Thesis (M.A.)--City University of Hong Kong, 2006. / "MA in arbitration and dispute resolution, LW6409 dissertation" Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on May 23, 2007) Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2007. / Title from first page of PDF file (viewed May 10, 2007). Available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 114-118).

This thesis investigates the potential and emerging roles of the Social Economy at the level of global governance by examining how transnational civil society (TCS) has organized in an attempt to influence global policy-making. One of this study’s principal aims is to glean insights into the dynamics of civil society coalitions, gaining a better understanding of how they combine the collective knowledge, resources and strengths of members and drawing out some of the “best practices” and challenges inherent in past civil society alliances. This study seeks to explore the complex nature of the relationships that exist among civil society actors and the unique challenges such groups face in forming partnerships by examining these relationships through the lens of Inter-Group Conflict Theory. A Case Study of one TCS partnership, the Make Poverty History (MPH) campaign, is conducted and an Inter-Group Dispute Resolution Analysis of MPH is carried out.

A questão Essequibo tem sido assunto de pauta na política externa da Venezuela, desde o séc. XIX, quando foi assinado o Laudo de Paris, em 1899, por aquele país e pela então Guiana Britânica, como forma de dar solução à disputa fronteiriça entre as duas nações. No transcorrer da primeira metade do séc. XX, o problema persistiu como uma agenda aberta, dada a dificuldade de se estabelecer negociações eficazes com os britânicos, em função da instabilidade política e alternância de poder entre caudilhos e ditadores militares. Com a divulgação do Memorandum Mallet-Prevost, no final da primeira metade do séc. passado, a Venezuela passou a insistir pela anulação do Laudo, em decorrência de denúncias apontadas no Memorandum . Só após a democratização do país, no início dos anos 60, o assunto passou a ser pauta de negociações entre chanceleres das duas nações. Assunto que se tornou mais persistente com a proximidade da independência da Guiana, quando a Venezuela sela o Acuerdo de Ginebra, com o propósito de resolver a pendência fronteiriça no âmbito das comissões mistas, criadas sob os auspícos da ONU. Foi uma época de intensificação de propaganda pró-Essequibo na Venezuela, levando a região reclamada a constar, inclusive, no mapa venezuelano como zona en reclamación. No entanto, dada a conjuntura política na Guiana, decorrente da polarização ideológica entre o People’s Progressive Party – PPP – e o People´s National Congress – PNC –, a questão pouco progrediu, mesmo com a assinatura do Protocolo de Puerto España, em 1970, como previa o Acuerdo. O instituto do buen oficiante, como mediador proposto pela ONU, não impediu, tampouco, ações armadas contra o território guianense. Quadro este que permaneceu assim até o início da Era Chávez, quando o bolivarianismo e sua ideologia transnacionalista levou a Venezuela a aproximar-se de país latinos e caribenhos, incluindo a Guiana. Porém, concomitante ao andamento da agenda bolivariana, grupos pró-Essequibo, de ideologia nacionalista, constituídos por muitos membros da oposição à política chavista, passaram a propalar a conquista da região reclamada, numa clara evidência de que a questão Essequibo é parte de uma agenda persistentemente aberta, podendo ser utilizada por diferentes forças políticas da República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra a Guiana. / Essequibo has been a subject of discussion in Venezuela’s policy, since the 19th century, when the Award of Paris was signed in 1899 by that country and also by British Guiana, to solve the border dispute between the two nations. In the first half of the 20th century, the problem persisted as an open question, because of the difficulties to establish effective negotiations with the British, due to political instablility and alternation of power between the military dictators and the warlords. With the release of the Memorandum Mallet- Prevost, at the end of the past first half century, Venezuela insisted on cancelling the award because of complaints which there were in the Memorandum . Only after the democratization of the country in the early 60’s, the situation started with the negotiation between the foreign ministers of both nations, and it became more persistent with the proximity of Guyana’s independence. At that time Venezuela had sealed the “Acuerdo de Ginebra”, in order to solve the border problems with the mixed commissions created under the auspices of the UN. In Venezuela they started an intensified propaganda pro Essequibo, requiring the claimed area to be included in the Venezuelan map as “Zona en Reclamacíon”. However, because of the political situation in Guyana, due to the polarization between the People’s Progressive Party – PPP – and the National People’s Congress – PNC – the situation did not improve, even with the signing of the Port of Spain Protocol, in 1970. The Institute Buen Oficiante, proposed by the UN as a mediator, could not stop armed actions against the Guyanese territory. Remaining like that until the beginning of Chávez era when the bolivarism and his transnationalist ideology led Venezuela to approach the Latin and Caribbean countries, including Guyana. The groups pro Essequibo with a nationalist ideology, formed by the members of political opposition to Chávez, began to spread ideas of conquest of that claimed area, showing that Essequibo is a question of discussion and which can be used by different political forces of the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela against Guyana.

