Tuesday, January 25, 2011

A CANADIAN LOOKS AT AMERICAN CONFLICT OF LAW THEORY AND PRACTICE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS (CORRECTIVE vs DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE)

In this article, William Tetley, a McGill University law professor, reviews the theory and
practice of the conflict of laws in the United States, from a Canadian perspective. He notes
the immense debt which the world owes to the “American conflicts revolution”, the creativity
and dynamism of which remain unequalled elsewhere, including Canada. He describes the
five basic approaches to private international law problems which Western society has taken
over the centuries and demonstrates how three of these approaches have informed American
conflicts theory since Joseph Story. He traces the development of various "equity-oriented"
conflict theories which have emerged from the “American conflicts revolution” in the
twentieth century, showing how these theories in turn both reflect and promote the
Aristotelian notion of corrective justice which underlies the American social and legal systems. He next demonstrates how society, substantive law and legal rules and institutions
in the United States are inspired, to a significant degree, by the quest for corrective justice,
while distributive justice, in the Aristotelian sense, is the dominant philosophical basis for
social and legal systems in most other industrialized countries, such as Canada. Noting how
the “litigation explosion” of recent decades in America mirrors and intensifies the quest for
corrective, as opposed to distributive, justice, the author analyzes a sampling of U.S. conflicts
decisions, in which modern U.S. conflict theories have been applied and in which the trend
towards “equity analysis” is increasingly pronounced. Prof. Tetley concludes by
recommending that Canadian jurists become more familiar with American conflict of law
theory and practice, even as Canada pursues its own more recent and quieter conflicts
revolution.
This is a good book for you to read it. Please link this: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3LzPsPRNUiwMmU1NTEzYmYtZjFhZS00NzQwLWE1OGMtMzU5YzdlNTk5NDlm&hl=en&authkey=CKvpn2M



Welcome all comments on this blog

Consolidation comment from all NGOs about NGOs law

Sunday, January 23, 2011

កម្រងសំណួរ​ពាក់ព័ន្ធ​នឹង​ផ្នែក​ព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ

​សំណួរដកស្រង់ពីសិក្ខាសាលាស្តីពីការអនុវត្តក្រមនីតិវិធីព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ​កាលពីថ្ងៃ ទី២៧ ខែ សីហា ឆ្នាំ ២០០៩ នៅសណ្ឋាគារ ណាហ្គាវើល
១. នៅ​ពេល​ដែល​មន្ត្រី​នគរបាល​យុត្តិធម៌​ឃាត់​ខ្លួន​ជន​សង្ស័យ​ប្រព្រឹត្ត​បទ​ ល្មើស​ដែល​កម្រិត​នៃ​ការផ្តន្ទាទោស​តិច​ជាង​១​ឆ្នាំ ដូច​ជា​បទ​ល្មើស​ប្រើ​ប្រាស់​គ្រឿង​ញៀន​បទ​ល្មើស​ទាក់​ទិន​នឹង​ល្បែង​ស៊ី​សង ​ជា​ដើម តំណាង​អយ្យការ​បាន​ប្រើ​ប្រាស់​នីតិ​វិធី​បង្ហាញ​ខ្លួន​ភ្លាម​តាម​មាត្រា​៤៧ និង មាត្រា០៤ នៃ​ក្រម​នីតិវិធី​ព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ ​ដោយ​បញ្ជូន​សំណុំ​រឿង​និង​ជន​សង្ស័យ​មក​តុលាការ​ដើម្បី​ធ្វើ​ការជំនុំ​ ជម្រះ​ និង​ចេញ​សាល​ក្រមផ្តន្ទា​ទោស​ភ្លាម​។ ប៉ុន្តែ​ តាម​មាត្រា​៤៧ នៃ​ក្រម​នីតិវិធី​ព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ នីតិវិធី​នេះ អាច​ប្រើ​ប្រាស់​បាន​ក្នុង​ករណី​បទ​ល្មើស​ត្រូវ​ផ្តន្ទាទោស​ដាក់​ពន្ធ​ ធានាគារ​យ៉ាង​តិច ១​ឆ្នាំ និង​យ៉ាង​ច្រើន ៥​ឆ្នាំ។ ម្យ៉ាង​វិញ​ទៀត ទោះ​បី​ជា​ចៅ​ក្រម​សម្រេច​សេចក្តី​ភ្លាម ក៏​ការផ្តន្ទាទោស​តិច​ជាង​មួយ​ឆ្នាំ ហើយ​តុលាការ​ពុំ​ចេញ​ដីកា​បង្គាប់​ឲ្យ​ឃុំ​ខ្លួន​ជន​ជាប់​ចោទ ​ដែល​មាន​វត្តមាន​នា​ពេល​សវនាការ​តាម​មាត្រា ៣៥៣ នៃ​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ​ដែរ​។ ក្នុង​ករណី​បែប​នេះ តើ​អយ្យការ និង​តុលាការ ​គួរ​ចាត់​ការ​យ៉ាង​ដូចម្តេច​ចំពោះ​ជន​ជាប់​ចោទ (ឃុំ​ខ្លួន​បាន​ឬ​ទេ?) ឬ​ក៏​ត្រួវ​ដោះ​លែង​ជន​សង្ស័យ ឬ​ជន​ជាប់​ចោទ ឲ្យ​ត្រឡប់​ទៅ​ផ្ទះ​វិញ​?
០២- នៅ​ពេល​ដែល​ជន​ល្មើស​ជា​អញ្ញា​ត​ជន​ ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ ត្រូវ​ចេញ​ដី​ការ​លើក​លែង​ចោទ​ប្រកាន់​តាម​មាត្រា ​២៤៧​ នៃ​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្ម​ទណ្ឌ​។ ប៉ុន្តែ​នៅ​ក្នុង​សំណុំ​រឿង​ខ្លះ ​នៅ​មាន​សេស​សល់​វត្ថុ​តាង​នៃ​បទ​ល្មើស​ដែល​តុលា​ការ​ត្រូវ​សម្រេច។​ តាម​នីតិ​វិធី​ដែល​បាន​អនុវត្ត​មុន​ពេល​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្ម​ទណ្ឌ​ចូល​ជា​ ធរ​មាន​ តុលាការ​ត្រូវ​ចេញ​សាល​ក្រម​ដើម្បី​សម្រេច​ពី​វត្ថុ​តាង​។ តាម​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្ម​ទណ្ឌ​ថ្មី​តើ​តុលាការ​ចាំ​បាច់​ត្រូវ​ចេញ​សាល​ ក្រម​សម្រេច​ពី​វត្ថុ​តាង​ដែរ​ឬ​ទេ ​បើ​អញ្ញាត​ជន​ត្រូវ​បាន​លើក​លែង​សម្រេច​រឹប​អូស​វត្ថុ​តាង​នៅ​ក្នុង​ដី​ការ ​សម្រេច​ តើ​កា​រ​ចាត់​ចែង​វត្ថុ​តាង​(លក់​ឡាយ​ឡុង​) អាច​ធ្វើ​ទៅ​បាន​ដែរ​ឬ​ទេ ​ក្នុង​ករណី​អញ្ញាត​ជន​? ចំពោះ​ប្រភេទ​នៃ​បទ​ល្មើស​ខ្លះ​ដូច​ជា​ បទ​ល្មើស​ព្រៃ​ឈើ ​បទ​ល្មើស​នេសាទ​ ពេល​ខ្លះ​សមត្ថកិច្ច​ចាប់​បាន​វត្ថុ​តាង​ប្រព្រឹត្ត​បទ​ល្មើស ​តែ​ពុំ​អាច​រក​ឃើញ​ជន​ប្រព្រឹត្ត​បទ​ល្មើស​ឡើយ​។ តាម​ការ​អនុវត្ត​ដែល​បាន​ធ្វើ​កន្លង​មក​ តំណាង​អយ្យ​ការ​ បាន​ធ្វើ​ការ​បញ្ចូន​រឿង​មក​ជំនុំជ​​ម្រះ​ផ្ទាល់​ ដើម្បី​ចៅ​ក្រម​សម្រេច​រឹប​អូស​វត្ថុ​តាង​តាម​សាល​ក្រម។​ តើតាម​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្ម​ទណ្ឌថ្មី​ អយ្យការ​និង​តុលាការ​ អាច​ធ្វើ​ចំណាត់​ការ​បែប​នេះ​បាន​ដែរ​ឬទេ? បើ​ពុំ​អា​ច​ធ្វើ​បាន​ តើ​ត្រូវ​ធ្វើ​តាម​នីតិ​វិធី​បែប​ណា?​
០៣- ចំពោះ​បទ​ល្មើស​មជ្ឈឹម​ ជន​ត្រូវ​ចោទ​បាន​ផ្លាស់​ប្តូរ​ទី​លំនៅ ​តើ​ចៅក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ ចាំ​បាច់​ត្រូវ​តែ​ចេញ​ដី​ការ​បង្គាប់​ឲ្យ​ចាប់​ខ្លួន​ជន​ត្រូវ​ចោទ​ឬ​ទេ​ មុន​ពេល​បញ្ចប់​នីតិ​វិធី​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ ប្រសិន​បើ​ពុំ​មាន​ភស្តុ​តាង​ណា​មួយ​បញ្ជាក់​ពី​ការ​គេច​វេស​ ឬ​រឹង​រូស​របស់​ជន​ត្រូវ​ចោទ​នោះ?​
០៤- ក្នុង​ករណី​ខ្លះ​ក្រោយ​ពី​ការ​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ចប់​សព្វ​គ្រប់​ ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​យល់​ឃើញ​ថា​ពុំ​មាន​ភស្តុតាង​ដាក់​បន្ទុក​លើ​ជន​ត្រូវ​ចោទ ​ពី​បទ​ល្មើស​ (មជ្ឈឹម​ឬ​ឧក្រិដ្ឋ​) ដែល​ចោទ​ប្រកាន់​ដោយ​តំណាង​អយ្យ​ការ​ទេ​ហើយ​ជន​ត្រូវ​ចោទ​ ពុំ​បាន​ចូល​បង្ហាញ​ខ្លួន​នៅ​ចំពោះ​មុខ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ ដោយ​មូល​ហេតុ​ផ្លាស់​ទី​លំនៅ​(​ពុំ​មាន​ភស្តុតាង​បញ្ជាក់​ពី​ការ​គេច​ខ្លួន​ )។ ប៉ុន្តែ​យោង​តាម​មាត្រា​ ២៤៦​ និង​មាត្រា​ ២៤៧​ នៃ​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្ម​ទណ្ឌ​ថ្មី ​នាំ​ឲ្យ​​មាន​ការ​បក​ស្រាយ​ថា​ ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​អាច​ចេញ​ដី​ការ​លើក​លែង​ចោទ​ ប្រកាន់​តាម​មាត្រា ​២៤៧ នៃ​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្ម​ទណ្ឌ​បាន​ លុះ​ត្រា​តែ​បាន​បញ្ជូន​សំណុំ​រឿង​ឲ្យ​ព្រះរាជ​អាជ្ញា​ពិនិត្យ ​និង​ធ្វើ​ដី​កា​សន្និ​ដ្ឋាន​ស្ថាពរ​តាម​មាត្រា​ ២៤៦​សិន​ ទើប​បាន​។ ក្នុង​ករណី​នេះ​ នៅ​ពេល​ដែល​ ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​បញ្ជូន​សំណុំ​រឿង​ទៅ​ព្រះរាជ​អាជ្ញា​ពិនិត្យ​ ប៉ុន្តែ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​យល់​ឃើញ​ថា​ពុំ​មាន​ភស្តុតាង​ដាក់​បន្ទុក​លើ​ជន​ ត្រូវ​ចោទ​ ជា​ហេតុ​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​ការ​ចេញ​ដី​កា​បង្គាប់​ឲ្យ​ចាប់​ខ្លួន​ពុំ​មាន​លក្ខណៈ​សម​ ហេតុ​ផល​ ។ ក្នុង​ករណី​ខាង​លើ ​តើ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ ត្រូវ​តែ​ចេញ​ដី​កា​បង្គាប់​ឲ្យ​ចាប់​ខ្លួន​ជន​ជាប់​ចោទ​ឬ​យ៉ាង​ណា?​
០៥- ប្រសិនបើ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ បាន​បញ្ជូន​ជន​ជាប់​ចោទ​ទៅ​ជំ​នុំ​ជំរះ​ ដោយ​ពុំ​មាន​សាវ​តា​ជាតិ​គ្រប់​គ្រាន់​ ហើយ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ជំនុំ​ជំរះ​ បាន​ចេញ​សាល​ក្រម​របៀប​ ចាត់​ឲ្យ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ស្វែង​រក​សាវ​តា​ជាតិ​តែ​​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ពុំ​ អាច​រក​ឃើញ ​តើ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ត្រូវ​ធ្វើ​ដូច​ម្តេច?​ តើ​ចៅ​ក្រម​ស៊ើប​សួរ​ អាច​ចេញ​ដី​កា​លើក​លែង​ចោទ​ប្រកាន់​បាន​ដែរ​ឬទេ?​
០៦​-តើ​សាល​ក្រម​របៀប​ណា ​ដែល​អយ្យការ​អាច​ប្តឹង​ឧទ្ធរណ៍​បាន​ផ្អែក​តាម​មាត្រា​ ៣៨៥​ នៃ​ក្រម​នីតិ​វិធី​ព្រហ្ម​ទណ្ឌ?​
០៧- ក្នុង​នីតិ​វិធី​បង្ហាញ​ខ្លួន​ភ្លាម​ តើ​សា​ល​ក្រម​ត្រូវ​ធ្វើ​ដូច​ម្តេច​ និង​សរសេរ​បែប​ណា ​ក្នុង​ករណី​សំណុំ​រឿង​នេះ​សាំញ៉ាំ​?
If you want you to know more, please link: http://www.bakc.org.kh/km/law-questions/4-2010-05-19-02-32-55.html


