No description available.

No description available.

Le procès civil est un des moyens essentiels pour le bon déroulement de la justice. Il amène une difficulté de fait et de droit à l’examen d’un juge par un ensemble des formalités qui doivent être suivies pour soumettre une prétention à un juge civil, ce qu’on appelle : une instance civile. L’objectif premier de l’instance civile est de permettre l’exercice d’une justice efficace, respectueuse du droit de chaque partie afin de créer un climat de sécurité juridique. A première vue, la répartition du rôle du juge et des parties dans le fond de l’instance civil semble simple, puisque les parties sont en chargent des faits et le juge doit rendre le droit. En réalité, l’articulation des fonctions du juge et des parties est plus complexe. Concrètement, les faits et le droit n’étant que les deux versants d’une même réalité, il est délicat de définir précisément l’étendue de la place que doivent occuper respectivement le juge et les parties. Faut-il aller dans le sens d’une extension ou d’une limitation du pouvoir du juge ? Le procès civil doit-il rester la chose des parties ? Et de même la forme de l’instance nécessite la comparaison entre les deux systèmes en essayant de connaître si ils sont arrivés à aboutir à l’objective du procès civil. Bien que les systèmes juridiques français et koweitien soit de prime abord quelque différent, l’intérêt d’une telle étude comparée réside dans le fait de faire ressortir les dysfonctionnements en matière du procès civile en premier instance, et cela notamment dans le droit koweitien. L’étude de l’instance civile française va servir de référence pour apporter des améliorations dans l’instance civile du Koweït. La procédure civile française est historiquement bien plus ancienne que celle du Koweït. C’est la loi du 14 avril 1806 qui institue le premier code de procédure civile en France alors que le Koweït n’en sera doté que bien plus tard. Il ressort que la dynamique donnée au procès civil en France et au Koweït n’est pas la même, et cela en raison de la formulation des dispositions relatives à la répartition du rôle du juge et des parties. Dans l’instance civile française, ces dispositions sont plus explicites et plus précises alors que dans l’instance civile koweitienne, elles apparaissent de manière plus implicite et plus éparse. Ainsi,« le flou » qui règne dans le procès civil koweitienne, laisse plus de place à l’intervention de la jurisprudence qui plus est n’est pas toujours cohérente. Il est alors nécessaire de combler les lacunes du système koweitien, pour garantir une meilleure sécurité juridique. Le modèle français pourrait alors constituer une source d’inspiration pour apporter des améliorations au procès civil koweitienne. Ces améliorations pourraient notamment consister à réorganiser le code de procédure civile afin de rendre plus visible les dispositions concernant la répartition du rôle du juge et des parties dans les procès de première instance. Il s’agit aussi d’apporter des précisions législatives pour expliciter et faciliter le déroulement du procès civil, en déterminant les rôles respectifs du juge et des parties dans le procès civil d’instance et d’en comprendre les implications et cela sous l’angle d’une étude comparative entre le droit français et le droit koweitien. / The civil trial is an essential means for the proper conduct of justice. Hebrings a difficulty of fact and law under consideration by a judge by a set of steps that must be followed to submit a claim to a civil court, which is called: a civil proceeding. The primary objective of the civil proceeding is to permit the exercise of effective justice, respects the right of each party to create a climate of legal certainty. At first glance, the distribution of the role of the judge and the parties in the merits of the civil judge appears simple, because the parties are in charge of the facts and the judge must make the law. In fact, the articulation of the judge and the parties is more complex. Specifically, the facts and the law is that the two sides of the same coin, it is difficult to precisely define the extent of the space to be occupied respectively the judge and the parties. Should we go in the direction of extension or limitation of the judicial power ? The civil trial should he remain the party thing ? And even the shape of the proceeding requires the comparison between the two systems trying to know if they got to reach the objective of the civil trial. Although the French and Kuwaiti legal system is at first a different, the value of such a comparative study is that to highlight the dysfunction in the civil trial in the first instance, and that especially in the Kuwaiti law. The study of French civil case will serve as a reference for making improvements in the civil case of Kuwait. The French civil procedure is historically much older than that of Kuwait. This is the law of 14 April 1806 which established the first code of civil procedure in France while Kuwait will have not much later. It appears that the momentum given to the civil trial in France and Kuwait is not the same, and that because of the wording in relation to the distribution of the role of the judge and the parties. In the French civil, these provisions are more explicit and precise while in the Kuwaiti civil, they appear more and more sparse implied. Thus, "blur" that prevails in the Kuwaiti civil trial, leaves more room for the intervention of the law that is more is not always consistent. It is then necessary to fill gaps in the Kuwaiti system to ensure greater legal certainty. The French model could be a source of inspiration to make improvements to the Kuwaiti civil trial. These improvements might include reorganizing the Code of Civil Procedure in order to make more visible the provisions concerning the distribution of the role of the judge and the parties in the original trial. It is also for legislative clarification to clarify and facilitate the conduct of the civil trial, determining the roles of the judge and the parties in the civil trial of first instance and to understand its implications and that under the angle of a comparative study between the french law and the Kuwaiti law.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1976.

