DOCSLIB.ORG

Lok Sabha Secretariat Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lok Sabha Secretariat Bureau of Parliamentary Studies and Training LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT BUREAU OF PARLIAMENTARY STUDIES AND TRAINING 28TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMME IN LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING (14TH FEBRUARY TO 15TH MARCH 2013) LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Sl. No. Country Name Designation Sponsoring Agency 1. Afghanistan Mr. Farid Ahmad Fauheratai Professional Member, National Assembly ITEC of Afghanistan, Ministry of Justice 2. Belarus Mr. Igor Golubitsky Head, Constitutional Legislation ITEC Department, Parliament of Belarus 3. Botswana Mr. Thapelo Jacobs Legal Investigator, Office of the SCAAP Ombudsman, National Assembly of Botswana 4. Chile Mr. Patricio Alberto Lawyer, Chamber of Deputies, ITEC Velasquez Weisse Parliament of Chile 5. Ethiopia Mr. Maeregu Assefa Department Head, Ministry of Justice, ITEC Berihun Government of Ethiopia 6. Fiji Ms. Lyanne Selina Vaurasi Legal Officer, O/o the Attorney General, ITEC Government of Fiji 7. Fiji Mrs. Jeanette Tanari Legal Officer, O/o the Attorney General, ITEC Terubea Government of Fiji 8. Guinea Bissau Mrs. Monica Marley De Sa Criminal Judge, Ministry of Justice, ITEC Nogueira Cooper Government of Guinea Bissau 9. Indonesia Mr. Insan Abdirrohman Staff Member, House of Representatives, ITEC Republic of Indonesia 10. Iraq Mr. Dhyaa Jumaah Jasim Legal Advisor Assistant, Minister Office of ITEC Al-Saedi COR Affairs, Iraq 11. Iraq Mr. Ghassan Shakir Legal Advisor Assistant, Minister Office of ITEC Muhsun Abu-Tabikh COR Affairs, Iraq 12. Kenya Mr. Sheriffsam Mwangangi Legal Counsel, Kenya National Assembly SCAAP Mwendwa 13. Kenya Mr. Denis Osiemo Abisai Legal Counsel, Kenya National Assembly SCAAP 14. Kyrgyzstan Mr. Toktobolot Jumaliev Head of the Information Policy and ITEC International Relations Department, Central Election Commission, Kyrgyzstan 15. Lithuania Mr. Mindaugas Lawyer, Customs Department, ITEC Krikscionaitis Ministry of Finance, Lithuania 16. Lithuania Mrs. Jura Svediene Legal Advisor (Lawyer), ITEC National Audit Office of Lithuania 17. Lithuania Ms. Ramune Mikstaite Lawyer, Public Entity Enterprise Lithuania ITEC Under the Ministry of Economy 18. Maldives Ms. Aishath Shifa Legal Officer, Secretariat of the People’s ITEC Majlis, Maldives 19. Maldives Mr. Hassan Shiyam Senior Legal Counsel, Secretariat of the ITEC Mohamed People’s Majlis, Maldives 20. Myanmar Mr. Thant Zin Assistant Director, Union Attorney ITEC General’s Office, Myanmar 21. Myanmar Ms. Hnin Hnin Oo Head of Section, Director General’s ITEC Office, Office of the Union of Government, Myanmar 22. Myanmar Ms. Swe New Win Junior Staff Officer, Deputy Director ITEC General’s Office, Myanmar 23. Nepal Mr. Krishna Kumar Karki Under Secretary, Financial Comptroller ITEC General Office, Nepal 24. Nigeria Mrs. Vivian Chukwudumebi Research Fellow, Nigerian Institute of SCAAP Madu Advanced Legal Studies, Nigeria 25. Nigeria Mr. Sunusi Musa Senior Legislative Aide, National SCAAP Assembly Service Commission, Nigeria 26. Oman Mrs. Zahra Mohammed Legal Researcher, ITEC Hassan Al Lawati Ministry of Legal Affairs, Oman 27. Oman Mr. Hamdoon Abdullah Legal Researcher, ITEC Hamdoon Al Harthy Ministry of Legal Affairs, Oman 28. Panama Mrs. Patricia Alexandra Legal Secretary, Panama ITEC Quintero Cuevas 29. Palestine Mr. Mohammed F.M. Legal Advisor, Ministry of Interior, ITEC Mahamid Palestine 30. Philippines Ms. Ann Margie Celoso SLSO II, Bill Drafter, ITEC Senate of the Philippines 31. Poland Mr. Michal Jakub Madaj Secretary of the Parliamentary ITEC Committee, Chancellery of the Sejm, Poland 32. Poland Mrs. Ewa Wojnarska- Expert of Legislation, ITEC Krajewska The Bureau of Research, Chancellery of the Sejm, Poland 33. South Africa Mrs. Naritha Panday Legal Manager, Ulundi