Le présent travail intitulé « La procédure devant les tribunaux ecclésiastiques de l’Église de Grèce : une analyse nomocanonique de la loi étatique 5383/1932 », ambitionne d’être la première monographie consacrée à la Loi 5383/1932, loi concernant les tribunaux ecclésiastiques grecs, dite aussi, d’après la définition du Conseil d’État, loi du droit disciplinaire ecclésiastique. Elle concerne 82 métropoles et l’archevêché d’Athènes. La procédure disciplinaire est une procédure judiciaire ; elle consiste en un procès au cours duquel doivent être appliqués tous les principes d’un procès juste. Ces tribunaux aussi doivent offrir la garantie d’un jugement juste. Le critère consiste à savoir s’ils saisissent une différence selon les règles du droit, avec compétence pour cette différence dans le cadre d’une procédure préétablie. La Loi 5383/1932 est un texte juridique et, pour la traiter, nous avons appliqué les méthodes juridiques et canoniques, dites nomocanoniques, d’analyse et d’interprétation. / The present work bears the title, «The Procedure before the Ecclesiastical (Church) Courts of the Church of Greece: A nomocanonical analysis of the state law 5383/1932» which aspires to constitute the first monograph devoted to Law 5383/1932, a law that concerns the Greek Ecclesiastical courts, or better yet, the law regarding ecclesiastical disciplinary law according to the case law of the Council of State. This law concerns 82 metropolises (cathedrals) and the archdiocese of Athens. The disciplinary procedure is a judicial procedure that entails a hearing during which all of the principles of a fair trial must be applied. These courts owe a duty to offer the guarantees of a fair trial. The criterion is to know whether they are vindicating a difference with the rules of law having jurisdiction over this difference in the context of an existing procedure. Law 5383/1932 is a legal text and, in order to analyze it, we have used the legal and Canon law methods otherwise known as legal rule analysis and interpretation.

The main topic of this thesis is reconstruction of the monastery like a nursing house for elderly people. The main reasons for this solution is very advantageous position of the monastery in the historic center, the possibility of using the existing building and possibility to use gardens of monastery like an area for relaxation. In gardens of monastery is designed new house for elderly people. This new building is designed with the greatest emphasis on tolerance to the surrounding environment and the historical importance of this area. The footprint of the house follows the trace of the original fortification, which led to the toe of Vlčí věž. It´s floor plan arrangement recalls the letter U. in the center of the house, there is an inner courtyard, which corresponds with the inner courtyard of the monastery. The design of new object is trying to find the best position to fit into the context of the town of Znojmo. At the same time, this arrangement allows the solution to the inner garden, resting place of relaxation, which refers us back to the monastery garden, which occurred in these places since the time of establishment of the monastery.

Several interesting findings emerged from this study. First, strong labour movements still failed to successfully bargain for employment protections due to resistance from employers to encroachments on their institutionalized managerial prerogatives. Second, governments favoured a policy of abstentionism and acquiescence to the collective-laissez-faire tradition until the critical juncture of the 1960s and 1970s. Third, the increasing power resources of trade unions and a deteriorating socio-economic climate created a window of opportunity for bold government action to improve industrial relations, albeit without the consent of employers, and at first, unions. Fourth, contrary to the liberalizing pressures one would expect to find in an archetypical free market economy, the UK has implemented far more statutory protections than deregulatory reforms. Fifth, in contrast to its traditional non-intervention in industrial relations and reputation for worker-protective regulations, Swedish governments have enacted numerous statutes, both restricting and freeing managerial prerogatives in the hiring and firing process. Sixth, statutory employment protections became an independent set of institutional power resources for unions in the long run, serving their organizational and representational interests in important ways. Seventh, unions and left parties consistently defended and advanced the policy preferences of their core constituencies in secure employment by privileging the job security of regular contracts. Eighth, employers and parties on the right of the political spectrum consistently opposed restrictions on the managerial capacity to hire and fire at will, especially for small businesses. Nineth, to increase flexibility without threatening the stability of regular contracts, reforms over the years had to foster atypical forms of work, creating a regulatory gap between permanent and temporary employment, particularly in Sweden. Tenth, differences exist between job security in the statute books and job security in action, particularly in the UK where this gap pervades all aspects of the unfair dismissal system. These findings suggest employment protection legislation has developed in ways far more complex, dynamic and contradictory than is commonly assumed by prominent theories of comparative political economy. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This thesis examines how and why employment protection legislation developed in the United Kingdom and Sweden in the ways that it did from its early beginnings to the present period. It hopes to offer answers to questions about the initial impetus for statutory regulation, the number, content and impact of significant legislative changes and the preferences of key stakeholders with material interests in the policymaking process. It does this by drawing on a variety of both primary and secondary source materials, including employment protection databases, parliamentary records and research publications. At the same time, it assesses the explanatory merit of dominant theories in the political economy literature by testing them against voluminous empirical evidence and provides a multi-factorial account to fill the gaps in the existing body of knowledge.