published_or_final_version / Comparative Asian Studies / Master / Master of Arts

Most studies that have examined parties that challenge the political establishment have focused their attention on certain types of 'anti-political-establishment parties' (a-pe parties), such as left-libertarian parties or right-wing populist parties. It is argued here that before moving on to an exploration of the reasons behind the electoral success or failure of specific a-p-e parties, one should take a closer look at the preconditions for the success of a-p-e parties in general. This makes it necessary to avoid any 'time-specific' or 'ideology-specific' explanations. Consequently, only those explanatory variables that could be tested at any point in time and for any a-p-e party regardless of its position on the left-right political scale were included in this study. Six hypotheses that fulfilled these criteria were selected to be tested using data from nineteen advanced industrial democracies covering the entire 1945 to 1999 time period. These hypotheses stress the importance of the electoral system, political traditions, the economic conditions of a country, the colluding behaviour of the establishment parties, certain party system features and the 'availability' of voters. In contrast to prior research which has often emphasized the importance of socioeconomic and institutional factors, the results of the bivariate and multivariate analyses suggest that political variables explain much of the variance in the level of electoral support for a-p-e parties in different democracies, at different points in time. Thus, the economic situation of a country as well as the electoral system do not appear to have a significant impact on the electoral fortunes of a-p-e parties. On the other hand, anti- political-establishment parties thrive in an environment where and when the establishment parties are fairly close to each other ideologically and where and when weak partisan attachments make voters available to their appeals. In addition, the behaviour of the establishment parties, especially the mode of interaction between them and the main opposition is very important. That is, a-p-e parties profit from collusion between the main establishment parties, especially in an environment that is characterized by mutual distrust between the governing party(ies) and an opposition that is excluded and sometimes even ostracized.

Thesis--University of Wisconsin--Madison. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 674-691).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Hong Kong, 1976. / Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1968. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Most studies that have examined parties that challenge the political establishment have focused their attention on certain types of 'anti-political-establishment parties' (a-pe parties), such as left-libertarian parties or right-wing populist parties. It is argued here that before moving on to an exploration of the reasons behind the electoral success or failure of specific a-p-e parties, one should take a closer look at the preconditions for the success of a-p-e parties in general. This makes it necessary to avoid any 'time-specific' or 'ideology-specific' explanations. Consequently, only those explanatory variables that could be tested at any point in time and for any a-p-e party regardless of its position on the left-right political scale were included in this study. Six hypotheses that fulfilled these criteria were selected to be tested using data from nineteen advanced industrial democracies covering the entire 1945 to 1999 time period. These hypotheses stress the importance of the electoral system, political traditions, the economic conditions of a country, the colluding behaviour of the establishment parties, certain party system features and the 'availability' of voters. In contrast to prior research which has often emphasized the importance of socioeconomic and institutional factors, the results of the bivariate and multivariate analyses suggest that political variables explain much of the variance in the level of electoral support for a-p-e parties in different democracies, at different points in time. Thus, the economic situation of a country as well as the electoral system do not appear to have a significant impact on the electoral fortunes of a-p-e parties. On the other hand, anti- political-establishment parties thrive in an environment where and when the establishment parties are fairly close to each other ideologically and where and when weak partisan attachments make voters available to their appeals. In addition, the behaviour of the establishment parties, especially the mode of interaction between them and the main opposition is very important. That is, a-p-e parties profit from collusion between the main establishment parties, especially in an environment that is characterized by mutual distrust between the governing party(ies) and an opposition that is excluded and sometimes even ostracized. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate