|Footprints of the 20th Century - Third Edition|
F.A.M. Alting von Geusau
The story of European Unification is fascinating. In 1950, two sworn enemies – France and Germany – decide to seek reconciliation and European federal unity. As a first step, they created the European Coal and Steel Community together with Italy and the Benelux countries. The fathers of this new Europe were visionary persons. Does today`s student or scholar still know who Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi or Willem Beyen were and what they stood for? At the time, the United Kingdom refused the invitation to join such a federal project. Under American pressure they asked for admission in 1961, entered in 1973 without ever accepting the federal project and decided to leave in March 2017 after a small majority voted for Brexit in June 2016. What began as a process of reconciliation between two enemies – France and Germany – became a peaceful enlargement of the European Union to twenty-eight Member States. The division of Europe between a Soviet dominated East and a Euro-Atlantic West is no more. This volume not only tells a success story. It also makes us understand why after more than sixty years the Germans lack the solidarity and the French the political vision to turn the Euro-crisis into true progress towards unity. Against the background of Europe`s long and turbulent history, this book may also help to understand why it is so difficult to overcome nationalism and to practice the virtue of solidarity so central to the Christian source of Europe as a civilization. Since the successful and peaceful revolution in 1989 ended the division of Europe and the bipolar nuclear stalemate, we collectively entered the brave new world of organised forgetting. Nevertheless, the footprints of that past century are still all around. This series is intended to identify, to explain and to remember, because the more things are said to change, the more things appear to remain the same. We must therefore learn from history if only to avoid repeating a few of the blunders of the past century. Prof. Jhr.Dr. Frans A.M.Alting von Geusau (1933) is professor (em.) of International Law and Western Cooperation at Tilburg University and Leiden University.
|Footprints of the 20th Century - Third Edition|
F.A.M. Alting von Geusau
For the study of international relations, knowledge of the history of Western Cooperation in the Twentieth Century is essential. The third volume reviews the broader history from America’s entry in the First World War in 1917 and the start of the American Era in international relations one hundred years ago, to the inauguration of President Trump in 2017.
The American Era in world politics may well have come to its final end, when US President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May agreed to build a new special, bilateral relationship on “America First” and “Global Britain”. The Atlantic Charter (1941) founded the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain, for that purpose. In reality, the special relationship was instrumental in creating the system of successful Western cooperation, characterized by new multilateral institutions – exactly the opposite of what President Trump and Prime Minister May had in mind for their special bilateral relationship, when they met in January 2017.
This volume on “Western Cooperation” deals with the American era in world politics, characterised by the creation of such international institutions as the League of Nations, the United Nations, ILO, IBRD, IMF and UNESCO. NATO, the principal subject of Part II in this volume, was considered to be the cornerstone of the Alliance of democracies since the onset of the Cold War.
In Part II, developments are examined in a circumscribed period – from the outbreak of the First World War in July 1914 to the celebration of NATO’s Sixtieth Anniversary on 4 April 2009, and the New Epilogue covers until the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States in January 2017.
Since the successful and peaceful revolution in 1989 ended the division of Europe and the bipolar nuclear stalemate, we collectively entered the brave new world of organised forgetting. Nevertheless, the footprints of that past century are still all around. This series is intended to identify, to explain and to remember, because the more things are said to change, the more things appear to remain the same. We must therefore learn from history if only to avoid repeating a few of the blunders of the past century.
Prof. Jhr.Dr. Frans A.M. Alting von Geusau (1933) is professor (em.) of International Law and Western Cooperation at Tilburg University and Leiden University.
|Footprints of the 20th Century - Third Edition |
F.A.M. Alting von Geusau
Since 1989, we refer to the whole post-war period as the “Cold War Era”. Such was not the case in 1968. At the time, the Cold War – in our perception – was behind us. We no longer felt to be in the midst of it. Europeans on the Western side of the Iron Curtain0 felt relatively at ease with Europe’s division. The era of Détente as we called it, was0 considered to be a fairly stable and long-lasting political condition, even after Soviet tanks crushed Dubcek’s socialism with a human face in Prague.
