A Study in Terms of the Process of Democratization with Administrative Reform in Southern Europe

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 97-117
Author(s):  
Eun Gee Yun
2016 ◽  
pp. 425-434
Author(s):  
Dan Michman

The percentage of victimization of Dutch Jewry during the Shoah is the highest of Western, Central and Southern Europe (except, perhaps of Greece), and close to the Polish one: 75%, more than 104.000 souls. The question of disproportion between the apparent favorable status of the Jews in society – they had acquired emancipation in 1796 - and the disastrous outcome of the Nazi occupation as compared to other countries in general and Western European in particular has haunted Dutch historiography of the Shoah. Who should be blamed for that outcome: the perpetrators, i.e. the Germans, the bystanders, i.e. the Dutch or the victims, i.e. the Dutch Jews? The article first surveys the answers given to this question since the beginnings of Dutch Holocaust historiography in the immediate post-war period until the debates of today and the factors that influenced the shaping of some basic perceptions on “Dutch society and the Jews”. It then proceeds to detailing several facts from the Holocaust period that are essential for an evaluation of gentile attitudes. The article concludes with the observation that – in spite of ongoing debates – the overall picture which has accumulated after decades of research will not essentially being altered. Although the Holocaust was initiated, planned and carried out from Berlin, and although a considerable number of Dutchmen helped and hid Jews and the majority definitely despised the Germans, considerable parts of Dutch society contributed to the disastrous outcome of the Jewish lot in the Netherlands – through a high amount of servility towards the German authorities, through indifference when Jewish fellow-citizens were persecuted, through economically benefiting from the persecution and from the disappearance of Jewish neighbors, and through actual collaboration (stemming from a variety of reasons). Consequently, the picture of the Holocaust in the Netherlands is multi-dimensional, but altogether puzzling and not favorable.


Asian Survey ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 765-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Elliott

Author(s):  
Apollinariya Aleksandrovna Sapfirova ◽  
Victoria Gagikovna Oganesyan ◽  
Alina Vadimovna Podgornaya

This paper discusses the implementation of the Federal labor Inspectorate’s powers in the digital economy during the ongoing administrative reform. The effectiveness of this state structure is affected by its dual legal nature, such as the power of labor inspectors is aimed at protecting the rights of em-ployees. In the conditions of the digital economy and the presence of a pandemic, labor rights are fully protected, and the power of Rostrud is limited in relation to supervised objects by prohibiting cer-tain inspections. Under current conditions, the most essential activity of Rostrud is the need to form an electronic supervision system based on the results of the ongoing legal experiment on the introduction of electronic personnel document management. The use of an electronic signature in the activities of Rostrud is the first step in the possibility of imple-menting an electronic surveillance system, which was catalyzed by the pandemic. We believe that elec-tronic supervision will be the next stage of moderni-zation of Rostrud’s activities in the digital economy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document