Welcome all comments on this blog

Saturday, January 22, 2011

រដ្ឋាភិបាល​យល់​​ព្រម​កែ​សម្រួល​ចំណុច​ខ្លះ​នៃ​ច្បាប់​​គ្រប់គ្រង​អង្គការ

រដ្ឋាភិបាល​យល់​​ព្រម​កែ​សម្រួល​ចំណុច​ខ្លះ​នៃ​ច្បាប់​​គ្រប់គ្រង​អង្គការ

តំណាង​អង្គការ​ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​​បាន​ជួប​​​ជាមួយ​មន្ត្រី​ក្រសួង​មហាផ្ទៃ នៅ​ថ្ងៃ​ទី​២១ ខែ​មករា​នេះ ដើម្បី​ពិភាក្សា​​គ្នា​អំពី​សេចក្ដី​ព្រាង​ច្បាប់​ស្ដីពី​សមាគម និង​អង្គការ​មិន​មែន​រដ្ឋាភិបាល ដែល​តាក់តែង​ដោយ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​កម្ពុជា តែ​ត្រូវ​បាន​​​អង្គការ​មិនមែន​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​រិះគន់​ថា រដ្ឋាភិបាល​បាន​ដាក់​សម្ពាធ​លើ​អង្គការ​ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល ហើយ​បាន​ព្យាយាម​​តវ៉ា​សុំ​ឲ្យ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​កែប្រែ​ចំណុច​​ទាំងនោះ​វិញ។

លោក សុក សំអឿន នាយក​ប្រតិបត្តិ​ក្រុម​អ្នក​ច្បាប់​ការពារ​សិទ្ធ​កម្ពុជា ដែល​បាន​ចូល​រួម​ក្នុង​កិច្ច​ពិភាក្សា​នោះ មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​ថា មន្ត្រី​ក្រសួង​មហាផ្ទៃ ដែល​ជា​អ្នក​តាក់តែង​ច្បាប់​នេះ បាន​យល់​ព្រម​​កែ​សម្រួល​ចំណុច​ខ្លះ​តាម​ការ​តវ៉ា​របស់​មន្ត្រី​អង្គការ​​ ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​​​មួយ​ចំនួន​ហើយ។

លោក សុក សំអឿន មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​ទៀត​ថា ៖ «និយាយ​រួម​ទៅ​ខាង​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​គេ​លើក​យក​ចំណុច​ដែល​អង្គការ​សមាគម​បាន​ស្នើ​ ឡើង​នៅ​ថ្ងៃ​១០ (មករា) មក​ជជែក​គ្នា​ម្ដង​មួយៗ។ មាន​ចំណុច​ច្រើន​ដែល​យើង​ព្រមព្រៀង​គ្នា»។