A strange year it was… 1968. Academic interest was focused on the war in Vietnam, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the French Gaullist challenge to the European Communities and the student revolt in Paris. The Western democracies promoted the process of détente on the basis of three political illusions. They assumed that common institutions between East and West would generate a sense of common interest in European security, facilitating negotiated solutions of outstanding problems. They expected East-West economic cooperation to promote reform from above in the East, towards more open societies. They hoped to foster democracy and respect for human
rights through cooperation in the cultural and human dimension. By 1989 all three of them had proven to be illusions. The end of the Soviet system came as a complete surprise to most politicians and to all Western advocates of détente in the Nineteen Eighties. The so-called dissidents won a peaceful victory over the one-party, repressive regimes in the East and helped to end the post-war division of Europe. Obviously, neither the (now former) communists nor the advocates of détente ever admitted their wrong. So they went all into the business of proclaiming a new era as a continuation of the old one. The greatest catastrophe of the Twentieth Century was Lenin`s creation of totalitarian Soviet Russia at the end of the Great War and not its collapse at the end0 of the Cold War, as president Putin said in 2005. This volume particularly challenges the past illusions of détente and the present approach of organized forgetting the past.
Since the successful and peaceful revolution in 1989 ended the division of Europe and the bipolar nuclear stalemate, we collectively entered the brave new world of organised forgetting. Nevertheless, the footprints of that past century are still all around. This0 series is intended to identify, to explain and to remember, because the more things are0 said to change, the more things appear to remain the same. We must therefore learn from history if only to avoid repeating a few of the blunders of the past century.
Prof. Jhr.Dr. Frans A.M.Alting von Geusau (1933) is professor (em.) of International Law and Western Cooperation at Tilburg University and Leiden University.
|Volume I - Cultural Diplomacy: Waging War by other Means|
F.A.M. Alting von Geusau
The peaceful collapse of the Soviet totalitarian, communist system has been a watershed of historic proportions in Europe and the world. In 1989, unexpectedly, Communism and the Cold War were behind us, they were bad and should be forgotten. The immediate post-1989 world presented itself as a new era of organised forgetting, as neither East nor West were interested in examining the prolonged period of acquiescence in absurdities. The Berlin Wall, paramount symbol of absurdity, had to be erased from the face of the earth and the memory of the people. Only much later have we become aware how much the heritage of repression and division still dominates our thinking. The principal organisations of Western and European cooperation have been enlarged Eastward, but the fruits of peaceful, spiritual revolution have turned sour. Far too little has changed for the better and far too many old habits have survived. For the question asked in this volume: Is bilateral cultural diplomacy waging war with other means? There still is no good answer. The surprise of 1989 has apparently paralyzed policies thereafter. Despite resounding declarations and non-binding resolutions on a new order, there was no vision, no strategy and no clear purpose. The basic approach was “more of the same”. Cultural diplomacy had no priority and budgets were cut in Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Since the successful and peaceful revolution in 1989 ended the division of Europe and the bipolar nuclear stalemate, we collectively entered the brave new world of organised forgetting. Nevertheless, the footprints of that past century are still all around. This series is intended to identify, to explain and to remember, because the more things are said to change, the more things appear to remain the same. We must therefore learn from history if only to avoid repeating a few of the blunders of the past century. Prof. Jhr.Dr. Frans A.M.Alting von Geusau (1933) is professor (em.) of International Law and Western Cooperation at Tilburg University and Leiden University.
|WTO Law on Export Restrictions on Trade in Goods|
Kelly Kuan Shang
This book examines a theoretical question which has been heavily debated due to its social relevance: is current WTO law sufficient to regulate export restrictions? This book systematically reviews the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning export restrictions, guided by the principles of treaty interpretation and the WTO case law. Possibly contrary to the predominant view, this book respectfully submits that current WTO law is sufficient in regulating export restrictions; it is also capable of balancing the general disciplines of export restrictions and the various non-trade values. A highlight of this book is its use of a range of case studies. These case studies deal with, inter alia, Hong Kong’s export ban of baby milk formula, the European Union’s economic sanctions against Russia, as well as New Zealand’s export quality requirement for wine, single export desk requirement for kiwifruits, and export ban of certain minerals with spiritual values. Analysis of these case studies revealed several underexplored types of export restrictions, and further demonstrated the possible relevance of a number of WTO provisions which have not yet been invoked before the WTO adjudicators. Kelly Kuan Shang is a PhD Researcher at Maastricht University. She received a JD from the University of Hong Kong (St John’s College). She is admitted to practice law in Australia and New Zealand. Her research interests are international trade law and public international law.
