Understanding the Combined Role of Internal and External Factors in New Service Development Process within the Professional Knowledge Intensive Business Service Firms

Our research asked the following main questions: how the characteristics of professionals service firms allow them to successfully innovate in exploiting through exploring by combining internal and external factors of innovation and how these ambidextrous organisations perceive these factors; and how do successful innovators in professional service firms use corporate entrepreneurship models in their new service development processes? With a goal to shed light on innovation in professional knowledge intensive business service firms’ (PKIBS), we concluded a qualitative analysis of ten globally acting law firms, providing business legal services. We analyse the internal and factors of innovation that are critical for PKIBS’ innovation. We suggest how these firms become ambidextrous in changing environment. Our findings show that this kind of firms has particular type of ambidexterity due to their specific characteristics. As PKIBS are very dependant on its human capital, governance structure, and the high expectations of their clients, their ambidexterity is structural, but also contextual at the same time. In addition, we suggest 3 types of corporate entrepreneurship models that international PKIBS use to enhance innovation in turbulent environments. We looked at how law firms going through turbulent environments were using corporate entrepreneurship activities as a part of their strategies to be more innovative. Using visual mapping methodology, we developed three types of innovation patterns in the law firms. We suggest that corporate entrepreneurship models depend on successful application of mainly three elements: who participates in corporate entrepreneurship initiatives; what are the formal processes that enhances these initiatives; and what are the policies applied to this type of behaviour.

Beyond Racial Precedents: Loving v. Virginia as an Appropriate Legal Model and Strategy for Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

This thesis explores how LGBT marriage activists and lawyers have employed a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection in recent same-sex marriage litigation. Special attention is paid to the Supreme Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. By exploring the use of racial precedent in same-sex marriage litigation and its treatment in state court cases, this thesis critiques the racial interpretation of due process and equal protection that became the basis for LGBT marriage briefs and litigation, and attempts to answer the question of whether a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection is an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation both constitutionally and strategically. The existing scholarly literature fails to explore how this issue has been treated in case briefs, which are very important elements in any legal proceeding. I will argue that through an analysis of recent state court briefs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Loving acts as logical precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I also find, more significantly, that although this racial interpretation of due process and equal protection represented by Loving can be seen as an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation constitutionally, questions remain about its strategic effectiveness, as LGBT lawyers have moved away from race in some arguments in these briefs. Indeed, a racial interpretation of Due Process and Equal Protection doctrine imposes certain limits on same-sex marriage litigation, of which we are warned by some Critical Race theorists, Latino Critical Legal theorists, and other scholars. In order to fully incorporate a discussion of race into the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage, the dangers posed by the black/white binary of race relations must first be overcome.

Cup Anemometer's loss of performance due to ageing process, and its effect on Annual energy Production (AEP) estimates

The deviation of calibration coefficients from five cup anemometer models over time was analyzed. The analysis was based on a series of laboratory calibrations between January 2001 and August 2010. The analysis was performed on two different groups of anemometers: (1) anemometers not used for any industrial purpose (that is, just stored); and (2) anemometers used in different industrial applications (mainly in the field—or outside—applications like wind farms). Results indicate a loss of performance of the studied anemometers over time. In the case of the unused anemometers the degradation shows a clear pattern. In the case of the anemometers used in the field, the data analyzed also suggest a loss of performance, yet the degradation does not show a clear trend. A recalibration schedule is proposed based on the observed performances variations

Due process of law / Adhemar Ferreira Maciel. --

Disponível também na Internet.

O devido processo legal para o refúgio no Brasil

O processo para o refúgio é o conjunto de regras e princípios necessários à aplicação do Direito dos Refugiados aos casos concretos. Quando este conjunto respeita os padrões democráticos do Devido Processo Legal, as tendências históricas de exploração e manipulação política do instituto de refúgio podem ser limitadas e os objetivos humanitários deste ramo dos Direitos Humanos podem ser alcançados com maior transparência. Quando o Devido Processo Legal para o refúgio é respeitado, também se permite que a pessoa que figura como solicitante de refúgio seja tratada como sujeito de direitos - e não como objeto do processo. Uma vez que a Convenção de Genebra de 1951, sobre o Estatuto dos Refugiados, não estabeleceu normas de processo, cada país signatário necessita criar um regime próprio para processar os pedidos de determinação, extensão, perda e cessação da condição de refugiado em seus territórios. O primeiro regime processual brasileiro foi criado no ano de 1997, pela Lei Federal 9497. Desde então, o país vem desenvolvendo, através do Comitê Nacional para Refugiados (CONARE), regras infra legais e rotinas práticas que têm determinado um padrão processual ainda fragmentado e inseguro. O estudo do aparato normativo nacional e da realidade observada entre 2012 e 2014 revelam a existência de problemas (pontuais ou crônicos) sobre o cumprimento de diversos princípios processuais, tais como a Legalidade, a Impessoalidade e Independência da autoridade julgadora, o Contraditório, a Ampla Defesa, a Publicidade, a Fundamentação, a Igualdade e a Razoável Duração do Processo. Estes problemas impõem desafios variados ao Brasil, tanto em dimensão legislativa quanto estrutural. O enfrentamento destas questões precisa ocorrer com rapidez. O motivo da urgência, porém, não é a nova demanda de imigração observada no país, mas sim o fato de que as violações ao Devido Processo Legal, verificadas no processo para o refúgio brasileiro, representam, em si, violações de Direitos Humanos, que, ademais prejudicam o compromisso do país para com a proteção internacional dos refugiados.

