Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

År 2008 lämnade EU-kommissionen ett förslag om en förordning gällande en associationsform benämnd europeiskt privat aktiebolag, Societas Privata Europea.1 Denna associationsform blev dock inte accepterad av alla medlemsstater, varför kommissionen under 2013 drog tillbaka förslaget. Ett av de länderna som motsatte sig förslaget var Tyskland, på grund av det låga aktiekapitalet som krävdes.2 Kommissionen lämnade i april 2014 ett förslag till ett direktiv om privata enmansbolag, så kallade SUP-bolag, Societas Unius Personae.3 Genom förslaget föreslås ett införande av enmansbolag med begränsat ansvar, som följer samma regler i hela EU och har ett minimalkapitalkrav där det endast får finnas en enda andel och denna andel kan endast innehas av en person, fysisk eller juridisk. Direktivet ska ersätta direktivet 2009/102/EG4 om enmansbolag med begränsat ansvar. Huvudsyftet är att stimulera sysselsättning och tillväxt inom EU genom att underlätta och göra det billigare för små och medelstora företag att verka och etablera verksamhet såväl gränsöverskridande som nationellt. Det ställs inga större krav på personen som vill starta ett SUP-bolag. Ingen fysisk närvaro krävs när bolaget ska registreras utan den ska ske via en onlineregistrering via varje medlemsstats registreringsmyndighet. Likt ett aktiebolag ska SUP-bolaget ha ett aktiekapital. Aktiekapitalet bestäms till minst en euro i euroländer medan det i länder med annan nationell valuta till en enhet av den nationella valutan.

Zugl.: Würzburg, Universiẗat, Diss., 2009. / Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Würzburg, 2009. Includes bibliographical references (p. 383-396).

Diss.--Tübingen. / Bibliography: p. 108-118. 880-01

L'expansion de la cité romaine en Italie puis en Méditerranée, du début du Ve à la fin du lue siècle avant J.-C., se traduit par la conclusion d'un nombre toujours croissant d'alliances militaires avec des communautés qui demeurent cependant formellement indépendantes. Ce type de relation, que les Latins qualifient avec le terme de "societas", est classiquement décrit comme un des instruments de l'affirmation de l'hégémonie de l'"Urbs" puisqu'il lui permet de mobiliser les forces de ses partenaires. Pourtant, dans les représentations que lui associent les parties, les principes de parité et de réciprocité occupent toujours une grande place. C'est ce que révèle l'analyse des conditions politiques et diplomatiques de leur négociation, des formes d'accord qui en sanctionnent la conclusion, en particulier le "foedus sociale", mais aussi des manifestations diplomatiques auxquelles elles donnent lieu. L'alliance implique en effet la reconnaissance de chacune des parties en tant que communauté maîtresse de ses forces militaires, et les engage à se porter mutuellement secours. L'histoire des relations que Rome noue d'abord avec les Latins au Ve siècle grâce au "foedus Cassianum", puis avec beaucoup d'autres peuples italiens et ultra-marins, montre que le devoir de défense est au fondement de la collaboration militaire. Aussi les Romains en font-ils rapidement un thème de propagande, en particulier grâce à l'affirmation d'une Italia dont ils se présentent comme les meilleurs protecteurs au IIIe siècle. Mais leurs partenaires, péninsulaires comme extra­ péninsulaires, manifestent toujours un vif attachement aux idéaux habituellement associés à l'alliance militaire. La seconde guerre punique révèle clairement ce conflit d'interprétation et met sérieusement en danger le système d'alliances des Romains. Seule la victoire qu'ils remportent difficilement sur Carthage leur donne les moyens de devenir définitivement maîtres de la définition de cette relation. / The expansion of the Roman city in Italy and later in the Mediterranean, from the early 5th to the late 3rd century BC, results in a growing number of military alliances with various communities which nonetheless remain independent. This specific union - called "societas" by the Latin people - is traditionally referred to as one of the tools used by the Urbs to assert its supremacy, insofar as it allows the rallying of its partners' forces. However the representations on both sides keep parity and reciprocity as principles of paramount importance. Such is revealed by the observation of not only the political and diplomatic conditions of their negotiations, but also of the terms which seal the agreements - even more so regarding the "foedus sociale" - and of the diplomatic events they lead to. The alliance indeed specifies that each signatory shall be recognized as a community with its own military forces, and commits them to provide mutual assistance. The study of the relations which Rome established - first with the Latins in the 5th century through the "foedus Cassianum", and later with many Italian or peoples overseas - points at the duty of defence being the core of military cooperation. Hence the Romans using it as a figment of propaganda, such as the affirmation of them being the most trustworthy guardians of the 3rd century Italia. However both extra and peninsular partners still express a vivid concern regarding the ideals which are usually associated the military alliances. The Second Punic war clearly highlights this ideological bone of contention, and seriously jeopardizes the Roman system of alliances. It is only their hard-won victory over Carthage that allows them to rule over the terms of this relation.

