Right Of Petition Research Articles

Sejmowa Komisja do Spraw Petycji – podstawy prawne i praktyka funkcjonowania

The article is intended to present the procedural solutions adopted in the Polish Sejm’s Rules of Procedure, the purpose of which was to specify in detail the procedure for hearing petitions in the Sejm, and thus to put the constitutional right of petition into effect. The author refers to historical attempts to statutorily regulate the petition hearing procedure. Remarks on the current statutory basis for filing petitions with the Sejm and the rules on consideration of petitions by the Sejm bodies – the Marshal of the Sejm and the Petitions Committee, are presented in the context of parliamentary practice during recent years. The author presents statistical data on petitions submitted for consideration by the Petitions Committee and the most frequently used manners of processing them in the practice of petition handling. Comments for the law as it should stand regarding the procedure for hearing petitions in the Sejm, which have been the subject of consideration in recent years, are also presented.

Prawo petycji do parlamentu Republiki Federalnej Niemiec

Petitioning the Parliament in the Federal Republic of Germany is seen as one of the fundamental rights. The article provides an analysis of the right of petition specified expressly in Article 17 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany which authorizes “everyone” to address written “requests” or “complaints” to “competent authorities” and to the “representation of the nation”. The right of petition is also provides all constitutions of the Länder. Petition is a request or complaint made on one’s own behalf, for third parties or in the general interest. Request is demand and proposal for act or omission by organs of state, authorities or other institutions discharging public functions. In particular it may include proposal for legislation. Complaint shall consist in objection to act and omission by organs of state, authorities or other institutions discharging public functions. It should be emphasized that there are different types of petitions: multiple petitions, collective petitions, mass petitions and public petitions. Public petition is a new form of a petition in the 21st century. It may be submitted to the Petitions Committee by anyone, either individually or jointly with others, using the form provided. Public petitions are published on the Petitions Committee’s webpage. Every natural person and every legal person under private law resident in Germany has the right of petition. The right of petition can be restricted for members of the armed forces. The right of petition does not depend on the one’s personal circumstances, such as nationality. Even legal capacity is not required in order to exercise the right of petition, however the petitioner have to express his concern intelligibly. Article 45c of the Basic Law obliges the Bundestag to appoint a Petitions Committee to deal with petitions addressed to the Bundestag. “A Law on the Powers of the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag of 19 July 1975”, “Rules of Procedure of the German Bundestag” and “Principles of the Petitions Committee governing the Treatment of Requests and Complaints of 8 March 1989” regulate the committee’s powers. The Petitions Committee can in particular: request comments from the Federal Government and hear government representatives, require official bodies to provide it with files, visit federal institutions. The Petitions Committee cannot intervene in conflicts between individual citizens under private law, it also cannot review court judgments or other court decisions. As soon as the facts of the case raised by a petition have been clarified and the legal situation has been assessed, the Petitions Committee presents a recommendation for a resolution on how the petition should be dealt with conclusively before the plenary of the Bundestag. The recommendation as to how the Bundestag should deal with a petition conclusively may include in particular: referral to the Federal Government for remedial action or for reexamination, referral as background material, forwarding to the European Parliament. Once the resolution has been adopted by the plenary, the petitioner is sent an official reply setting out the decision reached and the grounds on which it was taken.

The right of petition and the typological forms of petition in Mexico's tax matter

The following paper analyzes one of the most important freedoms in any nation that deigns to be a Rule of Law: The Right of Petition. Considered as a subjective right of a public nature, it will be analyzed through the main legal norms that regulate it in Mexico, as well as the response time and the agreements due to notification that the authority must issue to complete and fully respect the exercise of this right.

Causal inference and American political development: the case of the gag rule

We investigate the “gag rule”, a parliamentary device that from 1836 to 1844 barred the US House of Representatives from receiving petitions concerning the abolition of slavery. In the mid-1830s, the gag rule emerged as a partisan strategy to keep slavery off the congressional agenda, amid growing abolitionist agitation in the North. Very quickly, however, the strategy backfired, as the gag rule was framed successfully as a mechanism that encroached on white northerners’ rights of petition. By 1844, popular pressure had become so great that many northern Democrats, an important bloc of prior gag rule supporters, yielded to electoral pressure, broke party ranks, and voted to rescind the rule, thereby sealing its fate. More generally, the politics of the gag rule provide an interesting causal-inference case study of the interplay between social movement development and congressional politics before the Civil War.

