Search results

This chapter proposes a sociological reconstruction of the emergence of citizenship as a source of legitimacy for political institutions, and it focuses on examining the historical processes that first gave rise to this concept. It explains how citizenship has its origins in the transformation of feudal law, a process that culminated in patterns of military organization that characterized the rise of the early modern state in Europe. On this basis, it describes how the growth of constitutional democracy was integrally marked by the militarization of society and explains that military pressures have remained palpable in constitutional constructions of citizenship. In particular, it argues that, through the early growth of democracy, national citizenship practices were closely linked to global conflicts, and they tended to replicate such conflicts in national contexts. It concludes by showing how more recent processes of constitutional norm formation, based largely in international human rights law, have acted to soften the military dimensions of citizenship.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

We argue that the proliferation of governance in the public sector has raised questions regarding individual constitutional rights. While some proclaim cost savings and entrepreneurial solutions to vexing social ills, others suspect that these benefits donʼt outweigh the risk of diminished accountability and the loss of constitutional protection over public service production. We propose a new model to examine the relationships between direct government, governance, public value, and public law value. We apply this model to analyze two landmark Supreme Court cases and one contemporary federal appellate court case to explore the ongoing tension between the governance model and public service production. Our findings suggest that enforcible contract language and public-private entwinement can be used as tools to protect constitutional rights in the face of increasing pressure of governance approaches.

This article critically examines the policy objectives underlying Kenyaʼs public procurement system, as set out in the countryʼs Public Procurement and Disposal Act, 2005 (“the Procurement Act” or “the Act”). The drafters of the Act made subtle but significant deviations from the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction and Services (“the Model Procurement Law”).2 Due to the deviations, there are many serious conflicts within the Act, and between the Act and other Kenyan laws. Accordingly, there is need for a comprehensive review of the Procurement Act.

Costa Rica is recognized as one of the two countries with the longest continuous democracy in Latin America. After a short civil war, the country dissolved its armed forces and adopted a new constitution that established the basis of a Welfare State and a meritocratic public administration. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the characteristics of the Costa Rican public administration since the end of the 1990s. We discuss the dilemmas presented by its high level of fragmentation and the actions that have been taken—based mainly on the neo-Weberian paradigm—to modernize the traditional public apparatus so that it becomes more efficient, transparent, and responsive to citizens.

This study aims to investigate key aspects of public ownership of land, expropriation and compensation laws and practices in Ethiopia with special reference to Burayu Town.

A mixed research technique of descriptive and analytic approach is applied in the research. This study used a purposive sampling technique to select case study counties and a systematic method for sampling households. Questionnaire surveys, focus group discussions, interviews and observations were used to collect empirical data. Average, percentage and paired-sample t-test analyses are used for quantitative data analysis.

Significant discrepancies exist between the expropriation laws and how property valuation and compensation are practiced in Ethiopia. The findings include the arbitrariness in designating public interest status to projects; unfair property valuation practice that neglects location factor to determine market value due to a skewed understanding of public ownership of land; and the assignment of property valuators who have no valuation expertise and proper knowledge of expropriation related laws. Findings revealed the socio-economic status of expropriated households has deteriorated due to the expropriation of their landholding.

It was difficult to locate the relocated persons as they were resettled in different localities. Furthermore, the town officers were not forthcoming to provide complete information on the expropriation and compensation procedures they followed. However, this study overcame the limitations through persistent requests and availing time for the data gathering.

The findings indicated the need to redefine relationships between public ownership of land, public interest and expropriation of landholding. A proper understanding of the triad will pave the way for better expropriation practice in Ethiopia and in countries where land is under public ownership.

The social implication of the study revealed that the socio-economic situation of relocated persons was adversely affected due to the poor implementation of laws.

The disparity between public ownership of land and the rights of citizens on landholding is misunderstood by policymakers. Research has shown for the first time the root cause for the discontent of expropriated persons in Ethiopia.

The Covid-19 pandemic has persisted for almost three years. States have since then enforced laws, policies and measures believed to be the most effective to handle the global pandemic. Along this line, the Indonesian Government opted to implement mandatory vaccination and refusal of which entails monetary penalties. Hence, this study aims to analyze two legal issues that touch upon the realm of International Human Rights Law: first, whether state has the authority to implement the said mandatory vaccine program to those who refuse to be vaccinated, and second, how is the more appropriate legal policy to obligate vaccination but without coercive sanction.

This is a normative legal research that uses a qualitative method with case studies, conceptual, historical and comparative approaches. A descriptive-analytical deduction process was used in analyzing the issue.

The results present, as part of state’s right to regulate, it has the authority to enact mandatory vaccination with monetary penalties to fulfil its obligation to protect public health in times of emergency; this is legal and constitutional but only if it satisfies the requirements under the International Human Rights Law: public health necessity, reasonableness, proportionality and harm avoidance. Alternatively, herd immunity is achievable without deploying unnecessary coercive sanctions, such as improving public channels of communication and information, adopting legal policies that incentivize people’s compliance like exclusion from public services, subsidies revocation, employment restrictions, higher health insurance premiums, etc.