រដ្ឋាភិបាល​បាន​ធ្វើ​សេចក្ដី​ព្រាង​ច្បាប់​ស្ដីពី​សមាគម និង​អង្គការ​មិន​មែន​រដ្ឋាភិបាល ហើយ​បាន​ប្រកាស​ជា​សាធារណៈ​នៅ​ថ្ងៃ​ទី​១៥ ខែ​ធ្នូ ឆ្នាំ​២០១០ កន្លង​ទៅ ដែល​មាន ៥៨​មាត្រា និង ១១​ជំពូក។ ក៏​ប៉ុន្តែ​ក្រុម​មន្ត្រី​មិន​មែន​អង្គការ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​បាន​តវ៉ា​ថា មាន​ចំណុច​ជា​ច្រើន​​ដែល​បាន​ចែង​ក្នុង​សេចក្ដី​ព្រាង​​នោះ​ដូច​ជា​រឹតត្បិត ​​សកម្មភាព​របស់​អង្គការ​មិនមែន​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​​ជ្រុល​ពេក ដូច​ជា​ការ​ដាក់​កំហិត​​ នៃ​ការ​ចុះបញ្ជី រួម​ទាំង​​តម្រូវ​ឲ្យ​ធ្វើ​របាយការណ៍​ហិរញ្ញវត្ថុ​របស់​អង្គការ​ជាដើម ដោយ​ក្រុម​មន្ត្រី​​អង្គការ​ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​អះអាង​ថា សេចក្ដី​ព្រាង​នេះ​ជា​ការ​រើស​អើង​ដល់​ក្រុម​ឯកជន​ដែល​មិន​មែន​​អង្គការ​ ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល ដូចជា​អ្នក​ផ្ទុក​មេរោគ​អេដស៍ អ្នក​គាំទ្រ​កីឡា និង​សាសនា​ជាដើម ហើយ​ក្រុម​មន្ត្រី​​អង្គការ​ក្រៅ​​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​ក៏​បាន​ព្យាយាម​សុំ​ឲ្យ​ រដ្ឋាភិបាល​កែ​សម្រួល​ចំណុច​ទាំង​នោះ​ជា​បន្ត​បន្ទាប់។

ចំណែក​ភាគី​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​វិញ​បាន​អះអាង​ថា ការ​រៀបចំ​ច្បាប់​នេះ​ឡើង គឺ​ក្នុង​បំណង​គ្រប់គ្រង​អង្គការ​ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​​ឲ្យ​បាន​ពេញលេញ ព្រោះ​ថា មាន​អង្គការ​មួយ​ចំនួន​​មិន​គោរព​ច្បាប់ ហើយ​បាន​បង្ក​អនាធិបតេយ្យ​​​​ក្នុង​សង្គម​ខ្មែរ ដែល​តម្រូវ​ឲ្យ​ក្រសួង​ត្រូវ​ការ​ត្រួត​ពិនិត្យ​ឲ្យ​បាន​ហ្មត់ចត់ ដើម្បី​ងាយ​ស្រួល​ចាត់​វិធានការ​តាម​ច្បាប់។

លោក សុក សំអឿន មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​ថា ការ​តវ៉ា​លើក​នេះ​របស់​មន្ត្រី​អង្គការ​ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល ភាគី​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​ហាក់​ដូចជា​បន្ទន់​ជំហរ​ច្រើន​ជាង​មុន ៖ «កន្លង​​មក​យើង​​​ស្នើ​ច្រើន​ចំណុច ច្រើន​មាត្រា និយាយ​រួម​ទៅ​ណា ក៏​ប៉ុន្តែ​គ្រាន់​តែ​ពាក់ព័ន្ធ​សំខាន់​ត្រង់​ចំណុច​ចុះ​បញ្ជី យើង​ព្រឹក​មិញ (២១ មករា) អូ.ខេ (O.K) ហើយ ហើយ​ពាក់ព័ន្ធ​ក្រុម​ដែល​ជា​មិន​មែន​ជា​អង្គការ​សមាគម​អី​ហ្នឹង យើង​​បាន​ជជែក​គ្នា​ហើយ»។

យ៉ាង​ណា​ក្ដី លោក សុក សំអឿន បង្ហើប​ថា កិច្ច​ពិភាក្សា​នេះ​នៅ​មិន​ទាន់​ចប់​នៅ​ឡើយ​ទេ ហើយ​នៅ​មាន​ចំណុច​សំខាន់​​ជា​​ច្រើន​​ទៀត ដែល​នឹង​ត្រូវ​ជជែក​គ្នា​បន្ត​ទៅ​ទៀត ហើយ​មិន​ដឹង​ថា តើ​ភាគី​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​នឹង​យល់​ព្រម​​តាម​សំណើរ​របស់​មន្ត្រី​ក្រៅ​​​ រដ្ឋាភិបាល​ដែរ ឬ​យ៉ាង​នោះ​ទេ៕

http://www.rfa.org/khmer/indepth/ngo_draft_law-01212011064038.html


Welcome all comments on this blog

FREE MARKET CONTRACT LAW

Introduction:

A Contract Is an Agreement the Law Will Enforce A contract is an agreement the law will enforce. Because contracts are important in the modern world, the law that governs contracts is also important. Unfortunately, contract law can also be complex. So this book explains some general principles of contract law. The book tries to make these principles as easy to understand as it can.

1.1a How This Chapter Works
This first Chapter summarizes some basic aspects of contract law. In doing so, the Chapter actually tries to achieve three different things at once.
First, Chapter 1 is an introduction to this entire book, which is 11 Chapters long. The whole book is designed to be a textbook for a fairly long study of free market contract law, and to be a reference work.

Second, Chapter 1 tries to summarize some basic aspects of contract law. In this regard, Chapter 1 could be used by itself as a textbook for a shorter study of contract law, and as a shorter reference work.

Third, the first part of Chapter 1 tries to concisely summarize some very basic aspects of contract law in an even shorter format. It does this by providing in Section 1.1 a brief introduction to law and contracts, then in
Section 1.2 summarizing Chapter 1 itself! So Sections 1.1-1.2 could be used by themselves as a text for a very short study of contract law, and as a quick reference. These first two Sections also provide a brief overview of the rest of the Chapter and the book.

In its attempt to work on three levels at once, Chapter 1 alternates between introductory material that should help readers understand what follows in the rest of the book, and summary material that tries to provide
readers with an overview of what follows in the rest of the book. Although it may seem a little confusing, this alternating structure is designed to try to address the different needs of a variety of potential readers. The following chart illustrates the structure of Chapter 1.

For more information, please find this book in the book store or contact our group (cambodianlawjournal@gmail.com) that we have soft document in English version. 