La sanción disciplinaria por no respuesta oportuna al derecho de petición

El Derecho de Petición bien puede ser tomado como una de las formas más comunes y efectivas para que las personas interactúen con el Estado y además es el punto de partida para dar inicio a la actuación administrativa general. Ahora bien, de parte de la administración se convierte en una obligación legal responder las peticiones de acuerdo al término establecido en el artículo 14 del Código de Procedimiento Administrativo y de lo Contencioso Administrativo, sustituido por la ley estatutaria 1755 de 2015, convirtiéndose además en una falta de tipo disciplinario para el servidor público o contratista del Estado que hasta la expedición de la ley 1755, se trataba como falta gravísima.
 Pese a que por disposición legal se debe aplicar sanción ante la no respuesta oportuna de un derecho de petición ¿realmente se sanciona a los servidores públicos por esta falta?, ¿es la medida correcta para prevenir la vulneración de este derecho? En la práctica se observa que la medida no resulta efectiva ni tampoco eficaz dada la gran cantidad de peticiones no respondidas y, además, el gran número de tutelas presentadas ante la violación de este derecho fundamental. Inclusive, ¿Qué pasa cuando la inatención a un derecho de petición proviene de un contratista del Estado?, ¿se sanciona la falta?, ¿es igualmente eficaz la medida contra un particular que temporalmente presta servicios a la administración?
 Se trata de idoneidad, de efectividad y aplicabilidad de la sanción disciplinaria frente a la no respuesta oportuna a los derechos de petición, desde un punto de vista crítico, pero en especial práctico, del diario vivir de la administración pública.

Parlamento y participación ciudadana

En las últimas décadas, desde la aprobación de la Constitución hace 40 años, han surgido amplias demandas de una mayor transparencia y una mayor participación en la elaboración de las políticas públicas. La crisis de representación ha hecho que los gobiernos vieran las políticas de transparencia y participación como forma de restaurar la confianza pública. La Constitución de 1978 incorporó formas de participación en el parlamento tales como la Iniciativa Legislativa Popular o el derecho de petición. Desde entonces, muchos parlamentos nacionales, así como muchas asambleas legislativas de las Comunidades Autónomas utilizan herramientas de participación ciudadana. Estos mecanismos ayudan a fortalecer la institución representativa.

Origin of petition right and improvement direction of Korean petition act

Origin of petition right and improvement direction of Korean petition act

Principio de reserva de ley en Colombia a partir del análisis de tributos municipales. caso municipios de Caldas

El presente artículo analiza el principio de reserva de ley en Colombia desde los tributos territoriales; este principio exige que los tributos puedan darse sólo con la existencia de una ley que lo determine. Para tal fin, se estudiaron los estatutos de renta de los municipios del departamento de Caldas, remitidos por ellos, en respuesta a derecho de petición entre abril y mayo de 2015 y se determinó el cumplimiento de este principio en cada uno de los tributos decretados a esta fecha; este era el objetivo. Se abordan temas como la tributación en Colombia, el principio de reserva de ley y el principio de legalidad, la potestad tributaria, acciones a emprender por parte de los contribuyentes frente a la existencia de tributos sin respaldo legal, se relacionan los tributos cobrados y que no están respaldados por una ley. Entre los principales resultados, se encuentra que algunos municipios cobran tributos que no están respaldados por una ley, por lo que se puede determinar, que estos tributos no cumplen con el principio de reserva de ley.

A “class of Citizens”: The Earliest Black Petitioners to Congress and Their Quaker Allies

Four former slaves from North Carolina became the first African Americans to petition Congress in 1797. In the winter of 1799–1800, two of these black activists joined sixty-nine others in a second petition. Scholars have long recognized the symbolic importance of these petitions, but their background, creation, and reception remain poorly understood. Historians generally frame them in negative terms, mistakenly assuming that white abolitionists did not support the black petitioners and incorrectly asserting that Congress determined African Americans lacked the First Amendment right of petition. This article reevaluates the efforts and influence of these early black petitioners by drawing on previously unused manuscript evidence, including rough drafts of both petitions and congressional committee reports. The former slaves found allies in Philadelphia’s autonomous black institutions and the Quakers’ Philadelphia Meeting for Sufferings. Moreover, the House of Representatives formally received the second petition and addressed some of the black activists’ concerns by both passing the Slave Trade Act of 1800 and defeating or modifying proposals that would have eroded the rights of free black citizens. These episodes demonstrate the early abolitionist movement’s interracial character and political influence despite racial prejudice and the Constitution’s proslavery provisions.

Gross v Switzerland: Application no 67810/10: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber): Casadevall, Villiger, Gyulumyan, Bianku, Popovi , Power-Forde, De Gaetano, Jaderblom, Silvis JJ; Spielmann (President), Ziemele, Berro-Lefevre, Zupan i , Hajiyev, Tsotsoria, Sicilianos, and Keller JJ dissenting: 30 September 2014

Human rights – Respect for private life – Suicide – Medical treatment – Medicines – Applicant having expressed persistent, reasoned wish to die – Whether depriving applicant of sodium pentobarbitol breached her right to respect for private life – Chamber judgment having been given in applicant’s favour on 14 May 2013 – Court subsequently being informed applicant had died in 2011 – Applicant having taken steps to prevent her death being communicated by intermediary to her counsel and to the court – Whether applicant’s conduct an abuse of the right of petition to the court – European Convention on Human Rights art 35

The Referendum Process in Maryland: Balancing Respect For Representative Government with the Right to Direct Democracy

This article will examine the Maryland referendum petition process to determine whether any changes in the current law should or could be made. This includes whether the legislature should reverse the holding in Whitley, whether it should add additional requirements to and restrictions on the signature gathering process, and whether the percentage of voters needed for a successful challenge should be increased.First, as a matter of policy, should the law be changed? For example, does it strike the proper balance between respect for the legislative process and allowing for more voices in legislative matters by the public at large? Does it provide the right balance between protecting against fraudulent petition signatures and making the process so difficult as to be virtually impossible to get a referendum on the ballot?Second, do any proposed changes to the process have the potential to be in violation of the United States Constitution? The Supreme Court has held that overly onerous regulation of the petition process can, in some cases. infringe on the First Amendment rights of petition circulators.And finally, as to proposed changes that might be both beneficial and constitutional, as a political matter, do they have any significant chance of passage? Some of the proposed changes could be implemented by normal legislative action. However, some of the proposals would require amending the Maryland Constitution, which could be considerably more difficult, requiring a three-fifths vote of both houses of the legislature and approval by the voters.Section II of this article will explain the history of the Maryland referendum process and put it into context with similar provisions in other states. Section III will describe the Whitley case and its effect on the legality of the computer-assisted signature-gathering process in Maryland. Section IV will examine some of the proposed changes to the process by looking at their wisdom as a matter of policy, any federal constitutional problems they might raise, and whether they might be politically feasible to implement.

Road to Nowhere: Hong Kong's Democratisation and China's Obligations Under Public International Law

Does public international law have anything to say about how Hong Kong's Chief Executive should be chosen? The Hong Kong and Beijing Governments have framed the debate on electoral reforms for 2017 purely in terms of domestic law. They reject the relevance of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and have rebuffed any role for the United Kingdom under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 (Joint Declaration). In so doing, they seek to justify Beijing's insistence on powers of veto over nomination and appointment of the Chief Executive. However, an analysis purely in terms of domestic law is incomplete. Despite the insistence of the Hong Kong and Beijing Governments, international law has a role to play in the debate over Chief Executive electoral reform. Beijing’s commitments with respect to Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration, including the continued application of parts of the ICCPR to Hong Kong, preclude it from filtering Chief Executive candidates by political views. Emergent norms of customary international law are not only relevant to the interpretation of the Joint Declaration and ICCPR, but may also provide a freestanding basis to challenge the pre-ordination of candidates for Chief Executive. The state of the current debate, and China's long-standing efforts to frustrate democratic development in Hong Kong, show that it has not complied with its international law obligations. However, in the absence of individual rights of petition to the Human Rights Committee and in the absence of International Court of Justice compulsory jurisdiction, the prospects for enforcement of these obligations are bleak.

“Partizipationsrecht“ – Ein Plädoyer für eine eigene juristische Kategorie

<bold>“Law of Participation” – A Plea for a domestic legal category</bold> The populations’ readiness to leave decision-making to representative organs has receded significantly in the last years. Yet the people’s willingness to participate in public decisions has increased over the same period, especially when decisions affect their personal habitat and when it comes to “comprehensible” projects. Not only the controversial infrastructure project “Stuttgart 21” but also many smaller projects at regional level prove that trend. The increasing demand for participation has resulted in the need for a stronger development of the Law of Participation as its own legal category. The definition of participation by political and social science serves as the basis for a legal concept of participation in this study. This implies the citizen (Subject of Participation), who voluntarily seeks active control (Action of Participation) relating to political decisions (Object of Participation). Furthermore the legal definition of participation includes only sovereign decisions and (as distinct from classical electoral law) punctual participation with regard to chronological and topical issues. The character of an independent legal category calls for a normative basis. That is why informal instruments need to be excluded. Finally, a legal term requires that the instruments of participation law trigger concrete legal consequences which could only be fulfilled by procedural aspects. In conclusion, the law of participation could be defined as “the sum of all norms, which grant natural and legal persons, apart from their subjective rights, the possibility of initiating or influencing sovereign decisions that are connected to factual and exceptional personal issues without acting sovereign and professional. The action must in this regard to be linked to legal consequences.” From the definition follows an area of application that is still relatively diverse. This area especially includes rights of petition and proposal, claims of information, all public participation procedures in administrative and public planning law, and in all areas of direct democracy meaning on national and municipal level. It is then possible to identify joint functions in the field of participation law which could be divided two groups: Democracy and the rule of law. Belonging to democracy are the functions of legitimation, of acceptance, of control, of transparency, and of equalization. Attributed to the rule of law are the functions of quality and fundamental rights.

