“For too long the world has stood by in the face of atrocities. The Responsibility to Protect is a commitment to act.” After the 2005 World Summit, the international community endorsed a new international norm, the Responsibility to Protect. This new international norm stipulates that the primary responsibility to protect the population of a country lies with the state itself. When a state is either unable or unwilling to protect peoples, the responsibility shifts to the international community. The obligation must be exercised preventively and the tools of action include diplomatic, legal and other peaceful measures; coercive measures such as sanctions; and, as a last resort, military force. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2011. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / nf2012 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

No description available.

No description available.

The theoretical debate over the ability of parties and leaders in the House of Representatives to influence legislative decision-making is at the center of much of the literature on Congress. On the one hand, the Procedural Cartel perspective argues that while the tools used by the majority party leadership to assure the triumph of its preferences may vary depending on the institutional context, the basic ability of the leadership to impact legislative outcomes remains consistent. In contrast, Conditional Party Government (CPG) theory posits that any power the majority party and its leadership possesses over legislative decision-making is directly conditioned upon the amount of agreement within the majority party caucus as to collective goals, as well as the amount of ideological polarization that exists between the majority and minority parties. This thesis provides an original test of these two theoretical perspectives by evaluating their comparative ability to account for the proposal and passage of limitation riders on the House floor during the annual appropriations process since the 1980s. Limitation riders provide a good vehicle to test theories of congressional voting as they often have important policy implications in areas of significant controversy. In addition, the extent to which the individual members or legislative parties are able to successfully utilize limitation riders as a means of making substantive policy is indicative of larger patterns of committee or party domination of the floor process. After reviewing the relevant literature on congressional decision-making, this analysis proceeds to outline the theoretical predictions that the Procedural Cartel and CPG perspectives make regarding limitation riders. An original dataset comprised of over 800 limitation riders from the 97th through the 110th Congresses is analyzed both with respect to overall proposal and passage rates as well their party of origin. This study finds that while the CPG perspective is best able to account for what occurs during periods of low polarization and cohesion, Procedural Cartel provides the most accurate prediction of what occurs when polarization and cohesion are high. These findings suggest that, although these theories both have some ability to account for congressional decision-making on the House floor, both of these frameworks need to be revisited so that they can accurately account for what occurs during floor phase of the legislative process.

Given that the basic functions of parliamentary Question Time are to provide information and to hold the Government accountable for its actions, the possibility of evasion occurring in such a context is of crucial importance. Evasion (equivocation) has been identified as a matter of concern in political interviews, but no systematic study has been undertaken in the context of parliamentary discourse, notably Question Time, anywhere in the world. This study applies and adapts Harris's (1991) coding framework on various types of responses, Bull and Mayer's (1993) typology of non-replies and Clayman's (2001) work on how politicians 'resist' answering questions, all of which are based on political news interviews, to the study of evasion in Australia's House of Representatives' Question Time. A comprehensive, unified framework for the analysis of evasion is described, a decision flow-chart for the framework is provided, and an illustrative example of the applied framework is given based on Australia's Federal House of Representatives' Question Time. Put simply, the study was undertaken to determine if evasion occurred, how frequently it occurred and how it occurred. It involved the classification of responses as 'answers' (direct or indirect), 'intermediate responses' (such as pointing out incorrect information in the question), and 'evasions' based on specific criteria. Responses which were considered evasions were further analysed to determine the levels of evasion, whether they were covert or overt in nature and the types of 'agenda shifts' that occurred, if any. The thesis also involved a discourse-analytical study of other factors that appear to facilitate Ministerial evasion in Australia's House of Representatives, including the Speaker's performance and the use of 'Dorothy Dixers'. The research data was sourced from Question Time transcripts from the House of Representatives Hansard for the months of February and March 2003, dealing only with questions and responses on the topic of Iraq. In those months there were 87 questions on the topic of Iraq, representing more than two thirds of all questions on Iraq for the whole of 2003. Of these 87 questions, the majority (48) came from the Opposition party, through its leader. The balance (39) was asked by Government MPs. Analysis of the question/answer discourse for all 87 questions revealed that every question asked by Government members was answered compared to only 8 of the 48 Opposition questions. Of the 40 remaining Opposition questions, 21 were given intermediate responses and 19 were evaded outright. The fact that the overwhelming majority (83%) of Opposition questions were not answered together with other findings such as instances of partiality on the part of the Speaker; the use of 'friendly', prearranged questions by Government MPs; and the 'hostile' nature of questions asked by Opposition MPs casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of Question Time as a means of ensuring the Government is held accountable for its actions. The study provides empirical evidence that evasion does occur in Australia's House of Representatives' Question Time.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

