Book(print)#11969
De sociologische verklaring van de sociale kontrole
In: Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, Faculteit der Economische en Sociale Wetenschappen, N.R. [Publications. N.S.] 49
Search results
Filter
4 results
Sort by:
Checking availability at your location
This book is also available at your library:
Article(electronic)#2December 2002
Article 21 of the Rome Statute and the ambiguities of applicable law
In: Netherlands yearbook of international law: NYIL, Volume 33, p. 2
ISSN: 1574-0951
Checking availability at your location
This article is also available at your library: |
electronic
print
Article(electronic)#3April 1, 2000
Charles de Visscher: living and thinking international law
In: European journal of international law, Volume 11, Issue 4, p. 887-904
ISSN: 1464-3596
Checking availability at your location
This article is also available at your library: |
electronic
print
Open Access#42017
Towards a proportionality assessment of risk reduction measures aimed at restricting the use of persistent and bioaccumulative substances
In: Oosterhuis , F H , Brouwer , R , Janssen , M , Verhoeven , J & Luttikhuizen , C 2017 , ' Towards a proportionality assessment of risk reduction measures aimed at restricting the use of persistent and bioaccumulative substances ' , Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management , vol. 13 , no. 6 , pp. 1100-1112 . https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1949
International chemicals legislation aims at adequately controlling persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and substances of very high concern (SVHCs), such as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances, with a view to progressively substitute these substances with suitable less-hazardous alternatives. Using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assess the (dis)proportionality of measures to control such substances (collectively called "PBT" in the present paper) requires benchmarks. The present paper provides building blocks for possible benchmarks by looking at the cost-effectiveness estimates for regulatory measures that have been applied or considered for various PBT substances. These cost-effectiveness estimates vary widely, and the main factors possibly explaining this variation are discussed. The available cost estimates currently do not allow deriving a value for society's willingness to pay to reduce PBT presence, use, and emissions because decisions referring explicitly to these estimates are scarce. Roughly speaking, the available evidence suggests that measures costing less than €1000 per kilogram PBT use or emission reduction will usually not be rejected for reasons of disproportionate costs, whereas for measures with costs above €50 000 per kilogram PBT such a rejection is likely. More research is needed to strengthen the evidence base and further elaborate a systematic approach toward proportionality benchmarking. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:1100–1112.
BASE