Municipality, SCAAP South Africa 34. Sri Lanka Mrs. Liyanage Ramani Assistant Director (Administration), CFTC Jayawardena Office of Secretary-General, Parliament of Sri Lanka 35. Sri Lanka Mr. Wasantha Ranjith State Counsel, Attorney General’s ITEC Perera Department, Sri Lanka 36. Sri Lanka Mrs Shehara Weerakoon Senior Assistant Legal Draftsman, ITEC Legal Draftsman Department, Sri Lanka 37. Suriname Mr. Bijaising Khemai Senior Legal Official, Ministry of Finance, ITEC Suriname 38. Tajikistan Ms. Gulbahor Rasulova Teacher, Institute of Economy and Trade ITEC of Tajik State University of Commerce, Tajikistan 39. Tajikistan Ms. Sukhanoro Leading Expert, Parliament of Republic of ITEC Abdumamadova Tajikistan 40. Tanzania Ms. Sabra Mahmoud Iddi Legal Researcher, Zanzibar Law Review SCAAP Commission, Tanzania 41. Tanzania Mr. Zephania Elibariki Legal Officer, Ministry of Industry and SCAAP Msuya Trade, Tanzania 42. Tanzania Ms. Maryam Rashid Ali Legal Officer, Zanzibar House of SCAAP Representatives, Tanzania 43. Tanzania Mr. George Brown Makacha Legal Officer, Kondoa District Council, SCAAP Tanzania 44. Trinidad & Tobago Miss Priya Nandita Pooran Legislative Police Advisor, The Ministry of ITEC the Attorney General, Trinidad & Tobago 45. Uganda Mr. Emmanuel Ninsiima Research Officer, Parliament of Uganda SCAAP 46. Uganda Ms. Caroline Agonzibwa Legal Officer, National Bureau of SCAAP Standards, Uganda 47. Ukraine Mrs. Mariya Burtova Senior Expert of International ITEC Agreements Division, Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine 48. Uzbekistan Mr. Sardor Bozarov Teacher, Islamic Law Department, ITEC Tashkent Islamic University, Uzbekistan 49. Uzbekistan Mr. Olimjon Sobir Senior Researcher, University of World ITEC Economy and Diplomacy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan 50. Vietnam Mrs. Ly Nguyen Le Teacher, Bac Lieu University, Bac Lieu ITEC Province, Vietnam 51. Yemen Mr. Riyadh Mohammed Vice-President, Legal Office in Parliament ITEC Yahya Mesari of Yemen 52. Zimbabwe Ms. Gladys Pise Counsel to Parliament, Parliament of SCAAP Zimbabwe LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT 53. Lok Sabha Mr. Jagdish Chopra Assistant Editor Secretariat 54. Lok Sabha Mr. Rajendra Kumar Security Assistant-I Secretariat STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES OF INDIA 55. Uttarakhand Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore Section Officer, Uttarakhand Legislative Legislative Assembly Secretariat Assembly Secretariat .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 43 Electoral Statistics
    CHAPTER 43 ELECTORAL STATISTICS 43.1 India is a constitutional democracy with a parliamentary system of government, and at the heart of the system is a commitment to hold regular, free and fair elections. These elections determine the composition of the Government, the membership of the two houses of parliament, the state and union territory legislative assemblies, and the Presidency and vice-presidency. Elections are conducted according to the constitutional provisions, supplemented by laws made by Parliament. The major laws are Representation of the People Act, 1950, which mainly deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which deals, in detail, with all aspects of conduct of elections and post election disputes. 43.2 The Election Commission of India is an autonomous, quasi-judiciary constitutional body of India. Its mission is to conduct free and fair elections in India. It was established on 25 January, 1950 under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. Since establishment of Election Commission of India, free and fair elections have been held at regular intervals as per the principles enshrined in the Constitution, Electoral Laws and System. The Constitution of India has vested in the Election Commission of India the superintendence, direction and control of the entire process for conduct of elections to Parliament and Legislature of every State and to the offices of President and Vice- President of India. The Election Commission is headed by the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners. There was just one Chief Election Commissioner till October, 1989. In 1989, two Election Commissioners were appointed, but were removed again in January 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 17. Parliamentary Committee.Pmd
    PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES The work done by the Parliament in modern times is not only varied in nature, but considerable in volume. The time at its disposal is limited. It cannot, therefore, give close consideration to all the legislative and other matters that come up before it. A good deal of its business is, therefore, transacted in Committees of the House, known as Parliamentary Committees. 2. The origin of Committee system in India can be traced back to the Constitutional Reforms of 1919. The Standing Orders of the Central Legislative Assembly provided for a Committee on Petitions relating to Bills, Select Committee on Amendments of Standing Orders, and Select Committee on Bills. There was also a provision for a Public Accounts Committee and a Joint Committee on a Bill. Apart from Committees of the Legislative Assembly, members of both Houses of the Central Legislature also served on the Standing Advisory Committees attached to various Departments of the Government of India. All these Committees were purely advisory in character and functioned under the control of the Government with the Minister-in-charge of the Department acting as the Chairperson of the Committee. 1 3. A Parliamentary Committee means a Committee which is appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker and which works under the direction of the Speaker and presents its report to the House or to the Speaker and the Secretariat for which is provided by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. 4. Parliamentary Committees are of two types: Standing Committees and Ad
    [Show full text]
  • Dissolution of the Lok Sabha
    DISSOLUTION OF THE LOK SABHA Tanusri Prasanna* Introduction The dissolution of the twelfth Lok Sabha on the twenty sixth day of April, 1999, by the President Mr. K.R. Narayanan, and the role of the latter in the intense political decision making preceding the same, have thrown open afresh the debate as to the exact role of the President as envisaged in the Constitution in the matter of dissolution. This paper attempts to analyse this issue in light of various controversial views on the subject. Pre-independence constitutional debates in India were influenced by two models of democratic government: the British Parliamentary system, and the Presidential system of the United States. In the final analysis the British model being closer home, "every instalment of constitutional reform was regarded as a step towards the establishment of a democratic and responsible government as it functioned in Britain."' Thus, it is widely accepted by various scholars that the founding fathers of the Constitution had opted for the parliamentary system of government. Working on this premise, the concepts such as executive decision making as well as delineating limits and laying a system of checks and balances on the different wings of the government as provided by the inherent federal structure, have been debated over and over again. However, when the Constitution actually came into force, a reading of its provisions sparked off a new line of thought as to the very nature of government, and the Presidential model of the United States which had been earlier rejected was now compared and contrasted.2 These discussions and debates were mainly concerned with the respective powers of the President and the Prime minister in the Constitution and in cases where both entities were strong the clash of opinions was soon recognised.
