Answering Part of the Significant Question

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Tenenberg ◽  
Robert McCartney
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-152
Author(s):  
Radosław Molenda

Showing the specificity of the work of the contemporary library, and the variety of its tasks, which go far beyond the lending of books. The specificity of the library’s public relations concerning different aspects of its activity. The internal and external functions of the library’s public relations and their specificity. The significant question of motivating the social environment to use the offer of libraries, and simulta-neously the need to change the negative perception of the library, which discourages part of its poten-tial users from taking advantage of its services. The negative stereotypes of librarians’ work perpetuated in the public consciousness and their harmful character. The need to change the public relations of libra-ries and librarians with a view to improving the realization of the tasks they face. Showing the public relations tools which may serve to change the image of librarians and libraries with particular emphasis on social media. This article is a review article, highlighting selected research on the librarian’s stereo-type and suggesting actions that change the image of librarians and libraries.


Author(s):  
Hannah Woolaver

This chapter explores the interaction between domestic and international law in relation to the state’s engagement with treaties. Treaty engagements are important mechanisms through which states conduct their foreign relations. The domestic allocation of responsibility for the making and unmaking of treaties is therefore a significant question of the constitutional separation of powers in the realm of foreign relations law. Treaties are also international legal instruments, facilitating the development of international law and international institutions. The domestic and international law of treaties therefore both concurrently regulate the state’s power to join and leave treaties. This chapter examines the relationship between these two bodies of law in this regard, setting out developments in domestic jurisdictions establishing constitutional limits on the executive’s power to enter and exit treaties, and addresses the possible impact of these constitutional developments in the international law of treaties.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-503
Author(s):  
Kerem Altiparmak

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued an inadmissibility decision regarding the application concerning the Roboski massacre ( Selahattin Encü and Others v Turkey App no 49976/16, 17 May 2018) on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. As observed in a number of earlier decisions, the ECtHR was resolutely confident about the decision of the Constitutional Court of Turkey on the matter. This unwavering trust has resulted in the once-and-for-all burial of the truth about one of the gravest massacres in the history of Turkey without a proper examination of the allegations of the applicants. Two differing views were put forward after the ECtHR’s decision. The first of these argued that the dismissal of a massacre of such magnitude for procedural reasons was unacceptable. Proponents of this view asserted that even if there were procedural grounds to find the application inadmissible, this could not be sufficient justification to prevent the truth from being revealed. Proponents of the second view argued that every court had its own procedures and that those who did not comply had to face the consequences. This article attempts to examine the second view on its own terms. In so doing, I will present the legal evidence and rationale showing that it is in fact the Constitutional Court of Turkey that has violated its own procedural rules. I will also argue that despite an acceptance of the second view, perhaps more markedly because of such acceptance, it is not possible to bury the truth about the Roboski massacre. This discussion will be guided by a more significant question: How is it that the Constitutional Court of Turkey made such a major procedural error in a case of such gravity and how is it that the ECtHR was so eager to uphold the error?


2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gholam Khiabany

A year and a half after the Iranian uprising in 2009, the unprecedented popular uprisings in several Arab countries at the beginning of 2011 provided some of the most evocative moments when power met its opposite, in decisive and surprising ways. In a matter of weeks, some of the most powerful hereditary/republican regimes in the region, such as Tunisia’s and Egypt’s, crumbled under relentless pressure and opposition from highly mediated “street politics” that shook the foundations of authoritarian and repressive rule, undermining hegemonic structures and configurations of power within nation sates and between nations. Technology, as in the case of Iranian uprising, emerged as one of the main explanations on offer to make sense of this new wave of revolts against tyranny. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt in particular, inevitably drew some comparisons with the Iranian uprising of 2009. The most significant question for many Iranians was how come that the two revolts in Iran and Tunisia which immediately and rather simplistically labelled as ‘Twitter revolution’ had a totally different outcome? Many in Iran started raising such searching questions: “Chera Tunis Toonest v ma natoonestim?” (Why Tunisia could and we couldn’t) or “toonestan az Tunis miad”! (Capability comes from Tunis). So how can we compare Arab Revolutions with that of situation in Iran? What the different outcomes tell us about the similarities and the differences, and what lessons can be learnt? This paper takes a broader comparative frame, beyond technology, to explore the issue of power and revolutions and to examine the similarities as well as the differences between Iran and the Arab World.


2003 ◽  
Vol 174 ◽  
pp. 428-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raoul Birnbaum

Based on fieldwork and studies of historical and contemporary materials, this article investigates several issues key to Buddhist life in the present-day PRC, focusing on Han Buddhists, especially the monastic tradition. It argues that many current practices take their shape from the innovations that transformed Chinese Buddhist life in the late Qing and Republican periods. While profound political, economic and social changes have occurred in the past few decades, some of the most pressing issues are extensions of questions raised at that time. The most significant question of the earlier period – what is the Buddhist monastic vocation, and what training and leadership are required to safeguard that ideal? – remains central to present-day activities and conceptions. To consider how to answer this question, or indeed how it is posed within present circumstances, three interconnected matters are investigated: current training methods, the economics of monasteries and the issue of leadership. In this context, Han–Tibetan interchange in the Buddhist field and the influence of overseas Chinese Buddhists on the mainland are also considered.


