排序方式: 共有5条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
Lobbying is central to the democratic process. Yet, only four political systems have lobbying regulations: the United States, Canada, Germany and the EU (most particularly, the European Parliament). Despite the many works offering individual country analysis of lobbying legislation, a twofold void exists in the literature. Firstly, no study has offered a comparative analysis classifying the laws in these four political systems, which would improve understanding of the different regulatory environments. Secondly, few studies have analysed the views of key agents—politicians, lobbyists and regulators—and how these compare and contrast across regulatory environments.
We firstly utilise an index measuring how strong the regulations are in each of the systems, and develop a classification scheme for the different 'ideal' types of regulatory environment. Secondly, we measure the opinions of political actors, interest groups and regulators in all four systems (through questionnaires and elite interviews) and see what correlations, if any, exist between the different ideal types of system and their opinions. The conclusion highlights our findings, and the lessons that can be used by policy-makers in systems without lobbying legislation. 相似文献
We firstly utilise an index measuring how strong the regulations are in each of the systems, and develop a classification scheme for the different 'ideal' types of regulatory environment. Secondly, we measure the opinions of political actors, interest groups and regulators in all four systems (through questionnaires and elite interviews) and see what correlations, if any, exist between the different ideal types of system and their opinions. The conclusion highlights our findings, and the lessons that can be used by policy-makers in systems without lobbying legislation. 相似文献
2.
3.
4.
5.
SHRI P. R. CHARI 《Terrorism and Political Violence》2013,25(1-2):217-228
ABSTRACT Human rights embody universal values that cannot be compromised but there are regional specificities and times of conflict when adherence to absolute values may not be possible. This is not to suggest that human rights in conflict zones can be trampled upon. What is argued here it that circumstances need being given due weight if an impartial view is to be adopted. This hypothesis is argued by reviewing the human rights situation in Kashmir, noticing the parties in contention, and the legal and judicial routes available for redress, before suggesting several remedies to improve the protection of human rights in this zone of conflict. 相似文献
1