    [Show full text]
  • 45627 WBI DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Public Disclosure Authorized
    45627 WBI DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Public Disclosure Authorized Legislative Oversight Public Disclosure Authorized and Budgeting A World Perspective Editors Rick STAPENHURST Riccardo PELIZZO David M. OLSON Public Disclosure Authorized Lisa von TRAPP Public Disclosure Authorized Legislative Oversight and Budgeting WBI Development Studies Legislative Oversight and Budgeting A World Perspective Rick Stapenhurst, Riccardo Pelizzo, David M. Olson, and Lisa von Trapp, Editors Washington, DC © 2008 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved 1 2 3 4 :: 11 10 09 08 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment / The World Bank. The fi ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily refl ect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the govern- ments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
    [Show full text]
  • Deutscher Bundestag Dor Präsident
    Deutscher Bundestag Dor Präsident Ihrer Exzellenz der Marschallin des Sejm der Republik Polen Frau Ewa Kopacz WARSCHAU REPUBLIK POLEN Berlin, 13. April 2012 Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, Prof. Dr. Norbert Lammert, MdB Platz der Republik 1 ich danke Ihnen und Präsident Bogdan Borusewicz für den mit 11011 Berlin Schreiben vom 29. März 2012 übermittelten zweiten Kompro- Telefon: +49 30 227-72901 Fax: +49 30 227-70945 missvorschlag betreffend die Ausgestaltung der Interparlamen- [email protected] tarischen Konferenz zur Begleitung der Gemeinsamen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und der Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Da wir uns bei meinem Besuch in Warschau vor acht Wochen bereits über die Frage der Delegationsgrößen ausgetauscht ha- ben, wird es Sie nicht überraschen, dass ich der von Ihnen nun vorgeschlagenen freien Teilnehmerformel ("formula of open participation") nicht zustimmen kann. Mit dem Ihnen bereits übermittelten Beschluss des Deutschen Bundestages vom Juni 2011, der nicht nur eine feste, sondern darüber hinaus auch eine nach der Größe der Mitgliedstaaten gestaffelte Zahl von Delegationsmitgliedern aus den nationalen Parlamenten for- dert, ist eine in das Ermessen der jeweiligen Parlamente gestell- te Delegationsgröße nicht vereinbar. Sie haben die bei Ihnen eingegangenen Stellungnahmen aus 32 Kammern zu Ihrem ersten Vorschlag analysiert und stellen in Ihrem Brief vom 29. März 2012 fest, dass die Zahl derer, die auf einer gleichen Delegationsgröße sowohl aus nationalen Parla- menten als auch aus dem Europäischen Parlament beharren, sich mit denen die Waage hält, die sich für Ihren Vorschlag der sechsköpfigen Delegationen aus den nationalen Parlamenten und den 16 Delegierten aus dem EP aussprechen. Eine völlige Freigabe hatte kein Mitgliedsparlament gefordert.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians
    Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Background Study: Professional and Ethical Standards for Parliamentarians Warsaw, 2012 Published by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Ul. Miodowa 10, 00–251 Warsaw, Poland http://www.osce.org/odihr © OSCE/ODIHR 2012, ISBN 978–92–9234–844–1 All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE/ODIHR as the source. Designed by Homework Cover photo of the Hungarian Parliament Building by www.heatheronhertravels.com. Printed by AGENCJA KARO Table of contents Foreword 5 Executive Summary 8 Part One: Preparing to Reform Parliamentary Ethical Standards 13 1.1 Reasons to Regulate Conduct 13 1.2 The Limits of Regulation: Private Life 19 1.3 Immunity for Parliamentarians 20 1.4 The Context for Reform 25 Part Two: Tools for Reforming Ethical Standards 31 2.1 A Code of Conduct 34 2.2 Drafting a Code 38 2.3 Assets and Interests 43 2.4 Allowances, Expenses and Parliamentary Resources 49 2.5 Relations with Lobbyists 51 2.6 Other Areas that may Require Regulation 53 Part Three: Monitoring and Enforcement 60 3.1 Making a Complaint 62 3.2 Investigating Complaints 62 3.3 Penalties for Misconduct 69 3.4 Administrative Costs 71 3.5 Encouraging Compliance 72 3.6 Updating and Reviewing Standards 75 Conclusions 76 Glossary 79 Select Bibliography 81 Foreword The public accountability and political credibility of Parliaments are cornerstone principles, to which all OSCE participating States have subscribed.
