UN, FIG and WB as well as other countries practice have reviewed from different perspectives. From theory, early stage negotiations, market value of property plus other damages, opportunity of involvement of all parties, protection of agricultural land , removal services all of those are the thorny of legal challenges to adopt into a new legislation in Bangladesh. Empirically, field study has conducted by way of interviewing from selected different projects in Bangladesh including largest project Padma Multiple Bridge. Huge destitute of land, unplanned city expansion, unsustainable development of infrastructure and environmental damage are remained as significant issues of sustainable development of land management. Analysis shows that Bangladesh has been losing 1% of agriculture land which related to the national employment and food production. 100% of the affected people wants to resettlement by the authority. There is clearly misusing of legal rights by the government authority: firstly, by using inequitable Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982; no protection has been giving for religious place and graveyard under Antiquities Act, and Article 42(2) of Constitution also imposing unfair curtailment of rights for getting fair compensation. Finally, some recommendations have given for enacting a new legislation including planning permission, extended notice period, public meeting and review, agricultural land exempted, resettlement, valuation by valuers, in time compensation payment and right to Appeal.

由於目前國有非公用土地處分政策係以大面積國有土地不出售為主，且限於政府人力、物力的不足，加上人民對價格便宜的住宅需求與日俱增，故兩相權衡下即逐漸發展出將國有土地設定地上權交由得標之地上權人開發營運，待地上權期滿後，再將土地及建物移轉予政府之開發方式。因此，政府近年來推出許多設定地上權標案，造成設定地上權案例增加，也使得國有土地設定地上權制度成為近年來備受關注與討論的議題。 且由於國有非公用土地設定地上權適用法規之修正、停止適用或新訂，尤其是關於禁止地上權分割之規定所衍生之號稱「地上權住宅」但實際上為「使用權住宅」，及民國102年9月30日財政部台財產改字第10250007490號令修正發布並自即日生效後之「地上權住宅」法律性質及交易相關爭議。本文乃透過文獻分析法，對於國有非公用土地設定地上權制度法律觀念釐清，及梳理國有非公用土地設定地上權興建集合住宅各個當事人間之法律關係，歸結出各當事人間於國有非公用土地設定地上權興建集合住宅交易之法律問題。 / Due to the current public land for non-public purpose disposition policy department in a large area of state land does not sell, and lack of government limited human and material resources, coupled with people's growing demand for cheap housing, so the next two-phase balance that is gradually developed a national land establishment of superficies by the owner of the winning bid to develop the operation until after the expiration of superficies, and then was transferred to land and construction development mode of government. Therefore, the government in recent years launched a number of standard case establishment of superficies, causing the earth to set right cases increased, so that the public land for non-public purpose establishment of superficies has become in recent years much attention and discussion topics. This paper is through literature analysis, public land for non-public purpose establishment of superficies system of legal concepts to clarify and sort out the public land for non-public purpose establishment of superficies to build the legal relationship between the collective housing respective parties, concluded with inter-party land set in the public land for non-public purpose establishment of superficies to build a collection of legal issues of residential transactions.

The word expropriation is used in South Africa to describe the process whereby a public authority or institution takes property from a private person for public purposes against payment of compensation. The current Act regulating expropriations in South Africa is known as the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. However, it has three primary inconsistencies with the Constitution. Firstly it predates the Constitution - therefore, it does not infuse the values of equality, human dignity and the achievement of freedom. Secondly it is not consistent with comparable modem statutes elsewhere in the world. The last issue is that this Act is inconsistent with the Constitution in the sense that the Act only provides for expropriation for public purposes and the Constitution provides for expropriation in the public interest as well as for a public purpose. For these reasons it is crucial to establish a new legislative framework. In an attempt to rectify the above difficulties, an expropriation policy and a draft Bill were introduced. The primary purpose of the Bill is to harmonise the considerable amount of legislation in South Africa on the subject of expropriation, and to fill the gaps of the current Act. However, the new proposed Bill was referred back to cabinet as it had various difficulties. According to newspaper commentators, one of these reasons was that market value would not be used when determining the amount of compensation. This is not true, as market value is one of the listed factors in section 25(3) of the Constitution, and it is provided for in the Bill. Another reason was that the role of the courts will also be restricted in the new Bill. Parties will no longer be able to refer disputes concerning the amount of compensation to court. Once again this is not true, the courts role is only restricted in the sense that it would no be able to determine the amount of compensation as provided for in the Constitution, but will only be allowed to approve or decline the amount the Minister determined. This is one of the aspects that may be debatable constitutionally. After an in-depth study of the proposed Bill, the author came to the conclusion that there are actually only three aspects that might be unconstitutional namely; the definition of public interest which is to be included that widens the capacity to expropriate; departure from the notice procedure; and the fact that the courts may no longer determine the amount of compensation, but only approve or decline. Expropriation is one of the most important tools to speed up land reform in South Africa, and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the procedure must take place in a fair, equitable and constitutional manner. The purpose of this study will be to identify the aspects which result in expropriations that is not done on this basis, to scrutinize them and to make recommendations to these aspects. / Thesis (LL.M. (Law)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

The word expropriation is used in South Africa to describe the process whereby a public authority or institution takes property from a private person for public purposes against payment of compensation. The current Act regulating expropriations in South Africa is known as the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. However, it has three primary inconsistencies with the Constitution. Firstly it predates the Constitution - therefore, it does not infuse the values of equality, human dignity and the achievement of freedom. Secondly it is not consistent with comparable modem statutes elsewhere in the world. The last issue is that this Act is inconsistent with the Constitution in the sense that the Act only provides for expropriation for public purposes and the Constitution provides for expropriation in the public interest as well as for a public purpose. For these reasons it is crucial to establish a new legislative framework. In an attempt to rectify the above difficulties, an expropriation policy and a draft Bill were introduced. The primary purpose of the Bill is to harmonise the considerable amount of legislation in South Africa on the subject of expropriation, and to fill the gaps of the current Act. However, the new proposed Bill was referred back to cabinet as it had various difficulties. According to newspaper commentators, one of these reasons was that market value would not be used when determining the amount of compensation. This is not true, as market value is one of the listed factors in section 25(3) of the Constitution, and it is provided for in the Bill. Another reason was that the role of the courts will also be restricted in the new Bill. Parties will no longer be able to refer disputes concerning the amount of compensation to court. Once again this is not true, the courts role is only restricted in the sense that it would no be able to determine the amount of compensation as provided for in the Constitution, but will only be allowed to approve or decline the amount the Minister determined. This is one of the aspects that may be debatable constitutionally. After an in-depth study of the proposed Bill, the author came to the conclusion that there are actually only three aspects that might be unconstitutional namely; the definition of public interest which is to be included that widens the capacity to expropriate; departure from the notice procedure; and the fact that the courts may no longer determine the amount of compensation, but only approve or decline. Expropriation is one of the most important tools to speed up land reform in South Africa, and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the procedure must take place in a fair, equitable and constitutional manner. The purpose of this study will be to identify the aspects which result in expropriations that is not done on this basis, to scrutinize them and to make recommendations to these aspects. / Thesis (LL.M. (Law)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.