Univ., Diss.--Frankfurt (Main), 2005.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Würzburg, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references and register.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universiẗat Frankfurt (Main), 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 535-558).

COVID-19-pandemic: the crisis was not only a challenge for the forms of preaching but also its content. What could and should be said? How can people be comforted and strengthened without preaching weak and banal ‘good news’? And again and again the question: How can we speak of God amid a worldwide crisis? For Societas Homiletica it became clear quite soon that the Budapest Conference would have to be postponed (and – God willing – we will meet in Budapest from August 12 to 17, 2022!). But our International Secretary, Prof. Dr. Theo Pleizier, came up with the idea of organizing an Online Conference on “Preaching in Time of Crisis.” The International Board of Societas Homiletica supported this idea, and on August 10–12, 2020, the first Online Conference in the history of Societas Homiletica ‘took place.’ We are glad and honored to present five outstanding papers delivered at the Online Conference in this Special Volume of our International Journal of Homiletics, two from Europe and three from North America (Canada and the USA). Clara Nystrand from Lund (Sweden) compares sermons delivered in Sweden in the time of the Spanish flu 1918 with sermons delivered in the first phase of the Corona pandemic. André Verweij, pastor and researcher in the Netherlands, analyzes five Easter sermons delivered in the Netherlands during the first wave of the Covid-19-pandemic and discovers a lamenting mode in preaching, which steers away from interpreting the pandemic’s possible ‘meaning’ or ‘message.’ Joseph H. Clarke and David Csinos from the Atlantic School of Theology in Halifax, Canada, show how fruitful dialogue between psychotherapy and homiletics can be. David M. Stark, teaching and doing homiletical research at the University of the South in Sewanee (USA), speaks about a dual pandemic of COVID-19 and systemic racism. In the final article, Edgar “Trey” Clark III from Fuller Theology Seminary in Pasadena (USA), examines protests in support of “Black Lives Matter” and sees these protests as a form of Spirit-inspired proclamation – connecting lament and celebration, particularity and universality, word and deed. Obviously, the COVID-19-pandemic changed not only the forms and media of preaching, but also its contents – and will have an impact also in the time ‘after’ the pandemic.

This study is an application of the political theory of Michael Oakeshott aimed at enhancing understanding of the South African state. Oakeshott posits that the modern state is comprised of two separate modes of association, namely societas and universitas. Universitas refers to an association to attain a specific substantive purpose, while societas is an association based on common submission to the recognition of, and adherence to, prescribed formal laws. Each tends towards self‐destruction when the character of a given state is reflected by that mode of association exclusively. The presence of both modes of association in tension with each other produces a stable state. The South African state has been shown to reflect a dominantly universitas character, but, since a monopolar state cannot exist, it follows that the societas understanding of the state must also be present. In this study, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, is assessed to determine whether it reflects a societas understanding of the state. Two formal conditions for a societas are identified in the work of Oakeshott, namely a system of rules and norms, and the recognition of this system as being authoritative. These formal conditions are employed as a benchmark against which to test the character of the South African Constitution. / Dissertation (MPhil)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / tm2015 / Philosophy / MPhil / Unrestricted