Taiwan area has administered local autonomy for over fifty years. At first its authority was mainly based on an administrative order called the Guidelines for Local Autonomy and then the Local System Law at present. Among the powers vested by the law, veto is an important weapon for the local administration to balance legislative power. However, the veto power has yet to be further elaborated for it was used in just a little more than 500 cases all over Taiwan area in the past sixty years. This essay tries to probe both the theoretical and practical facets of the veto system. The local system of this country adopted an administration and legislature separation system. In case a conflict should occur between the two powers, its time for veto to help solve the dilemma. As a matter of fact, government is responsible for proposing important bills, the officials can defend its policies while attending the legislature for interpellation or proposal deliberation. In addition, budgets are only proposed by local administrations. Local legislatures are restrained from increasing the sizes of the proposed budgets by law. So while deliberating on draft resolutions, the legislature would consider officials¡¦ opinions and not to make less feasible resolutions. Despite an unfeasible resolution should be made, the administration would rather seek other ways out than veto it in order to maintain the harmony between the two powers. More over, the content of the Local System Law has put more weight on administration power so as to make the legislature conservative in enforcing its power lest its resolutions should be vetoed. In recent years, democracy has enrooted into the daily lives of the society; Local political environment change drastically and divided government is now a commonplace; Local cliques have either reformed or vanished; Gangsters and money politics enter local legislatures and struggle for personal interests. The administrations are facing an overwhelmingly new eco system in local legislatures. Comparing the factors that induce a veto, it is found that the conflict for personal interest is the most common cause. The veto system is a mechanism of instrument equilibrium. Administration and legislation should stand on an equal position to discuss veto dispute to reach the purposes of the separation of powers between the executive and legislature. This essay suggests the central government that the time limit, quorum, scope and method in deliberating a veto should be explicitly defined in law so as to make sure a healthier veto system.

In Sweden, real property formation is done by the cadastral authority. Each day, using real property ordinances, despite careful handling errors arise in the decisions. One option to cor- rect errors is revision under the Administrative Procedure Act § 27. The work consists of a study of the provision in § 27 and a case study of the decision reconsidered by the cadastral authority. The aim of this work is to show the difficulties and problems in the application of the provision in § 27 especially in connection with real property formation. Reconsideration under § 27 is generally drafted to include all authorities. The authority has an obligation to reconsider a wrong decision when three conditions are met. It shall be clearly incorrect, the change has to happen quickly and easy, and the change cannot lead to a disad- vantage for the participant. Reconsideration outside § 27 can be applied under established practice, based on the decisions character. Reconsideration under § 27 is often difficult to apply for real property formation because of the occurrence of several participants and sever- al operations in each case. The cadastral authority uses the reconsideration provision somewhat broader than what can be interpreted from the statutory text and its legislative history. In 46% of the studied recon- sidered decisions it was judged that the conditions were not met. In another 11% of cases it was deemed doubtful whether conditions could be met. The provision in § 27 expresses when an obligation to reconsider exists but what can be re- considered is more unclear. The question arises whether there is a further reconsideration opportunity and what it in this case covers. The results of the survey show that there are no clear rules for reconsideration of decisions under § 27 applicable to real property formation. The legislation represents a limit on when reconsideration must be done. Then there is established practice which is the limit for what can be reconsidered. What is true in between and