This thesis focuses on the racial disparity within the Hispanic and Latinx communities as injustices exist within the community and the workplace. Racial disparities in the United States have been a persistent and deeply rooted issue that has plagued the nation for centuries. Despite significant progress in civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation, disparities in areas such as education, employment, and criminal justice persist. Understanding the factors contributing to these disparities is essential for addressing systemic inequalities and fostering a more just society. The analysis of this thesis primarily focuses on the cases and ramifications of Hispanic persons within the workplace, education, and court systems, as well as articles written by legal scholars on the impacts of discrimination against Hispanics and Latinx in the community. It is essential to address these disparities to promote equity and social justice for all individuals, regardless of race or ethnicity. By recognizing and addressing these issues, society can work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable environment for everyone.

Le principe de contradiction, « règle cardinale » de l’instance civile, garantit le droit aux parties à un litige d’être entendues et de pouvoir débattre librement de leur position. La contradiction incarne un idéal de justice auquel on attribue plusieurs avantages, à savoir de contribuer à découvrir la vérité, d’assurer l’autonomie des parties et d’encourager la confiance des justiciables dans les tribunaux. À ces bénéfices s’associent toutefois certains effets néfastes. L’instance civile contradictoire est alourdie par la complexification des débats, des procédures et des preuves, ainsi que par un antagonisme marqué entre les parties. Face à ces enjeux, les deux dernières décennies ont vu la mise en place d’une série de réformes procédurales visant l’amélioration de l’accès à la justice. D’une procédure imprégnée par des valeurs associées au contradictoire, le Code de procédure civile propose un virage vers une culture managériale et coopérative du litige. L’effet de ces réformes a toutefois été mitigé, et on constate chez les praticiens une résistance au changement. L’objectif de la thèse est de démontrer que la symbolique associée au principe de contradiction constitue un obstacle au changement dans l’instance civile québécoise. La thèse illustre comment le principe de contradiction, puisqu’il représente symboliquement un idéal de justice pour les praticiens, suscite chez eux un attachement qui les rend peu disposés au changement. La thèse identifie comment cette résistance se matérialise en repérant les stratégies juridiques utilisées pour s’opposer à certaines mesures. Il est notamment démontré que les visées de proportionnalité du Code de procédure civile sont difficiles à concilier avec le principe de contradiction. Les constats réalisés dans la thèse mènent à certaines critiques et recommandations pour améliorer les outils juridiques qui sont à la disposition des juges. Il sera notamment recommandé de réformer certaines règles en matière de preuve pour assurer leur cohérence avec le Code de procédure civile. / The adversarial principle, a "cardinal rule" of civil procedure, ensures the right of parties in a dispute to be heard and to freely debate their positions. This adversarial culture embodies an ideal of justice attributed with several advantages, such as contributing to the discovery of truth, ensuring the autonomy of parties, and fostering trust in the justice system. However, along with these benefits, come certain adverse effects. Adversarial civil proceedings are burdened by the complexity of procedures and evidence, as well as by antagonism between the parties. In response to these challenges, the past two decades have witnessed the implementation of a series of procedural reforms aimed at improving access to justice. Moving away from a procedure steeped in adversarial culture, the Code of Civil Procedure aims for a shift towards a managerial and cooperative judicial culture. Nevertheless, the impact of these reforms has been disappointing, with practitioners showing resistance to change. The thesis aims to demonstrate that the symbolism associated with to the adversarial principle serves as a barrier to change within the Quebec justice system. It elucidates how the principle, embodying an ideal of justice for practitioners, fosters an attachment that raises resistance to change. The thesis identifies the manifestation of this resistance and analyzes the legal strategies employed to obstruct certain measures. The insights gathered prompt specific criticisms and recommendations aimed at enhancing the legal toolkit at the disposal of judges. Among these recommendations, it will be proposed to reform certain rules of evidence law to align them with the Code of Civil Procedure.

