Thesis (doctoral)--Universiẗat Würzburg, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [xv]-xxviii).

This study addresses the theatre of Romeo Castellucci’s group, the Socìetas Raffaello Sanzio, and its director’s engagement with visual arts. In particular, the study analyses the tenth episode M#10 Marseille of Castellucci’s major production Tragedia Endogonidia, a work composed of 11 episodes, each dealing with a European capital. Using the notion of intermediality, this thesis demonstrates how an intermedial performance integrates questions and principles connected with visual arts within the framework of a new concept of performance called ‘interformance’. The author introduces Henk Oosterling’s definition of intermediality where he uses Derrida’s theory of différance to explain the notion as a back and forth movement created by the interaction of media whose differences produce tension within the spectators. This tension suspends and postpones the audience’s meaning generation, thus opening the possibility of a multiplicity of meanings. As a result, the meaning of an interformance directly depends on the interrelationship of media and the subjectivity of the spectator.

Welcome to the Supplementum issue of the International Journal of Homiletics. The articles in this volume are edited, peer-reviewed versions of keynote lectures and papers1 presented at the Societas Homiletica Conference on August 3rd – 8th 2018, at The Divinity School of Duke University, North Carolina, USA. The theme of the conference was “Fearing God in a Fear-Filled World? Homiletical Explorations” – a topic that resonated with homileticians from all over the world and engendered rich reflections and discussions during the conference. In what follows are four keynote lectures, a keynote response and six papers discussing the theme of fear from theological perspectives of South Africa, Brazil, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States.

Firstly, the present thesis, "The Impact of The Society of Jezus on education in The Czech lands", introduces a person of Ignatius of Loyola, who founded the Society of Jezus, and gives a short overview of events including the establishment of the Society and its expansion mainly in Europe. Concerning this the thesis answers a question of some typical features of The Company. The history of the Society in the Czech lands follows. This chapter also includes some notable Czech members of the Society of Jesus. A view of process of education in the Czech lands introduces a second part of the thesis. In the second part of the thesis there is reflected education though time. There is pointed out the influence of the Society not only on process of school education, but also on process of education in general. However, it is difficult to see all of these in complexity of contemporary education. Moreover, it is not the point of the thesis to cover this complexity of problems of education, so the emphasis is put on some main periods and forms of Jesuits' activities. Considering all of this, of course it is possible to find some disadvantages of their impact on society, but anyway, in this case positive aspects are more noteworthy.

Due to constant expansion of the European Community, the harmonization in the fields of European company law and development of internal European market have emerged into considerably bigger and more complex issues. Aspects of corporate mobility, having a direct simultaneous connection to the right of freedom of establishment, have been one of the most problematic spheres for reaching international consensus. Despite numerous directives adopted by Member States (MS) European undertakings continue to be regulated by national legislations. The idea of a common European limited liability company, sc. Societas Europaea (SE), was put into process of realization in order to facilitate the internal trade and to help multinational companies to obtain legal certainty and trans-European character by rising above the variety of national legislations. Furthermore, the SE was to make cross-border enterprise management more flexible and less bureaucratic and to help improving the general competitiveness of Community enterprises. The process of formation of the European Company Statue took over forty years and the result of the final adoption turned out to be something completely different from the es-sential idea of the European Company. Due to the historical, socio-political and legal dif-ferences MSs had difficulties with compromising on the majority of aspects and instead of one common SE form, the Community had basically adopted 28 different alternatives, loosing the original valuable supranational character. The strongest advantage of the SE are the rights conferred to it by the Regulation. The frequent use of renvoi technique undermines this aspect of SE’s precedence over national legislation. The true potential of the European Company remains thus highly theoretical and the current shape of the SE presents only a weak alternative to the national corporate forms of the MSs. A European Company cannot be freely incorporated solely by investment of private capi-tal. There is a need for existence of at least two legal enterprises which furthermore must fall under the scope of different national legislations. In other words in order to create an SE, the definite cross-border element between companies at hand must be visible or can be identified. It can be formed by means of merger, creation of a holding, incorporation of a subsidiary or conversion. The subscribed capital for the SE shall at its minimum equal €120 000. The Council Regulation on SE provides a flexible management regime, permit-ting companies to choose between two administration systems (one-tier/two-tier) that exist in the Community. The issues of employee involvement are regulated in separate directive that is a supplement to the Regulation. Despite the recent developments of freedom of establishment through the case-law, the matter remains utterly complicated. The SE may seem on one hand as a logical solution, being able to incorporate in different MSs, to merge or to form a holding without burden-some processes of winding-up and re-incorporation. On the other hand the Regulation re-stricts the mobility of the SE by provisions prohibiting location of registered and head of-fice of the company in different MSs, depriving it thus from one of the basic Community freedoms. Prudent attitude to mobility and aspiration to protect national interests have partly diminished essential advantages of the SE. It appears to be impossible to conduct business in one MS while being registered in another. Possible amendments are awaited shortly, but so far the SE has definitely not achieved many of practical goals considering mobility and has fulfilled very few of its important theoretical expectations. National perspective on the adoption of the SE seems to be relatively positive, accepting the theoretical advantages of corporate mobility, options of structure and management and possibility to obtain an essentially European trademark. However, there is also an amount of skepticism addressed to deficient practical functioning due to the lack of uniform legislation. European organizations and companies tend to have a slightly more cautious and restrained approach. The idea of a European Company is praised more for its genuinely European character. Representatives for established SEs prefer to talk about internationalization of trade, European recognition, enhanced competitiveness and market integration, while very little speaks about the true practical potential. The SE is furthermore often observed as a useful but still mainly theoretical legal instrument, playing an indispensable part in the overall development of European company law. Political motives seem to be considerably heavier while discussing the question of necessity of adoption that later attracted so little interest. Additionally, the basic idea of the SE also seems to include definite measures for general European unification, granting SE the symbolic value of commonly European enterprise. Consequently, failing in purely practical application in the absence of a clear need for common limited liability company, the SE has its theoretical and crucially important socio-psychological purposes.