Welcome all comments on this blog

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Freedom of speech in Cambodia is tried by court on defamation case

- On 18 January, the Kampong Chhnang provincial court opened trial of the defamation case against ADHOC’s provincial coordinator, Sam Chankea. There were many local NGOs, UNOHCR representative, British Ambassador and Japan Embassy representative attended to observe this trial as well.  Defense lawyers asked the judge to decide the interlocutory questions, but he denied without a reason.  Because the accusation of defamation was based on the statement Chankea made to Radio Free Asia (“The Company’s act of clearing the lands of the villagers is against the law because the ownership case is pending in court awaiting the merits proceedings”) that related to the issue of ownership, which was civil in nature, and defamation was criminal, the court must decide the issue of ownership first before proceeding to the merits (criminal defamation).  The judge said that he could not allow the proceedings on interlocutory questions because Chankea was not the owner of the lands.
The evidence presented by villagers was rejected by the judge, saying it was not valid (papers indicating the distribution of lands by local authorities), while the evidence presented by the plaintiff was judged as valid (letter authorized by the provincial governor to clear the lands)
At the end the trial, the trial judge made a conclusion that, “true or untrue”, Chankea must be responsible for his statement because (1) the statement affected the reputation of the Company and (2) statement was made to the international media that has wide coverage. The court will announce its judgment on 25 January next week.
- On January 17, the court pronounced a defamation judgment against two land activist in Kampong Chhnang province. The court ordered Mr. Reach Sema to pay a fine of two million riels and a compensation of eight million riels to KDC Company. Another defendant, Pheng Rom, was acquitted. On January 10, Kampong Chhnang provincial court opened a hearing of a defamation case against Lor Peang community member (Mr. Pheng Rom and Reach Sema). The complaint was filed by KDC International Co. (owned by Minister of Suy Sem’s wife) since May 2010. The reason that the Company filed suit was because both people told a reporter of Radio Free Asia that the Company had cleared people’s lands in April 2010. During the hearing, Mr. Sema was absent. During the trial, the lawyers submitted request to court to order other witnesses and the company representative to attend the court trial, but the court denied immediately and then the lawyers walked promptly out of trial.  The were lawyers from ADHOC, LAC, and CDP.  

Statement of international Human Rights Defender critics Cambodian Court

KHM 001 / 0111 / OBS 002
Judicial Harassment
Cambodia
January 18, 2011


The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), requests your urgent intervention in the following situation in Cambodia.


Description of the situation:

The Observatory has been informed of the judicial harassment faced by Mr. Sam Chankea, Coordinator of the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC) in Kampong Chhnang, a human rights defender active in land rights issues.

According to the information received, Mr. Sam Chankea will face trial today, January 18, 2011 before the Kg. Chhnang Provincial Court in Cambodia for allegedly defaming the work of KDC International Company, owned by Lauk Chumteav Chea Kheng, wife of Minister of Mining and Energy.

The complaint against Mr. Sam Chankea follows a radio interview broadcast on December 26, 2009 in which he expressed his opinion over a land case conflict opposing dozens of villagers and the KDC International company in Kampong Chhnang province. In this interview Mr. Sam Chankea stated that “what the company has done is an act of violation since the court has yet to rule on the merits of the case. Therefore the company should suspend the activity and await the ruling on the merits of the case”. He was subsequently quoted in Koh Santepheap newspaper on December 30, 2009.

The dispute, which dates back to 2002, is a long-standing land conflict between the above-mentioned company and more than 100 families which have sued the company for having bulldozed their land, damaged their properties, grabbed their land and violated their rights. The proceedings are still on-going.

The Observatory calls for the full respect of fair trial standards and urges the Kampong Chhnang provincial Court to dismiss the case so as to ensure that anyone's right to freedom of expression is adequately and properly upheld.

More generally, the Observatory urges the Cambodian authorities to ensure the protection of human rights defenders who face reprisals as a consequence of the legitimate exercise of their right to freedom of expression.

Actions requested:

Please write to the Cambodian authorities and ask them to:

            i. Guarantee in all circumstances the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. Sam Chankea;

ii. Put an end to acts of harassment - including at the judicial level - against him as well as against all human rights defenders in Cambodia;

iii. Conform in any circumstances with the provisions of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted on December 9, 1998 by the United Nations General Assembly, and in particular :
-          Article 1, which states that “everyone has the right, individually or in association with others, to promote the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”,
-          Article 6 (b) and (c) which states that “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, as provided for in human rights and other applicable international instruments, freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, through these and other appropriate means, to draw public attention to those matters,
-          and Article 12.2 which provides that “the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration”.

iv. Ensure in all circumstances respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and international instruments ratified by Cambodia.

Addresses:

- Mr. Hun Sen, Prime Minister, Office of the Prime Minister, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia, Fax: +855 23 36 06 66 / 855 23 88 06 24 (c/o Council of Ministers), Email: leewood_phu@nida.gov.kh
- Mr. H.E. Ang Vong Vathna, Minister of Justice, No 240, Sothearos Blvd, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia, Fax: 023 364119. Email: moj@cambodia.gov.kh
- Mr. Sar Kheng, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, Ministry of Interior, 275 Norodom Blvd, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia, Fax: + 855 23 212708. Email: moi@interior.gov.kh
- Mr. Hor Nam Hong, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 161 Preah Sisowath Quay, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia, Fax: + 855 23 21 61 44 / + 855 23 21 69 39. Email: mfaicasean@bigpond.com.kh
- Ambassador Mr. Sun Suon, Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations in Geneva, Chemin de Taverney 3, Case postale 213, 1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland, Fax: + 41 22 788 77 74. Email: cambodge@bluewin.ch

Please also write to the diplomatic representations of Cambodia in your respective countries.

***
Paris-Geneva, January 18, 2011

Kindly inform us of any action undertaken quoting the code of this appeal in your reply.

The Observatory, a FIDH and OMCT venture, is dedicated to the protection of Human Rights Defenders and aims to offer them concrete support in their time of need.

