No description available.

<p>BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2007, the Joint Oncology Drug Review (JODR) (which ultimately evolved into a permanent body called the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)) was established to make recommendations to Canada’s provincial and territorial public drug plans regarding the funding (i.e. reimbursement) of new cancer drugs. The JODR/pCODR exists alongside Canada’s Common Drug Review, which provides reimbursement recommendations to Canada’s provincial and territorial public drug plans for drugs in all other disease areas. Using an economic perspective, this thesis (composed of three separate papers) appraised: the rationale for the JODR/pCODR’s establishment, the JODR/pCODR’s resource allocation goals, and the JODR/pCODR’s decision-making criteria and decision rules. The overarching theme linking the three thesis papers is whether the JODR/pCODR facilitates Canada’s provincial drug plans’ ability to achieve a goal of maximizing health benefits with available resources.</p> <p>METHODS: For the first two papers, a series of questions regarding the JODR’s establishment, resource allocation goals, decision-making criteria and decision rules were posed. The questions were answered by reviewing peer-reviewed literature and/or JODR/pCODR-published materials and by applying fundamental principles underlying an economic perspective. By again applying these same principles, the third paper in this thesis addressed the challenges associated with striving to simultaneously achieve the pCODR’s resource allocation goals of maximizing health benefits with available resources and striving to improve access to a more consistent standard of care across Canada.</p> <p>FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The various issues identified in this thesis suggest that the JODR/pCODR is unlikely to facilitate Canada’s provincial drug plans’ ability to achieve a goal of maximizing health benefits with available resources for several reasons (which are described in detail in the thesis papers). It is my hope that this thesis will encourage further debate regarding the strengths and limitations of the pCODR and regarding other possible approaches for managing the public reimbursement of cancer drugs.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Background: Objectives: To produce and synthesize reliable data, systematic reviews need to adhere to rigorous methodological standards. This living meta-review aims to investigate risk of bias and open science practices in systematic reviews from the educational field published between 2022-2023. The aim of this meta-review is to get a better understanding of the current state of educational research regarding the aforementioned topics.  Methods: Eligibility criteria: We included all systematic reviews of educational interventions, instructions, and methods for all K-12 student populations with experimental or quasi-experimental designs where the outcome variables were academic performance of any kind.  Information sources: We searched through the Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC) for systematic reviews published between 2022-2023. In addition, we also hand searched four scholarly databases. Risk of Bias and FAIR principles: To assess systematic reviews risk of bias and open science practices in systematic reviews two tools were used, ROBIS - Risk of bias in systematic reviews, as well as a FAIR assessment tool.  Results: 44 studies that matched our PICOS were included in this meta-review. Out of these studies four (9%) were deemed as having a low risk of bias. The remaining 40 studies were deemed as either having high risk of bias (89%) or unclear risk of bias (2%).  Among the 44 studies included, only four studies (9%) had their data available, and none of them adhered to all of the items regarding the FAIR principles.  Discussion: This meta-review shows that only a small part of systematic reviews in education can be considered low risk of bias, and an even smaller part can be considered adhering to open science principles. Therefore, much needs to change to adapt to new scientific guidelines.

