Nevertheless, Chinese courts are still using the constitution and are e. Following the reasoning that the constitution is granting the right to work without any time limits, Chinese courts frequently ordered the insurance companies to pay such compensations. The constitutional right to the freedom of speech is also used in Chinese courts. For example, a court in Hubei decided that a company could not fire one of its employees just because she made public derogatory statements about said company. They are not necessarily in the business of judicial checks and balances, even though the revamped Administrative Procedure Law may be considered a modest impetus for such a development.
- Seat apportionment;
- Quick Guide to Venezuelan Spanish (Spanish Vocabulary Quick Guides).
- 2 Comments.
The Chinese citizenry is however frequently less timid and obedient when it comes to confronting the government and administrative penalties for actions that are closely linked with the freedom of speech are frequently challenged in court. Nevertheless, administrative detention, pronounced by the police, for inciting or staging protest against state organs or the traditional form of remonstration, that is petitioning the administration after enduring injustice by a state organ, if it is exercised on Tiananmen-Square or close to the adjacent government quarters of Zhongnanhai, are generally upheld by Chinese courts.
- 12 Comments.
- 11 Comments.
- Christmas Eve at Swamp’s End.
Many courts acknowledge that the constitution guarantees the freedom of speech or even the right to protest or petition Art. This constitutional catch-all provision is certainly the last line of defense against the liberal idea of limitations on state power in China. The leadership by the Chinese Communist Party is the most essential feature of the socialist system of Chinese characteristics. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited. Hence, challenging measures that are enacted in the name of stability and security in China, as is its counterterrorism framework, on constitutional grounds is a futile endeavor.
You read this long post all the way down. Thanks, much obliged! Now, let me ask you something: Do you enjoy reading Verfassungsblog?
If you do, please support us so that we can keep up our work and stay independent. All the best, Max Steinbeis. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone.
The Commission takes a step back in the fight for the Rule of Law
We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will be deleted. The German government is floating the idea of restructuring EU funds to benefit member states that take in migrants and refugees. What seems like a selfish move by the country that hosts the largest number of refugees in Europe may be a step towards resolving the lingering EU political crises.
It is not only a question where funding will come from and where it should go, but what criteria for allocation should be set. Last week, Germany and Italy suggested that EU spending should focus on public goods, which are considered benefiting all without detriment to others, including EU border management. In addition, the Financial Times reports , German diplomats distributed a paper proposing restructuring regional funds such as the European Regional Development Fund ERDF to support member states that host migrants and refugees in order to pay for new housing, language courses and skills training.
Those plans have drawn some criticism already. Why should the richest country in Europe benefit from this fund for receiving migrants and refugees? Yet, while this would mean less money or higher payments for those countries who refuse to host migrants and refugees it would not be a punishment but a decision about political funding criteria — such as strengthening solidarity and basic rights as foundations of the EU.
As surprising as the idea of allocating funding to the reception of migrants may be in financial debates, it has long been present in refugee policy as well as Refugee and Forced Migration Studies circles. Currently, the Dublin Regulation sets out the allocation of responsibilities for asylum seekers and refugees. It has long been criticised for being unfair and inefficient. This would significantly reduce the administrative challenges of the Dublin system but is critiqued for potentially commodifying refugees if they appeared tradable.
It supported Dublin Regulations as long as they served to its advantage. Now it suggests a regulation recently rejected by the EU Parliament, from which it would profit again, literally.
But even if it was for the wrong reasons, it might be the right answer to some fundamental challenges of the EU. What seems important here is the funding mechanism that is being suggested.adcarcinymi.tk
China’s Constitution and the People’s War on Terror | Verfassungsblog
To consider funding for migrants and refugees through ERDF, while the overall EU budget system is being discussed, is an interesting issue linkage where two policy fields or regimes overlap. Linking the two policy fields would mean not to think about refugee policies simply along protection norms. This is not unusual as refugee policies generally intersect and are often constrained by migration, border and security policies.
- The People vs. the Elite: Italian Dialectics and the European Malaise | Verfassungsblog;
- Take Station Eight to Wichita?
- God Is Not On Recess.
- Will Finance Policies solve the EU “Refugee Crisis”?.