To contact the Observatory, call the emergency line:
-           Email: Appeals@fidh-omct.org
-           Tel and fax FIDH: +33 (0) 1 43 55 25 18 / 01 43 55 18 80
-           Tel and fax OMCT: + 41 22 809 49 39 / 41 22 809 49 29




Welcome all comments on this blog

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Cambodia – New draft NGO law would severely restrict the work of human rights defenders

The below is statement of Frontline international which has objective to protect human rights defenders in the world. 
 On 15 December 2010, a new draft Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Cambodia was publicly released. The provisions of the draft law are highly restrictive and, if passed, the law could have a severely detrimental impact upon the work of human rights defenders in Cambodia.

The draft law introduces compulsory registration for all NGOs before being allowed to “operate any activity” and imposes burdensome, overly bureaucratic registration requirements on organisations, accompanied by vague provisions which, it is feared, may provide for arbitrary and selective denial of registration and, thus, the criminalisation and/or closure of NGOs and other associations. These provisions would pose particular problems for unregistered grassroots networks, Community-based Organisations (CBOs), and other informal associations who may be unable or unwilling to fulfill the necessary requirements for registration.

Furthermore, the draft bill imposes a duty upon international organisations to “collaborate” with government ministries in the planning, monitoring, implementation and evaluation of their projects. The nature of such “collaboration”, however, is undefined and its necessity unjustified.

It is feared that provisions such as those outlined above, among others contained in the draft law, will severely restrict the freedom and independence of civil society in Cambodia and impede the development and consolidation of a vibrant and democratic political culture. Moreover, the provisions of the draft law are directly contrary to the international human rights norms and standards contained in, inter alia, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which Cambodia is party, and the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

Furthermore, while recognising the State's legitimate interest in the regulation of organisations which become legal entities and the prevention of criminal activities, it must be pointed out that such concerns are already adequately addressed by the provisions of existing Cambodian laws and regulations: NGOs may at present obtain legal status through the recently adopted Civil Code, articles 46-118, which provide for the registration of organisations – with less burdensome requirements for doing so – as well as their dissolution; international organisations may also obtain legal status through the adoption of Memoranda of Understanding with the government. The prior existence of such legitimate means of regulating NGOs suggest that the motive for the introduction of the new law is not regulation, but rather the extension of unprecedented and arbitrary government control over the activities of human rights defenders and organisations.

Front Line urges the authorities in Cambodia to:
1. Extend the review process and ensure that an open and thorough consultation is carried out with all relevant local and foreign non-governmental organisations;
2. Guarantee in all circumstances that human rights defenders and non-governmental organisations in Cambodia are free to carry out their legitimate activities in defending and protecting the rights of others, without fear of reprisals and all restrictions, including exclusory registration requirements.

Front Line respectfully reminds you that the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by consensus by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1998, recognises the legitimacy of the activities of human rights defenders, their right to freedom of association and to carry out their activities without fear of reprisals. We would particularly draw you attention to Article 5 (b): “For the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, at the national and international levels:(b) To form, join and participate in non-governmental organizations, associations or groups,” and to Article 13: “Everyone has the
right, individually and in association with others, to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means...”.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Lawlor
Director


Welcome all comments on this blog

Monday, January 17, 2011

The Function of Law in the International Community: 75 Years After

What was the world like into which Hersch Lauterpacht’s most important book
The Function of Law in the International Community1 appeared?
Fifteen million Americans were out of work as President Roosevelt took office in 1933. A World Monetary and Economic Conference met in the summer to debate a programme of currency stabilization and adjustment
of inter-governmental debts. Even contemporaries understood that this was a ‘Period of Crisis’.2 They were right. 1933 was the year of Hitler’s accession as Reichskanzler and Europe’s defi nite turn to the path of darkness. By now Hitler had been joined by Mussolini who insisted Italy be treated as a Great Power, especially in terms of its colonial designs in Eastern Africa. Japan’s attack on China had led to the establishment of the puppet regime of Manchukuo. Diplomats kept on talking about non-recognition and economic sanctions but with little eff ect. The Soviet Union turned unexpectedly away from the policy of world revolution. In the following year it would join the League where it would become a staunch opponent of “revision”.

The League of Nations was in a bad way. The Manchurian situation had demonstrated the fragility of the Covenant’s collective security provisions.

The Disarmament Conference had been undermined by Hitler’s accession and Japan’s withdrawal. No country had worked more to support the conference than Britain. Against a general atmosphere of hopelessness Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald suggested in the spring a new draft convention with defi nite levels of material and provision for conference in case of threatened violations of the peace.3

For more information please link to here: http://bybil.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/353.full.pdf+html


Welcome all comments on this blog

Friday, January 14, 2011

View of US Government on Draft NGO Law in Cambodia

Taken Question
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
January 12, 2011
 
Question: Has the government of Cambodia started to make laws that place limits on NGOs operating in country? What sort of limits? How is this affecting NGO programs?

Answer: The United States has serious concerns about the law as drafted and strongly opposes the enactment of any law that would constrain the legitimate activities of NGOs. We urge the Royal Government of Cambodia to consult closely with NGOs and other stakeholders on the substance of the draft law, and to reconsider whether such a measure is even necessary. The United States believes that a strong and free civil society is vital to strengthening democratic institutions, enhancing economic and humanitarian well-being, and promoting a sustainable economy. In Cambodia, as in many other countries, NGOs and other civil society organizations make critical contributions in these areas.

