The Public Right Dogma in Labor Board Cases

1946 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 720
Author(s):  
Louis L. Jaffe
Keyword(s):  
The Public ◽  
Public Right

scholarly journals EDITORIAL: The republican factor

2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
Chris Nash
Keyword(s):  
Right To Know ◽  
Special Edition ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Third ◽  
University Of Technology ◽  
The University ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Public Right

This special edition of Pacific Journalism Review publishes a selection of the papers presented at the Public Right to Know (PR2K) Conference in Sydney in October 2003. The annual PR2K conferences are a project of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ) at the University of Technology, Sydney. The 2003 conference was the third in the series.

11. Copyright in the digital environment

2019 ◽  
pp. 274-304
Author(s):  
Andrew Murray
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Information Society ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
Digital Environment ◽  
Considerable Time ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Public Right

This chapter examines copyright issues from copying and distributing information from the internet. It considers the discussion focuses on how the internet has challenged the application and development of copyright law, considering web-copyright concerns such as linking, caching, and aggregating, citing Google Inc. v Copiepresse SCRL. It spends considerable time discussing the operation of the temporary eproduction right though key cases Infopaq International, and Public Relations Consultants Association v Newspaper Licensing Agency. The analysis then moves on to examine the communication to the public right created by the Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society Directive, examining the application of the right through key cases such as Nils Svensson v Retriever Sverige, GS Media v Sanoma Media, and Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Crime Coverage
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Cultural Attitudes ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Media Practices ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Public Right

This chapter sets up the thesis of the book: Crime coverage practices serve as a lens to consider underlying cultural attitudes to concepts like privacy, public, public right to know, and justice. Differing decisions, for example, about whether to name suspects, suggest varying beliefs about the value of privacy and the public right to know. The chapter outlines the methodology and situates the work in relation to Daniel Hallin and Paulo Mancini, whose book Comparing Media Practices influenced the selection of countries, as well as the initial premises. We name the ten countries that comprise the basis of our comparison, and briefly introduce our three media models: the Protectors (Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden), the Watchdogs (the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and the United States), and the Ambivalents (Spain, Italy, and Portugal). The chapter concludes with a brief overview of individual book chapters.

scholarly journals THe scientific novelty of the public right : illusion or reality?

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-105
Author(s):  
I P Ponomareva
Keyword(s):  
Modern Science ◽  
Systemic Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
State Constitution ◽  
Made In ◽  
Public Right

The article is devoted to the investigation of the notion of «scientific novelty» in the modern science of state (constitution) law. The study of this phenomenon is made in the context of informational and systemic approach.

scholarly journals IN SEARCH OF THE SUBJECTIVE PUBLIC LAW: CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

2019 ◽  
pp. 5-14
Author(s):  
Peter Chvosta
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Administrative Act ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Public Right

Purpose. The article is devoted to the legal figure of subjective public right in the context of legal protection in administrative matters. Methods. Based on the historical development of administrative jurisdiction in Austria and Germany in the 19th century, the function of the subjective public right is discussed in more detail: When the legislator grants citizens subjective public rights (and thus enforceable claims against the administration), the citizen can assert his or her individual interests before the courts by means of a right of defence against the state. At the same time, this results in an external legal control of the administration (compared to a mere internal administrative control by way of disciplinary measures) and thus promotes the rule of law of administrative action, which is in the public interest. Results. By pursuing his subjective public right, the citizen acting in his own interest indirectly contributes to the correct enforcement of the law. In a sense, he acts as an assistant to the public interest. The granting of a subjective public right also limits the group of persons who can take action against an administrative act, since otherwise anyone could challenge an administrative act. If the legislator has not expressly stipulated in the law which persons are entitled to a subjective public right in which respect, the determination of subjective public rights can be difficult in individual cases: When the law provides for a permit subject to certain conditions, the addressee of an administrative act is necessarily entitled to obtain a permit if the conditions required by law are met. The question is more complex in the case of persons who are not the addressee of an administrative act but who are affected by its effects. In this case, it must be determined by way of interpretation whether the legal provisions whose violation the citizen claims to have violated were passed not only to protect public interests but also, at least, in the interests of individual persons. Only then is there also a subjective public right of the individual to compliance with this provision. Conclusions. The legislator can avoid difficulties of interpretation by means of clear rules on the granting of subjective public rights. In particularly important administrative matters (e.g. approval of infrastructure projects), where the granting of subjective public rights is not sufficient to ensure judicial control of administrative acts, a larger group of persons can be granted party status.

