727 resultados para Ministerial responsibility.
Resumo:
Includes bibliographical references.
Resumo:
Contains bibliographies.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Mimeographed.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Cover title.
Resumo:
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
Includes bibliographical references.
Resumo:
"JCX-7-83."
Resumo:
von Franz Espig, k.k. Steuer-Einnehmer
Resumo:
Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06
Resumo:
Implications of Peter Cane's analysis of responsibility in 'Responsibility in Law and Morality' - Cane's preconceptualisation of the 'symbiotic' relationship between law and morality - a principal criticism is that Cane does not develop his seven methodological principles into a more ambitious argument.
A nice thing to do but is it critical for business? Corporate responsibility and Australian business
Resumo:
What does the world's engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of humanitarian intervention? Is a global consensus about a "responsibility to protect" more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions. Some argue that the merging of strategic interests and humanitarian goods amplified by the intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that the world's most powerful states will act to prevent or halt humanitarian crises. Others insist that the widespread perception that the United States and its allies "abused" humanitarian justifications to legitimate its invasion of Iraq has set back efforts to build a global consensus about humanitarian action. A third group argues that the "responsibility to protect" inhibits the potential for abuse and, as a result, consensus is likely to strengthen post-Iraq for precisely this reason. Through a detailed study of the international engagement with Darfur, I suggest that the latter two arguments have merit but need to be adjusted. I argue that the humanitarian intervention norm has changed in two subtle ways. First, while the strength of the norm itself has not changed, the credibility of the United States and U.K. as "norm carriers" has been significantly undermined. Second, while the "responsibility to protect" has been invoked to support international activism, it has also re-legitimated anti-interventionist arguments.