More information please link to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/01/154323.htm

Welcome all comments on this blog

Debate urged on NGO law

Four civil society umbrella organisations have urged the government to make Monday’s consultation the beginning – rather than the end – of public debate on its controversial draft NGO law.
In a statement on Wednesday, the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia, NGO Forum, Medicam and the Cambodian Human Rights Action Committee – representing more than 400 local and international NGOs working in Cambodia – called on the government to incorporate their recommendations into the law.
It also requested the establishment of a joint government-civil society working group to make further revisions.
“Our aim is to have a law that is enabling for us rather than a law that would restrict operations and also our ability to serve the people,” said CCC executive director Lun Borithy.
The groups delivered a statement and summary report of recommendations on Wednesday to the ministries of interior and foreign affairs, he said.
The report includes a host of proposals that amount to considerable changes to the law.
The groups called for registration requirements to be simplified and incorporate registration provisions from the 2007 Civil Code.
It also added that associations and small organisations should be excluded from the scope of the law.
Reporting requirements should be scaled according to an organisation’s size, the report added.
Suspension and dissolution of NGOs should also proceed in accordance with an organisation’s charter, the Civil Code and donor requirements.
“We want those recommendations to be reflected into the current draft and a second draft to be shared with us,” Lun Borithy said.
Phay Siphan, spokesman for the Council of Ministers, said the government has “no position” on the proposals as yet.
The ministries of interior and foreign affairs, which co-authored the draft, will meet to discuss the issue but “don’t have any schedule yet to make a decision on that”, he added.

More information please link to http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2011011346070/National-news/debate-urged-on-ngo-law.html
Welcome all comments on this blog

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Consolidated Summary of Recommendations from Discussion Group Presentations at the National Consultation on January 10, 2011



11th January 2011

NGO Law Task Team
Commissioned by
Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC)


1.      Introduction
The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) organized the National Consultation on the draft Law on NGOs and Associations in Cambodia (draft NGO Law) on January 10, 2011.  This report summarizes the comments and recommendations from the four breakout Discussion Groups. 

2.      Summary of general recommendations

The key issues raised in the Discussion Groups are as follows:
2.1  Joint Working Group: All discussion groups firmly recommended the creation of a Joint Working Group, comprised of the RCG and Civil Society representatives to engage in additional consultation after the January 10 National Consultation. Such a mechanism is critically important to ensure further constructive dialogue to achieve greater clarity and mutual understanding on process and contents of the draft law and to avoid any unintended consequences of the law.
2.2  Registration and Re-Registration: All four discussion groups recommended that the procedure for registration of associations and domestic NGOs be simplified and incorporate the Civil Code provisions on registration. In addition, registration should be voluntary for associations and small groups that come together to work on common issues.  Finally, the discussion groups recommended that a provision to require the government to notify organizations of re-registration be incorporated.
2.3  Suspension and dissolution: The discussion groups recommended that suspension and dissolution as well as distribution of properties be made consistent with the organization’s charter, donor requirements and provisions of the Civil Code. In addition, a written warning system for violations should be incorporated.
2.4  Reporting: The discussion groups recommended the incorporation of a system of reporting that takes into consideration the size and budget of the organization.  The system could include an exemption for smaller organizations; a simple template for mid-sized organizations; and a more detailed requirement for those organizations with sizable staff and budgets.
                 2.5  Glossary and Explanatory Notes: The discussion groups recommended clarification on various terms and legal context and therefore, recommended that the law incorporate a Glossary of Terms at the end of the law as well as Explanatory Notes in every article.

3.      TABLE: Specific recommendations


Original Articles
Recommendations
G1
G2
G3
G4
Article 3: Scope                         

-Exclude Associations and small groups.

a



Article 4: Definitions
-Define small group associations.

a



Article 6: Prohibiting Provisions
-The right to register should be voluntary for Associations. Registering would give the organization non-profit status that would allow it to receive benefits such as tax deductions and protection under the law.
- Currently registered organizations that have submitted applications to re-register should receive provisional approval to conduct activities, which would be revoked only if their re-registration application is denied by the MoI.
a



a



a
Article 8: Conditions of Formation of Association

-Decrease the required members and leaders.
-Amend article to eliminate the nationality requirement for founding members and to ensure that everyone (i.e., all individuals within the state’s territory and subject to its jurisdiction) is eligible to form associations.
-Include female representatives up to 40%.
a
a



a
a

a


Article 9: Conditions of Formation of Domestic Non-Governmental Organization

-Amend article to eliminate the nationality requirement for founding members and to ensure that everyone (i.e., all individuals within the state’s territory and subject to its jurisdiction) is eligible to form domestic NGOs.
a




Article 10: Charter of an Association and Domestic Non-Governmental Organization

-Simplify the registration process in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on registration.
-Clarify what constitutes an association.
a



a

a
Article 13: Determination of Excise Fees for Registration
-Clarify costs according to the size and scale of NGO with a “Fee Schedule” that varies with size and budget.

a

a

Article 14: Documents for Registering an Association

- Reduce documentation requirements in accordance with the Civil Code.
-Create a tiered registration for registered Associations, with opportunity to register at a local level.
-Clarify the requirement that leaders provide a “profile.”
- The requirement for a letter stating the address of the association’s central office, recognized by the Commune or district chief should be revised so that the Ministry of Interior should notify the commune or district chiefs.
a

a


a

a

a


a

a

Article 15: Documents for Registering a Domestic Non-Governmental Organization
-Change this requirement to a letter disclosing the funds that the organization will deposit in a recognized bank within 30 days of registration.
-Delete the requirement of bank letter.
a

a




a
a

Article 17: Examination of the Application and Response
- Add clear and limited list of grounds for denial of registration.
- Include provision that if Ministry fails to reach a determination within the required time frame, the application is deemed approved.
a


a





a

a

Article 18: Rectification on the Contents and Response

-Specify legal criteria on which applications will be evaluated.
-Provide for right of appeal of denial of registration application.
-Change to “45 working days”
a

a

a


a





a
a

a

Article 21: Conditions for Formation of Alliances of Associations or Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations

-Clarify the definition of “Alliance”
-Clarify that an alliance need not be registered if two NGOs wish to work together on an issue of common concern.
-Create a tiered registration for registered Alliances, with opportunity to register at a local level.
-Modify provison so that international organizations can form alliances with domestic organizations.

