Global ETD Search

1	Early Restoration Councils, 1830–1838: A Tool to Refine Individuals Davis, Nicholas Andrew 01 December 2017 (has links) When Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ in April 1830, he also established the framework for councils, the decision-making mechanism of the early Church. Early councils included a group of men holding the priesthood and often included a congregation. They would gather and make authoritative decisions, including if someone accused of wrongdoing was guilty and should receive formal disciplinary action. As the Church grew, Smith further developed this council system. Elders and high priests frequently formed councils, which gradually gave way to bishop's councils. In 1834, high councils began to establish an appellate court where disgruntled Church members could appeal their case. Later, Smith formed other disciplinary bodies and gave them limited jurisdictional authority. Depending on where they lived, Church members utilized different councils. Kirtland and Missouri principally used a bishop and high council, while other outlying congregations relied primarily on elder and high priest councils. Notwithstanding these organizational differences, early Church councils exhibited several consistent patterns. They encouraged individuals to reform their behavior, provided progressive rights to women and children, and inspired confidence in the system, even though Church leaders sometimes disagreed with individual rulings. Although often overlooked, early Church councils played a pivotal role in protecting and developing Church orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Councils conferences disciplinary councils high council Seventies bishop's courts traveling high council Missouri presidency Church discipline Religion
2	An assessment of the Media High Council as a media regulatory body in Rwanda, 2007-2010 Nkundakozera, Prince Bahati 02 1900 (has links) The Media High Council (MHC) was put in place by the 2003 constitution of the Republic of Rwanda as amended to today. As article 34 clarifies, the MHC is an independent institution which aims to address issues of media and press freedom. In the same spirit, the law number 30 /2009 of 16/9/2009 determines its mission, organisation and functioning. According to article 2 of this law, the Media High Council is responsible for protection, control and promotion of media and media professionals. Based on normative theories, qualitative methods and thematic analysis, this study has explored the policy formation of the Media High Council and how it has been balancing the seeming contradictory responsibilities of protecting and controlling media from 2007 to 2010. / Communication Science / M.A. (Communication) Media High Council Statutory regulation Thematic analysis Professionalisation 323.4450967571 Media Regulation Self-regulation Press freedom Tutsi genocide Normative theories Rwanda. -- Media High Council Press -- Rwanda Mass media -- Rwanda Government and the press -- Rwanda Press councils -- Rwanda Press law -- Rwanda Freedom of the press -- Rwanda
3	An assessment of the Media High Council as a media regulatory body in Rwanda, 2007-2010 Nkundakozera, Prince Bahati 02 1900 (has links) The Media High Council (MHC) was put in place by the 2003 constitution of the Republic of Rwanda as amended to today. As article 34 clarifies, the MHC is an independent institution which aims to address issues of media and press freedom. In the same spirit, the law number 30 /2009 of 16/9/2009 determines its mission, organisation and functioning. According to article 2 of this law, the Media High Council is responsible for protection, control and promotion of media and media professionals. Based on normative theories, qualitative methods and thematic analysis, this study has explored the policy formation of the Media High Council and how it has been balancing the seeming contradictory responsibilities of protecting and controlling media from 2007 to 2010. / Communication Science / M.A. (Communication) Media High Council Statutory regulation Thematic analysis Professionalisation Media Regulation Self-regulation Press freedom Tutsi genocide Normative theories 323.4450967571 Rwanda. -- Media High Council Press -- Rwanda Mass media -- Rwanda Government and the press -- Rwanda Press councils -- Rwanda Press law -- Rwanda Freedom of the press -- Rwanda
4	Les principes directeurs du procès dans la jurisprudence du Conseil Constitutionnel / The Trial’s guiding principles in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council Lestrade, Éric 21 November 2013 (has links) Malgré le peu de fondements écrits consacrés à la justice dans le texte de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958, le Conseil constitutionnel, en réalisant un travail d’actualisation à partir de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, a permis l’émergence d’un droit constitutionnel processuel, construit autour de principes directeurs. Ceux-ci peuvent être répartis dans trois catégories : deux principales, selon que l’acteur du procès prioritairement concerné soit le juge ou les parties et une troisième, complémentaire, celle des garanties procédurales, permettant de favoriser les qualités essentielles du juge et de contrôler le respect des droits des parties. Une gradation des exigences du Conseil constitutionnel est discrètement perceptible entre les deux premières catégories de principes, plus facilement identifiable entre celles-ci et la dernière famille. Cette échelle décroissante de « densité » des principes directeurs du procès témoigne d’une véritable politique jurisprudentielle en matière de droit constitutionnel processuel, qui met l’accent sur l’accès au juge, doté des qualités indispensables à l’accomplissement de sa mission juridictionnelle. Toutefois, aussi satisfaisante que soit l’action du juge constitutionnel français à l’égard du droit du procès, celle-ci nécessiterait aujourd’hui le relais du constituant, afin de moderniser le statut constitutionnel de la justice. / In spite of a relatively low number of written dispositions dedicated to justice inside of the body of the Constitution of October 1958 4th, the constitutional Council, while updating this text through the Declaration of Human Rights, contributed to the development of a procedural constitutional law, which is structured around guiding principles. Those principles can be classified within three different categories : two major categories depend on the trial actor that is primarily concerned, either the judge or the parties; a third and additional category pertaining to procedural protections, fosters the essential qualities of the judge and secure the protection of the parties’ rights. A gradation of the requirements of the constitutional Council is discreetly perceptible between the first two categories of principles, and more easily identifiable between those first two categories and the last one. This decreasing scale of “density” yoked to the trial guiding principles highlights a genuine judicial policy when it comes to procedural constitutional law, emphasizing access to the judge, whom is given essential qualities in order to achieve its judicial duty. However, the action of the French constitutional judge, as satisfactory as it is towards the rights of the trial, would easily support the intervention of the constituent power in order to update Justice’s constitutional status. Accès au juge Actes de gouvernement Action en justice Appel Autorité de la chose jugée Avocat Cassation Conseil constitutionnel Conseil supérieur de la magistrature Contradictoire Collégialité Délai raisonnable de jugement Déni de justice Double degré de juridiction Droits de la défense Droit au recours juridictionnel effectif Effet dévolutif de l’appel Effet suspensif de l’appel Égalité des armes Égalité devant la justice Garde à vue Impartialité Inamovibilité Injonction pénale Indépendance Instance Instruction Intérêt pour agir Juge unique Juridiction Magistrat Ministère public Motivation Parquet Partie au procès Présomption d’innocence Principes directeurs Procès Publicité des audiences Recours administratif préalable Siège Validations législatives Voies de recours Access to the judge Acts of government Adversarial proceedings Appeal Argumentation Authority Cassation Collegiality Constitutional Council Constitutionnalization of procedural law Criminal injunction Denial of justice Equality before the law Equality of arms Force of res judicata Guiding principles High Council of the Judiciary Impartiality Independence Independent administrative authorities Instruction Interest to act Judge Jurisdiction Lawyer Legal proceedings Legal remedies Legislative validations Party to the proceedings Plea-bargaining Police custody Preliminary administrative appeal Presumption of innocence Prosecutor Public prosecutor Publicity of hearings Rights of the defense Single judge Sitting judge Tenure The devolutive effect of appeal The right to a second hearing The right to effective judicial review The suspensive effect of appeal Trial 340

1

Page generated in 0.2597 seconds