especially for real property formation deci- sions is less clear. Clearer rules specific to real property formation may contribute to an effec- tive process for managing the wrong decisions. / I Sverige utförs fastighetsbildning av lantmäterimyndigheten. Varje dag genomförs fastig- hetsbildningsförrättningar och trots en noggrann handläggning uppkommer fel i besluten. Ett alternativ att rätta fel är omprövning enligt förvaltningslagen 27 §. Arbetet består av en studie av bestämmelsen i 27 § FL samt en undersökning av omprövade beslut vid fastighetsbildning. Syftet med arbetet är att visa på svårigheter och problem med tillämpningen av bestämmelsen i 27 § FL särskilt i samband med fastighetsbildning. Omprövning enligt 27 § FL är allmänt utformade regler för att kunna omfatta alla myndighet- er. Myndigheten har en skyldighet att ompröva ett felaktigt beslut när tre villkor är uppfyllda. Beslutet ska vara uppenbart oriktigt, ändringen ska kunna ske snabbt och enkelt och ändring- en får inte bli till nackdel för part. Omprövning utanför 27 § FL kan tillämpas med stöd av etablerad praxis som grundas på beslutets karaktär. Omprövning enligt 27 § FL är många gånger svårt att tillämpa för beslut vid fastighetsbildning. Detta på grund av fastighetsbild- ningens karaktär av ärenden med flera parter samt flera arbetsmoment. I praktiken tillämpas omprövningsbestämmelsen inom lantmäterimyndigheten något vidare än vad som kan tolkas från lagtext och förarbeten. I 46 % av de studerade omprövningarna bedömdes det att villkoren inte var uppfyllda. I ytterligare 11 % av fallen bedömdes det vara tveksamt om villkoren kunde anses uppfyllda. Bestämmelsen i 27 § FL uttrycker när en skyldighet att ompröva föreligger, vad som däremot får omprövas är mer oklart. Frågan uppkommer om det finns en vidare omprövningsmöjlig- het och vad den i så fall omfattar. Resultatet av undersökningen visar på att det saknas tydliga regler för hur omprövning enligt 27 § FL ska tillämpas vid fastighetsbildning. Lagstiftningen utgör en gräns för när ompröv- ning måste göras. Sedan finns etablerad praxis som utgör en gräns för vad som får omprövas. Vad som gäller däremellan och särskilt för beslut inom fastighetsbildningen är mer oklart. Tydligare regler specifikt för fastighetsbildning kan bidra till en effektiv process för att han- tera felaktiga beslut.

Studien undersöker om det finns skillnader i bedömningen av omprövningsvillkoren i 35§ anläggningslagen beroende på var i landet som prövningen görs. Anläggningslagen innehåller bestämmelser om gemensamhetsanläggningar och enskilda vägar och när en anläggning bildas tas ett anläggningsbeslut. För att kunna ändra något i anläggningen, till exempel lägga till ett ändamål eller upphäva anläggning så krävs en ändring i anläggningsbeslutet. Det är här som 35§ AL tar vid. En ändring i anläggningsbeslutet kräver en omprövning av beslutet där något av villkoren i nämnda paragraf ska vara uppfyllda. Det måste antingen ha inträtt ändrade förhållanden, finnas en skrivelse i anläggningsbeslutet om att omprövning får ske inom en viss tid eller finnas ett klart behov av omprövning av anläggningen.  Bryntesson och Rasheed (2016) gjorde en studie kring hur bedömningen av villkoren i anläggningsbeslut under en viss tidsperiod sett ut där de drar slutsatsen att villkoren är otydliga och att det skulle vara intressant att se om det finns skillnader i bedömningen runt om i landet. Den här studien bygger vidare på detta och tittar därför på just geografiska skillnader i bedömningen av 35§ AL. Detta görs genom en genomgång av varför paragrafen ser ut som den gör, för att sedan gå vidare in på gällande rätt på området och avslutas med en genomgång av förrättningsakter i tre olika län mellan åren 2020 och 2021. De tre länen som valts ut är Norrlands län, Skåne län och Stockholms län, urvalet har gjorts genom hänsyn till dels befolkningsmängd men också karaktären på länen med ett med mer landsbygdskaraktär, ett med en blandad karaktär och ett med storstadskaraktär för att lättare kunna urskilja skillnader. För varje för studien relevant ärende så har ett referat av ärendet och hur förrättningslantmätaren bedömer omprövningen tagits fram. Genomgången av förrättningsakter i de tre länen visar att de flesta omprövningar som genomförs görs på grund av att nya detalj-eller vägplaner antagits där anläggningen påverkas på något sätt vilket därför kräver en omprövning av anläggningen. De flesta omprövningar som görs är väl motiverade men det finns också några som även lantmäterimyndigheten själva tycker är tveksamma men som ändå godkänns, ofta på grund av att omprövningen grundar sig i en överenskommelse.  