a




a





a


a
a


a

a

Article 23: Documents for Registering an Alliance of Associations or Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations

-Registration of Alliances should be voluntary, as member organizations have already fulfilled the registration requirements.
-- Change the requirement that a letter disclosing the funds deposited in a recognized bank to: “a letter disclosing the funds that the organization will deposit within 30 days of registration.”
-Profile should be required of only Director.
-Same concerns as in Article: 14 and 15



a



a
a





a

Article 27: Collaboration Between Associations and Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations

-Clarify that associations and NGOs that do not want to form an alliance may nonetheless still work together on issues of common concern.
-The requirement that MoI be notified when associations or NGOs collaborate should be eliminated.
- Clarify whether it is possible for domestic and foreign NGOs to form Alliances.
-Delete this Article
a






a







a
a



a

a
a


a


a
Article 30: Documents for Requesting a Memorandum Agreement to Be Submitted by Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations
  

- Clearly define “administrative costs”
-Change “budget equivalent” to “estimated budget” to streamline with current Memorandum of Understandings.
- Change the requirement that a letter disclosing the funds deposited in a recognized bank to: “a letter disclosing the funds that the organization will deposit within 30 days of registration.”
- Eliminate the requirement that notice be given of all staff changes. If deemed necessary, the requirement should be amended so that it only applies to changes to management or other key decision-makers.
- Amend to require that applicants have an address, but not necessarily a central office.
-Instead of collaborating with the Ministry, foreign NGOs should be only required to have an agreement with domestic NGO partner.
-Sub decree issued by Ministry or relevant institution to support the program within 10 days after application.

a


a



a






a


a





a

a
a


a



a




a
Article 32: Examination on the Contents of the Documents and Response

- Add clear and limited list of grounds for denial of registration.
- Include provision that if Ministry fails to reach a determination within the required time frame, the application is deemed approved.
-Same recommendations as in Article: 17





a

a

a


a

Article 36: Collaboration Between Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations and Relevant Ministries, Institutions or Authorities
- Need to clarify “collaboration”.
-Change “collaboration” to “inform”
-Delete this article


a



a
a

Article 37: Initial Validity of a Memorandum and Request for Extension
- Amend article to remove re-registration requirement for foreign NGOs. Or change the length to 3-5 years.



a
Article 38: Resources and Properties of Associations or Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations.
-Add to the list of potential resources, “governments” and “The Cambodian Government”


a

Article 39: Resources, Properties and Budget of Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations for Aid Projects or Programs Implementation
-Increase the percentage to 30% of total budget or delete.


a

Article 42:  Rights and Interests of Non-Governmental Organizations
-Clarify tax and other benefits to registered organizations



a
Article 44: Changing of Names and Logos, Amendment of Organizational Charter, Moving of Offices; Rotation, Termination, Dismissal or Removal of Staff, Members, Presidents or Leaders of Associations or Non-Governmental Organizations
- Eliminate the requirement that notice be given of all staff changes. If deemed necessary, the requirement should be amended so that it only applies to changes to management or other key decision-makers.

a

a
a

Article 46: Annual Reports of Associations or Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations or Alliances of Associations and Domestic Non-Governmental Organization

- Propose to move the date to end of March or April, not January.
- Revise article to clarify the reporting obligations of domestic associations/NGOs and alliances; consider a graduated reporting requirement that would exempt smaller organizations from reporting, or at least simplify their reporting obligation. Also, base reports on donor reporting requirements.
-Add that the organization will receive a receipt upon submission of report.
a

a





a
a

a

a

a
a

a

Article 47: Archive of Annual Reports of Associations or Non-Governmental Organizations or Alliances of Associations or Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations
-Reduce requirement to 3 years


a

Article 48: Competency to Examine Financial Reports and Properties of Non-Governmental Organizations and Alliances of Association and Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations
-Include procedures/guidelines for audit such as, two- weeks advance notice of the audit and the requirement to conduct the inspection during regular business hours.
-Should be conducted by an independent auditor.
a
a
a


a
a

Article 49: Activity Postponement or Dissolution of the Association or Domestic Non-Governmental Organization or Alliance of Associations or Domestic Non-Governmental Organizations.
- Refer to Civil Code Articles 64-65 for guidelines on dissolution of entities.
-Provide criteria for evaluating whether postponement or dissolution should be imposed.
-Provide opportunity for appeal.
a


a


a

a


a


a
a

Article 50: Activity Postponement or Memorandum Termination of Foreign Non-Governmental Organizations
-Same concerns and issues in Article 49.
a

a

Article 52: Distribution of Resources and Properties in Case of Dissolution or Memorandum Termination Through the Court’s Final Judgment
-In all instances of dissolution, distribution of assets should be in accordance with organization’s charter and donor guidelines.
a

a

Article 53: Act of Violation of Article 46

- The penalties for foreign NGOs should be reduced to the less severe penalties applied to domestic organizations.
-Incorporate a written warning system for violations.
a


a


a
a

Article 54: Act of Violation of Charter or Memorandum

- Remove the term “serious case”
-Incorporate a warning system for violations.
-Alternatives to criminal sanctions should be provided for, including the revocation of the CSO’s registration, and fines.
a
a

a





a


Article 55: Re-registration of Associations and Domestic Non-Governmental Organization or Alliances of Associations or Domestic Non-Governmental Organization

-Include a requirement that the government provides notice of the duty to reapply.
- Clearly define the basis on which MoI may deny a renewal application.
- Limiting the time MoI has to decide on the renewal application to 45 days, just as is provided for the review of initial registration applications. 
-If an organization is in the process of re-registering, they can continue their activities during the process.
-If there are no changes in an organization’s application to re-register, then the organization should only be required to notify the Ministry.
-Re-registration should be open for 6 months.
a

a


a


a

a










a



a


a


-Incorporate a Glossary of Terms
-Develop explanatory notes for every article
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a





Welcome all comments on this blog