Conflict and injustice are endemic to the imperfectness of human existence, and the Church of Christ is not immune to them. Various means can be adopted to solve conflict in the church. This study is concerned with legal restitution through calling at a major assembly, as provided in Article 31 Church Order. Statement of the problem Biblical grounds for the right of appeal are largely lacking in the Reformed church polity. In addition, there is no clear definition of the concept 'injustice' in Article 31 Church Order. In the case of appeals brought to a synod of the RCSA, the verdict usually contains no guidelines on how the matter should be dealt with in practice in order to effect reconciliation. Consequently, the outcome of an appeal does not necessarily contribute to the solution and restoration of broken relationships. Aim and method of work This study endeavours to determine the biblical grounds of appeal and legal restitution in Reformed church polity through scriptural study; establish the essence and content of appeal in Reformed church polity; and examine the functioning, treatment and application of appeal with a view to legal restitution in the RCSA, and address shortcomings in this respect. Findings Legal restitution occurs when an appeal is judged according to clearly defined norms; the verdict rests on the same norms; and the necessary steps had been taken to reconcile the parties involved in the appeal Organisation The study is divided into four main sections: biblical foundation of appeal with a view to legal restitution; historical development of appeal with a view to legal restitution; fundamental definition of appeal with a view to legal restitution; and practical treatment of appeal with a view to legal restitution. Finally, the research questions born from the problem statement are answered by means of concluding statements. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Church Polity))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006.

Conflict and injustice are endemic to the imperfectness of human existence, and the Church of Christ is not immune to them. Various means can be adopted to solve conflict in the church. This study is concerned with legal restitution through calling at a major assembly, as provided in Article 31 Church Order. Statement of the problem Biblical grounds for the right of appeal are largely lacking in the Reformed church polity. In addition, there is no clear definition of the concept 'injustice' in Article 31 Church Order. In the case of appeals brought to a synod of the RCSA, the verdict usually contains no guidelines on how the matter should be dealt with in practice in order to effect reconciliation. Consequently, the outcome of an appeal does not necessarily contribute to the solution and restoration of broken relationships. Aim and method of work This study endeavours to determine the biblical grounds of appeal and legal restitution in Reformed church polity through scriptural study; establish the essence and content of appeal in Reformed church polity; and examine the functioning, treatment and application of appeal with a view to legal restitution in the RCSA, and address shortcomings in this respect. Findings Legal restitution occurs when an appeal is judged according to clearly defined norms; the verdict rests on the same norms; and the necessary steps had been taken to reconcile the parties involved in the appeal Organisation The study is divided into four main sections: biblical foundation of appeal with a view to legal restitution; historical development of appeal with a view to legal restitution; fundamental definition of appeal with a view to legal restitution; and practical treatment of appeal with a view to legal restitution. Finally, the research questions born from the problem statement are answered by means of concluding statements. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Church Polity))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2006.

No description available.

Deux décennies après l’adoption de la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés en 1951, l’affluence du nombre de réfugiés réclamant l’asile aux frontières occidentales a mené les États européens à instaurer des règles restrictives pour dissuader les demandeurs d’asile à se réclamer de cette protection internationale au sein de leurs territoires respectifs. Une des mesures préventives récentes est la directive sur « Pays d’origine sûrs » (POS) dont l’objectif est d’identifier les requérants non éligibles à recevoir la protection internationale, car issus de pays considérés sécuritaires. Ce travail de recherche propose une étude comparative entre les directives de l’Union européenne adoptées en 2005, puis réformées en 2013 et la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés en vigueur au Canada. D’une part, nous analysons l’impact néfaste de cette directive dissuasive sur les droits fondamentaux des demandeurs d’asile en provenance de pays d’origine désignés, notamment en ce qui a trait à leur droit à une entrevue individuelle ainsi que leur droit d’en appeler de la décision qui a été prise et leur refusant l’asile. D’autre part, nous démontrerons comment l’étendue des limites substantielles à l’égard des droits fondamentaux des demandeurs d’asile en provenance des POS est contradictoire avec les obligations constitutionnelles de l’UE et du Canada, notamment celles formulées dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Bien que l’élaboration et l’application des règles adoptées par les systèmes juridiques mentionnés souffrent de plusieurs défauts violant les droits fondamentaux des demandeurs d’asile en provenance de pays d’origine désignés, nous démontrerons que l’approche du Canada a des conséquences plus draconiennes sur des demandeurs d’asile en provenance de POS que celles découlant de la loi commune applicable dans l’UE. Finalement, nous conclurons que les États occidentaux ne devraient pas se limiter à une solution à court terme telle celle du POS. Ces États devraient avoir plus de responsabilités et offrir une protection internationale accrue en soutenant les pays près de zones de conflits tout en établissant un programme réaliste permettant d’accueillir un nombre précis de réfugiés tous les ans. Mots Clés : Pays d’origine sûrs – Pays d’origine désignés – Droits humains – Droits procéduraux – Droit à l’entrevue individuelle – Droit d’appel – l’Union européenne – Canada – Réfugiés requérants – Demandeurs d’asile / Two decades following the adoption of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the growing number of asylum seekers arriving at the Western countries’ borders convinced European States to put in place new asylum rules to prevent asylum seekers from reaching their borders and dissuade the potential refugee applicants from seeking international protection in their respective territories. One of the most recent preventive measures has been the “Safe Countries of Origin” rule (hereafter SCO) whose main purpose is to identify and reject refugee applicants who are not in real need of international protection since they originate from countries which are deemed generally safe. In this research, we conduct a comparative study between the European Union’s Directives adopted in 2005 and recasted in 2013, and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act enacted by the Canada. At the first step, we intend to verify the adverse impact of this deterrent rule, during the expeditious determination procedure, on the SCO asylum seekers’ fundamental human rights including the right to personal interview and the right to appeal. At the second step, our objective is to demonstrate to which extent the fundamental human rights limitations imposed on SCO asylum seekers are in contradiction with the EU’s and Canada’s constitutional obligations undertaken respectively in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Based on this comparative research we illustrate that, while the elaboration and the application of the SCO rule in both the above-mentioned legal systems suffer from inherent flaws which infringe the basic human rights of SCO refugee applicants, Canada’s approach has had more drastic consequences on the SCO refugee applicants than those resulting from the EU’s common asylum law. Finally, we conclude that, instead of a short-term solution such as the SCO rule, the Western States must accept more responsibilities in providing international protection by supporting the countries that border the crisis zones, and establishing a workable program to accept a specific number of asylum seekers every year. Keywords: Safe Countries of Origin - Designated Countries of Origin - Human Rights -Procedural Rights - Right to Personal Interview - Right to Appeal - the European Union - Canada - Refugee Applicants - Asylum Seekers

