Suchergebnisse

Part 1. History -- part 2. Definition of war crimes -- part 3. Jurisdiction -- part 4. Prosecution of war crimes -- part 5. War crimes in international armed conflict -- part 6. War crimes in non-international armed conflict -- part 7. War crimes jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia -- part 8. War crimes jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda -- Appendix

In this article, we analyse Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 on Covid-19 against the backdrop of the current deadlock in EU-regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We build on temporary and experimental legislation scholarship and employ a normative framework of regulatory knowledge. The Covid-19 Regulation aims at speeding up the development of GMO-based Covid-19 treatments or vaccines by temporarily suspending requirements that otherwise would have made for time-consuming and burdensome authorization processes. Although the Regulation lacks an explicit experimental purpose, we hypothesize that experiences with its functioning may be utilized in evaluation processes serving attempts to change the GMO legal framework. As such, it may fulfil a latent experimental function. We reflect on the types of knowledge that are relevant when evaluating experimental legislation and developing regulation more generally and argue that the inclusion of social knowledge is pertinent in dealing with complex issues such as GMO regulation. Experimental law literature focuses on gathering evidence-based knowledge about the functioning of legislation but virtually neglects knowledge about different experiences and value appreciations of various societal actors and social-contextual mechanisms. We propose that such social knowledge be included in the design of experimental legislation and that evaluation be approached bottom-up instead of top-down.

In late 2014, in our home region of Twente, the Netherlands, the local newspaper reported that the Dutch National Oil Company (NAM) was meeting with local citizens to give them information about the injection of waste water from oil drilling operations (an extraction technique similar to fracking) in the area. The report came some three years after the pumping had started. The story set off alarm bells. Why would a company organize meetings to tell residents about something that had been happening legally for more than three years? More than a year of organizing and meetings followed, during which time the NAM had to suspend pumping and the Netherlands declared a ten-year moratorium on fracking in response to widespread opposition. This is a story of how local residents were able to unmask the manipulation masquerading as citizen participation, gather information and develop knowledge about fracking, and insist on a more democratic approach based on open discussion and full disclosure by the authorities and NAM.

__Abstract__ The requirement of legal assistance prior to and during police interrogation constitutes one of the major changes in Dutch criminal proceedings during the past years. Legislation, policy, and practice in the Netherlands have been adapted to European case law, including the Salduz judgment, and the EU Directive, raising practical as well as fundamental questions about the implications of these developments. This issue of Erasmus Law Review is devoted to these implications. The contributions to this issue address these developments and their consequences from 1) a Dutch national perspective, 2) a European comparative perspective, 3) a youth perspective, and 4) a psychological perspective.

Social movement researchers propose different ways to incorporate meaning into structural approaches, notably into political opportunity structure (POS) theory. In this article we further develop one of the recent attempts to do so: discursive opportunity structure theory (DOS) as proposed by Koopmans and Olzak. We pay particular attention to the role of feelings. Although the DOS model correctly points toward the discursive construction of political opportunities, it does not explain why certain events are experienced as opportunities by potential activists. We propose the reason is two-fold: 1) discourse contains feeling rules and 2) discourse resonance implies the shaping of protest subjectivity. Our model is applied to a specific case: protests against aircraft noise annoyance in two countries. We show that feeling annoyed by aircraft sound is shaped by specific policy discourses, which then prepares the ground for protests. Adapted from the source document.