Suchergebnisse

In the global humanitarian realm, there is much discussion and concern for the burdens that states endure when it comes to refugee populations. The word "burden" appears in the Preamble of the 1951 Refugee Convention in reference to placing "unduly heavy burdens" on specific host countries and compels the international community to intervene in such situations. While there have been attempts to change the language from burden-sharing to responsibility-sharing, the emphasis on states assuming the "burden" of hosting and providing for refugee populations continues. Even as the 2018 Global Compact for Refugees has brought refugees into the discussions of an international response to refugee situations, the language and concerns about burden-sharing remain relatively unchanged. This is clearly demonstrated by the first ever Global Refugee Forum, which was held in December 2019, through its central theme of burden- and responsibility-sharing. In the forum, refugees advocated for their continued and increased inclusion, but while state delegations and humanitarian organizations acknowledged this as a benefit for all, their statements continued to assert their own concerns about their positions as the donor and host countries. This continued privileging of the state, even amidst the added language and practices of inclusion of all humanitarian actors, still renders invisible the burdens that refugees bear, many of which are exacerbated by the language and logic of burden-sharing applied to states. A prime example of this is Trump's anti-immigration policies and rhetoric, which demonstrate how state attempts to lighten their burden have far-reaching effects, including long-lasting everyday burdens for those who have already been resettled. Long-term ethnographic research in refugee camps and with resettled refugees provides empirical evidence to engage in the critical policy analysis and discourse analysis of burden-sharing in this piece.

Burden sharing in security organizations: broadening the burden sharing debate This study argues that burden sharing entails more than defense spending only, covering military capabilities, contributions to missions and soft power issues as well. In this respect, the study broadens the burden sharing debate amongst security organizations from a one-sided input approach concerning the military to a more comprehensive view on security communities. Doing so, a variety of dimensions and parameters to measure states' burden sharing behavior are put forward. By considering burden sharing a process rather than an output, politicians are offered opportunities to conduct more meaningful and in-depth dialogues. Before focusing on the distribution of the burden, instead, such dialogues may start by asking 'How do individual states' contributions aggregate?' As a consequence, mutual understanding of how states perceive and value international public goods may develop, rendering discussions on the distribution of the burdens to bear more constructive.

In order to win a claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or "RFRA"), you have to show that your religious beliefs have been "substantially burdened" by a governmental law or practice. In her dissent to Hobby Lobby, Justice Ginsburg accused the majority of taking an approach to defining "substantial burden" that abdicated the judicial role in determining what a substantial burden was. In her dissent to the denial of cert in the Wheaton case, Sotomayor advanced the same line. "I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs," she wrote. "But thinking one's religious beliefs are substantially burdened — no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be — does not make it so." Whether or not the position Ginsburg and Sotomayor attacked was really the Court's isn't my main concern, because I think it is a position worth taking seriously. That position — which I will call the "fully subjectivist view" — holds that the definition of substantial burden (and so whether there is a substantial burden) should be entirely up to the plaintiff. There are familiar reasons to take the fully subjectivist view seriously. Courts are ill-equipped to decode what people's religious beliefs really are, and this extends to decoding when those beliefs are substantially burdened. More strongly, there is a tradition that says decoding people's religious beliefs and when those beliefs are burdened is really none of the court's business. The fully subjectivist view is a natural extension of these principles. I feel the pull of these principles, too, and I want to resist them only slightly. Accordingly, I defend in this essay what I will call the partially subjectivist view. On this view, the courts should largely defer to plaintiffs as to what is a burden on their religious belief. There is only a minor requirement that the plaintiffs show to make that burden substantial — and that is that the government is actually doing something to the plaintiffs. Not all bad things that the government does or that have effects on one's practice of religion are really burdens on you. But if the plaintiffs do show this — that the government is actually pressuring them — then I think they have done all we really should require of them.

When the global refugee protection regime was constructed between the two world wars & was consolidated into the existing regime with the signing of the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, signatories committed to the protection of asylum seekers by refraining to return them to areas where their safety could be in jeopardy. They also recognized the importance of burden-sharing in refugee protection & assistance. Assisting recipient states both through financial & service provision through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as through resettlement & repatriation programs, were formulated as ways to mediate the tensions between the sovereign prerogatives of recipient states on the one hand, & their humanitarian obligations on the other. This paper examines the context & content of these shared global norms with respect to asylum seekers & refugee protection in the EU. It illustrates the development of new practices, absent in the global regime, in the European context & highlights their diffusion to other contexts such as Central & Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, & North Africa. It highlights patterns of shirking as well as shifting of responsibilities, made possible by the emergent shared norms & argues that these new shared (& partly exported) norms present an uneasy fit with the global regime & stand to weaken it. References. Adapted from the source document.

"An Equal Burden forms the first scholarly study of the Army Medical Services in the First World War to focus on the roles and experiences of the men of the ranks of the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC). These men, through their work as stretcher bearers and orderlies, provided a range of labour, both physical and emotional, in aid of the sick and wounded. They were not professional medical caregivers, yet were called upon to provide medical care, however rudimentary; they served in uniform, under military discipline, yet were forbidden, as non-combatants, from carrying weapons. Their service as men in wartime, was thus unique. Structured both chronologically and thematically, this study examines both the work that RAMC rankers undertook and its importance to the running of the chain of medical evacuation. It additionally explores the gendered status of these men within the medical, military and cultural hierarchies of a society engaged in total war, locating their service within the context of that of doctors, female nurses and combatant servicemen. Through close readings of official documents, personal papers, and cultural representations, both verbal and visual, it argues that the ranks of the RAMC formed a space in which non-commissioned servicemen, through their many roles, defined and redefined medical caregiving as men's work in wartime."

Bericht über ein Gespräch mit drei Bankmanagern der "Bank Leumi Le-Israel" zur wirtschaftlichen Lage des Landes, zum örtlichen Zinsniveau sowie zu den Exportchancen für in Israel produzierte Waren. (DÜI-Kaf)

Intro -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Acknowledgments -- Dedication -- Contents -- Introduction -- Section I -- Chapter One -- Chapter Two -- Chapter Three -- Chapter Four -- Section II -- Chapter Five -- Chapter Six -- Chapter Seven -- Chapter Eight -- Chapter Nine -- Section III -- Chapter Ten -- Chapter Eleven -- Chapter Twelve -- Chapter Thirteen -- Chapter Fourteen -- Chapter Fifteen -- Notes on Contributors.

abstract