Thesis (LLM )--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In the field of administrative law, the judiciary has traditionally exercised control over the administrative actions of the executive through judicial review. However, judicial review is neither the most effective nor the most efficient primary control mechanism for systemic administrative improvement. In a country faced with a task of =transformative constitutionalism‘, and hindered with scarce resources, there is good cause to limit judicial intervention as the first response to administrative disputes. The major theme of this thesis is to investigate the feasibility of administrative tribunal reform in South Africa, using two other commonwealth countries, Australia and England, as a basis for comparison. Australia and England have been chosen for comparison because they share similar administrative law traditions and they can provide working models of coherent tribunal structures. The Australian tribunal system is well-established and consists of tribunals which fall under the control of the executive, while tribunals in England have recently undergone a significant transformation, and are now part of the independent judiciary. The South African government currently spends, indeed wastes, a significant amount of money on administrative law litigation. Due to the limitations of judicial review, even after the high costs of litigation and the long duration of court proceedings, the results achieved may still be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, judicial review is unsuited to giving effect to systemic administrative change and the improvement of initial decision-making. Australia and England have begun to move away from the traditional court model for the resolution of administrative disputes. Both have indicated a preference for the important role of tribunals in the administration of disputes. Tribunals have been shown to offer the advantage of being speedier, cheaper, more efficient, more participatory and more accessible than traditional courts, which contributes to tribunals being a more available resource for lay people or people without sophisticated legal knowledge, and provides wider access to remedies than courts. The English and Australian models indicate a few important trends which need to be applied universally to ensure a sustained tribunal reform and a system which provides a higher level of administrative redress than the over-burdened and institutionally inept courts currently do. These include co-operation among government departments and tribunals; open and accountable systemic change; the need for supervision and evaluation of the whole of administrative law by an independent and competent body; and ultimately a focus on the needs of users of state services. At the same time, there are arguments against administrative tribunal reform. These include the costs of reform; the ways to establish tribunals; and the level of independence shown by the tribunals. These arguments are especially relevant in the South African context, where the government faces huge social problems and a scarcity of resources. However, after an analysis of the valuable characteristics of tribunals and the role that they serve in the day to day administration of justice, it is difficult to see how these objections to tribunals can outweigh their potential importance in the administrative justice system. The need for sustained systematic reform in South Africa is one that cannot be ignored. Tribunals offer a valuable alternative to judicial review for the resolution of administrative disputes. Furthermore, the tribunal systems of Australia and England demonstrate how the effective creation and continued use of comprehensive tribunal structures contributes firstly to cost reduction and secondly to ease the administrative burden on courts who are not suited to cure large-scale administrative error. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die administratiefreg oefen die regsprekende gesag tradisioneel beheer uit oor die uitvoerende gesag deur middel van geregtelike hersiening. Geregtelike hersiening is egter nie die mees doeltreffende of effektiewe primêre beheermeganisme om sistemiese administratiewe verbetering teweeg te bring nie. In 'n land met die uitdagings van 'transformatiewe konstitusionalisme‘ en skaars hulpbronne, kan 'n goeie argument gevoer word dat geregtelike inmenging as die eerste antwoord op administratiewe dispute beperk moet word. Die deurlopende tema van hierdie tesis is 'n ondersoek na die lewensvatbaarheid van hervorming van administratiewe tribunale in Suid-Afrika, in vergelyking met die posisie in Australië en Engeland, waarvan beide ook, tesame met Suid-Afrika, deel vorm van die Statebond. Hierdie lande is gekies vir regsvergelykende studie aangesien hulle 'n administratiefregtelike tradisie met Suid-Afrika deel en beide werkende modelle van duidelike tribunale strukture daarstel. Die Australiese tribunale stelsel is goed gevestig en bestaan uit tribunale onder die beheer van die uitvoerende gesag, terwyl die tribunale stelsel in Engeland onlangs 'n beduidende hervorming ondergaan het en nou deel van die onafhanklike regsprekende gesag is. Die Suid-Afrikaanse regering mors aansienlike hoeveelhede geld op administratiefregtelike litigasie. Selfs na hoë koste en lang vertragings van litigasie mag die resultate steeds onbevredigend wees as gevolg van die beperkings inherent aan geregtelike hersiening. Tesame met hierdie oorwegings is geregtelike hersiening ook nie gerig op sistemiese administratiewe verandering en verbetering van aanvanklike besluitneming nie. Australië en Engeland het onlangs begin wegbeweeg van die tradisionele hof-gebaseerde model vir die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Beide toon 'n voorkeur vir