By analysing intelligence-gathering reform legislation this article discusses access to justice for communications interception by the intelligence and security services. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, sophisticated oversight systems for bulk communications surveillance are being established across the globe. In the Netherlands prior judicial consent and a binding complaint procedure have been established. However, although checks and balances for targeted communications interference have been created, accountability mechanisms are less equipped to effectively remedy indiscriminate interference. Therefore, within the context of mass communications surveillance programs, access to justice for complainants remains a contentious issue.
MULTIFILE
Multinational enterprises (MNEs) have become global players in the current globalized labour market and their economic activities are no longer territorially limited, but they extend in different countries, thereby leading to the development of global supply chains. Against this background, companies’ operations are increasingly conducted by foreign subsidiaries and they are being outsourced to business partners worldwide. In both cases, lower working conditions and production costs in foreign countries are one of the driving factors leading to this business choice.
MULTIFILE
In May 2018, the new Dutch Intelligence and Security Services Act 2017 (Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten, Wiv) will enter into force. It replaces the previous 2002 Act and incorporates many reforms to the information gathering powers of the two intelligence and security services as well as to the accountability and oversight mechanisms. Due to the technologyneutral approach, both the civil and the military intelligence services are now authorized to, for example, intercept communications in bulk, hack third parties, decrypt files, store DNA or use any other future innovative technology. Also, the national security legislation extends the possibilities for the indiscriminate collection of data, and for the processing, storage and analysis thereof. The process leading to the law includes substantial criticism from the various stakeholders involved. Upon publication of this report, an official consultative referendum is being organized on the new act. The aim of this policy brief is to provide an international audience with a comprehensive overview of the most relevant aspects of the act and its context. In addition, there is considerable focus on the checks and balances as well as the bottlenecks of the Dutch intelligence gathering reform. The selection of topics is based on the core issues addressed during the parliamentary debate and on the authors’ insights.
DOCUMENT
The flexible deployment of drones in the public domain, is in this article assessed from a legal philosophical perspective. On the basis of theories of Dworkin and Moore the distinction between individual rights and collective security policy goals is discussed. Mobile cameras in the public domain reflect how innovative technological tools challenge public authorities in new ways to balance between privacy and security. Furthermore, the different dimensions of privacy and the distinction between the three types of the value of privacy are reviewed. On the basis of the case study of the Dutch Drones Act, the article concludes that the flexible deployment of mobile cameras in the public domain is not legitimate from a normative perspective. The legal safeguards in the Netherlands are insufficient to protect the value of privacy. Therefore, further restrictions such as prior judicial review should be considered.
LINK
De rechterlijke machtigingsprocedure-procedure heeft geen goede uitwerking op mensen met dementie. Door hun ziekte begrijpen ze de procedure niet, ervaren ze deze als zeer stressvol en leidt de procedure niet tot acceptatie van het besluit tot opname. De hoorzitting is zeer stressvol en belastend voor deze mensen. Kan dat niet anders?
LINK
Intelligent internationalization, as outlined by Laura Rumbley in 2015, is a relevant notion to explore in specific institutional settings. The setting in this contribution is that of The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS) and in order to understand intelligent internationalization in practice, the specific setting of the institution needs to be clarified first. The Hague, with its approximately 530,000 inhabitants, is not the capital of the Netherlands, but is the seat of government and therefore houses the parliament, ministries, embassies, and is also the residence of the royal house. The Hague has a long tradition as the host of international institutions. The 1899 and 1907 peace conferences were held in the city and the Peace Palace, opened in 1913, is home to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Since 2002, The Hague also houses the International Criminal Court (ICC). The city thus provides a learning environment for all students (both domestic and international) at THUAS, not only through the internships that are a key component of all programs, but also through engagement with cultural organizations and local communities. The Hague University of Applied Sciences provides higher professional education to about 28,000 students, in more than 50 bachelor’s programs, as well as in a limited number of applied master’s programs. Nine programs are delivered in English. THUAS is an UNESCO institution and aims to be the most international university of applied sciences in the Netherlands by 2020, focusing on world citizenship skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and intercultural competence for all its students. THUAS’ student body is highly diverse with approximately 40% of its students having a non-Dutch background.