    [Show full text]
  • Reps Front Template
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 122nd Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly (Bangkok, Thailand) and bilateral visit to the People’s Republic of China Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation 25 March to 11 April 2010 © Commonwealth of Australia 2010 ISBN 978-0-642-79390-4 printed version For more information about the Australian Parliament visit www.aph.gov.au or contact the International and Community Relations Office: Email: [email protected] Phone: +61 2 6277 4340 Fax: +61 2 6277 2000 Contents Membership of the delegation ............................................................................................................. vi Preface ............................................................................................................................................... vii 1 122nd Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly ........................................................ 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 General debate ........................................................................................................................... 2 Standing committees ................................................................................................................... 3 Emergency item .......................................................................................................................... 4 Special presentations .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 11 Political Science- Legislature- PPT.Pdf
    LEGISLATURE WHY DO WE NEED A PARLIAMENT? *************************** *************************** • Law making is the main • The parliament is the open function of legislature, in forum of debate. modern democracies it is the main source of law. • It is the most representative of all organs of government. • In representative form of democracies the legislatures • The parliament is vested helps the people in holding with the power to choose the representatives and dismiss the accountable. government. • In parliamentary form of • Above all it is the centre of government the legislature all democratic and political controls the cabinet. process. Legislature • BICAMERAL • UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE LEGISLATURE • A legislature having • A legislature having two houses is called only one house is bicameral called unicameral legislature. legislature. • Eg. India,USA • Eg.UK MERITS & DEMERITS MERITS –BICAMERAL DEMERITS-BICAMERAL Bills are passed thoroughly Bills are passed in both the and effectively. Bills are houses. It takes time to passed in favour of public. come to a decision. Not over burden Expensive MERITS & DEMERITS MERITS –UNICAMERAL DEMERITS-UNICAMERAL Bills are passed in one Bills are passed IN HASTE. house. So it takes less time. Over burden Inexpensive PARLIAMENT LOK SABHA(House of RAJYA SABHA(Council of people) states) WHY DO WE NEED TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ? • Countries with large size • In a federation the second and much diversity chamber as the council of usually prefer bicameral states gives legislature, In order to representation to give representation to all different states. regions and sections of • The senior and people. experienced persons can • A bicameral legislature be accommodated makes it possible to have through nomination or every decision indirect elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Achievements of 1St Year of 17Th Lok
    1 Hkkjrh; laln PARLIAMENT OF INDIA 2 PREFACE Indian democracy is the largest working democracy in the world. The identity of our pluralistic society, democratic traditions and principles are deeply rooted in our culture. It is in the backdrop of this rich heritage that India had established itself as a democratic republic after its independence from the colonial rule in the preceding century. Parliament of India is the sanctum sanctorum of our democratic system. Being the symbol of our national unity and sovereignty, this august institution represents our diverse society. Our citizens actively participate in the sacred democratic processes through periodic elections and other democratic means. The elected representatives articulate their hopes and aspirations and through legislations, work diligently, for the national interest and welfare of the people. This keeps our democracy alive and vibrant. In fact, people’s faith in our vibrant democratic institutions depends greatly upon the effectiveness with which the proceedings of the House are conducted. The Chair and the Members, through their collective efforts, give voice to the matters of public importance. In fact, the Lower House, Lok Sabha, under the leadership and guidance of the Hon’ble Speaker, is pivotal to the fulfillment of national efforts for development and public welfare. The 17th Lok Sabha was constituted on 25 May 2019 and its first sitting was held on 17 June 2019. The Hon’ble Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, moved the motion for election of Shri Om Birla as the new Speaker of the Lok Sabha on 19 June 2019, which was seconded by Shri Rajnath Singh.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Ethics Committees
    PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS COMMITTEES QUERY SUMMARY Can you help identify good practice in organising Parliaments have a key role to play in the fight against parliamentary ethics commissions? corruption and the duty to uphold to the highest standards of integrity. In recent years, many countries PURPOSE have established comprehensive ethics regimes to ensure that MPs perform their functions in an ethical Our National Assembly is adopting a code of ethics manner, and that encompasses a code of conduct, and asked for our help in setting up a parliamentary specific ethic rules detailing the requirement to fulfil ethics committee. the code and a regulatory institution to enforce these rules. CONTENT The institution charged with monitoring and enforcing 1 Parliamentary ethics: role and organisation of the code is a key contributing factor to its oversight bodies effectiveness. There are three major approaches to 2 Country examples enforcement, including: self-regulation – the 3 References regulatory body is created within the legislature, such as in Poland and Ireland; external regulation – an \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ external body, independent from the legislature, is created; a combination of both – elements of self- Author(s): regulations are combined with an external, Marie Chêne, [email protected] independent regulatory body, such as in France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Date: 25 November 2016 © 2016 Transparency International. All rights reserved. This document should not be considered as representative of the Commission or Transparency International’s official position. Neither the European Commission,Transparency International nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
    [Show full text]
  • Models of Bicameral Parliaments. a Comparative Approach a Comparative Parliaments
    POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND ACTIVITIES AND INSTITUTIONS POLITICAL Zbigniew Machelski Models of bicameral parliaments. A comparative approach Regardless of any structural properties “chambers of reflection” that were to ensure and internal differences (unicameralism vs. full optimisation and high standard of the bicameralism), the parliament defines the legislative process. This is a reference to the formal framework within which other or- tradition of the Republican Rome, whose Se- ganisations and institutions in society are to natus (literally council of elders) has become operate. The aim of the article is not so much a nearly universally recognised role model1. to analyse but to classify bicameralism. Each The reference to tradition is important, but classification has its strengths and weakness- it does not explain all contemporary polit- es. First, as in the case of most tools used in ical phenomena, which are the domain of comparative methods, it carries with it a risk political science. Studies conducted in the of simplifications, without which, howev- mid-1990s confirmed that 126 legislatures er, formal modelling is impossible. Second, in various geographical regions of the world making comparisons is associated with easy were unicameral, while 56 were bicameral2. manipulation of some variables. This often In the initially bicameral system, unicamer- stems from political scientists’ own prej- alism has clearly become dominant. udice, when they try to examine political The discussion about the sense of the phenomena in accordance with their own bicameral system keeps coming back from preferences. In analyses of bicameralism, time to time, also in Poland3. Critics of bi- this is manifested in a tendency to attribute cameralism are trying to demonstrate that rationality only in the case of federal or large the bicameral structure of the parliament is states.
    [Show full text]
  • Activities of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 2008
    Activities of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 2008 Inter-Parliamentary Union – 2009 Table of contents Foreword 04-05 Working for better democracies 06-09 Parliaments and reconciliation Oversight of the security sector Engaging with the United Nations 10-13 UN Member States endorse closer parliamentary involvement Development cooperation Annual parliamentary hearing Human trafficking Trade and development Children Development and the Millennium Development Goals 14-17 Poverty reduction Maternal and Newborn Health: Parliamentary action and MDGs 4 and 5 HIV and AIDS Development financing Climate change Defending Human Rights 18-23 Cases making decisive progress Situations of particular concern to the Committee Other activities 2 ACTIVITIES REPORT Women in politics 24-27 Supporting parliaments in countries with poor female representation Support to women in post-conflict countries Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) CEDAW Annual seminar Research Violence against women Technical cooperation projects 28-31 Description of projects Global mapping of legislative strengthening programmes Disseminating information 32-34 Internet Publications Library and research services Annex 36-55 3 INTER -P ARLIAMENTARY UNION Foreword For the IPU, the year 2008 began and ended with all eyes on the Middle East. In January, the President paid an official visit to Jerusalem and Ramallah for talks with the leaders of the Israeli and Palestinian Parliaments and Governments. The Committee on Middle East Questions visited the region a few months later to make plans to re-start direct dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian lawmakers. During the 118 th Assembly, the IPU governing bodies decided to make the statutory changes that would permit the Parliament of Palestine to become a full member of the Organization.
    [Show full text]