政府存在的目的，在維持人民基本的生活水準，在促使民眾能在自由、安和、樂利的平等的社會環境，並透過與運用法律、道德所允許的公權力手段，以促進社會的繁榮為最高之宗旨；但在目前政府處理危機緊急應變機制計有國土安全會報、災害防救會報及全民防衛動員準備業務會報(此即政府三大緊急應變體系)等，並自2005年起推動合併運作迄今，在中央政府之作法，似已達實際聯合運作與資源整合之效益，然在實際運作情形因需涉及中央與地方間權責分工關係？各公民營事業機構等體系能否協同運作之勾聯？等問題，現有運作並非如此順暢，究其原因係政府在面對新型態的危機發生時，三大應變體系聯合運作所能回應與處理的緊急應變處置作為，不僅未能有效的解決危機與事件所引發的問題，甚者更成為危機處置的亂源與礙手礙腳始作俑者；實有再予檢視與探討空間，以期建立一個權責相符且明確的緊急應變機制。 本文試圖以運用跨域治理為出發點，謹就政府目前積極推動之國土安全、災害防救及全民防衛動員準備業務(此即政府三大緊急應變體系)上聯合運作既存的困境，究其緣由乃此三應變體系皆屬危機管理範疇，各體系內所包含之工作項目與所涉單位甚多，任務屬性與編組成員重疊度極高，甚者尚可包含公(私)營事業機構，故亦應屬跨域治理之特徵，此三者之間關係應緊密運作且具關聯性。然從自2005年起政府積極推動情形下，縱然掌握最大的緊急應變資源與能量，但從歷次處理各項災後或危機應變等工作，卻往往是成為社會與民眾所責難焦點，何以如此呢？實因在於政府的緊急應變處置的機制紛亂不一所致，況且今日台灣面臨全球化所造成的衝擊，環境的變遷導致複合式災害所形成的危機出現層出不窮、社會科技上多元技術的需求以及民眾普遍要求全面的危機管理與跨域治理，故本文主要乃是以「跨域治理」與「危機管理理論」作為基礎論點，藉由文獻探討、焦點座談及問卷調查等方式，檢視三大應變體系聯合運作政府與民間的豐沛資源，運用網際網絡之功能與跨域治理的模式，才能達到凝聚總體資源，群策群力共同處理危機。 / The primary purpose of the government existence is maintaining the integrity of the people's basic living standard, encouraging people to have freedom, peace, and equality. Furthermore, under the law and morality, by means of public power to promote social prosperity. Since 2005, the Taiwan government has amalgamated and promoted the joint operation of three urgent strain response systems which includes homeland security council, disaster council, and national defense mobilization council (these three are the urgent strain response systems of Taiwan Government). The government's approach seems to have reached the joint operation of resources integration of benefits. However, in the actual operation, the problems were emerged from the conflict involved between Central and local authorities, the responsibilities between the public and private utilities, and how to implement the operation of the system of cooperative association. To trace the causes, the joint operation of three major urgent strain response systems is incapable to respond and handle emergency disposal when facing a new state crisis. Moreover, it might cause the crisis of the source of chaos and drag initiator. Definitely, there is a need for further review and assessment to establish a consistent and clear responsibilities among these three urgent strain response systems. This article attempts to use cross-domain governance as a starting point to assess the system. The government impetus the urgent strain of government presently, the three urgent strain response systems are the part of crisis management which includes lots of work and connections with other majority organizations. Because the association constitutes various members base on the different tasks, some members may belong to different divisions. Even the enterprises which run by the local people are the members of the “cross-boundary governance” which should be closely related each other. Since 2005, the government has actively promoting circumstances, even the government has enough information and resources of handling emergency situation, this government (administration) still censured by the public. The reason is that the emergency structure of our government is out of frame and inconsistence. In addition, Taiwan is facing the high pressure of becoming globalization. The impact of changes of the environment resulted in the formation of compound disaster crises emerged, the needs of diverse technologies and social science and people generally demand comprehensive crisis management along with cross-domain administration, so this paper is based on “cross-boundary governance” and “crisis management”, by using the literature reviews, seminars and workshops, questionnaires and surveys to assess the joint operation of three urgent strain systems of Taiwan Government, and the public use of the vast resources, to apply the internet functions and cross-domain governance model, will be able to reach the overall resources and effectively integrating the common crisis management of Taiwan Government.