Resultatet av undersökningen visar på att det inte går att se några geografiska skillnader i bedömningen av villkoren i 35§ AL. Det går att se att det finns skillnader i bedömningarna även inom länen vilket kan tyda på att bedömningarna i stället skiljer åt beroende på vilken förrättningslantmätare som handlägger ärendet. Studien kommer även fram till samma slutsats som det som Bryntesson och Rasheed (2016) kommer till i sin studie. Villkoren är otydliga eftersom bedömningen skiljer sig åt och rekvisiten används på olika sätt för samma typer av ärenden. De har ett otydligt tillämpningsområde då gällande rätt är otydlig i hur villkoren ska användas, vilket ger stort tolkningsutrymme åt förrättningslantmätarna samtidigt som gällande rätt också betonar att omprövning ska användas restriktivt. Det finns också oklarheter i hur överenskommelser ska hanteras vid omprövning. En översyn av lagstiftningen kan därför behövas för att få en enhetligare och mer rättvis bedömning av omprövningsärenden i hela landet. / For facilities that are to be shared and managed by two or more properties, a joint facility can be formed. In Sweden, the most common type of joint facilities are roads, with over 100 000 facilities. A joint facility is formed during a facility procedure, conducted by the cadastral authority, where a facility order is decided. In the order, the purpose, management, and costs of the facility is decided, and these cannot be changed by the part-owners themselves. Instead, the part-owners can apply for a reconsideration of the facility order if a change in the facility order is necessary. For this type of application to be approved, one of the three criteria stated in 35§ Joint Facilities Act, AL, needs to be met. The paragraph states that a reconsideration is possible if the circumstances have changed, it is stated in the facility order that the order can be reconsidered after a certain amount of time or if there is a clear need of reconsideration.  Bryntesson and Rasheed (2016) conducted a study of how the different criteria was used in practice by the cadastral authority in Sweden. The results showed that the assessment varies and that the application of the criteria is unclear and suggests further studies on the area, for example whether the assessment varies in different parts of the country. This study’s purpose is just that, investigating whether there are geographical differences in the assessment of the reconsideration criteria in 35§ AL. This has been conducted by a review of the current legislation and an examination of cadastral dossiers from the years 2020 to 2021 in three different counties. The counties have been chosen in consideration of its population count and type, one with a countryside character, one with a combination of countryside and city and the third with a city character to be able to see differences more clearly. The current legislation and the results of the cadastral dossiers study has then been compared and analysed to further highlight similarities and differences. The results show that most of the cadastral procedures handling reconsideration is due to new detailed development plans changing the division of property units or updating facility orders where some parts are considered outdated. However, there are also some reconsiderations that are more unclear but that are approved referring to that the part-owners have a written agreement to base their application on. Analysing the results, no geographical differences can be seen. However, differences in the assessment over all is shown, which can indicate that the assessment varies with how each cadastral surveyor interprets the legislation. One specific area where differences in the overall assessment is seen are reconsideration for the purpose to include charging stations for electric cars in the joint facility. There is little legislation on the area and that is also reflected in the assessments as they vary a lot. There are uncertainties in the usage of the different criteria of the 35§ AL, where different criteria are used for the same purpose of reconsideration. There are also uncertainties in the handling of agreements where some reconsiderations are approved without evaluation of the criteria in 35§ AL since the part-owners signed an agreement, which is legally uncertain. Finally, there is a need for clarification on how the criteria are to be used and how agreements should be handled to get a more legally secure and fair assessment that is equal all around the country.

