English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

One integral aspect of the ambivalent profession of social work is maintaining the balance between help and control. Especially in situations in which clients or those around them are endangered, control approaches become not only legitimate, but necessary. Within these measures, social workers have to deal with complex decision-making dilemmas within which different rights are often in conflict with each other. Judges who apply the  principle of proportionality  to resolve conflicts between rights find themselves in similar situations. Using the logical process of analogy, this article presents a proposal regarding how to work with the legal principle of proportionality in the practice of social work. Such a process can help to legitimise the selection of procedures, especially for social workers in countries where codes of ethics in relation to the exercise of control have not been developed. The proposal outlined here can also be used by other social workers in various environments to address the issue of how to deal with conflicts between human rights.

The application of the legal principle of proportionality in the practice of social work