<p>Due to constant expansion of the European Community, the harmonization in the fields of European company law and development of internal European market have emerged into considerably bigger and more complex issues. Aspects of corporate mobility, having a direct simultaneous connection to the right of freedom of establishment, have been one of the most problematic spheres for reaching international consensus. Despite numerous directives adopted by Member States (MS) European undertakings continue to be regulated by national legislations. The idea of a common European limited liability company, sc. Societas Europaea (SE), was put into process of realization in order to facilitate the internal trade and to help multinational companies to obtain legal certainty and trans-European character by rising above the variety of national legislations. Furthermore, the SE was to make cross-border enterprise management more flexible and less bureaucratic and to help improving the general competitiveness of Community enterprises.</p><p>The process of formation of the European Company Statue took over forty years and the result of the final adoption turned out to be something completely different from the es-sential idea of the European Company. Due to the historical, socio-political and legal dif-ferences MSs had difficulties with compromising on the majority of aspects and instead of one common SE form, the Community had basically adopted 28 different alternatives, loosing the original valuable supranational character. The strongest advantage of the SE are the rights conferred to it by the Regulation. The frequent use of renvoi technique undermines this aspect of SE’s precedence over national legislation. The true potential of the European Company remains thus highly theoretical and the current shape of the SE presents only a weak alternative to the national corporate forms of the MSs.</p><p>A European Company cannot be freely incorporated solely by investment of private capi-tal. There is a need for existence of at least two legal enterprises which furthermore must fall under the scope of different national legislations. In other words in order to create an SE, the definite cross-border element between companies at hand must be visible or can be identified. It can be formed by means of merger, creation of a holding, incorporation of a subsidiary or conversion. The subscribed capital for the SE shall at its minimum equal €120 000. The Council Regulation on SE provides a flexible management regime, permit-ting companies to choose between two administration systems (one-tier/two-tier) that exist in the Community. The issues of employee involvement are regulated in separate directive that is a supplement to the Regulation.</p><p>Despite the recent developments of freedom of establishment through the case-law, the matter remains utterly complicated. The SE may seem on one hand as a logical solution, being able to incorporate in different MSs, to merge or to form a holding without burden-some processes of winding-up and re-incorporation. On the other hand the Regulation re-stricts the mobility of the SE by provisions prohibiting location of registered and head of-fice of the company in different MSs, depriving it thus from one of the basic Community freedoms. Prudent attitude to mobility and aspiration to protect national interests have partly diminished essential advantages of the SE. It appears to be impossible to conduct business in one MS while being registered in another. Possible amendments are awaited shortly, but so far the SE has definitely not achieved many of practical goals considering mobility and has fulfilled very few of its important theoretical expectations.</p><p>National perspective on the adoption of the SE seems to be relatively positive, accepting the theoretical advantages of corporate mobility, options of structure and management and possibility to obtain an essentially European trademark. However, there is also an amount of skepticism addressed to deficient practical functioning due to the lack of uniform legislation. European organizations and companies tend to have a slightly more cautious and restrained approach. The idea of a European Company is praised more for its genuinely European character. Representatives for established SEs prefer to talk about internationalization of trade, European recognition, enhanced competitiveness and market integration, while very little speaks about the true practical potential. The SE is furthermore often observed as a useful but still mainly theoretical legal instrument, playing an indispensable part in the overall development of European company law.</p><p>Political motives seem to be considerably heavier while discussing the question of necessity of adoption that later attracted so little interest. Additionally, the basic idea of the SE also seems to include definite measures for general European unification, granting SE the symbolic value of commonly European enterprise. Consequently, failing in purely practical application in the absence of a clear need for common limited liability company, the SE has its theoretical and crucially important socio-psychological purposes.</p>