The researcher identified in her work as a social worker that sexually abused adolescents experience difficulties with testifying in court. The goal of this research was directed at developing guidelines to assist adolescents who have to testify in court. The researcher utilised the qualitative research approach with an exploratory and descriptive nature. Semi-structured interviews were done with a sample of adolescents who have testified in court, a sample of parents or caregivers of adolescents who have testified in court and social workers working with adolescents who testify in court. These interviews were conducted to gain insight into how the research participants experienced the court process in order to formulate guidelines for adolescents who have to testify in court. The researcher concluded that adolescents experience testifying in court as negative. Guidelines were developed from the information obtained from the research participants to support adolescents who has to testify in court. / Social work / M.Diac. (Play therapy)

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

Lo studio si inserisce nel dibattito sul potere delle multinazionali e il rispetto dei diritti umani fondamentali e approfondisce i concetti di responsabilità sociale delle imprese (CSR) e della loro "accountability", inquadrando l'analisi nel contesto più ampio degli investimenti esteri diretti (FDI), con i relativi aspetti economici, tecnologici e sociali, nonché ambientali e politici. Si analizzano le norme internazionali in tema di rispetto dei diritti umani da parte delle aziende, ed i meccanismi legali per rendere le società "accountable", soprattutto in caso di complicità aziendali negli abusi perpetrati dagli Stati, anche attraverso la giurisprudenza dei tribunali penali internazionali e dei tribunali statunitensi. Viene data attenzione al settore della sicurezza, i.e. "Private Military and Security Companies" (PMSCs, interessato da notevole crescita negli ultimi decenni. Le PMSCs, impiegate da parte dei governi che esternalizzano una funzione tipicamente dello stato e da imprese e ONG attive in contesti difficili, hanno operato senza adeguato controllo. Le loro attività sollevano questioni su potenziali abusi dei diritti umani commessi dai propri dipendenti oltre che su violazioni dei diritti del lavoro subite dagli stessi. Le azioni ONU per portare le PMSCs fuori dalla 'zona legale grigia' in cui hanno operato vengono trattate insieme alle iniziative di autoregolamentazione. / The study, given the debate about the increasing power of corporations and the attempts to ensure their respect of fundamental human rights, deepens the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate accountability, framing the analysis within the broader discourse of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with its economic, technological and social aspects as well as environmental and political issues. International standards in the area of corporations’ human rights obligations are analyzed in addition to legal mechanisms to hold corporations accountable, particularly for corporate complicity in human rights abuses by States, through the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals and U.S. Courts. Special attention is given to the security sector, i.e. Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs), interested in the last decades by a steady growth. PMSCs, increasingly contracted by governments willing to outsource a typical state function and by companies and NGOs active in difficult contexts, have been operating without proper supervision and accountability. PMSCs activities raise issues concerning potential human rights violations committed by their employees and labour rights abuses their employees might suffer themselves. UN actions aimed at bringing PMSCs out of the legal ‘grey zone’ where they have been operating are tackled alongside with self-regulatory initiatives.

