|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.
|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
This fifth and final volume offers a critical assessment of the state of the law of nations. In the twenty first century the world needs true global law anchored in the dignity of the human person rather than weak international law built on the interests of major sovereign states. One hundred years after the outbreak of the Great or First World War in 1914 and twenty-five years after the peaceful end of the Cold War in 1989, little appears to have been learnt from the scale of disasters that befell the world between the assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 and the annexation of Sebastopol in 2014. The failure to learn from history largely comes from unconverted political leaders and ideologies of progress. The birth of modern international law, assumed to have taken place in 1648, was no moment of progress, nor was the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The peace of Westphalia reduced the law of nations to interstate law. Moreover, today’s dismal record of major sovereign powers, nicknamed the ‘international community’, with such issues as human rights, the use of force, the abolition of nuclear weapons and peace in the Middle-East proofs that for justice and order a transition from international law to global law needs to be realized. Throughout the book one finds lightening examples of persons who, by their courage and dedication, could make the difference. Among them are Henri Dunant, Ruth Klüger, Andrei Sacharov, Nelson Mandela and Pope John-Paul II. 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.
|Onze manier van straffen|
Theo W.A. de Wit, Reijer J. de Vries, Niels den Toom (red.)
Elke samenleving kent de praktijk van het straffen, beginnend bij de straf als een voorzichtige pedagogische koestering om je kind iets bij te brengen tot aan de meest draconische straffen en de defi nitieve straf: de doodstraf. Maar er bestaat ook zoiets als een – altijd voorlopige – gedeelde manier van straffen. Geestelijk verzorgers in gevangenissen en andere inrichtingen van justitie staan vanwege hun werk dichtbij gedetineerde mensen. Zij maken ‘onze manier van straffen’ dus van nabij mee. Wat valt je dan op aan de wijze van straffen die wij als samenleving normaal of minstens acceptabel vinden? Onze manier van straffen bevat zes essays van geestelijk verzorgers werkzaam bij justitie, essays die voortkomen uit een learning community van geestelijk verzorgers. Onder begeleiding van prof. dr. Theo de Wit, stafl id van het Centrum voor Justitiepastoraat, daag den zij elkaar uit om scherp onder woorden te brengen wat onze strafmethoden inhouden, wat zij met mensen doet, en welke rol zij zelf spelen als onderdeel van dit strafsysteem. Wie de essays overziet, constateert dat hier zes auteurs aan het woord zijn, die vanuit een intiem en vaak langdurig contact met de detentiewerkelijkheid evenzovele dimensies van de gevangenisstraf als geleefde ervaring beschrijven. Ze gaan over het isolement waarin je als gedetineerde terecht komt, over vernedering als onlosmakelijk onderdeel van straf, over afhankelijkheid, over het jargon van de tbs, over levenslang, en over een vorm van vrijheid die je als gedetineerde toch houdt. De essays zijn geschreven vanuit een attitude die je nog het best kunt omschrijven als een combinatie van empathie, mededogen en realisme. De geestelijk verzorgers beschouwen zich als deel van het collectief waarnaar wordt gewezen in de uitdrukking ‘onze manier van straffen’. Tegelijkertijd achten zij het hun plicht en eisen zij ook het recht op, kritisch na te denken over ons strafsysteem, de evidenties die daarin worden meegenomen en die dag na dag worden gereproduceerd en overgedragen, alsmede hun eigen rol daarbij. Deze bundel is een uitgave van het Centrum voor Justitiepastoraat (CJP). Het CJP is een samenwerking tussen de Protestantste Theologische Universiteit en de Universiteit van Tilburg. Het centrum verricht wetenschappelijk onderzoek en biedt onderwijs op het terrein van het justitiepastoraat.
|Onderwijs in Nederlands-IndiŽ|
Dit boek is een studie over een aspect van het constitutionele recht voor Nederlands-Indië, en wel over het onderwijs in Nederlands-Indië in de periode 1602-1942. Het boek geeft een beschrijving van dit aspect en beoogt het aspect te typeren. Om de beschrijving en de typering begrijpelijk te maken gaat aan de studie over onderwijs in Nederlands-Indië een korte behandeling vooraf van algemene kenmerken van constitutioneel recht voor Nederlands-Indië. N.S. Efthymiou is universitair docent staatsrecht aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
| 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.
|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?
|Forensic Psychiatry: Day by Day|
Karel T.I. Oei
Writing little articles under the heading “snippets” might at the reader’s first glance give the impression that this book is (mainly?) concerned with tearing out (telling) written pieces of paper to present them in a collection as a collage. Or to scatter them over the readers as a sort of “ticker tape parade”. That term “snippets”, however, is supposed to indicate a sort of personal figure of speech, which primarily serves for digital interaction. They are daily articles from quality newspapers which are sent out to a wide circle of acquaintances under a fitting headline and with the author’s spontaneous reaction. Snippets are supposed to make these recipients think about what drew the author’s attention. They are stimuli that provoke reactions. Often complementary snippets are put together (by means of inserted comments). Sometimes there is a chain. The original text is distinct from snippets and reactions by means of font size. And more or less extensive footnotes are used.