In NCAA Division I, academic eligibility standards are national in scope and are the same for all institutions. In NCAA Division III, there are no national standards; rather each member institution establishes its own academic eligibility standards. However, information on these standards has never been collected and published, leaving a significant hole in the research in this area. The problem addressed by this study was to collect this academic eligibility information on the members of one Division III conference. A number of questions were addressed in the study. One was, how do Division III eligibility standards compare to Division I standards? Another was, how do eligibility standards in the Division III institutions studied compare to each other? Since differences were found, a final question addressed was, do the differences in academic eligibility standards between the Division III institutions lead to competitive equity issues. Data on academic eligibility standards from 15 members of one Division III conference were collected through interviews of Compliance Officers at each institution. The data were compared to the NCAA national standards for Division I. The data were also analyzed for differences among the Division III institutions studied. A correlation analysis was used to determine if a relationship existed between academic eligibility standards and competitive equity. The findings of the study were that on most of the academic eligibility variables, the Division III institutions studied had lower standards than the national standards for Division I. In the comparison of Division III institutions to each other, differences were found for high school core course requirements, transfer and continuing student credit hour requirements, and exceptions to the rules. While the study found pronounced differences in competitive equity among the Division III institutions studied, there was no clear indication of any relationship between eligibility requirements and competitive equity. This study provided some interesting information about the institutions in one Division III conference. However, the study raised as many questions as it answered. More work needs to be done to determine whether the policies followed by NCAA Division III institutions are truly different from those followed by Division I institutions. / text

Many external parties such as investors, creditors, and regulatory agencies, use a company’s financial statements in their decision-making. In doing so, they rely on audit opinions on whether financial statements are fairly stated. However, evidence suggests that there are factors in the audit environment that influence auditor judgments. For example, nondiagnostic client information dilutes auditor judgments when compared to judgments based on diagnostic information alone, especially for less experienced auditors (Hackenbrack 1992; Hoffman and Patton 1997; Glover 1994; Shelton 1999). High time pressure conditions mitigate this effect by refocusing auditor attention toward relevant client information, therefore reducing the impact of nondiagnostic information (Glover 1994, 1997). This research study examines other common audit environment factors to determine if they too influence audit judgment results. An online questionnaire of 149 auditors, CPAs and other accounting professionals indicate that the inclusion of nondiagnostic client information results in a significant change in auditor judgments. The direction of this change follows a theorized pattern; risk assessments that were initially high are reduced, while those that were initially low are increased. Significance was not consistently found for a workload and PCAOB effect on auditor judgment. However, a comparison of the absolute value of dilution effect means across conditions reveals some trending for the proposed unwanted effect of high workload, and the beneficial effect of PCAOB guidance. These results have important implications for auditing research and practice. It extends previous archival research on workload effects and uses a unique questionnaire design to reexamine workload pressures in a behavioral setting. The results of hypothesis testing on workload pressure and PCAOB guidance, although lacking consistent statistical significance; exhibit trends that agree with proposed theoretical relationships. Tests on the effects of nondiagnostic information show strong statistical support for previous studies in the area of psychology and audit. This study’s greatest contribution suggests that audit pressures do not produce equivalent effects on auditor judgment; time pressure improves audit judgment, while workload pressure does not (Glover 1994, 1997). These results can be explained by examining the relationship between stress and audit judgment performance (Choo 1995, Yerkes and Dodson 1908). Different types and different degrees of audit pressures may correspond to different levels of audit pressure. Low to moderate levels of audit pressure, such as the level of time pressure used in Glover’s (1994, 1997) study improve audit performance. Higher audit pressures, such as high workload during an auditor’s busy season, may lower audit performance.

Jurisdiction is the power or competence of a Court to hear and determine an issue between parties, as well as the power to compel the parties to give effect to a judgment. The approach of a CCMA commissioner faced with a jurisdictional challenge is therefore an important issue that requires legal certainty. Unfortunately, our case law has not been uniform with regard to the various issues surrounding jurisdiction of the CCMA, for example: what facts need to be established in order for the CCMA to have jurisdiction and at what stage of the process should a commissioner deal with the issue of jurisdiction. The purpose of this treatise is to consider the various approaches of our courts to the issue of the jurisdiction of the CCMA and to determine what approach is practically best suited for CCMA commissioners when the issue of jurisdiction is in dispute. The research methodology is based on the various approaches of our courts to the jurisdiction of the CCMA as set out in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC). The more practical “third” approach as proposed by van Niekerk J, in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC), has been favoured by the Labour Court and the CCMA following the judgment. The correct approach of a commissioner when dealing with specific jurisdictional facts such as condonation and the jurisdiction of a bargaining council will further be considered. However, the predicament that commissioners face is that the Labour Appeal Court’s approach to jurisdiction is in conflict with that of the Labour Court’s approach. In conclusion, it is submitted that the Labour Appeal Court must pronounce on the issue of jurisdiction, taking into consideration the approach of the Labour Court as to create certainty regarding the correct approach of a commissioner when faced with a jurisdictional challenge.

Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Various types of rules govern many areas of life in a sectional title scheme. The Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 prescribes model management and conduct rules in its regulations. Other non-prescribed rules are adopted by either the developers initially or later by the trustees of the body corporate. These rules provide for the control, management, administration, use and enjoyment of the sections and the common property in the scheme. Sectional owners and other occupiers have the entitlements of use and enjoyment of their individual sections and their share in the common property of the sectional title scheme, in proportion to their participation quota. These entitlements are restricted by the rules in operation within the scheme. Although these rules limit the entitlements of sectional owners and other occupiers in the interest of the sectional title community, they may not be unreasonable in their application and effect. In some instances, the application of the rules might exceed the bounds of reasonableness and result in unfair discrimination, arbitrary deprivation, unfair administrative action or restrictions on access to courts for dispute resolution. If certain rules are unreasonable in their application, based on one or more of the abovementioned grounds, the court must interpret the potentially impermissible rules and if the court cannot avoid a declaration of invalidity by implementing a constitutional remedy such as reading-up, reading-down, reading-in or severance, these impermissible rules will need to be substituted, amended or repealed and replaced because they are potentially unconstitutional and invalid. After a statutory and constitutional enquiry into the nature, scope, application, operation and effect of the rules governing sectional title schemes, it can be concluded that the various types of rules governing sectional title schemes restrict and limit sectional owners’ and occupiers’ entitlements of use and enjoyment of their individual sections and share in the common property. However, after being tested against section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 and other non-property rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, to determine if the rules are reasonable in their application and constitutionally permissible, it can be seen that the application of the rules do not necessarily amount to arbitrary deprivations of property and that they can be justified in terms of the Constitution because there is sufficient reasons for the particular regulations and they are procedurally fair. The various different types of rules governing sectional title schemes serve as reasonable regulations in as far as they contribute to a harmonious relationship between the trustees of the body corporate and the sectional owners and occupiers as members of the body corporate as well as between the members of the body corporate inter se. The rules serve an important function in this regard. Therefore, they are considered reasonable and constitutionally valid in as far as they do not enforce excessive regulation and as long as they are equally applicable and do not unfairly differentiate in their application. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Verskeie tipes reëls reguleer alledaagse aangeleenthede in ‘n deeltitelskema. Die Wet op Deeltitels 95 van 1986 maak voorsiening vir voorgeskrewe bestuurs- en gedragsreëls in die regulasies. Die ontwikkelaars of die trustees van die regspersoon kan aanvanklik met die stigting van die skema of op ‘n latere stadium addisionele reëls byvoeg wat nie alreeds deur die Wet voorgeskryf is nie. Die reëls maak voorsiening vir die beheer, bestuur, administrasie, gebruik en genot van die eenheid en die gemeenskaplike eiendom in die skema. Die deeleienaars van deeltitelskemas en ander okkupeerders van die skema is geregtig om hulle individuele eenhede sowel as die gemeenskaplike eiendom, in ooreenstemming met hulle deelnemingskwota, te gebruik en geniet; en dit vorm deel van hul inhoudsbevoegdhede. Hierdie inhoudsbevoegdhede word beperk deur die skema se reëls. Afgesien daarvan dat die reëls die deeleienaar en ander okkupeerders se inhoudsbevoegdhede beperk in die belang van die deeltitelgemeenskap, mag die reëls nie onredelik wees in die toepassing daarvan nie. In sommige gevalle kan die toepassing van die reëls die perke van redelikheid oorskry en neerkom op ongeregverdigde diskriminasie, arbitrêre ontneming, ongeregverdigde administratiewe handeling of ‘n beperking plaas op toegang tot die howe met die oog op dispuutoplossing. Indien daar bevind word dat sekere reëls onredelik is in die toepassing daarvan op grond van een of meer van die voorafgemelde gronde, moet die hof artikel 39 van die Grondwet volg en die reël interpreteer om ‘n deklarasie van ongeldigheid te vermy. As die hof dit nie kan vermy deur middel van konstitutusionele remedies soos “op-lesing”, “af-lesing”, “afskeiding” of “in-lesing” nie, sal die reëls gewysig of geskrap en vervang moet word, anders sal die reël ongrondwetlik wees en ongeldig verklaar word. Na afloop van ‘n statutêre en konstitusionele ondersoek ten opsigte van die aard, omvang, toepassing, werking en effek van die reëls wat deeltitelskemas reguleer word daar bevind dat die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer ‘n beperking plaas op die inhousdbevoegdhede van deeltiteleienaars en ander okkupeerders wat betref die reg om die eenheid sowel as die gemeenskaplike eiendom te gebruik en geniet. Ten einde te bepaal of die reëls redelik in die toepassing daarvan sowel as grondwetlik toelaatbaar is, word dit getoets in terme van artikel 25 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 1996 en ander regte in die Handves van Regte. Daar word bevind dat die toepassing van die reëls nie noodwendig ‘n arbitrêre ontneming van eiendom is nie en dat dit geregverdig kan word in terme van die Grondwet omdat daar voldoende redes vir die spesifieke regulasies is en omdat dat hulle prosedureel billik is. Die verskeie tipes reëls wat ‘n deeltitelskema reguleer dien as redelike regulasies sover dit bydra tot ‘n harmonieuse verhouding tussen die trustees van die regspersoon, die deeltiteleienaars en die okkupeerders as lede van die regspersoon sowel as tussen die lede van die regspersoon inter se. Die reëls het ‘n belangrike funksie in hierdie verband. Die reëls word geag redelik en grondwetlik geldig te wees sover dit nie buitensporige regulasies afdwing nie, gelyk toegepas word en daar nie ongeregverdig gedifferensieer word in die toepassing daarvan nie.