1970 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Stephen Warner

The theme of this conference, “The Organizational Forms of Economic Life and Their Evolution,” implies a concern for specifying the limits of the applicability of classical and neo-classical economic theory. Presumably because we sociologists have been in the forefront of those who insist on the recognition of these limits, I have been asked to present a paper from the viewpoint of historical sociology. Now I suppose that your field and mine are alike in at least one respect: the infrequency of finding any one view on a broad and significant question. I am sure you will understand, therefore, my concentration on some lessons to be learned from the work of one of the heroes of my discipline, Max Weber (1864–1920). Weber, as you may know, was, among his other titles, a professor of economics and avoided the epithet of “sociologist.” Yet because sociology has changed since his day, largely under his influence, and because he was also a professor of law and of political science, we sociologists have now claimed him. Nevertheless, many of the issues that informed his massive scholarly research were and are issues central to both your field and mine.


1895 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 253-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.B. Peires

The very idea that the Xhosa chiefs and their allies engineered the great cattle-killing which finally broke their power seems so absurd that most people who hear of it dismiss it instinctively. And indeed, they are perfectly correct to do so. Yet the sheer mass of documentary evidence in support of the proposition is such that all historians who have come into contact with it have been forced to be more circumspect with regard to the “chiefs' plot.” We have to look very carefully at this evidence before we reject its conclusions, and once we have done so, we have to answer a further and even more significant question: If the “chiefs' plot” did not exist, why did the Colonial authorities maintain that it did? Paradoxically, we will discover that an investigation of the “chiefs' plot” can tell us nothing about the Xhosa or the cattle-killing, but it can tell us a great deal about the mind and methods of Sir George Grey, that colossus of early Victorian imperialism.After nearly seventy years of epic struggle, the catastrophic defeats of the Seventh (1846-47) and Eighth (1850-53) Frontier Wars finally broke the military capacity of the Xhosa people to resist the Colonial advance from the Cape of Good Hope. Their political structures fragmented by partial incorporation into the Crown Colony of British Kaffraria; their belief structures fractured by the victories of missionary teaching and European technology; the slender remnants of their economic resources decimated by the onslaught of the lung-sickness epizootic in their cattle from 1855, the Xhosa turned, as other peoples have done in like situations, to millennarian hopes.


Author(s):  
Kamil Mamak ◽  
Agnieszka Barczak-Oplustil ◽  
Daniel Kwiatkowski ◽  
Mikołaj Małecki ◽  
Dominik Zając

AbstractNobody should profit from crime; this fundamental moral principle is uncontroversial. At the level of public declaration, few people are likely to disagree with this statement; however, controversies arise when the implementation of this principle is under discussion. Numerous provisions exist that aim to strip criminals of the proceeds from their crimes, but not all aspects of this issue are immediately apparent. For example, a significant question is how to treat profits that a criminal makes from activities including recounting stories about their criminal activities, publishing books describing their actions, or creating YouTube videos presenting details about their crimes. Such profits are either treated as legitimate or are targeted by complicated legal methods of deprivation. The view presented in this paper could facilitate the ability to strip criminals from these forms of profit. This article argues that revenue accruing from knowledge gained from association with crime should be treated as indirect proceeds of crime and, as such, should be forfeited.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Akshaya Kamalnath

Gender diversity on corporate boards has become a point of emphasis, to the exclusion of all other forms of diversity. This paper analyses whether board gender diversity might help boards overcome groupthink (i.e. the failure of board members to consider alternatives to the dominant view when making decisions). This is a significant question because the board is reponsible for governance of the company and groupthink is often cited as a hurdle to effectively performing this role. Thus, the paper first examines the role of the board, board decision-making processes and the problem of groupthink, and subsequently, the potential of gender diversity to overcome groupthink. It concludes that gender diversity on corporate boards might help overcome groupthink so long as the women directors are also independent and bear ‘outsider’ status. However, other forms of diversity like race, education, tenure, professional background etcetera might offer the same benefits and thus should not be overlooked.


2020 ◽  
pp. 205789111989852
Author(s):  
Waikeung Tam

Deliberative democratic theorists have argued that effective deliberation is central to democracy. Does Hong Kong possess a viable public sphere for deliberating important public issues, as the city has been striving for a full democracy since the 1980s? This article addresses this significant question by examining the quality of deliberation on the 2014 Umbrella Movement by the editorials and commentaries in an elite print Chinese newspaper – the Hong Kong Economic Journal – based on the “Discourse Quality Index” and other criteria used by major works on mediated deliberation. This article argues that the Journal has served as a viable public sphere for deliberating important public concerns in Hong Kong. The Journal’s editorials and commentaries performed well in terms of offering reasoned arguments and engaging in dialogue with opposing viewpoints. Regarding respect for the actors which were involved in the Umbrella Movement, the Journal as a whole had maintained a civilized tone. However, there was an indication that commentary authors had less tolerance toward actors from the opposite camps.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document