Sharing Responsibility

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Glanville
Keyword(s):  
Sharing Responsibility

Studi Perilaku Anggota Unit Pengambil Keputusan Dalam Pembelian Organisasional: Sebuah Review Literatur

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-86
Author(s):  
Amin Wibowo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Search ◽  
Search Time ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Buying Behavior ◽  
Organizational Buying ◽  
Decision Making Unit ◽  
Behavior Based ◽  
Sharing Responsibility

Up to now, organizational buying is still interesting topic discussed. There are divergences among the findings in organizational buying researches. Different perspectives, fenomena observed, research domains and methods caused the divergences. This paper will discusse organizational buying behavior based on literature review, focused on behavior of decision making unit mainly on equipment buying. From this review literatures, it would be theoritical foundation that is valid and reliable to develop propositions in organizational buying behavior. Based on review literature refferences, variables are classified into: purchase situation, member of decision making unit perception, conflict among the members, information search, influences among members of decision making unit. Integrated approach is used to develop propositions relating to: purchasing complexity, sharing responsibility among the members, conflict in decision making unit, information search, time pressure as moderating variable between sharing responsibility and conflict in decision making unit, the influence among the members inside decision making unit and decision making outcome

Renovating the View of Cost Sharing for the Underground Low Voltage Cable Projects in Hanoi

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (5E) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pham Thi Thu Ha ◽  
Phan Dieu Huong
Keyword(s):  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Cost Sharing ◽  
Low Voltage ◽  
Power Grid ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Power Industry ◽  
Well Field ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Sharing Responsibility ◽  
The Cost

Underground power grid projects in Hanoi is so urgent that it requires immediate implementation. To synchronously and quickly implement the underground power grid projects, people in charge should not follow the outdated perspectives of just including the power industry, but also need to call for the support and cost sharing responsibility from consumers. This paper aims at approaching the subject both from the producers and consumers’ perspectives to together sharing the cost of putting the power grid underground not only in Hanoi but other metropolitans in Vietnam as well. Field studies (including 104 families) at Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi and CBA method were applied to investigate the willingness to pay (WTP) level of consumers to share the cost with the power industry for the underground power grid projects in Hanoi. The overview of the results shows that cost for the underground power grid in Hoan Kiem District ranging from 30,000 VND/household/month to 46,000VND/household/month. On the other hand, the willingness to pay of a typical household of four people within Hoan Kiem District ranges from 17,000VND/month to 24,000VND/month, with the most favorable method of annual payment within a detailed timeline.

Reparation for Environmental Damage in Jus Post Bellum

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilias Plakokefalos
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Typical Situation ◽  
Sharing Responsibility

This chapter explores the problems that environmental damage in armed conflict pose to the determination of shared responsibility, and especially the determination of reparations, in the context of the jus post bellum. When two actors are engaged in armed conflict, there arise no serious issues as to sharing responsibility for violations. But the fact that modern armed conflicts often involve more than two actors (e.g. Libya 2011) complicates the matters arising out of environmental harm, as there may be two or more actors contributing to the same harmful event. This is a typical situation of shared responsibility. Shared responsibility provides that the problem of reparations for environmental harm is to be examined in situations where there is a multiplicity of actors that contribute to a single harmful outcome. This definition covers the breach of obligations under jus ad bellum and jus in bello, as well as under international environmental law.

scholarly journals Cybersecurity: Toward a Meaningful Policy Framework

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
Cyber Security ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Military Effectiveness ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
National Debate ◽  
Sharing Responsibility

This critique of Karson K. Thompson’s note, "Not Like an Egyptian: Cybersecurity and the Internet Kill Switch Debate," argues that the U.S. lacks a framework of laws and regulations, "smart" or otherwise, that adequately incentivizes the parties with the greatest capacity to improve our cyber security to do so. It attributes the poor state of U.S. cyber policy to the "bewildering array of overlapping responsibilities" scattered among government offices and departments; the difficult imperative of sharing responsibility among military and civilian authorities; the fact that most of the networks (and the dependent critical infrastructures) that need protecting are in private hands; and the lack of public understanding of the kinds of regulation that are necessary or appropriate. The essay argues that meaningful progress towards an adequate legal framework depends on a broad national debate aimed at defining the public good with regard to cyber-security, and the inevitable trade-offs among security, privacy, productivity, economic growth, organizational flexibility, military effectiveness, government transparency, and accountability that must be confronted in making sensible cyber-security policy.

III. Competition

1996 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-230
Author(s):  
Karl Newman ◽  
Christopher Harding
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Transport Services ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Sharing Responsibility ◽  
Group Exemption ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
The Relationship

In the period covered by this note (early 1994 to the middle of 1995) some signifi cant and interesting judgments have been handed down by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance on both substantive and procedural issues of competition law, in particular that of the Court of Justice in the Magill case, which deals with the relationship between Article 86 and intellectual property rights. In the legislative field there is now a group exemption on the operation of liner transport services. As regards general problems of enforcement, the Commission's 1993 Notice on Co-operation between National Courts and the Commission1 has provoked a good deal of discussion and a number of commentators and also the Commission itself are now advocating sharing responsibility for enforcement with national competition authorities rather than relying on the direct effect of Articles 85(1) and 86 being invoked before national courts.2

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document