Denna uppsats behandlar den dolda folksjukdomen IBS och dess konsekvenser för individens sociala delaktighet. Syftet med studien är att studera individens upplevelse av delaktighet och erfarenhet av att leva med sjukdomen. IBS är en så kallad funktionell mag- och tarmsjukdom och står för Irritable Bowel Syndrome (Colon/Kolon irritabile), Irriterad tarm i svenskt tal och kännetecknas av återkommande eller kroniska symtom från mag- tarmkanalen. Medicinskt sett anses IBS vara en godartad sjukdom, men den kan vara besvärlig att leva med och ibland ge nästintill handlingsförlamande konsekvenser för individen och dennes sociala livsvärld. Forskarna vet inte orsaken bakom IBS och det finns inget medicinskt test som visar att det är IBS som en patient lider av, men man vet att individens sjukdomshistoria ofta är typisk och att sjukdomen är vanligast bland kvinnor. Av världens alla invånare lever det många människor med sjukdomen IBS, som kommit att bli en ny folksjukdom, då man beräknar att närmare 10-20 procent av den vuxna befolkningen har IBS. Individens upplevelse av vad som är normalt kontra avvikande när det gäller det friska och det sjuka visar en bild av hur samhället tycks vara skapat. Individens hälsotillstånd påverkar livskvaliteten och diagnosen bidrar till en förändrad identitet, och för varje individ som lever med IBS har begreppet delaktighet; att vara social med andra och i samhället i stort, fått en helt ny mening i och med deras sjukdom.   Min förhoppning är att denna studie ska uppmärksamma läsaren kring den nya folksjukdomen IBS och hur den påverkar individens sociala liv. / This essay deals with the new widespread disease IBS and its consequences for the social participation of the individual. The purpose of the study is to look at the experience of social participation of the individual and her experience of living with this disease. IBS is a so-called dynamic/functional belly- and intestinal disease, which stands for Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and is symbolized by recurrent or chronical symptom from the belly- and intestinal canal. From a medical view IBS is considered as a benign disease, but it can be tricky to live with and sometimes give heavy problems for the individual and its social life. The scientists doesn`t know what the cause is behind the disease and it doesn`t exist any medical test who can prove that a patient is suffering by IBS, but they do know that the case-history of the individual is very typical and that the disease is more common among women. From a social view studies show that the social life of the individual is strongly affected, and that the identity and how she look at normalcy/variation is no longer the same as it was when she was healthy. For every individual whos is living with this disease has also the concept of participation; to be social with other people and in society at large, got a whole new meaning as a result of their disease.

No description available.

No description available.

90年代起，德國再統一後躍上全球政治舞臺，從過去歐洲安全的顧慮之國，轉型成為今日歐洲政治、經濟與軍事穩定力量。但是在後冷戰時期，過去許多次級威脅因子失去了壓抑力量後，成為後冷戰時期新形態的安全議題，威脅全球政治與經濟的穩定與安全。面對這些紛踵沓至的威脅，德國一方面必須鞏固與維護自身冷戰期間所累積的經貿成就，另一方面則積極配合聯合國、北大西洋公約組織與歐洲聯盟的決策，派遣聯邦國防軍遠赴海外，從事維和、軍事、人道與救援等國際性任務，追求自身外交正常化的目標。 本文研究發現，1991年至2009年為止，聯邦國防軍在過去19年來的71項海外維和、軍事、人道與救援等國際性任務，都嚴格限定在聯合國、北約與歐盟憲章的框架下，恪遵既有的國際秩序與國內憲法規範，實踐身為聯合國、北約與歐盟成員國的義務，成為上述三大國際組織最倚賴的軍事力量。 雖然歷年來德國政府已透過具體的立法與釋憲過程，排除《基本法》限制德國海外派兵政策的規範，但是行政部門的決策過程中仍須面臨國內外輿論對於德國海外派兵政策的反對與疑慮；加上德國政府每年投入國防建軍的經費有限，聯邦國防軍的軟硬體設備未必能夠負擔高頻率與海外派兵任務，眾多因素都使聯邦國防軍多年來的派兵成效有限。 德國再統一後雖於積極參與三大國際組織框架行動，配合自身的外交折衝談判與軍事影響力，欲積極重塑其國家的地位。面對諸多主客觀的限制與未臻成熟的條件，德國重返正常化國家的過程仍將艱辛無比。 / Since the re-unification in 90’s, Germany has leaped upon the stage of the global politics. With much effort, Germany has successfully rendered itself from “a nation of grave concern to European security” into “a stable political, economic and military power in modern Europe.” However, during the post-Cold War era, those probable and minor threats, which were suppressed by the huge atmosphere of U.S.-Soviet confrontation, will appear to became the new forms of security issues in the 21st century, and further to jeopardize the global political and economic security and stability. Dealing with these countless and non-stopping new forms of threat, Germany, on the one hand, must secure its existent accomplishment in trade and the miracle of economic development, and also, on the other hand, actively accommodate the decisions and charters of the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union, to pursue Germany’s “normalized diplomacy ”by deploying its Federal Defense Army, Bundeswehr, into the overseas hostile spots, to implement the peacekeeping, military, humanitarian and rescue operations. From 1991 to 2009, Bundeswehr has participated in 71 international peacekeeping, military, humanitarian and rescue operations, which were all implemented strictly under the framework and the charters of the UN, NATO and EU. Over the past 19 years, Germany has obediently complied with the existent regulations of the international laws and the German constitution, Grundgestez, and fulfilled the compulsory obligations as the member of the 3 institutions stated above. For this matter of fact, Bundeswehr has become the reliable military force in these institutions. This thesis has drawn the humble conclusions that although the German executive branches has overruled the legal obstacles and set new paths of deploying Bundeswehr overseas by the legislative move and the explication of the Grundgestez, the executive branches will always tackle the domestic criticism and the international skepticism; meanwhile, the executive branches have never allocated even more sufficient annual budget for the military branches to maintain its readiness-rate, therefore the training of personnel, software, equipment and facilities may not genuinely satisfy the needs for actual battles and afford the frequent and distant operations. The combination of these problem has compromised the actual consequence and the efficiency of Germany’s overseas military deployments in the past two decades. Having endeavored so hard to comply with the operations under the framework of the three major institutions, accompanying its maneuvering of diplomacy and military significance, Germany will still have to give much toil and labor to re-shape its international status. Nevertheless, being obstructed by the immature subjective and objective conditions, Germany’ road returning to its Normalcy of the state will still be long and difficult.