Prisão preventiva: direito à razoável duração e necessidade de prazo legal máximo

O direito à razoável duração do processo, inserido expressamente no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro a partir do advento da Emenda Constitucional 45/2004, já poderia ser inferido desde a incorporação da Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos, bem como ser considerado um corolário da garantia do devido processo legal. Todo indivíduo tem o direito a um processo sem dilações indevidas, em especial aquele que se encontre submetido a uma prisão preventiva, medida cautelar pessoal de extrema gravosidade. Nesse contexto, exsurge o direito que o indivíduo preso preventivamente tem de que o seu processo seja julgado em um prazo razoável ou de que ele seja desencarcerado, caso preso além da necessidade fática contida no caso concreto. Entretanto, a interpretação da garantia não pode restar somente à livre vontade dos aplicadores do direito, sendo necessária uma regulamentação legal efetiva da duração da prisão preventiva, por meio de prazos concretos nos quais o sujeito deverá ser posto em liberdade, ante a desídia estatal. Incorporando experiências estrangeiras, deve o legislador pátrio adotar marcos temporais legais, em que a prisão preventiva deverá cessar, caso excessivamente prolongada. Muito embora no ano de 2011 tenha sido reformada a tutela das medidas cautelares pessoais no Código de Processo Penal, o legislador ordinário não aprovou a imposição de limites de duração da prisão preventiva, permanecendo ao livre arbítrio das autoridades judiciárias a interpretação da garantia em referência. Assim, o Projeto de Lei do Novo Código de Processo Penal, atualmente em trâmite no Congresso Nacional, ao prever limites máximos de duração da prisão preventiva, dá uma efetiva regulamentação à garantia da duração razoável do imputado preso, devendo ser, espera-se, mantido no eventual texto final aprovado.

O "due process" redescoberto à sombra do verde

Tese de doutoramento, Direito (Ciências Jurídico-Políticas), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Direito, 2016

Answering the Call of the European Court of Justice in Eurofoods a Proposed Package of Due Process Rights with a View Toward the 2012 Revision of the European Insolvency Regulation. IES WORKING PAPER 3/2011

This paper anticipates the 2012 revision of the European Insolvency Regulation, which is the sole Union legislation on the subject of cross border insolvency proceedings. The paper first describes the historical background of the Regulation. The salient point of the historical discussion is that the Regulation is the product of forty years of negotiation and arises from a historical context that is no longer applicable to current economic realities, i.e. it provides for liquidation, not reorganization, it doesn’t deal with cross border groups of companies, and it lacks an effective mechanism for transparency and creditor participation. The paper then reviews the unique hybrid jurisdictional system of concurrent universal and territorial proceedings that the Regulation imposes. It looks at this scheme from a practical viewpoint, i.e. what issues arise with concurrent proceedings in two states, involving the same assets, the same creditors, and the same company. The paper then focuses on a significant issue raised by the European Court of Justice in the Eurofoods case, i.e. the need to comply with fundamental due process principles that, while not articulated in the Regulation, lie at the core of Union law. Specifically, the paper considers the ramifications of the Court’s holding that “a Member State may refuse to recognize insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State where the decision to open the proceedings was taken in flagrant breach of the fundamental right to be heard.” In response to the Court’s direction, this paper proposes a package of due process rights, consisting principally of an accessible, efficient and useful insolvency database, the infrastructure of which already exists, but the content and use of which has not yet been developed. As part of a cohesive three part due process package, the paper also proposes the formation of cross border creditors' committees and the establishment of a European Insolvency Administrator. Finally, on the institutional level, this paper proposes that the revision of the Regulation and the development of the insolvency database not only need to be coordinated, but need to be conceptualized, managed and undertaken, not as the separate efforts of diverse institutions, but as a single, unified endeavor.

Due process of law under the federal Constitution,

Mode of access: Internet.