000			04325nam a22005777a 4500
001			sulb-eb0024283
003			BD-SySUS
005			20160413122432.0
007			cr nn 008mamaa
008			130109s2013 gw | s |||| 0|eng d
020			_a9783642338960 _9978-3-642-33896-0
024	7		_a10.1007/978-3-642-33896-0 _2doi
050		4	_aK7000-7720.22
050		4	_aK7073-7078
072		7	_aLB _2bicssc
072		7	_aLAM _2bicssc
072		7	_aLAW051000 _2bisacsh
072		7	_aLAW016000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_a340.9 _223
082	0	4	_a340.2 _223
245	1	0	_aAustralasia and Pacific Ombudsman Institutions _h[electronic resource] : _bMandates, Competences and Good Practice.
264		1	_aBerlin, Heidelberg : _bSpringer Berlin Heidelberg : _bImprint: Springer, _c2013.
300			_aXVII, 316 p. 13 illus. _bonline resource.
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
505	0		_aPart 1 Comparative Analysis of the Ombudsman Institutions: Introduction -- Legal Framework -- Mandate -- Powers -- Awareness and Outreach -- Good Practice Examples -- Part 2: Reports on Different Jurisdictions: Australia Commonwealth Ombudsman -- Australia Ombudsman New South Wales -- Australia Northern Territory Ombudsman -- Australia Queensland Ombudsman -- Australia South Australian Ombudsman -- Australia Tasmanian Ombudsman -- Australia Victorian Ombudsman -- Australia Western Australian Ombudsman -- Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of China) Ombudsman -- Cook Islands Ombudsman -- New Zealand Ombudsmen -- Papua New Guinea Ombudsman Commission -- Samoa Ombudsman -- Taiwan – Control Yuan -- Tonga Commissioner for Public Relations -- Vanuatu Ombudsman -- Annex.
520			_aCommissioned by the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI), the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights (BIM) in Vienna conducted a comparative analytical study on Ombudsman Institutions in the Australasia and Pacific region between January 2011 and April 2012. In Part 1, this book provides an analytical comparison of the public sector Ombudsman Institutions in Australia (the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the state/territory Ombudsmen of all Australian states as well as of the Northern Territory and the ACT), the Cook Islands, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Taiwan, Tonga and Vanuatu. In addition to a comparative analysis showing the partial heterogeneity of the Institutions, a comprehensive overview of common features, and explorations of the specifics and peculiarities of the Institutions, Part 2 presents separate reports on the 16 different jurisdictions featuring their main functions as follows: - Legal basis, legal status and organisation, - Mandate, object of control and standard of control, - Powers, including legal quality and impact of the outcomes of investigative procedures, - Relationship to the administration, the judiciary and the legislator, and - Special characteristics. Part 2 is based on information provided by the Institutions themselves in questionnaires sent out at the outset of the study, an analysis of the respective establishing acts and other relevant laws, and on relevant scientific publications and the Institutions’ Annual Reports. The reports also refer to relevant legal provisions and include websites addresses for ease of reference.
650		0	_aLaw.
650		0	_aPrivate international law.
650		0	_aConflict of laws.
650		0	_aInternational law.
650		0	_aComparative law.
650		0	_aHuman rights.
650		0	_aIntellectual property _xLaw and legislation.
650		0	_aRegional economics.
650		0	_aSpatial economics.
650	1	4	_aLaw.
650	2	4	_aPrivate International Law, International & Foreign Law, Comparative Law.
650	2	4	_aInternational IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law.
650	2	4	_aHuman Rights.
650	2	4	_aRegional/Spatial Science.
710	2		_aSpringerLink (Online service)
773	0		_tSpringer eBooks
776	0	8	_iPrinted edition: _z9783642338953
856	4	0	_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33896-0
912			_aZDB-2-SHU
942			_2Dewey Decimal Classification _ceBooks
999			_c46375 _d46375