Risking one’s life to petition the authorities: The black jail industry in China

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)In order to pave the way for the reporting of complaints from civil society, China has set up the of Letters and system (ftiEiu xin- fangju). Chinese citizens can bring disputes they are having with the public authorities to be heard by this institution, and cases may even be heard in Beijing at the National Bureau of Letters and Calls, where hundreds of peti- tioners from all over the country present their grievances on a daily basis. It is clearly a complex situation, because the comings and goings of unhappy petitioners - often in a procession - creates a risk to social stability.This being the case, ingenious entrepreneurs have developed an industry that in- volves intercepting the petitioners. One recent case saw the sentencing of a number of criminals who were found guilty of having set up practices concerning these activities. Press articles commenting on the case help pro- vide an understanding as to how this new economic activity operates.Unauthorised petitionsThe Chinese government classifies the it receives into two sep- arate categories: authorised petitions (IE^±iE zhengchangshangfang) and petitions (^kIE^±iE feizhengchangshangfang), the first being allowed by law while the second are not. Di Yingqi, M law profes- sor at the Henan University of Finance, Economics, and Law, explains that local governments have identified three types of unauthorised petitions, which are described as disturbing, disruptive, or illegal (utEn HtE' ±TE chanfang, naofang, feifa shangfang).Yet none of these descriptions meets specific legal criteria, creating a vagueness that gives the government a great deal of discretionary power.Consequently, the public authorities can contest the legitimacy of a petition, and there is no legal route of appeal against the administrative decision reached. However, as Di Yingqi notes, the right of petition is important to the development of China, and should, on the contrary, be subject to increased protection. What makes this dis- cretionary power more dangerous still is the fact that unauthorised are, in certain cases, punishable by re-education through labour.!5)The Wang Gaowei caseThe Wang Gaowei case recently caused much ink to flow in China, because it shed light on the practices of an industry linked to the petitioning system. As Tian Cheng reported in Nanfang Zhoumo, Wang Gaowei, a peas- ant originally from Henan Province, opened a services company in Beijing whose business was to apprehend petitioners from his province of origin. The Beijing police broke up his network in December 2012, and Wang and his accomplices were handed prison terms in March 2013.According to Tian Cheng, Wang Gaowei had entered into business with Bai Rongxing, an official from the Bureau of Letters and Calls of his city, who had been sent to Beijing by his employers to stop petitioners there. The trial of Wang and Bai produced a great deal of commentary, and offers unique insight into the operation of this activity, with its quite distinctive Chinese flavour.Examining the workings of this company in greater detail, Tian Chen re- ports on the existence of an official document held by Wang Gaowei, which explained the procedure to follow in the event of and dis- ruptive in Beijing. This text, which dates back to 2008 and was produced by the public authorities of the Xuchang Shi Black jailsThe work of intercepting and detaining petitioners on their way to Beijing is rarely carried out by police officers, and is usually the result of entrepre- neurial activity. …

The Application of Institute of Right to Petition in Lithuania – Trends and Experience

The right to petition is one of the measures to identify citizens participation in legislative process. On one hand this article is aimed at giving a retrospective view of the implementation of right to petition in Lithuania. On the other hand, its aim is to identify general trends of application of petition institute in Lithuania. The research is grounded on the social researches which were carried out during the years of 2004 – 2012. It is also based on the work experience of Commission of Petitions in Lithuania’s Parliament. The research shows that the right to petition is more effective to individual persons compared to other regulations in the field of legislative initiatives. The analysis confirms assumption that citizens have a different conception of right to petition than it is formulated in Lithuania’s Law on Petitions. Petitions are perceived as one of the instruments to express their opinion, but not as an instrument of legislative initiatives. This situation requires one of the possible solutions - either to make a regulatory change, or to implement educational programs that enable people to use the right of petition more effectively. The data of work experience of Commission of Petitions in national Parliament shows that legal awareness of applicant is increasing, but also observed a negative trend to abuse a right to petition. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ppaa.12.3.5288