|The WTO Dispute Settlement System as a Legal Impediment to Iran’s Accession to the WTO|
While Iran already applied in 1996 for accession to the World Trade Organization, it is not a WTO Member yet. There are several factors which have contributed to the prolongation of Iran’s accession process. They are mostly not related to trade issues. Important among these non-trade related factors is a legal impediment that originates from a conflict between Iran’s Constitution and the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding. It is this legal impediment, and how it can be overcome by using Iran’s domestic law mechanisms, which is the focus of this book. Siamak Amoozeidi has been a legal advisor to Iran’s constitutional institutions and European companies. He has conducted research on human rights, crime prevention, controlling illicit drugs, judicial independence and public international law in Iran and, since 2008, on international economic, trade and investment law in the Netherlands.
A. Fransen, J. Kerkhofs en P.A.M. Verrest
België en Nederland zijn de afgelopen jaren geconfronteerd met een ernstige dreiging van terrorisme. De aanslagen in Brussel op 22 maart 2016 hebben op een gruwelijke wijze laten zien wat gebeurt als die dreiging uitmondt in niets ontziende aanslagen op onze samenleving. Het materieel strafrecht is sinds 2001 aangepast om terrorisme beter te kunnen bestrijden. Die aanpassing heeft in Nederland en België plaatsgevonden grotendeels aan de hand van dezelfde EU- en andere internationale instrumenten. In de NVVS-preadviezen wordt die ontwikkeling beschreven en vervolgens uitvoerig ingegaan op de werking van het materiële strafrecht ter bestrijding van terrorisme in België en Nederland. Het uitgebreide overzicht van wetgeving en haar toepassing in concrete strafzaken is voor de rechtspraktijk in beide landen instructief. Het specifieke belang van de preadviezen is voorts dat zij een vergelijking mogelijk maken van het Belgische en Nederlandse recht. Want hoewel er sprake is van veel overeenkomsten, bestaan er ook verschillen in de werking van het materieel strafrecht gericht op de bestrijding van terrorisme. De preadviezen monden uit in een op België en Nederland gezamenlijk en op de landen individueel betrekking hebbende conclusie, alsmede enkele stellingen voor discussie.
|The many Faces of Crime for Profit and Ways of Tackling it|
Petrus C. van Duyne,Jackie Harvey,Georgios A. Antonopoulos, Klaus von Lampe (eds.)
The national diversity of Europe is reflected in the diversity of its criminal landscape and history. From the north of Scotland to Ukraine one finds different focal points and patterns of crimes and criminal entrepreneurs. This does not necessarily lead to a corresponding reaction of the authorities. Some responses are the result of a gradually developed form of cross-border cooperation, as is the case between Poland and Germany, other authorities appear carried away with emotional decision making and an inflexible political correctness as is observed in the field of the sex service industry. In another country, in the adjacent field of child trafficking, we find the converse: no response as victims are not labelled as such. And no victim label, no criminal law policy. Where the interactions between the upper- and underworld come into sight, this volume presents the reader with a select picture gallery of criminal faces: from corrupt football to remarkable criminal finances in Ukraine, to fraud and criminal abuse in the informal or quack health sector. Naturally, each face has its own pretences in order to hide its criminal background, be it large scale cannabis growing in the Netherlands or organised cybercrime from Romania to all countries in Europe. Indeed, the criminal portrait series in this Cross-border Crime Volume shows that criminal Europe does not lead to a boring uniformity, despite the fear of globalism. This sixteenth volume of the Cross-border Crime Colloquium contains the seventeen peer-reviewed contributions of 26 authors presented in 2016 at the Cross-border Crime Colloquium held at Northumbria University, Newcastle. The authors represent upcoming experts and established researchers in the field of (organised) crime for profit and related policies. The contributions are based on empirical research and independent analysis and provide new data and insights on which to build new theories and future research.