Le Tribunal spécial pour le Liban (TSL) est établi en vertu d’un accord bilatéral conclu entre l’ONU et le Gouvernement libanais; mais ses instruments constitutifs ne sont entrés en vigueur qu’en vertu de la résolution 1757 (2007) du Conseil de sécurité adoptée sur la base du Chapitre VII de la Charte. Le TSL, siégeant aux Pays-Bas, composé de juges étrangers et libanais, s’avère un tribunal pénal internationalisé sui generis. Son mandat principal consiste à poursuivre les responsables de l’attentat du 14 février 2005 ôtant la vie à l’ancien Premier Ministre libanais Rafic HARIRI et de 22 autres personnes ; toutefois la compétence du TSL peut être élargie pour couvrir des attentats connexes. Plusieurs caractéristiques distinguent le TSL du fait qu’il est le premier tribunal pénal créé sous les auspices des Nations Unies, sans appartenir à la discipline du droit international humanitaire, et qui ne juge que des crimes de terrorisme en temps de paix à la lumière du droit national libanais ; comme il est le premier tribunal pénal international qui mène des procès in absentia; et le premier qui est doté d’un Bureau pour la Défense - comme organe autonome du TSL – sur un même pied d’égalité avec le Bureau du Procureur en conférant des pouvoirs larges aux conseils de la Défense. Le TSL fonctionne selon son propre Règlement de procédure et de preuve - adopté par ses juges - associant à la fois le système romano-germanique et le système anglo-saxon. Le fonctionnement du TSL confronte des défis juridiques, de par son financement mixte assuré à travers la contribution conventionnelle du Gouvernement libanais et les contributions volontaires des États membres, ou de par sa primauté restreinte qui est juste limitée aux juridictions libanaises, générant une coopération problématique avec les États tiers et hésitante avec le Liban. Également, le Statut du Tribunal est réticent sur la question des immunités. La mise en place du TSL a créé une grande polémique politique au Liban, son fonctionnement au cœur d’un cadre géopolitique instable provoque des enjeux stratégiques pertinents ayant des impacts sur la scène politique au Liban et au Moyen-Orient. Le TSL encourt des enjeux stratégiques du fait que son premier acte d’accusation incrimine des membres appartenant au Hezbollah - une résistance armée contre Israël - allié de l’Iran et de la Syrie. Le Printemps arabe et ses implications sur la révolte syrienne générèrent une instabilité politique et sécuritaire au Liban, alertant une nouvelle série d’attentats terroristes. La mission principale du TSL consiste à mettre fin à l’impunité au Liban, principalement celle relative aux assassinats politiques. Du fait que le TSL est établi juste pour juger un seul attentat et un nombre restreint de crimes connexes dans un cadre temporel et spatial restreints, alors qu’un grand nombre de crimes graves de droit international humanitaire et de crimes politiques et terroristes restent impunis au Liban, le TSL est conçu comme un instrument de justice sélective. Pour ses détracteurs, le TSL concrétise le dilemme entre « paix civile » et « justice internationale », bien que sa finalité consiste à consolider la réconciliation nationale à travers la découverte de la vérité. / The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is created through a bilateral agreement concluded between the UN and the Lebanese Government; but its essential instruments didn’t come into force until the adoption of the binding resolution 1757 (2007) of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The STL, sitting in the Netherlands, composed of foreign and Lebanese judges, is an internationalized criminal tribunal sui generis. Its primary mandate consists on prosecuting those responsible for the 14th February 2005 attempt which caused the death of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic HARIRI and 22 other people; nevertheless the STL’s jurisdiction can be extended to cover connected attacks. Many features distinguish the STL, since it is the first criminal tribunal that was created under the UN’s framework outside of the International humanitarian law’s discipline; it judges terrorism crimes in peace time under the Lebanese domestic law; moreover, it is the first international criminal tribunal which holds trials in absentia, establishes an Office for the Defense as an autonomous organ equally with the Office of the Prosecutor giving the defense counsel large powers. The STL works according to its proper Rules of Procedure and Evidence – adopted by its judges – associating the civil law system and the common law system. The STL’s functioning confronts legal challenges due to its combined funding mechanism, assured by the conventional contribution of the Lebanese Government as by the voluntary contributions of member States; or due to its restricted primacy limited only to Lebanese courts, arising a problematical horizontal cooperation. In addition, the STL’s Statute expresses reluctance on the immunities’ question. The implementation of the STL has created a large political controversy in Lebanon; its work in an unstable geopolitical framework triggers relevant strategic issues having impacts on the political scene in Lebanon and Middle-East. The STL incurs strategic challenges since its first indictment incriminates Hezbollah members – an armed resistance against Israel – ally of Iran and Syria. The Arab spring and its implications on the Syrian revolution generate instability to the political and security conditions of Lebanon, alerting a new series of terrorist attempts. The main mission of the STL consists to end impunity in Lebanon related first and foremost to political assassinations. The STL is considered as an instrument of selective justice since it is established only to judge a single attempt and a small number of connected crimes in a restricted spatiotemporal framework, whereas a large number of serious crimes of International humanitarian law and political crimes perpetrated in Lebanon are still unpunished. For its detractors, the STL embodies the dilemma between "civil peace" and "international justice", although its finality seeks to consolidate the national reconciliation through the discovery of the truth.