This thesis deals with a description and analysis of the EU law and policy on Schengen visas. The EU visa policy is analysed in its historical development and its place in the framework of Schengen acquis. Separately, important visa policy measures are analysed including the typology of visas, exceptions from visa obligation, visa reciprocity, visa facilitation and processes of visa liberalisation. Different phases of the visa procedure are studied with focus on the questions whether there is a right to be issued a Schengen visa when the conditions are met and the right of appeal. The relevant legislation subject to analysis is above all the Visa Code, the regulation on visa lists and the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. By way of illustration, the implementation in the Czech legal order is used and jurisprudence of the Czech higher courts is quoted to show to what extent the EU visa procedure and visa refusal matches the requirements of the administrative law theory on the administrative procedure and decision in general. The relevant rules are assessed as to the extent they match with principles of legitimacy, influence of legal certainty, effectiveness and proportionality. The core of the work is a hypothesis that current EU visa rules do not establish a right to a visa when the...

This thesis investigates the compatibility of a crucial aspect of Sudanese criminal justice, namely, the compatibility of the right to a fair trial with two main sources of this right: international human rights law and Shari’a law. The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone for any society and serves to observe the rule of law and other rights of citizens. The study illustrates that the right to a fair trial could play a significant role in the protection of human rights in Sudan. The main aim of this study is to establish ways in which the right to a fair trial can be strengthened in Sudan. The thesis has examined the work emanating from the international level by reviewing decisions, providing general comments and analysing other jurisprudence emanating from bodies such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The decisions, general comments and other jurisprudence from these bodies are juxtaposed against Sudan’s laws to establish the extent to which the right to a fair trial is upheld at the domestic level in Sudan. The study critically examines the sources of the right to a fair trial in Sudan. The main sources of right to a fair trial in Sudan are the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Penal Code, Shari’a law and international human rights law. It seeks to answer the question whether Sudanese fair trial rights are compatible with international standards. The study establishes that one of the sources of law that govern the right to a fair trial in Sudan is Shari’a law. The main principle in Islam is that nothing is unlawful, unless it is expressly forbidden by law. However, the Shari’a law in Sudan has not been properly implemented as is illustrated through the rigid and traditional implementation of some of its provisions. The selective and rigid implementation of provisions of Shari’a law has resulted in a conflict with the accepted international standards of fair trial rights. What the study establishes is that a more progressive interpretation of Shari’a law can potentially solve the contradictions with international human rights law that currently exist. The study identifies a number of factors that have affected the development of the right to a fair trial in Sudan. Among these factors are the lack of political will, poverty, the lack of awareness about rights, laws that are contrary to the right to a fair trial, laws that inadequately protect victims and witnesses, impunity, corruption, the lack of resources both human and financial, abuse of power, existence of military and special courts, institutional constraints, discrimination against women, and the refusal or resistance of the executive branch of government to implement decisions of the courts. This study concludes that some pre-trial, trial and post-trial rights and standards in Sudan are not in conformity with international and regional standards. The study concludes by making a number of recommendations aimed at institutional and legal reform. / Dissertation (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Unrestricted