Search results

These are the sort of things one reads in the newspapers every day. The headlines reflect the problems of maintaining industrial peace. It is well recognised that industrial disputes have grown more serious during the last decade. We have no intention of trying to allocate blame. Our objective is to offer some suggestions on how industrial disputes can be resolved more efficiently and effectively than at present.

New and converging technologies in administration and mapping have enabled property rights to become disconnected from the facts of occupation and possession of land. By the time native title was recognised in the Mabo decision (1992) the primary representation of land tenure was in digital cadastres¹ created and controlled by Federal and State bureaucracies. Native title was immediately cast as a spatial question. The location of native title rights was determined within the confines of a map of existing legal interests in the land. In this paper, I consider how the spatial orientation of property has affected the nature and expression of native title rights in Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the concept of managerial controversy. This concept focusses on organizational disagreements in order to understand the emergence of organization, and also postulates that researchers can better understand organizational phenomena through the ruptures that occur in an organization's everyday activities.

While the concept of controversy was initially developed to understand the emergence of outputs, this paper develops the concept of managerial controversy in order to understand the emergence of ways of working.

The concept of managerial controversy demonstrates that the authors can improve the understanding of organization by focussing on the disagreements, the associations of heterogeneous elements, the mediators, and the traces left by actors, as well as by considering the viewpoints of these actors.

The concept of managerial controversy can be used as a framework for describing the development of organization over time. This concept is suitable for management and organization scholars interested by issues related to organization and organizing.

This paper offers an analytical framework for analyzing the emergence of organizational features from ruptures. Furthermore, the concept of managerial controversy extends to not only the literature of actor-network theory, but also to the literature related to organizing.

This paper aims to examine the remedies currently available in Ireland to resolve boundary disputes to assess the importance of the role played by adverse possession in this context. It also examines the potential impact of certain reforms in this area of law.

The research methodology is primarily doctrinal, although a comparative approach is adopted for the purposes of assessing whether certain lessons can be learned from recent reforms to the English law on adverse possession and the Australian approach to resolving boundary disputes, which relies heavily on mistaken improver and building encroachment legislation.

This paper demonstrates how the current law leaves certain mistaken improvers or encroachers on neighbouring land without a remedy, as they cannot rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or adverse possession. If Ireland decides to replicate the English good faith requirement in relation to adverse possession of boundary land, the remedial vacuum facing these mistaken improvers or encroaching builders will become more pronounced. It is submitted that any such reform should be supplemented by the introduction of legislation akin to that operating in Australia which would facilitate the consideration of a broad range of factors and provide for flexible remedies to resolve such difficulties. It is also submitted that the legislation imposing such a good faith requirement should be carefully drafted to avoid the potential interpretative difficulties associated with the English reforms.

Boundary disputes are an unfortunate fact of life. The prevalence of boundary disputes and high costs associated with boundary litigation makes this review and critique of the current law and potential reforms highly relevant.

Develops a “politics‐first” theoretical framework to explain why, how, and when innovative IT projects are implemented successfully in public organizations. Explains how individuals who share a technological interest find each other in issue‐networks. Describes why and how the interests of technologists, bureaucrats, and politicians converge to a point where a coalition with a concrete project agenda emerges. Argues that, frequently, more than one coalition emerges from a single issue‐network and describes how these coalitions compete against each other to institutionalize new dominant designs. Discusses the reasons why some coalitions win while others lose. Provides examples based on innovative national and municipal IT projects in Australia, China, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the UK, and the USA.

The assertion that land registration guarantees landownership security is common knowledge. Thus, efforts at securing landownership in particularly, the developing world have concentrated on the formulation and implementation of land registration policies. However, over the years, whilst some studies claim that land registration assures security, a lot of other studies have established that security cannot be guaranteed by land registration. Also, there is evidence from research that has shown that land registration can be a source of ownership insecurity in some cases. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyse the underpinning principles of land registration and their application in order to establish whether or not land registration can actually guarantee ownership security.

It is a literature review paper that looks at the existing literature on landownership, security and land registration systems. The land registration principles that have been subjected to critical analysis are the publicity function of land registration, the legality of ownership emanating from land registration and the warranty provided by the State in land registration, specifically, under the Torrens system.

An analysis of the underpinning principles of land registration shows that land registration per se cannot guarantee ownership security and this helps to explain the findings of the numerous studies, which have established that landownership security cannot be assured by land registration. The paper concludes by identifying the right role of land registration as well as a mechanism that can effectively protect or secure landownership.

Land registration policies and programmes in the developing world are often funded by the international donor community and the findings provide useful insights regarding the actual role of land registration and for policy change in terms of what can secure landownership.

Even though there are two schools of thought regarding research on the link between land registration on one hand, and landownership security on the other, none of the studies has made an attempt to consider the nexus by critically examining the principles that underpin land registration to support their arguments.