Liability insurance concerns an insured’s insurance of its legal liability towards a third party for the latter’s loss. This specialised type of insurance is rather neglected in South African insurance law. There is a lack of understanding of the intricacies of liability insurance and its unique challenges. This flows primarily from its complex nature as third-party insurance, which involves legal obligations between multiple parties, and a lack of statutory regulation of the distinctive contractual aspects of liability insurance. Furthermore, limited authority exists on contentious legal aspects as a result of the relatively small number of judicial decisions in this field of law. It is also evident that liability insurance constantly evolves as new grounds of liability emerge and new insurance products develop in response to the changing demands of society. The rise of consumerism and the increase in third-party claims amplify the economic significance of the law of liability insurance in South Africa. A substantial knowledge gap remains in our jurisprudence, irrespective of the recent introduction of new statutory instruments aimed at regulating insurance practice in general. These reforms have not as yet been applied critically to liability insurance, and no specialised legislation in South Africa regulates aspects of this branch of insurance as is the case with microinsurance. The focus in this thesis is on two main issues: the insurer’s duty effectively to indemnify the insured, and the insurer’s defence and settlement of third-party claims brought against the insured. As a subsidiary theme, this thesis analyses legal uncertainties that may persist during pre-contractual negotiations, the liability insurance contract lifecycle, and even after the expiry of the contract. Legal challenges can be addressed by novel and creative application of the national law. Potential solutions can be gleaned from the other progressive jurisdictions reviewed – English and Belgian law. It is evident that this research may prompt Parliament to develop specific rules and regulations for liability insurance contract law. This thesis includes a check list of some of the most important disclosure duties for procuring liability insurance cover, its operation, and claims processes. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

La première partie de l’étude est consacrée à l’invocation, intra et extra muros, du droit à un procès équitable. Sont analysés ainsi, dans un premier temps, l’applicabilité directe de l’article 6 et la subsidiarité de la Convention par rapport au droit national et de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme par rapport aux juridictions nationales. Le droit à un procès équitable étant un droit jurisprudentiel, l’étude se focalise, dans un second temps, sur l’invocabilité des arrêts de la Cour Européenne et plus précisément sur l’invocabilité directe de l’arrêt qui constate une violation du droit à un procès équitable dans une affaire mettant en cause l’Etat et l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme à l’arrêt qui interprète l’article 6 dans une affaire mettant en cause un Etat tiers. L’introduction dans l’ordre juridique français et hellénique de la possibilité de réexamen de la décision pénale définitive rendue en violation de la Convention a fait naitre un nouveau droit d’accès à la Cour de cassation lequel trouve son terrain de prédilection aux violations de l’article 6 et constitue peut-être le pas le plus important pour le respect du droit à un procès équitable après l’acceptation (par la France et la Grèce) du droit de recours individuel. Quant au faible fondement de l’autorité de la chose interprétée par la Cour Européenne, qui est d’ailleurs un concept d’origine communautaire, cela explique pourquoi un dialogue indirect entre la Cour Européenne et la Cour de cassation est possible sans pour autant changer en rien l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme et le fait que l’existence d’un précédent oblige la Cour de cassation à motiver l’interprétation divergente qu’elle a adoptée.La seconde partie de l’étude, qui est plus volumineuse, est consacrée aux garanties de bonne administration de la justice (article 6§1), à la présomption d’innocence (article 6§2), aux droits qui trouvent leur fondement conventionnel dans l’article 6§1 mais leur fondement logique dans la présomption d’innocence et aux droits de la défense (article 6§3). Sont ainsi analysés le droit à un tribunal indépendant, impartial et établi par la loi, le délai raisonnable, le principe de l’égalité des armes, le droit à une procédure contradictoire, le droit de la défense d’avoir la parole en dernier, la publicité de l’audience et du prononcé des jugements et arrêts, l’obligation de motivation des décisions, la présomption d’innocence, dans sa dimension procédurale et personnelle, le « droit au mensonge », le droit de l’accusé de se taire et de ne pas contribuer à son auto-incrimination, son droit d’être informé de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation et de la requalification envisagée des faits, son droit au temps et aux facilités nécessaires à la préparation de la défense, y compris notamment la confidentialité de ses communications avec son avocat et le droit d’accès au dossier, son droit de comparaître en personne au procès, le droit de la défense avec ou sans l’assistance d’un avocat, le droit de l’accusé d’être représenté en son absence par son avocat, le droit à l’assistance gratuite d’un avocat lorsque la situation économique de l’accusé ne permet pas le recours à l’assistance d’un avocat mais les intérêts de la justice l’exigent, le droit d’interroger ou faire interroger les témoins à charge et d’obtenir la convocation et l’interrogation des témoins à décharge dans les mêmes conditions que les témoins à charge et le droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction des pièces essentielles du dossier. L’analyse est basée sur la jurisprudence strasbourgeoise et centrée sur la position qu’adoptent la Cour de cassation française et l’Aréopage. / The first party of the study is dedicated to the invocation of the right to a fair trial intra and extra muros and, on this basis, it focuses on the direct applicability of Article 6 and the subsidiarity of the Convention and of the European Court of Human Rights. Because of the fact that the right to a fair trial is a ‘‘judge-made law’’, the study also focuses on the invocability of the judgments of the European Court and more precisely on the direct invocability of the European Court’s judgment finding that there has been a violation of the Convention and on the request for an interpretation in accordance with the European Court’s decisions. The possibility of reviewing the criminal judgment made in violation of the Convention has generated a new right of access to the Court of cassation which particularly concerns the violations of the right to a fair trial and is probably the most important step for the respect of the right to a fair trial after enabling the right of individual petition. As for the weak conventional basis of the authority of res interpretata (“autorité de la chose interprétée”), this fact explains why an indirect dialogue between the ECHR and the Court of cassation is possible but doesn’t affect the applicant’s right to request an interpretation in accordance with the Court’s decisions and the duty of the Court of cassation to explain why it has decided to depart from the (non-binding) precedent.The second party of the study is bigger than the first one and is dedicated to the guarantees of the proper administration of justice (Article 6§1), the presumption of innocence (Article 6§2), the rights which find their conventional basis on the Article 6§1 but their logical explanation to the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence (Article 6§3). More precisely, the second party of the study is analyzing the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, the principle of equality of arms, the right to adversarial proceedings, the right of the defence to the last word, the right to a public hearing and a public pronouncement of the judgement, the judge’s duty to state the reasons for his decision, the presumption of innocence, in both its procedural and personal dimensions, the accused’s right to lie, his right to remain silent, his right against self-incrimination, his right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation and the potential re-characterisation of the facts, his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence, including in particular the access to the case-file and the free and confidential communication with his lawyer, his right to appear in person at the trial, his right to defend either in person or through legal assistance, his right to be represented by his counsel, his right to free legal aid if he hasn’t sufficient means to pay for legal assistance but the interests of justice so require, his right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him and his right to the free assistance of an interpreter and to the translation of the key documents. The analysis is based on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and focuses on the position taken by the French and the Greek Court of Cassation (Areopagus) on each one of the above mentioned rights.