|The World’s Stateless|
Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion
International law protects the right of every child to acquire a nationality. Yet, childhood statelessness pervades all regions of the world. At least a third of the 15 million people who face life without a nationality today, are children. And, every ten minutes, another child is born stateless. The disconnect between the recognition of nationality as a fundamental child right and the reality of childhood statelessness presents a massive challenge, but also opens up a wealth of opportunities. Childhood statelessness is entirely preventable. It is never in a child’s best interests to be stateless, nor is it ever a child’s “fault” if they are left without nationality. We are proud to devote this edition of our flagship report, The World’s Stateless 2017, to exploring the urgency of and opportunities for addressing childhood statelessness. Over 50 experts and organisations have contributed material – essays, interviews, photographs and more. Collectively, they deal with a multitude of different dimensions of childhood statelessness, with chapters exploring the right to a nationality, challenges in the context of migration and displacement, the significance of the Sustainable Development Agenda, the mechanics of safeguards against statelessness for children, and litigation, legal assistance and other forms of moblisation as strategies to tackle childhood statelessness. As with every edition of The World’s Stateless, this publication also offers a more general overview of the state of statelessness globally in 2017. The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion is an independent non-profit organisation, committed to ending statelessness and disenfranchisement through the promotion of human rights, participation and inclusion. For more information about our work, please visit www.institutesi.org.
|Twee eeuwen dienstplicht, discipline, dienstweigering en desertie|
Deze studie waarop Stan Meuwese in maart 2017 in Tilburg promoveerde, is opmerkelijk genoeg de eerste en enige wetenschappelijke juridische studie over de dienstplicht. De ontwikkeling van de wetgeving en de rechtspraak vanaf de invoering van de dienstplicht in Nederland in februari 1811 door Napoleon tot aan de opkomst van de laatste dienstplichtigen in januari 1996 komt aan de orde. Tien chronologische hoofdstukken bevatten ieder vier paragrafen: de dienstplicht (hoe komt men in de krijgsmacht terecht), de discipline (hoe houdt men met behulp van het militair straf- en tuchtrecht de dienstplichtigen vast in de kazernes), de dienstweigering (hoe bleef men uit het leger) en desertie (hoe ontvluchtte men aan de krijgsmacht). De juridische legitimatie van de dienstplicht heeft in de loop van twee eeuwen steeds ontbroken. Arm of rijk, jongen of meisje, uit een groot gezin of uit een klein gezin, leek of priester: de rechtsgeschiedenis van de dienstplicht toont geen beeld van gelijke behandeling. De dienstplicht is in 1996 niet afgeschaft, maar opgeschort. Toch zal de formele dienstplicht ook op meisjes van toepassing verklaard worden. De rechtsgeschiedenis van de dienstplicht is ook het verhaal van mensen: Dirk Donker Curtius die in 1813 werd opgeroepen voor de Garde d’Honneur van Napoleon, J.K. van der Veer, die in Middelburg in 1896 de schutterijplicht weigerde gebaseerd op antimilitaristische motieven in de lijn van Tolstoi, Herman Groenendaal die in 1921 als dienstweigeraar in hongerstaking ging, sergeant Meijer die op 12 mei 1940 werd geëxecuteerd wegens verlaten van zijn post op de Grebbeberg, Poncke Princen, die in Indië in 1948 kant van de nationalisten koos, Rinus Wehrmann die in 1971 weigerde zijn lange haren te laten knippen, Hans Dona en Wim Schul die in 1971 op grond van een artikel in een VVDM-blad drie maanden tuchtklasse in Nieuwersluis kregen, Kees Vellekoop die in 1973 op grond van politieke bezwaren tegen de krijgsmacht in gevangenis kwam. De toekomst van de dienstplicht ligt achter ons: het is mooi geweest met de dienstplicht. prof. mr. drs. Ben Vermeulen, lid van de Raad van State en hoogleraar staatsrecht: Dit is ongetwijfeld het best geschreven proefschrift dat ik ooit heb mogen begeleiden. Het leest als een trein, is buitengewoon soepel geschreven, bevat veel woordspelingen en -rijmen, talloze petites histoires en is vaak buitengewoon humoristisch.