No description available.

Dans la plupart des disciplines juridiques, le motif légitime se présente comme un standard de justification des actes. Il fait obstacle à l’application de la norme, en fondant un droit ou en exonérant d’un devoir. Le droit pénal se montre réticent à l’endroit de cette notion floue qui connaît pourtant un essor sans précédent. Afin de justifier la marge d’appréciation laissée au juge, le motif légitime est généralement conçu comme un mobile, ce qui accentue la confusion entre les causes objectives et subjectives d’irresponsabilité. L’insuffisance de l’approche formelle du mécanisme justificatif explique sa subjectivation progressive. L’analyse du motif légitime suppose de revisiter la théorie de la justification à travers une conception substantielle de l’illicéité, apte à unifier son régime. L’étude de la finalité justificative du motif légitime permet de mieux comprendre la souplesse de ses conditions de mise en œuvre. Le motif légitime renverse la présomption d’illicéité fondant la responsabilité. Le jugement de valeur porté sur l’infraction est la raison d’être du reproche social. Elle se distingue de son attribution à l’auteur qui relève d’un jugement de réalité sur sa volonté. Le motif légitime procède des circonstances extérieures à l’infraction autorisant la vérification concrète de son illicéité. La nature objective du motif légitime est conforme à son effet exonératoire de responsabilité opérant in rem et non in personam. Ses conditions d’application semblent, en revanche, doublement dérogatoires au droit commun de la justification, tant à l’égard de ses critères larges que de son domaine étroit. Il est cantonné à des infractions de risque abstrait pour des valeurs secondaires dont la présomption d’illicéité est artificielle. Le prévenu doit rapporter la preuve de la légitimité concrète de son acte, alors que la légitimité abstraite de la répression est sujette à caution. L’expansion de ce domaine dérogatoire de la répression révèle l’insuffisant contrôle de sa nécessité abstraite. En tout état de cause, la mention spéciale du motif légitime est inutile car toute infraction en fait implicitement réserve, en sorte qu’il se conçoit comme un standard général de justification. Il confère au juge la libre appréciation de la nécessité concrète de la répression, au regard du contexte de chaque espèce qui échappe par nature à la loi ne pouvant régler a priori tous les conflits de valeurs. La justification a postériori des infractions socialement nécessaires ou insignifiantes renforce l’autorité de la loi en garantissant une application conforme à sa finalité de protection des valeurs. / In many legal disciplines, the legitimate reason is a model of justification of acts. The legitimate reason prevents the enforcement of the law, either by creating a right or by exempting someone from a duty. Despite an unprecedented boom, criminal law is hesitant about this vague notion. In order to justify judges' assessment margin, the legitimate reason is commonly considered as a motive. This accentuates the confusion between objective and subjective causes of irresponsibility. The formal approach of the justificatory process is inadequate, making the process increasingly biased. The analysis of the legitimate reason requires a re-examination of the justification theory using a solid understanding of unlawfulness which can help standardize its implementation. The study of the legitimate reason’s justificatory function allows a better understanding of the flexibility of its implementation requirements. The legitimate reason reverses the presumption of unlawfulness on which liability is based. The cause of liability is conditioned by the value judgment made about the offence, whereas the judgment of the reality of the offender’s intention is the condition of his imputation. The legitimate reason stems from circumstances that are external to the offence, and which enable the review of its lawfulness. The objective nature of the legitimate reason is aligned with the fact that it exempts from liability in rem and not in personam. However, the requirements for its application seem exceptional to the common law of justification in two regards: its broad criteria and its narrow field. It is limited to offences of abstract risk that protect secondary values for which the presumption of unlawfulness is artificial. The defendant must prove the legitimacy of his act whereas the abstract legitimacy of the suppression is unconfirmed. The expansion of this dispensatory field of suppression reveals an inadequate control of its abstract necessity. In any case, bringing up legitimate reason is useless as it is implicit to any offence and is considered as a general model of justification. It leaves the judge free to assess the necessity of the penalty on a case by case basis, as the law, by nature, cannot resolve all value conflicts. The post facto justification of socially necessary offences or even trivial offences reinforces the authority of the law by ensuring an enforcement that is aligned with the law's aim of protecting values.