This study analyzes in depth the following issues: of whether the government has the authority to apply mandatory vaccination laws enforced through monetary penalties for those who refused to be vaccinated and how does the government implement the appropriate legal policy to enforce mandatory vaccination without imposing penalties for non-compliance while maintaining a balance between the interests of protecting public health and the human rights of individuals to choose medical treatment for themselves, including whether they are willing to be vaccinated. Hence, the political affairs, economic matters and other non-legal related issues are excluded from this study.

This paper hence offers a suggestive insight for state in formulating a policy relating to the mandatory vaccination program. Although the monetary penalties do not directly violate the rule of law, a more non-coercive approach to the society would be more favorable.

Markets for public contracting are in the process of transition. Various public/private partnership arrangements replace conventional purchasing, especially within the local and regional government area. Municipal entities may not be in a position to define their needs up-front because they would not have the overview of what the market may have to offer. So one should ask: Is the traditional ban-on-negotiations in mandatory tender procedures (sealed bidding) - such as it is in EU public procurement law - counter-effective to genuine best value for public money? The article displays significant differences between European Union (EU) law, U.S. law and other regimes such as United Nations Model law, The World Trade Organisation’s Government Procurement Agreement (WTO/GPA), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). New avenues for public/private demand a new agenda and the recent EU 2004 directive scheme attempts to respond to the market challenges. The author accepts that the new directive on public contracting facilitates a more smooth approach than in current EU law with regard to high-tech complicated contract awards, but questions whether the ’competitive dialogue’ really can afford tailor-made solutions to cope with long-term public/private partnership arrangements of the kind now spreading all over Europe

The relevance of the work is determined by the fact that administrative law appears as one of the significant factors influencing the development of both the public administration system as a whole and the processes of its reform that the Russian Federation has faced today. The authors show that if the relations of state administration are the subject of the administrative law’s influence (after all, it is they who are influenced by administrative and legal norms), then we are faced with an extremely important question regarding the character and specificity of the relationship between administrative and legal relations and relations of state management, on the one hand, and analysis of the concept of administrative and legal regulation of public administration relations on the other. This goal is important, given that the authors substantiate the relationship between administrative law and public administration through identifying the possibilities of regulatory influence on the part of administrative law on public administration relations.

Prospects for the further development of the study are the formation of an understanding that government is not limited to administrative law, but it cannot be denied that the regulatory impact of law in public administration is decisive, and therefore public administration is largely a state-legal category, although it is not limited to this.

So, having analyzed the above approaches and positions of scientists regarding the subject of administrative law, the authors believe that it can include any managerial activity of the state authority and local government bodies that does not directly concern the subject matter of another branch of law; is realized with the help of the executive-administrative mechanism (in this case the author does not consider the executive-administrative mechanism as an exclusive prerogative or a unique feature of the executive authorities, although, of course, he agrees that it is the most typical and characteristic feature for them); is realized within the framework of a certain state authority, local government or non-governmental organization (in case of delegating state powers to it) to ensure its proper functioning (internal management relations); is implemented outside the framework of a certain state authority, local government or non-governmental organization (in case of delegating state powers to it) and is directed to other (external) with respect to the relevant body or organization of entities (external organizational management relations); and is largely characterized by relative constancy and immediacy of implementation relative to the management object.

Prospects for the further development of the study are the formation of an understanding that government is not limited to administrative law, but it cannot be denied that the regulatory impact of law in public administration is decisive, and therefore public administration is largely a state-legal category, although it is not limited to this. At the same time, indistinctness and uncertainty about different ways of understanding public administration often generate negative effects both at the general scientific level and at a purely practical level (when it comes to the exercise of administrative powers by certain state authorities).

Turkey is required by the international and EU instruments and domestic law to address the issue of whistle-blowing and the protection of whistle-blowers. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Turkish legislation which is applicable to work-related whistle-blowing, the conflict between the worker’s right to “blow the whistle” and the obligation to loyalty and confidentiality. The consequences of groundless or deliberate false disclosures are considered. Comparisons are made with international conventions, the COE Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 and the Proposed EU Directive on the Protection of Whistleblowers and ECtHR precedents.

In the first part, this paper reviews the definition of whistle-blowing and whistle-blower. The second part outlines the impact of international and EU Law on Turkish legislation. The third part reviews the Turkish legal framework applicable to whistle-blowing.

Whistle-blowing in the public interest is suggested as a tool to combat corruption worldwide. There is no doubt that some whistle-blowers have been beneficial to society. However without democratic structures to take into account the assessment of the quality of the information, the type of the disclosure and the category of the reporting person, there are downsides to excessive whistle-blowing. Therefore, whistle-blowing should be discussed in the context of democratic societies, and a balanced approach should be adopted to ensure the position of not only whistle-blowers but also the people affected by the reports.

The paper offers new insights into the limits of work-related whistle-blowing within the context of freedom of expression and the right of employees and public officials to petition. The protection of whistle-blowers and the consequences of groundless or deliberate false disclosures under Turkish Law from a comparative perspective are considered.