A questão Essequibo tem sido assunto de pauta na política externa da Venezuela, desde o séc. XIX, quando foi assinado o Laudo de Paris, em 1899, por aquele país e pela então Guiana Britânica, como forma de dar solução à disputa fronteiriça entre as duas nações. No transcorrer da primeira metade do séc. XX, o problema persistiu como uma agenda aberta, dada a dificuldade de se estabelecer negociações eficazes com os britânicos, em função da instabilidade política e alternância de poder entre caudilhos e ditadores militares. Com a divulgação do Memorandum Mallet-Prevost, no final da primeira metade do séc. passado, a Venezuela passou a insistir pela anulação do Laudo, em decorrência de denúncias apontadas no Memorandum . Só após a democratização do país, no início dos anos 60, o assunto passou a ser pauta de negociações entre chanceleres das duas nações. Assunto que se tornou mais persistente com a proximidade da independência da Guiana, quando a Venezuela sela o Acuerdo de Ginebra, com o propósito de resolver a pendência fronteiriça no âmbito das comissões mistas, criadas sob os auspícos da ONU. Foi uma época de intensificação de propaganda pró-Essequibo na Venezuela, levando a região reclamada a constar, inclusive, no mapa venezuelano como zona en reclamación. No entanto, dada a conjuntura política na Guiana, decorrente da polarização ideológica entre o People’s Progressive Party – PPP – e o People´s National Congress – PNC –, a questão pouco progrediu, mesmo com a assinatura do Protocolo de Puerto España, em 1970, como previa o Acuerdo. O instituto do buen oficiante, como mediador proposto pela ONU, não impediu, tampouco, ações armadas contra o território guianense. Quadro este que permaneceu assim até o início da Era Chávez, quando o bolivarianismo e sua ideologia transnacionalista levou a Venezuela a aproximar-se de país latinos e caribenhos, incluindo a Guiana. Porém, concomitante ao andamento da agenda bolivariana, grupos pró-Essequibo, de ideologia nacionalista, constituídos por muitos membros da oposição à política chavista, passaram a propalar a conquista da região reclamada, numa clara evidência de que a questão Essequibo é parte de uma agenda persistentemente aberta, podendo ser utilizada por diferentes forças políticas da República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra a Guiana. / Essequibo has been a subject of discussion in Venezuela’s policy, since the 19th century, when the Award of Paris was signed in 1899 by that country and also by British Guiana, to solve the border dispute between the two nations. In the first half of the 20th century, the problem persisted as an open question, because of the difficulties to establish effective negotiations with the British, due to political instablility and alternation of power between the military dictators and the warlords. With the release of the Memorandum Mallet- Prevost, at the end of the past first half century, Venezuela insisted on cancelling the award because of complaints which there were in the Memorandum . Only after the democratization of the country in the early 60’s, the situation started with the negotiation between the foreign ministers of both nations, and it became more persistent with the proximity of Guyana’s independence. At that time Venezuela had sealed the “Acuerdo de Ginebra”, in order to solve the border problems with the mixed commissions created under the auspices of the UN. In Venezuela they started an intensified propaganda pro Essequibo, requiring the claimed area to be included in the Venezuelan map as “Zona en Reclamacíon”. However, because of the political situation in Guyana, due to the polarization between the People’s Progressive Party – PPP – and the National People’s Congress – PNC – the situation did not improve, even with the signing of the Port of Spain Protocol, in 1970. The Institute Buen Oficiante, proposed by the UN as a mediator, could not stop armed actions against the Guyanese territory. Remaining like that until the beginning of Chávez era when the bolivarism and his transnationalist ideology led Venezuela to approach the Latin and Caribbean countries, including Guyana. The groups pro Essequibo with a nationalist ideology, formed by the members of political opposition to Chávez, began to spread ideas of conquest of that claimed area, showing that Essequibo is a question of discussion and which can be used by different political forces of the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela against Guyana.