die belangrike rol wat tribunale in die administrasie van dispute kan speel Tribunale bied die bewese voordele om vinniger, goedkoper, meer doeltreffend, meer deelnemend en meer toeganklik te wees as tradisionele howe, sodat tribunale 'n meer beskikbare hulpbron is vir leke, oftewel, persone sonder gesofistikeerde regskennis en dus beter toegang tot remedies as tradisionele howe verskaf. Die Engelse en Australiese modelle dui op enkele belangrike tendense wat universeel toegepas moet word om volgehoue tribunale hervorming te verseker en om =n stelsel te skep wat 'n hoër vlak van administratiewe geregtigheid daarstel as wat oorlaaide en institusioneel onbekwame howe kan. Dit verwys bepaald na samewerking tussen staatsdepartemente en tibunale; deursigtige en verantwoordbare sistemiese veranderinge; die behoefte aan toesighouding en evaluasie van die hele administratiefreg deur 'n onafhanklike, bevoegde liggaam; en uiteindelik 'n fokus op die behoeftes van die gebruikers van staatsdienste. Daar is egter terselfdertyd ook argumente teen administratiewe tribunale hervorming. Hierdie argumente sluit in die koste van hervorming; die wyses waarop tribunale gevestig word; en die vlak van onafhanklikheid voorgehou deur tribunale. Hierdie argumente is veral relevant in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks waar die regering voor groot sosiale probleme te staan kom en daarby ingesluit, 'n tekort aan hulpbronne ook moet hanteer. Daarenteen is dit moeilik om in te sien hoe enige teenkanting en teenargumente met betrekking tot die vestiging van administratiewe tribunale swaarder kan weeg as die potensiële belang van sulke tribunale in die administratiewe geregtigheidstelsel, veral nadat 'n analise van die waardevolle karaktereienskappe van tribunale en die rol wat hulle speel in die dag-tot-dag administrasie van geregtigheid onderneem is. Die behoefte aan volhoubare sistemiese hervorming in Suid-Afrika kan nie geïgnoreer word nie. Tribunale bied 'n waardevolle alternatief tot geregtelike hersiening met die oog op die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Tesame hiermee demonstreer die tribunale stelsels in Australië en Engeland hoe die doeltreffende vestiging en deurlopende gebruik van omvattende tribunale bydra, eerstens om kostes verbonde aan die oplossing van administratiewe dispute te verlaag en tweedens, om die administratiewe las op die howe, wat nie aangelê is daarvoor om grootskaalse administratiewe foute reg te stel nie, te verlig.

The thesis aims to describe the new regulation of the application for appeal review introduced by means of an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code made by the act No. 404/2012 Sb. and to assess its compliance with the Constitution. During the preparation of this amendment a part of the Civil Procedure Code (specifically sec. 237 (1) c)) governing the admissibility of the discretionary application for appeal review was cancelled due to being in conflict with the Constitution by means of the decision of the Constitutional Court of 21 February 2012, file No. Pl. ÚS 29/11. For that purpose, at first, the thesis deals with the application for appeal review itself and certain aspects of it, especially the role it has in the Czech legal system. Based on this general part a special part is built dealing with the admissibility of the application for appeal review. Firstly, the admissibility under the old legislation is described, after that the conclusions of the Constitutional Court are critically examined and, finally, the new legislation is described and confronted with the findings of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court criticized the old legislation for not being sufficiently predictable. It concluded that in order for the new legislation to comply with the Constitution the potential...

Il n'existe pas de principe général de proportionnalité en droit américain. Un contrôle est néanmoins présent dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême, bien qu'il ne soit pas toujours reconnu comme tel. Au vu des techniques utilisées à cette fin, une partie de la doctrine évoque une expérience exceptionnelle tandis qu'une autre relativise ce point de vue dans le domaine de la limitation des droits. La décision US c Carolene products de 1938 marque la fin d'une période d'interventionnisme judiciaire et constitue le point de départ de cette étude. Sous l'ère Lochner, l'invalidation quasi automatique des lois restreignant les libertés économiques valut à la Cour le qualificatif de « Gouvernement des juges ». Afin d'asseoir sa légitimité, elle élabora la doctrine des « degrés du contrôle » selon laquelle le standard de justification des atteintes dépend de la nature du droit restreint. Son travail est depuis lors rationalisé par la « contrainte substantielle » des droits fondamentaux qui participa à l'émergence d'une nouvelle théorie du contrôle de constitutionnalité. On peut observer que plusieurs juridictions s'autolimitent d'une façon comparable à leur homologue américain, à travers l'analyse des techniques du contrôle de proportionnalité. En particulier la Cour suprême du Canada, la Cour constitutionnelle sud-africaine et la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, bien que chacune d'entre elles présente des spécificités en ce domaine. Les deux grands modes de « mise en balance » permettent alors de souligner les convergences et les divergences entre les systèmes / There is no general proportionality principle in the United States but, if not always recognized, the review appears in the Supreme Court's case law. For most part of the legal community its techniques reveal american exceptionalism. Other ones say this remark deserves some qualification in view of right's limitation. This study historically begin with the US v Carolene products case