Hans Kelsen, along with most other legal theorists, presupposes the existence of the sovereign in developing his theory of law. As a result, the Kelsenian theory can only account for legal norms issued in the abstract. For legal norms in the abstract though, there is no bearing on which to develop a theory of norms that reaches beyond the skeletal. This is an issue which has plagued legal theory for the past century and which this paper proposes to address upon a re-reading of the Juristische Grundlehre. Specifically, we are able to open our concept of sovereignty with Somló in ways that the Kelsenian theory does not permit. In this paper, I will argue that Felix Somló’s flexible conception of sovereignty leads to a much fuller contextualization of legal norms as expressions of meaning.
Tanulmányunkban feltártuk a sportolási szokások és a tanulmányi eredményesség egy
fontos mutatójának, a tanulmányok melletti kitartás (perzisztencia) közötti
összefüggéseket magyarországi és romániai (partiumi) felsőoktatási intézmények
hallgatóinak körében (N = 2619). Megvizsgáltuk a sportolási
szokások és intézményi formák szerint elkülönülő hallgatói csoportok közötti
különbségeket a perzisztencia egyes állításaiban és összemutatójában. A kutatás
elméleti hátteréhez a fejlődési modell, a zero-sum és a hallgatói integrációs
modell elméleteket használtuk fel. Eredményeink szerint a fejlődés modell
elmélet a leggyakrabban sportolók kiemelkedő eredményeiben látszik érvényesülni,
de fontos kiemelni, hogy a legnagyobb szerepe az alkalmi, társak kedvéért
sportoló hallgatók közé tartozásnak van. Az egyetemi sportklubban sportolók a
legkevésbé elszántak a tanulmányaik befejezését illetően, miközben a nem
sportkörtagok érték el a legmagasabb pontszámokat.
exam, 5.5% B1, 20% B2 and 2 % for C1. Thus, above we have learnt the basic distributions of the explanatory variables and the explained variable used in the hypothesis. Cross-tabs test the validity of our assumptions: we test the relationship of
we have formulated can be confirmed only partly: the decision to pursue higher education studies is motivated by financial return to a small degree; however, it cannot be ruled out that the observation is valid only ostensibly because it is the result
country or the ethnic background. Their code of conduct which is culturally imprinted may not be valid in this context. Some mentors observe that the rules in the family are different to those they know. In the beginning, I felt very uncomfortable when
exclusively on the self-assessments of the teacher training students, whose results cannot be translated as valid statements about the actual development of competences (cf. Mertens & Gräsel, 2018 , p. 1112). Accordingly, Arnold, Gröschner & Hascher (2014, p
.g. Doherty & Dooley, 2018; Gupta, 2019; Holloway & Kirby, 2020 ) have linked the expansion of shadow education to the global acceptance of neoliberalism in the education sector. While this perspective has much validity, it needs some nuances. First, the
The critical assessment of the legacy of socialist jurisprudence is amongst one of the most difficult tasks of the post-transitory Central-European legal thinking. This study provides a critical reading of the findings of Hungarian socialist legal sociology with respect to the description and analysis of the socialist legal culture. The discussion starts with the first comprehensive empirical survey on the legal knowledge of the population, designed and carried out by Kálmán Kulcsár in 1965 and ends with András Sajó’s synthesis on the nature of the Hungarian socialist legal culture elaborated in his monograph entitled Illusion and Reality in Law, published in 1986. The paper’s main conclusion is that this two decades long ‘golden age’ of Hungarian legal sociology offers many valid points in both methodological and substantive terms contrary to the fact that the various findings were mainly elaborated under the pressure of official Marxism-Leninism.
To date, the Cross-border Merger Directive is known as a successful attempt in harmonizing crossborder merger rules within the overall under-harmonisation of EU company law. Transnational companies merge across the Union in accordance with the European cross-border mergers framework. However, concerns in many respects are not met. Issues like descending shareholder protection and creditors’ rights still raise valid questions. The legal aspects of dissenting shareholders’ rights and their protection against the majority decision are notharmonized at the Union level and leave the issue under the control of the national law of the Member States. Therefore, the Member States provide divergent levels of protection for dissenting shareholders of a cross-border merger transaction within their national framework. Such divergence extends from providing no special rights for minority shareholders in cross-border mergers to transposing the respective provision in the Cross-Border Mergers Directive in national laws and provide particular remedies for such group of shareholders in cross-border mergers taking place subjected to their national law. This paper endeavors to answer the question of ‘Whether or not further harmonization of protection mechanisms for dissenting shareholders within cross-border merger transactions in the EU necessary?’.