scholarly journals EDITORIAL: Political blogs

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Chris Nash ◽  
Tony Maniaty
Keyword(s):  
New Media ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Political Blogs ◽  
The Public ◽  
University Of Technology ◽  
Public Right

This edition of Pacific Journalism Review publishes some of the articles presented at the Public Right To Know (PR2K6) conference held in Sydney on 23-25 November 2007. The conference is hosted by Australian Centre for Independent Journalism  (ACIJ), University of Technology, Sydney. The 2007 conference was the sixth in the series and its theme was 'reporting futures: journalism, new media, new publics'. 

The Public Right and Wrongs: Tort Theory and the Problem of Public Nuisance

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Sebok
Keyword(s):  
Social Problems ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Corrective Justice ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
Opioid Crisis ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Nuisance Law ◽  
Public Right

Abstract Tort theory over the past two decades has been characterized by a fruitful dialectic between two models. Instrumentalism, especially, in its deterrence mode, has been promoted by a wide coalition of scholars and jurists. In response, various critics of instrumentalism have argued for the autonomy of tort law, first under the umbrella of corrective justice and later under civil recourse. The success of civil recourse depends in part on its ability to explain emerging areas of focus in tort law. One such area is public nuisance, which, despite some setbacks, is viewed by the plaintiffs bar, state actors, and some members of the academy as an effective tool to address significant social problems, such as the opioid crisis. This article asks whether, and how, civil recourse theory can accommodate modern public nuisance law.

KRAŠTOVAIZDŽIO, KAIP REKREACINĖS APLINKOS, PRIEINAMUMO REGLAMENTAVIMO LIETUVOJE IR UŽSIENIO VALSTYBĖSE ANALIZĖ

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 258-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dovilė Dimindavičiūtė
Keyword(s):  
Current Situation ◽  
Public Access ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Foreign Experience ◽  
Land Owners ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Public Right

Public rights of access to engage in recreational activities in open non-urbanized countryside in Lithuania, Scandinavia and UK are analysed in this paper. Currently there is no universal public right of access in Lithuania. On the other hand, there is no strict prohibition to walk or stay in open countryside as well. But public rights of access to the Lithuanian countryside are more and more undermined as privatization of land, forests and water is going on and land owners try to fence their properties. The present Lithuanian legal basis that regulates public access to countryside is evaluated. Foreign experience in this field is reviewed. Scandinavian countries and Scotland adopted universal everyman’s right. On the other side, public rights are very limited in England and Whales. Summarizing these different approaches and current situation in Lithuania proposals on implementing the public right of access in the Lithuanian legislature are presented. Santrauka Straipsnyje nagrinėjamos visuomenės teisės laisvai judėti ir užsiimti rekreacine veikla atvirame, neužstatytame kraštovaizdyje Lietuvoje ir užsienio valstybėse. Šiuo metu Lietuvoje tokios universalios teisės, įtvirtintos įstatymuose, nėra, nors kartu nėra ir giežtų draudimų būti ir judėti atvirame kraštovaizdyje. Tačiau žemės, miškų ir vandenų ūkio žemių privatizavimas ir savininkų noras kuo labiau apriboti savo žemes vis labiau mažina visuomenės teises į Lietuvos kraštovaizdį. Straipsnyje apibendrinama šiuo metu galiojanti teisinė bazė, reglamentuojanti Lietuvos visuomenės teises į atvirą kraštovaizdį. Pateikiama užsienio valstybių patirtis šioje srityje. Tai skandinaviškas ir škotiškas modelis, kur galioja universali prieigos teisė. Palyginimui kaip kontrastas pateikiamas Anglijos ir Velso modelis, kur visuomenės teisės į atvirą kraštovaizdį labai ribotos. Apibendrinus esamą situaciją Lietuvoje ir užsienio patirtį, straipsnyje siūloma ir Lietuvoje įstatymu užtikrinti visuomenei kraštovaizdžio prieinamumą.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document