ending a period by which the Court invalidated most statutes restricting economic liberties. Thus, the Lochner Era was called « Government by the judiciary ». By the « levels of review » doctrine she found a way to prove her legitimacy, making the standard of justification depends on the nature of the right limited. This « substantial fundamental rights'constraint » rationalized her work and contributed towards a new theory of judicial review. However many jurisdictions share the same self-restraint as their american neighboor. With regard to the techniques of proportionality review, the canadian Supreme Court, the south african Constitutional Court and the European Court present several common characteristics in spite of their specific experience. Two modes of « balancing » highlight convergence and difference between those four legal systems. Stare decisis especially conditions methodological and normative coherence in the United states, having an influence on the fundamental right's constraint. It curbs differently the judicial expanding power of interpretation. According to a comparative perspective the american particularism should be revealed by their definition and their effect on a differentiated right's guarantee

The Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad) acknowledged and recognised the centrality of good governance within the context of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), an innovative mechanism acceded to by member states of the African Union (AU) as a self- monitoring mechanism for good governance. South Africa is one of the countries which acceded to the APRM in 2003. Accordingly, South Africa appointed a National Governing Council (NGC) under the chairpersonship of the Minister of Public Services and Administration as the focal point to develop a strategy to manage the national APRM process. The NGC was constituted of business, the disabled, civil society, churches, trade unions, government and women’s coalitions thus ensuring all relevant stakeholders are represented. As part of South Africa’s country assessment, questionnaires dealing with the four core thematic areas of the APRM were sent through to the public by community development workers. In addition, four technical assessment agencies were appointed to assist in conducting research on the four thematic areas. The primary objective of this study is to examine the theoretical approach to the study and the African Peer Review Mechanism’s contemporary relevance to South Africa, its intended beneficiaries and an assessment of South Africa for the period 2006. The study revealed that Proportional Representation (PR) and floor-crossing have an impact on the sustainability, relevance, long term development, vibrancy and profundity of constitutional democracy in the country. Clearly, since the dawn of the democratic dispensation in South Africa the electoral system introduced is such that it had to take into account the challenges the country faced during the apartheid system of governance. In this context, enough space for free political competition in the country was created. On the basis of the findings of the study, it is patently clear that the time allocated for the CSAR was minimal and the country should have been given at least two years so that the self assessment could have been extensively done. On the issue of HIV and AIDS and its relationship to socio-economic conditions, it was revealed that the country has a lot to do in this regard. The debilitating effect that HIV and AIDS has on the lives of the citizens requires clarity of policy and strategy, consistency in public communication and the need for sustained partnerships amongst all relevant stakeholders. At another level, there was a call for a basic income grant although government does not necessarily support it. Based on the research findings above, a new research area outlined under recommendations can be conceptualized for further research and it requires some attention.

Wetgewing wat onbestaanbaar is met die bepalings van Wet 200 van 1993 as die hoogste reg is nietig tensy geoorloof volgens die maatstawwe van art 33 (1) 1 en die Konstitusionele Hof en die provinsiale en plaaslike afdelings van die Hooggeregshof is bevoeg om dit ongeldig te verklaar. Die beoordeling van die geldigheid van wetgewing waardeur inbreuk gemaak word op 'n Fundamentele Reg of Vryheid in Hoofstuk 3 verleen 1 vereis in eerste instansie die vertolking van die betrokke bepaling van die Hoofstuk. In die lig van die besondere karakter van 'n grondwet en die gebrek aan omlyning van die verleende regte en vryhede 1 moet die vertolking nie volgens geykte metodes geskied nie I maar wel doelgerig aan die hand van die waardes onderliggend tot die Handves as geheel. Waardes wat nie herleibaar is tot die grondwet self nie en die persoonlike filosofiee van die regters behoort die howe egter nie te beinvloed nie. / Legislation inconsistent with the provisions of Act 200 of 1993 as the supreme law is of no force and effect and the Constitutional Court and the provincial and local divisions of the Supreme Court may declare it invalid, unless it complies with the criteria of a permissible limitation under sec 33(1). Before the validity of legislation impinging upon a Fundamental Right or Freedom conferred in Chapter 3 can be considered, the relevant provision of the Chapter must first be interpreted. In view of the special nature of a constitution and the generality of the conferred rights and freedoms, the ordinary methods of interpretation should not be applied. Chapter 3 must be interpreted purposively taking into account the values underlying the Bill of Rights as a whole. Values not founded in the Constitution and the personal philosophies of the judges ought not to influence the courts. / Private Law / LL.M.

