Suchergebnisse

1. A Democratic State Governed by the Rule of Law: What Does This Mean -- I. From Little Rock to Hungary -- II. The Vulnerability of the Rule of Law -- III. Democracy from Pericles to Hitler's Germany -- IV. The Rule of Law and the Maltreatment of Penguins -- V. The Separation of Powers: Montesquieu and Berlusconi -- VI. Protecting Human Rights -- VII. Balance between the Powers with Freedom of the Citizen as its Fundament -- 2. What is the Role of the Judiciary in a Democratic State Governed by the Rule of Law? -- I. Taking Justice into One's Own Hands, Trial by Jury and an Independent Judiciary -- II. Settling Disputes and Imposing Penalties -- III. Organisation of the National and European Courts -- IV. Keeping the Debate on the European Court of Human Rights Transparent -- V. Access to the Courts: From Magna Carta to Apple v Samsung -- 3. The Relationship between the Judiciary and the Legislature -- I. Not Just There to Apply the Law -- II. The Democracy Principle and Judges' Personal Opinions -- III. Interpreting the Law? Napoleon's Distress -- IV. No Refusal to Adjudicate: Euthanasia and Legislators Who Drag their Feet -- V. Technological Advances, Virtual Theft and Flock Fibres -- VI. Social Developments: French Kissing, Repudiation and Wrongful Life -- VII. Interpreting New Legislation: Stalking and Peepshows -- VIII. And Then the Curious Case Concerning Peep Shows -- IX. No One Has the Last Word -- 4. The Judiciary's Relationship with the Constitution and International Law -- I. Ban on Constitutional Review: The Netherlands as Odd Man Out -- II. Effect of International Law: Lilian Janse, SGP Local Council Member -- III. Precedence of International Law: The Case of Charles F -- IV. Judicial Restraint: Legislator and Judge, each in their own Domain -- V. Conflict between Fundamental Rights: Thieves and Paedophiles -- VI. Undemocratic Political Parties: Tolerating the Intolerant? -- 5. The Relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive -- I. Review by the Courts: Florists and Voles -- II. Tort by the State: A Butter Merchant and Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- III. Protection under Administrative Law: Business Succession and a Berth on the Apeldoorn Canal -- IV. Review by the Criminal Courts: A Cannabis Farm -- V. Review by the Criminal Courts: The Pikmeer Lake -- VI. Shift towards the Executive: A Slippery Slope? -- VII. Judges Must be Brave -- 6. The Relationship between the Judiciary and Society -- I. The Courts are there for Citizens: Model Mandy and Turbo Investments -- II. The Judge as Craftsman: Strikes and Leaf Lettuce -- III. The Judiciary has no Political Programme: Kennedy and Obama -- IV. Judges Listen and Decide: Let both Sides be Heard -- V. The Judiciary and the Media: Twitter and Tweeting -- VI. Once Again: Judges Must be Brave -- VII. Judges Must Retain a Certain Distance: Court Fees and Attitude -- VIII. Image and Reality: West Wing and 'Soft' Judges -- IX. Criticism of the Judiciary: The Virtue of Moderation -- 7. Guaranteeing the Quality of Justice -- I. Lucia de Berk, the Drunken Judge and the Pugnacious Judge -- II. Selection, Training and Facilitating Good Work -- III. Open Courts: Kafka and 'Janet and John speak' -- IV. Is it Necessary to have more Transparency? -- V. Ordinary Legal Remedies: The Fire at Schiphol Airport -- VI. Retrial -- VII. Recusal: Biased Judges -- VIII. How Do We Get Rid of Bad Judges? -- IX. Complaining about Judges -- 8. Cherish the Rule of Law!

PurposeDisasters and other emergencies are increasing, with millions of people affected by events like earthquakes, fires and flooding. The use of mobile emergency alert systems (MEAS) can improve people's responses by providing targeted alerts based on location and other personal details. This study aims to understand the factors that influence people's willingness to share the personal information that is needed to provide context-specific messaging about a threat and protective actions.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on protection motivation theory (PMT), this study proposes and tests a model of willingness to use personalised MEAS that incorporates key factors related to an individual's appraisal of a potential threat (i.e. perceived vulnerability and severity) and coping capacity (i.e. response efficacy and self-efficacy), with deterrents like response cost and privacy concern. This study uses survey data from 226 respondents in New Zealand and SmartPLS to assess the model.FindingsThe results show how willingness to use MEAS is influenced by people's appraisal of an emergency threat and their perception of how using MEAS would help them to cope effectively. Fear and perceived severity are significant motivators of MEAS use, along with coping appraisal. However, when the negative influences of privacy concern and response cost are strong enough, they can dissuade use, despite knowing the risks.Originality/valueThe study addresses a gap in research on the use of alert systems like MEAS, which require sharing of personal information and continuous engagement such as the real-time disclosure of one's location. It confirms the significance of factors not studied in prior research, such as privacy concerns, that can dissuade use. This study also extends the application of the PMT in the context of emergency management.