|Alternatieve Gassen en Aansprakelijkheid|
Dit proefschrift behandelt de vraag wie aansprakelijk gesteld kan worden voor schade die ontstaat door groen-gasinvoeding en waterstofbijmenging. Allereerst worden de Europese en Nederlandse ontwikkelingen besproken in de gassector, in het bijzonder het proces van Europese marktintegratie en-liberalisatie waarbij de aandacht voornamelijk uitgaat naar het Nederlandse liberaliseringsproces. Als gevolg van het proces van marktliberalisatie is het aantal actoren toegenomen en heeft er een verschuiving van verantwoordelijkheden plaatsgevonden. Deze verantwoordelijkheden liggen deels in de wet verankerd en zitten deels in contracten besloten. Om deze reden worden de wettelijke taken en bevoegdheden en de contractuele relaties besproken. De contracten worden voor zover mogelijk privaatrechtelijk gekwalificeerd en kort inhoudelijk behandeld waarbij de aandacht uitgaat naar de afspraken omtrent aansprakelijkheid. De grondslagen voor de wettelijke aansprakelijkheid worden ook besproken, in het bijzonder de aansprakelijkheid voor gebrekkige zaken, gebrekkige opstallen, gevaarlijke stoffen en gebrekkige producten. Tevens wordt de aansprakelijkheid op grond van onrechtmatige daad behandeld. Om de centrale vraag te beantwoorden is gekozen voor een casusgerichte aanpak en worden twee scenario’s geschetst die antwoord geven op de hoofdvraag.
|FRONTEX and the EBCGA|
With this book, Amélie Poméon won the Hanneke Steenbergen Scriptie Prijs 2016 (prize for the best master thesis in the field of migration law in the Netherlands for the year 2015/2016). Hanneke Steenbergen taught migration law at the University of Leiden and was highly dedicated to the promotion of migration law education. After her death, a commemorative foundation was established, the primary purpose of which is to award a yearly prize stimulating research and interest in migration law issues. This book discusses the question to what extent Frontex (and, to a more limited degree, its successor, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency) can be held accountable for breaches of EU law acting both inside and outside EU territory. The issues covered include a detailed discussion of Frontex’ tasks and competences, the legal position and status of EU agencies, agency accountability and the distinction between the notions of accountability and responsibility as well as the extraterritorial applicability of EU law. It also addresses the question whether an individual complaint mechanism can and should be introduced within the Agency’s setup. “Amélie provides with her thesis an almost encyclopedic document about Frontex, the European Agency for management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the European Union. Frontex plays an important role in protecting external borders and therefore has a direct impact on many people’s lives. […] Worth mentioning is that she took an interesting approach by incorporating interviews with various experts on the ground. […] So, a very thorough piece of work on a problem that maintains to be in the forefront of every ones attention.” Jury report Hanneke Steenbergen scriptieprijs 2016
S. Heirman, E.C. Huijsmans & R. van den Munckhof (red.)
Het kenniscentrum Milieu en Gezondheid is een initiatief van het gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch en de rechtbank Oost-Brabant. Doel van het kenniscentrum is om bij te dragen aan de kwaliteitsverbetering van de rechterlijke oordeelsvorming op het vlak van milieu en gezondheid. Door het verzamelen, beheren en delen van kennis over de strafrechtelijke, civielrechtelijke en bestuursrechtelijke aspecten hiervan, ondersteunt het kenniscentrum rechters en juridisch medewerkers in het hele land op dit vlak. Eén van de werkzaamheden van het kenniscentrum is het organiseren van themadagen voor de leden van de zittende magistratuur en de juridische ondersteuning van alle gerechten. Op deze themadagen wordt steeds een onderwerp op het gebied van milieu en gezondheid nader belicht. Op vrijdag 8 april 2016 organiseerde het kenniscentrum een themadag over het onderwerp medische aansprakelijkheid, in samenwerking met het Studiecentrum Rechtspleging (SSR). In dit kennisdocument zijn bijdragen van een aantal sprekers en deelnemers van die themadag gebundeld. De auteurs in deze bundel: Prof. dr. R.J. van der Gaag Prof. mr. A.C. Hendriks Prof. mr. dr. A.R. Mackor Prof. mr J. Legemaate Mr. dr. R.P. Wijne Mr. P.M.J. Eken-de Vos Mr. P.J. van Eekeren Mr. drs. E.C. Huijsmans Mr. R. van den Munckhof
|Children’s Rights in a Digital Environment and European Union Law|
Being online has become part of the daily routine for the most of us, particularly for young people. Children are growing up in a fast-paced technological environment, in which the new Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) such as smartphones or tablets provide limitless internet access and with that a limitless communication. The internet changes the way children interact, communicate, play and learn and in this context, it offers a broad range of opportunities. However, given that the dissemination of personal data as well as of violent or illegal content has been facilitated, the online environment also entails new risks to which children are exposed. With the increasing children’s internet use, the anxiety that children are particularly vulnerable to those risks grows and raises questions about how policy makers, the public and parents may effectively protect children online by balancing opportunities and risks. The aim of this book is to analyse the current legal framework with regard to the protection of the children’s rights in a digital environment. It examines which legal provisions apply to the risks a child may encounter when using the internet and in particular, which instruments have been implemented to prevent child pornography, grooming and the violations of personal data protection rights. It is intended to give an overview of the existing legal instruments on an international and a European Union level, with focus on the European Union legislation and the recent developments in the case law of the European Court of Justice.
