检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:曲兵[1]
机构地区:[1]南京大学历史系
出 处:《欧洲研究》2003年第6期139-149,共11页Chinese Journal of European Studies
摘 要:在英国 ,议会上院被视为不民主的象征 ,改革上院的呼声由来已久。 1997年工党在大选中获胜 ,执政的布莱尔政府即致力于上院的改革。在改革的第一阶段 ( 1997— 2 0 0 1) ,随着《1999年上院法案》的通过 ,绝大多数世袭贵族拥有的作为上院当然议员的特权被取消 ;第二阶段 ( 2 0 0 1年至今 )改革进展缓慢 ,主要政党无法对改革方案达成一致意见 ,只有大法官一职被废除。目前 ,各党派在上院的职能和权力、议员的产生方式、选举或任命的比例等方面存在较大分歧。本文分析了布莱尔政府的上院改革 ,并在阐述上院作用的基础上 ,质疑了上院改革的必要性 ,认为改革必须深思熟虑 。The long campaign of reforming the Lords started as soon as the Labour Party won the general election in 1997.The Blair Government committed itself to the reform of House of Lords. In the first stage of reform (1997-2001), House of Lords Act 1999 removed the rights of most of the hereditary peers to have a seat automatically in Parliament. In the second stage (2001-), the process of reform slowed down because of main parties could not reach an agreement on the objective of the reform. Now parties find it difficult to reach consensus on the functions and powers of Lords, the mode of giving birth to new memberships and the proportion of elected and appointed members. This paper is trying to answer the questions of why the Blair government is promoting the reform of House of Lords and, why Blair changed his attitude towards the reform during the process..
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.200