The East China Sea (ECS) dispute between Japan, the People’s Republic of China, and the Republic of China began in the early 1970s and has continued to escalate. Although the Japanese government claims to handle conflicts in the disputed area as domestic matters, scholarship has focused on the dispute as an international relations or legal issue between states. This project explores the dispute as an issue in domestic Japanese politics by examining the narratives and power dynamics of the major political parties, nationalist and ultraconservative groups, and Okinawan activists vis-à-vis the national government and international actors.

China and Japan have claimed sovereignty of tiny, inhabitant islands in the East China Sea for a long time. This paper attempts to analyze this territorial dispute from the conflict transformation perspective to seek a peaceful end. I believe that Nationalism plays a key role and interferes to resolve the dispute by international conflict resolution methods. To prove the influence of the nationalism on the dispute, I conducted a survey to measure individual’s nationalistic attributions and inquire attitudes toward the islands dispute of Chinese and Japanese. The survey result shows that a majority of the both Chinese and Japanese participants having a strong individual nationalistic attribution support their nation’s sovereignty over the islands. Moreover, a majority of the Chinese and Japanese having a weak individual nationalistic attribution do not support their nations’ sovereignty rather take different positions regarding to the islands dispute.

China and Japan have claimed sovereignty of tiny, inhabitant islands in the East China Sea for a long time. This paper attempts to analyze this territorial dispute from the conflict transformation perspective to seek a peaceful end. I believe that Nationalism plays a key role and interferes to resolve the dispute by international conflict resolution methods. To prove the influence of the nationalism on the dispute, I conducted a survey to measure individual’s nationalistic attributions and inquire attitudes toward the islands dispute of Chinese and Japanese. The survey result shows that a majority of the both Chinese and Japanese participants having a strong individual nationalistic attribution support their nation’s sovereignty over the islands. Moreover, a majority of the Chinese and Japanese having a weak individual nationalistic attribution do not support their nations’ sovereignty rather take different positions regarding to the islands dispute.