Samoa on the World Stage: Petitions and Peoples before the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations

One of the innovative aspects of the mandates system of the League of Nations, the oversight regime applied to the former German and Ottoman territories seized by the Allied Powers in the First World War, was that it included a right of petition. Inhabitants of any territory governed under mandate, or any interested outsider, could petition the League of Nations if they believed that the stipulations laid down in Article 22 of the League Covenant or in particular mandate texts were being violated. This article explores the origins, development, politics and scope of the practice of petitioning under the mandates system, arguing that it was much more significant, extensive and consequential than has previously been recognised. Petitions rarely offered petitioners redress; instead, they made visible the assumptions about racial and civilisational hierarchies, and the realities of power, on which the system was based. Yet petitions were not only revelatory of political relations but also altered those relations in turn, as petitioners used the opportunity of appeal to learn the skills of claim-making, international lobbying and political mobilisation. The article looks closely at one dramatic case—that of the mass movement against New Zealand's administration of the mandated territory Western Samoa in the late 1920s, which involved numerous petitions to the League—to illustrate these points.

Des formes de la protestation politique (France, XVIIe – XIXe siècles)

The forms of protest that women occasionally adopted express a social and political assertion. Generally, they borrowed forms in circulation: civil procedures for the grievances under the ancient regime, declarations of human rights during the French revolution. After the Revolution, the adoption by women of the right of petition to the constituted powers is a massive phenomenon remaining practically unknown and little studied. The petitions of women are ancient demonstrations which are not only related to modern history; they are comparable with the ‘voices’ described by Hirschman and Boltanski. By marking out the political history of the modern period, they have an explanatory significance for political events and also contribute to the formation of public opinion.

The Evolution of the Right of Individuals to Seise the European Court of Human Rights

In at least two ways the year 2009 was a milestone for the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the Court). On the bright side, the Court could celebrate its 50th anniversary and its continuous role as principal promoter of human rights in the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe (CoE, the Council). However, 2009 was also the year in which the number of pending cases before the Court passed the disturbing 100 000 benchmark. Paradoxically, the main reason for both the Court’s success and its current crisis is the right of petition of individuals. The present article contains a detailed inquiry into the coming into existence of this central feature of the control machinery of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR, the Convention) that was labeled a breakthrough in the field of human rights as well as in general international law. Parts I-IV of the article provide a chronological account of the drafting processes leading up to the adoption of the ECHR in 1950, and Protocol 9 in 1990. In analysis of reports and meeting minutes from a number of organs set up in the realm of the Council, the study concentrates on two main questions: Why did the original Convention end up excluding individuals from the proceedings of the ECtHR? And what changed in the time between 1950 and 1990 to facilitate the individual’s right to seise the Court independently? As parts I-IV reveal, the development of the ECHR control machinery provides an interesting example of the interplay – or rather lack of same – between the practical decision-making among the parties to a convention and international legal theory. Part V reflects on the extent to which the theoretical discussion on the position of individuals in international law influenced the evolution of the right of individuals to seise the ECtHR.

Formación en valores: una alternativa para construir ciudadania

The brief historical journey that opens this article serves as a point of departure to address the subsequent issues, such as improving education of values, recuperate those values that are indispensable for the construction of citizenship, knowing and defending fundamental liberties of belief, expression, publication, association, manifestation and civilized protest, and the right of petition. Directives and coordinates of citizen formation are personal dignity, liberty and justice, among other values. Without loosing sight of the axiological models of the old continent, the article reflects about Latin-American ethnic thought and its immense possibilities for the construction of a new person with essentially human values, which is only achieved through education geared towards freedom, and development of ethical-moral potentialities that lead to a authentic formation; thus ethics and axiology in Latin America are enriched with relevant proposals by experts that aim for an education of values in accordance with the being and Latin-American idiosyncrasies.

The politics of regicide in England, 1760-1850: troublesome subjects

This study appraises the often complex relationship between British monarchs and some of their more troublesome subjects in the age of revolutions. By exposing a rationale behind the efforts of the mad and the politically disaffected to intrude upon, assault or pester kings and queens from George III to Victoria, the author casts light upon the contested languages of constitutionalism, contract theory and the rights of petition. The Hanoverian dynasty sought security from republicanism during the 1790s by reinventing itself as an affable, domestic, flexible and solicitous institution. But majesty and approachability were to prove uneasy bedfellows, and popular frustrations over unanswered petitions could provoke serious personal moments of crisis. In its detailed reconstruction of the mentalities of such unsuccessful and forgotten Royal assassins as Margaret Nicholson, James Hadfield, and Dennis Collins, this study of monarchical history from below should interest the specialist and general reader.