職司審判之法院，其職權係為「認定事實」與「適用法律」。就事實之認定，我國採取「自由心證原則」，亦即事實應如何透過證據證明、推論而得，授權由法官於個案中認定，然該原則中「自由」之意義，係具有其具體之內在內涵與外在限制，並非由法官恣意判斷。過去之實務與學說並未就此為深入之闡釋，迭生審級平行與垂直判決之歧異，及人民對法院判決之非議。從而根本之道，應係完整建構自由心證原則之實質意義，由運用之主體、客體、內在內涵、外在限制及其作用等面向，並提出其運用之模組，具體化此立法者規範之不確定法律概念，使運用該原則之法官，得以有依循及參考之路徑。 而自由心證原則內涵中，最常於訴訟中運用者，即為「間接證明」，因主要事實由直接證據直接證明乃少見之情狀，而由間接證據證明間接事實，進而依間接事實之推理作用，推論主要事實存否之情形，乃訴訟中之常態。然間接證明之內涵中，「間接事實之內容與數量」、「推理作用之內涵」、「間接事實間推理作用所得證明主要事實之射程」，皆係高度個案裁量運用之認定，然現今實務之運作，卻出現審級間運用內容及結果極為歧異之現象，從而應探究其內涵，並嘗試提出運用之模組，供運用之法官思考。 自由心證與間接證明作為具有高度實務操作性格之訴訟法原則，其運用之 良窳，已實際影響具體個案事實認定之問題。為改善及斧正目前實務運作上出現之認定歧異、迭經發回之問題，亟須透過以上之研究，提出訴訟中運用之方式，以及其於事實審間、事實審與法律審間運用之審查、互動關係，使該二抽象原則具有一定法安定性，而有一定運用之軌跡可循。 / The court, to act as trial institute, has its major authority to “determine the fact” as well as “apply the law”. As for the fact-finding, our country adopts “Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle”, which authorizes the judge to determine case by case how the fact is proved and inferred through the evidences. However, the meaning of “Free” in that principle is constructed with concrete inner connotation and outer restriction, and not decided by the willfulness of the judge. In the past, courts and scholars didn’t elaborate that principle in depth, which has given a rise to the discrepant verdicts between different courts and criticisms from the people. Consequently, the fundamental solution is to build the substantial connotation of free evaluation of evidence principle, by means of the observations of its operating subject, object, inner connotation, outer restriction and function as well as its operating model, and to reify this uncertain concept of law regulated by legislator, so as to find a way to follow and refer to by the judge. The most commonly-adopted content of free evaluation of evidence principle is “Indirect Proof ”. Owing to proving the direct fact through direct evidence is rarely seen in lawsuit, the application of proving indirect fact by indirect evidence, and then inferring the existence of direct fact through the inferring function of indirect fact, is much common in each case. Nevertheless, in the meaning of Indirect Proof, the “content and amount of indirect fact”, “content of inferring function” and “scope which the direct fact could be inferred from the direct fact” are determined by large-scale discretion of the judge case by case. As a result of the discretion, the circumstances of divergent operating contents and consequences are emerged. Therefore, the connotation of that principle should be analyzed and the operating models are tried to addressed, hoping to provide for the judge to take into account. “Free Evaluation of Evidence Principle” and “Indirect Proof”, which are conducted as civil procedural principle in a highly individually case-operating nature, substantially influence the fact-finding in specific lawsuit with its odds and ends of operation. In order to improve and correct the discrepant fact-finding and constantly-verdict-reversing problems appearing in the courts at present, it is necessary to bring up the ways to operate the two principles as well as the reviewing and interacting relationships between trial courts and trial court and trial of law, and to establish specific legal certainty, legal steability and operation standards.