A questão Essequibo tem sido assunto de pauta na política externa da Venezuela, desde o séc. XIX, quando foi assinado o Laudo de Paris, em 1899, por aquele país e pela então Guiana Britânica, como forma de dar solução à disputa fronteiriça entre as duas nações. No transcorrer da primeira metade do séc. XX, o problema persistiu como uma agenda aberta, dada a dificuldade de se estabelecer negociações eficazes com os britânicos, em função da instabilidade política e alternância de poder entre caudilhos e ditadores militares. Com a divulgação do Memorandum Mallet-Prevost, no final da primeira metade do séc. passado, a Venezuela passou a insistir pela anulação do Laudo, em decorrência de denúncias apontadas no Memorandum . Só após a democratização do país, no início dos anos 60, o assunto passou a ser pauta de negociações entre chanceleres das duas nações. Assunto que se tornou mais persistente com a proximidade da independência da Guiana, quando a Venezuela sela o Acuerdo de Ginebra, com o propósito de resolver a pendência fronteiriça no âmbito das comissões mistas, criadas sob os auspícos da ONU. Foi uma época de intensificação de propaganda pró-Essequibo na Venezuela, levando a região reclamada a constar, inclusive, no mapa venezuelano como zona en reclamación. No entanto, dada a conjuntura política na Guiana, decorrente da polarização ideológica entre o People’s Progressive Party – PPP – e o People´s National Congress – PNC –, a questão pouco progrediu, mesmo com a assinatura do Protocolo de Puerto España, em 1970, como previa o Acuerdo. O instituto do buen oficiante, como mediador proposto pela ONU, não impediu, tampouco, ações armadas contra o território guianense. Quadro este que permaneceu assim até o início da Era Chávez, quando o bolivarianismo e sua ideologia transnacionalista levou a Venezuela a aproximar-se de país latinos e caribenhos, incluindo a Guiana. Porém, concomitante ao andamento da agenda bolivariana, grupos pró-Essequibo, de ideologia nacionalista, constituídos por muitos membros da oposição à política chavista, passaram a propalar a conquista da região reclamada, numa clara evidência de que a questão Essequibo é parte de uma agenda persistentemente aberta, podendo ser utilizada por diferentes forças políticas da República Bolivariana de Venezuela contra a Guiana. / Essequibo has been a subject of discussion in Venezuela’s policy, since the 19th century, when the Award of Paris was signed in 1899 by that country and also by British Guiana, to solve the border dispute between the two nations. In the first half of the 20th century, the problem persisted as an open question, because of the difficulties to establish effective negotiations with the British, due to political instablility and alternation of power between the military dictators and the warlords. With the release of the Memorandum Mallet- Prevost, at the end of the past first half century, Venezuela insisted on cancelling the award because of complaints which there were in the Memorandum . Only after the democratization of the country in the early 60’s, the situation started with the negotiation between the foreign ministers of both nations, and it became more persistent with the proximity of Guyana’s independence. At that time Venezuela had sealed the “Acuerdo de Ginebra”, in order to solve the border problems with the mixed commissions created under the auspices of the UN. In Venezuela they started an intensified propaganda pro Essequibo, requiring the claimed area to be included in the Venezuelan map as “Zona en Reclamacíon”. However, because of the political situation in Guyana, due to the polarization between the People’s Progressive Party – PPP – and the National People’s Congress – PNC – the situation did not improve, even with the signing of the Port of Spain Protocol, in 1970. The Institute Buen Oficiante, proposed by the UN as a mediator, could not stop armed actions against the Guyanese territory. Remaining like that until the beginning of Chávez era when the bolivarism and his transnationalist ideology led Venezuela to approach the Latin and Caribbean countries, including Guyana. The groups pro Essequibo with a nationalist ideology, formed by the members of political opposition to Chávez, began to spread ideas of conquest of that claimed area, showing that Essequibo is a question of discussion and which can be used by different political forces of the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela against Guyana.

The aim of this diploma thesis dedicated to the issue of incidental disputes in insolvency proceeding was to determine the incidental disputes in proceedings, categorize them systematically, outline their character and set a comprehensive overview of these disputes. Within the insolvency proceedings incidental disputes are largely solved as case law, which the author of this work deals within the description of the various types of disputes. The thesis is divided into fourteen chapters, which are further divided into subsections and parts. The first two chapters are devoted to insolvency proceeding in general, especially when the character and purpose of the insolvency proceeding as well as the conceptual definition of insolvency proceeding and its consequences are outlined, because without these underlying premise would be impossible to describe the issue as a whole. Incidental disputes have undergone throughout history certain development and as an incidental are spoken only in the 90s of the 20th century. The third chapter of the thesis is dedicated to the historical development of insolvency proceedings in Czech territory and comparisons applicable regulation of insolvency proceedings with modifications beginning in the 1781 and the issue of the general bankruptcy order compared to other...