Developing an adjudicative institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa entails the establishment of a system that gives effect to the rights (of access) to social security and to justice. These rights are protected in the Constitution and in various international law instruments. In the Constitution, the Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the right to have access to social security, including appropriate social assistance for persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants. It further requires the State to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to access to social security. Since a dispute resolution (adjudication) framework is an integral part of any comprehensive social security system, it is included in the constitutional obligation of the State. The establishment of a social security adjudication system is an intersection of the right of access to social security and the right of access to justice. The Constitution states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. In addition, other rights protected in the Constitution have a bearing on the realisation of the rights of access to social security and to justice. There is a close correlation between all the rights in the Bill of Rights, as they are interrelated, interdependent and mutually supporting. They must all be read together in the setting of the Constitution as a whole and their interconnectedness must be taken into account in interpreting rights; and in determining whether the State has met its obligations in terms of any one of them. These rights, which include the right to equality (section 9), the right to human dignity (section 10) and the right to just administrative action (section 33) must thus be considered in establishing a social security adjudication system. Also to be considered are other constitutional prerequisites for the establishment of a social security adjudication system, such as the limitation and enforcement of rights (sections 36 and 38 respectively); principles relating to courts and the administration of justice (Chapter 8) and basic values and principles governing public administration (Chapter 10). In establishing a social security adjudication system in South Africa, international law standards and developments in comparative systems must also be taken into account. The Constitution adopts an international law- and comparative law-friendly approach. It states that when interpreting fundamental rights, international law must be considered while foreign law may be considered (section 39). This thesis aims to develop an adjudicative and institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa that realises the rights of access to social security and to justice in the South African social security system. This is achieved by exploring the concept of access to justice, and its application in the social security adjudication system. The current social security adjudication system is evaluated against the concept of access to justice applicable in international and regional law instruments, comparable South African (non-social security) systems and comparative international jurisdictions. Principles and standards on the establishment of a social security adjudication system are distilled; and a reformed system for South Africa is proposed. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

Developing an adjudicative institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa entails the establishment of a system that gives effect to the rights (of access) to social security and to justice. These rights are protected in the Constitution and in various international law instruments. In the Constitution, the Bill of Rights guarantees everyone the right to have access to social security, including appropriate social assistance for persons who are unable to support themselves and their dependants. It further requires the State to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to access to social security. Since a dispute resolution (adjudication) framework is an integral part of any comprehensive social security system, it is included in the constitutional obligation of the State. The establishment of a social security adjudication system is an intersection of the right of access to social security and the right of access to justice. The Constitution states that everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. In addition, other rights protected in the Constitution have a bearing on the realisation of the rights of access to social security and to justice. There is a close correlation between all the rights in the Bill of Rights, as they are interrelated, interdependent and mutually supporting. They must all be read together in the setting of the Constitution as a whole and their interconnectedness must be taken into account in interpreting rights; and in determining whether the State has met its obligations in terms of any one of them. These rights, which include the right to equality (section 9), the right to human dignity (section 10) and the right to just administrative action (section 33) must thus be considered in establishing a social security adjudication system. Also to be considered are other constitutional prerequisites for the establishment of a social security adjudication system, such as the limitation and enforcement of rights (sections 36 and 38 respectively); principles relating to courts and the administration of justice (Chapter 8) and basic values and principles governing public administration (Chapter 10). In establishing a social security adjudication system in South Africa, international law standards and developments in comparative systems must also be taken into account. The Constitution adopts an international law- and comparative law-friendly approach. It states that when interpreting fundamental rights, international law must be considered while foreign law may be considered (section 39). This thesis aims to develop an adjudicative and institutional framework for effective social security provisioning in South Africa that realises the rights of access to social security and to justice in the South African social security system. This is achieved by exploring the concept of access to justice, and its application in the social security adjudication system. The current social security adjudication system is evaluated against the concept of access to justice applicable in international and regional law instruments, comparable South African (non-social security) systems and comparative international jurisdictions. Principles and standards on the establishment of a social security adjudication system are distilled; and a reformed system for South Africa is proposed. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.