La thèse présente un historique complet sur la responsabilité pénale des personnes morales depuis les récits de la Genèse jusqu’aux sentences de la Cour Suprême espagnole prononcées en 2016. Cette histoire n’est pas simplement une description des différents auteurs ou des différents moments historiques, mais c’est plutôt une reconstruction critique construite principalement pour identifier et pour démêler la doctrine qui trouve dans l’expression latine societas delinquere non potest l’argument le plus important pour nier la possibilité d’attribuer la responsabilité pénale aux groupements. Une fois établis les concepts et les idées selon le système philosophique appelé « matérialisme philosophique », dont l’auteur est l’espagnol Gustavo Bueno, une étude de la sentence latine, d’origine inconnue jusqu'à présent, est présentée ; c’est donc pour la première fois que nous identifions et expliquons cette origine: elle a été inventée par Franz von Liszt en 1881. Après cela une reconstruction complète de l’histoire de l’idée est réalisée et l’on découvre deux nouveautés fondamentales : que la Révolution française n’a jamais prétendu refuser la responsabilité pénale des groupements et que la Cour Suprême espagnole avait prononcé des sentences condamnatoires aux groupements au XIXe siècle. Sur la base de ces faits, on situe à la fin de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale le moment dans lequel la sentence latine prend le sens d’impossibilité ontologique des groupements quant à commettre un crime et qui se base sur une idée politique et non juridique : la décision des puissances victorieuses du fait que l’Allemagne n’avait pas été coupable, mais seulement certains hiérarques et groupements Nazis. / This thesis provides a comprehensive history of corporate criminal liability, from the Book of Genesis up to the rulings handed down by the Spanish Supreme Court in 2016. However, this history is not limited to a mere descriptive survey of authors or historical periods: instead, it constitutes a powerful critique of a doctrinal tradition which purports to find in the Latin maxim societas delinquere non potest the best argument to deny that corporations can be held criminally liable. Once that the concepts and ideas which lie at the basis of this thesis are established following the philosophical system known as “philosophical materialism”, founded by Spanish philosopher Gustavo Bueno, I present an inquiry on the heretofore unknown origins of the Latin maxim which I have been able to trace back to 1881, when its originator, Franz von Liszt coined it. After it I undertake a comprehensive reconstruction of the history of this idea, from which two major findings emerge: firstly, that the French revolutionaries never intended to reject corporate criminal responsibility and secondly, that the Spanish Supreme Court issued convictions against societies in the 19th century. On the basis of these facts, the end of World War II emerges as the key turning point in History when the Latin maxim acquired the status of a philosophical principle denying the ontological possibility of a society to be criminally responsible. A principle whose roots are not to be found in legal doctrine but in a political idea: the decision by the Allied powers that it was not Germany that was to be held responsible for war crimes, but rather only those Nazi Party organizations and hierarchy directly involved. / La tesis presenta un estudio histórico completo sobre la responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas, desde el libro del Génesis hasta las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 2016. Este estudio no se plantea únicamente como una mera descripción de diferentes autores o momentos históricos, sino como una reconstrucción crítica construida principalmente para identificar y destruir la doctrina que encuentra en la expresión latina societas delinquere non potest el argumento más importante para negar la responsabilidad penal corporativa. Una vez establecidos los conceptos y las ideas según el sistema filosófico llamado "materialismo filosófico", cuyo autor es el filósofo español Gustavo Bueno, se presenta un estudio de la frase latina, de origen desconocido hasta ahora. Por primera vez se identifica y se explica este origen: fue inventada por Franz von Liszt en 1881. Tras ello se presenta una reconstrucción completa de la historia de la idea en la que se descubren diversas novedades historiográficas, entre las que destacan el hecho de que la Revolución Francesa nunca pretendiera rechazar la responsabilidad penal corporativa y que el Tribunal Supremo español hubiera pronunciado sentencias condenatorias a empresas en el siglo XIX. Sobre la base de estos hechos, situamos al final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial el momento en el que la sentencia latina toma el sentido de imposibilidad ontológica de las corporaciones de cometer delitos y que según entendemos se basa en una idea política y no jurídica: la decisión de las potencias vencedoras de que Alemania no había sido culpable, sino solamente algunos jerarcas y corporaciones nazis.

<p>This mini-thesis aims to contribute to the debate around the legislative process by summarizing and analysing it comprehensively. It will, without being exhaustive, seek to identify the most important legal requirements that the future Statute needs to meet in order to facilitate cross-border business of small and medium-sized businesses. It seeks to systematise and comment on the most important legal Key Issues and therefore clarify and enrich the debate.</p>

<p>This mini-thesis aims to contribute to the debate around the legislative process by summarizing and analysing it comprehensively. It will, without being exhaustive, seek to identify the most important legal requirements that the future Statute needs to meet in order to facilitate cross-border business of small and medium-sized businesses. It seeks to systematise and comment on the most important legal Key Issues and therefore clarify and enrich the debate.</p>

Univ., Diss.--Zugl.: Würzburg, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. 212 - 237.