No description available.

Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2001. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Peer review as an institutional mechanism for certifying knowledge and allocating resources dates back as far as 1665. Today it can with confidence be stated that it is one of the most prominent evaluative tools used in science to determine the quality of research across all scientific fields. Given the transformation within the processes of knowledge production, peer review as an institutionalised method of the evaluation of scientific research has not been unaffected. Peer reviewers have to act within a system of relevant science and find themselves responsible to the scientific community as well as to public decision-makers, who in turn are responsible to the public. This dual responsibility of reviewers led to the development of criteria to be used in the evaluation process to enable them to measure scientific excellence as well as the societal relevance of science. In this thesis peer review in science is examined within the context of these transformations. In looking at the conceptual and methodological issues raised by peer review, definitions of peer review, its history and contexts of application are examined followed by a critique on peer review. Peer review in practice is also explored and the evaluation processes of four respective funding agencies are analysed with regards to three aspects intrinsic to the peer review process: the method by which reviewers are selected, the review criteria by which proposals are rated, and the number of review stages within each review process. The thesis concludes with recommendations for possible improvements to the peer review process and recommended alternatives to peer review as an evaluative tool. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Portuurgroep-evaluering as 'n geïnsitutsionaliseerde meganisme in die sertifisering van kennis en die toewys van hulpbronne dateer terug so ver as 1665. Huidiglik kan dit as een van die mees prominente metingsinstrumente van die kwaliteit van navorsing in alle wetenskaplike velde beskou word. Die transformasies wat plaasgevind het binne die prosesse waar kennis gegenereer word, het ook nie portuurgroep-evaluaring as 'n geïnstitusionaliseerde metode van evaluering ongeraak gelaat nie. Portuurgroep-evalueerders bevind hulself binne 'n sisteem van relevante wetenskap. Binne hierdie sisteem het hulle 'n verantwoordelikheid teenoor die wetenskaplike gemeenskap sowel as die publiekebesluitnemers wat op hul beurt weer verantwoordelik is teenoor die publiek. Hierdie dubbele verantwoordelikheid het tot gevolg die saamstel van kriteria waarvolgens evalueerders wetenskaplike uitmuntendheid sowel as relevansie tot die breër samelewing kan meet. Hierdie tesis ondersoek portuurgroep-evaluering teen die agtergrond van hierdie transformasies. Die konseptueie en metodologiese aspekte van portuurgroepevaluering word ondersoek deur eerstens te kyk na definisies van portuurgroepevaluering, die geskiedenis daarvan en kontekste waarbinne dit gebruik word. Tweedens word gekyk na kritiek gelewer op portuurgroep-evaluering. Portuurgroep evaluering binne die praktyk word ook ondersoek waar vier onderskeie befondsingsagentskappe se evaluerings prosesse geanaliseer word. Hierdie analise word gedoen in terme van drie essensiële aspekte binne portuurgroep- evaluering. Hierdie drie aspekte is as volg: 1) die wyse waarop evalueerders geselekteer word, 2) die evalueringskriteria waarvolgens navorsingsvoorstelle gemeet word en 3) die hoeveelheid evalueringsfases binne die protuurgroep-evaluerings proses. Laastens word aanbevelings ter verbetering van die portuurgroep-evaluerings proses as ook voorstelle tot moontlike alternatiewe tot portuurgroep-evaluering as 'n evaluerings instrument gebied.