|A Comparative Study of Cybercrime in Criminal Law|
The development of information technology provides new opportunities for crimes. Firstly, it facilitates traditional crimes such as fraud, and secondly, it breeds new crimes such as hacking. The traditional crimes facilitated by information technology and the new crimes bred by it are the so-called cybercrime in this book. To regulate cybercrime, legal regimes have developed countermeasures in the field of criminal law at different levels. At the national level, China, the United States, England and Singapore have all undergone reforms to adapt their criminal law. At the international level, the Council of Europe has drafted the Convention on Cybercrime and opened it for signatures. However, the still commonly committed cybercrime, such as DDoS attacks and online fraud, indicates the insufficiency of these countermeasures. In this background, this book intends to answer the research question: how can the criminal law be adapted to regulate cybercrime? By using doctrinal research and comparative study as the main methods, this book firstly explores and analyses the approaches of cybercrime legislations in the selected five legal regimes both in the past and in the present, and secondly, compares the different approaches and concludes with respect to the following aspects: Aspect 1: Do we need a cyber-specific legislation to regulate cybercrime? Aspect 2: If we do need a specific legislation, what approaches are more systematic for it? Aspect 3: What principles are sufficient and appropriate to determine jurisdiction over cybercrime? Aspect 4: What is the function of the Convention on Cybercrime in shaping appropriate legislation against cybercrime?
| Digital Evidence Changing the Paradigm of Human Rights Protection|
Salvatore di Cerbo
In a “digital world” like ours, vast Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
infrastructures are highways where run extensive flows of information, dictating the
rhythm of our day-to-day lives. Such a deep influence, close to be an addiction for us, turns
ICT an unquestioned feature of modern life. These premises well portrait the landscape in which the diverse spectrum of actors
committed to promote, defend and restore the human rights operate. Therefore, the risk is
to mistake the means with the ends; but, even if the subject of this work, Digital Evidence,
is technology-related, the purpose of the study is the goal to which it tends: human rights
and their protection. Moreover, the wide diffusion of “capturing devices” that allow the documentation of human
rights abuses throughout massive streams of data from diverse sources will raise new
needs: in primis a careful collection and interpretation of the most relevant ones, and then
the establishment of mechanisms to ensure the validity and reliability of newly acquired
information. The whole chain that connects all the required steps in order to turn digital data into
“digital legal evidence” relevant for the protection of human rights, represents a challenge
for human rights practitioners, as individual activists, as well as organizations. Every single
step is fundamental: collection, management, preservation, analysis and security of data,
along with an effective communication and strategic use of evidence. Twitter tweets, Facebook and Blogs posts, Instagram photos and Youtube videos, even
when considered too weak for a conviction to be founded on, can play an important
role outside of a courtroom, establishing the grounds for prosecution indictments or, in
general, creating awareness of human rights abuses. Consequently, new forms of human rights activism, like the so-called “hashtag activism”,
pass through social media and have the power to generate a real change at both legal and
awareness level. The risk to be avoided is to mortify this power using social media as a
shortcut to be politically active or socially trendy making a mere “clictivism”. Hence, the core of this work revolves around the pivotal question of legal sufficiency of
the digital means employed in recording human rights abuses and the consolidation of
standards and procedures regulating the admissibility of collected evidence in the court of
law. The purpose is to provide an answer from a tri-folded point of view. The U.S. legal system leads in the regulation of the requirements for digital evidence to be
admitted at trial; nonetheless, also International courts like ICC, ICTY and ICTR follow
rules and procedure for that purpose, based on authenticity, protection of privacy, chain
of possession and reliability of the electronic evidence. At the European level, instead, the
lack of a common legislation relevant to the admissibility of d-evidence at trial required a
comparative study of the respective provisions contained in many Europeans countries’
procedural law. For these three levels a special attention is reserved to the analysis
of the lifecycle of digital evidence, from the creation and use of digital digital human
rights documentation for immediate purpose to its later admission as evidence in legal
proceedings, as well as to the authentication issue. At the last stage a collection of the most relevant case law form the principal U.S. courts
and International courts is provided.
|Monitor Gesubsidieerde Rechtsbijstand 2015|
S.L. Peters, M. van Gammeren-Zoeteweij & L. Combrink-Kuiters
Toegang tot het recht is een belangrijke pijler voor een goed functionerende rechtstaat. De Raad voor Rechtsbijstand maakt zich sterk voor het belang van burgers als zij tegen juridische problemen aanlopen. Dat doet de Raad op basis van de Wet op de Rechtsbijstand. De Raad wijst rechtzoekenden de weg, bevordert een goede toegang tot het recht en stimuleert goede kwaliteit van de rechtsbijstand. Ook fungeert de Raad als kenniscentrum op het gebied van de gesubsidieerde rechtsbijstand. Hierbij is de Monitor Gesubsidieerde Rechtsbijstand (MGR) een belangrijk instrument. Elk jaar publiceert de Raad voor Rechtsbijstand deze monitor om te beschrijven hoe de toegang tot, de vraag naar en het aanbod van gesubsidieerde rechtsbijstand zich ontwikkelen. Door periodiek op een uniforme wijze informatie te verzamelen over een beperkt aantal indicatoren wordt inzicht geboden in trends door de jaren heen. Om tevens inzicht te bieden in de effecten van specifieke beleids-of wetswijzigingen wordt ook verslag gedaan van aanvullende onderzoeken.
Laura Van Waas & Melanie Khanna (eds)
Interest in statelessness has been steadily increasing since the late 1990s – within academia, among governments, at the UN and among civil society organisations. Research projects, mapping studies and doctrinal discussions have helped to clarify the challenges faced and our understanding of what is at stake. This has led to a fresh sense of purpose in addressing the issue and there is now a growing international movement engaged in finding solutions, spurred on by the UNHCR-led #IBelong Campaign to End Statelessness by 2024. Making meaningful progress towards this goal demands a new and more ambitious approach, one that moves beyond stocktaking to inspire solutions. As Volker Türk outlines in his introduction to this ground-breaking publication: “The global debates have moved beyond the need to explain the problem and its causes and consequences. The time has come to accelerate the momentum to implement durable solutions effectively.” The essays which have been collected in this edited volume all approach statelessness from a solutions perspective, looking at what is being done, and what more can be done, to address the issue. The first part of the book has a thematic focus, exploring perspectives, tools and techniques for solving statelessness which are relevant across different countries and regions. Chapters in the second part each have a regional focus, exploring region-specific challenges, developments and innovations set against the backdrop of the broader context of a global campaign to solve statelessness. With contributions from both scholars and practitioners, the book is likely to be of interest to anyone engaged in studying or implementing solutions for statelessness, including researchers, government policy-makers, staff of international or regional inter-governmental bodies and UN agencies, grass-roots and international civil society organisations, legal practitioners and advanced-level students.
|Civis europaeus sum?|
Guayasén Marrero González
Civis europaeus sum? Am I a citizen of the Union? This question, which is the cornerstone of this thesis, is also the question that people affected by an eventual State succession within an EU Member State need an answer to. The link between the nationality of an EU Member State and citizenship of the Union is, as it stands now, unbreakable. One cannot claim the enjoyment of the latter without holding the nationality of an EU Member State. Thus, those who, due to the operation of the State succession and the rules enacted in that context regarding nationality, lose the nationality of the predecessor-EU Member State cannot invoke “civis europaeus sum”. From the outset, individuals who lose the nationality of an EU Member State would lose EU citizenship and the rights attached to it. However, whilst EU citizenship is still not autonomous from Member State nationality, certain rights associated to the residence in both the potential newly independent States and the EU Member States can be frozen as an interim solution until such times as the former has completed the EU accession process.