MULTIFILE
Despite all improvement initiatives such as the national action plan [De-]Regulate Healthcare by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in 2018 to create more time for care within the Netherlands, the administrative burden for care workers is still increasing. Managers of healthcare institutes struggle with efficiently implementing government legislations in day-to-day operations. They indicate that the time spent on administrative tasks demanded by municipalities and national authorities is too much. In addition, they also indicate that there is a lack of consistency and uniformity when it comes to the way care workers handle administrative tasks. This way of working causes additional, and often ad hoc, work in the run-up to an audit. It seems that before laws and regulations are effectively implemented, new laws or regulations again demand attention. This looks like a vicious circle, but research to confirm this is not found yet. Therefore, the following research question is formulated: "What is the impact of laws and regulations on the administrative burden with regard to the primary and supportive processes of Dutch long-term care?" An explanatory multiple case study was conducted to answer the research question. Three case studies were carried out during September 2019 to January 2020. Based on these studies, we have concluded that between 29% and 62% of the total perceived administrative burden by long-term care professionals can be related to legislation.
MULTIFILE
Beschrijving van wat het betekent als je partner dementie krijgt op jonge leeftijd. Aan de hand van vijf fasen beschrijft het boek de gedragsveranderingen, de emotionele gevolgen voor de naaste, de zorg die nodig is, de ethische dilemma's die er spelen en de juridische vraagstukken die erbij komen kijken.
LINK
ENGLISH: A vast and growing body of research has shown that crime tends to run in families. However, previous studies focused only on traditional crimes and research on familial risk factors for cyber offending is very scarce. To address this gap in the literature, the present study examines the criminal behavior of the family members of a sample of cyber offenders prosecuted in the Netherlands. The sample consists of 979 cyber offenders prosecuted for computer trespassing between 2001 and 2018, and two matched groups of 979 traditional offenders and 979 non-offenders. Judicial information and kinship data from Dutch Statistics were used to measure criminal behavior among family members. Both traditional offenders and cyber offenders were found to be more likely to have criminal fathers, mothers, and siblings than non-offenders. Additional analyses, however, showed different patterns between cyber offenders who were only prosecuted for cyber offenses and those who also committed traditional crimes. While the former group of cyber offenders were similar to non-offenders in terms of family offending, the latter group of cyber offenders were more similar to traditional offenders. Overall, these results suggest that the traditional mechanisms of intergenerational transmission of crime can only partially explain cybercrime involvement. NEDERLANDS: Uit een groot en groeiend aantal onderzoeken blijkt dat criminaliteit vaak in families voorkomt. Eerdere studies richtten zich echter alleen op traditionele misdrijven en onderzoek naar familiaire risicofactoren voor cybercriminaliteit is zeer schaars. Om deze leemte in de literatuur op te vullen, onderzoekt deze studie het criminele gedrag van familieleden van een steekproef van cyberdelinquenten die in Nederland worden vervolgd. De steekproef bestaat uit 979 cyberdelinquenten die tussen 2001 en 2018 zijn vervolgd voor computervredebreuk, en twee gematchte groepen van 979 traditionele delinquenten en 979 niet-delinquenten. Justitiële informatie en verwantschapsgegevens van het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek werden gebruikt om crimineel gedrag onder familieleden te meten. Zowel traditionele daders als cybercriminelen bleken vaker criminele vaders, moeders en broers en zussen te hebben dan niet-daders. Aanvullende analyses lieten echter verschillende patronen zien tussen cyberdelinquenten die alleen werden vervolgd voor cyberdelicten en degenen die ook traditionele delicten pleegden. Terwijl de eerste groep cyberdelinquenten vergelijkbaar was met niet-delinquenten wat betreft gezinsdelinquentie, leek de tweede groep cyberdelinquenten meer op traditionele delinquenten. In het algemeen suggereren deze resultaten dat de traditionele mechanismen van intergenerationele overdracht van criminaliteit de betrokkenheid bij cybercriminaliteit slechts gedeeltelijk kunnen verklaren.
DOCUMENT
This paper investigates the prospective application of arbitration by Transnational Private Regulation (TPR). It builds on the study of TPR developed by Fabrizio Cafaggi et al. TPR addresses the ever-increasing transfer of regulatory power from national to global levels, and from public to private regulators. TPR entails private regulatory co-operation be-yond the jurisdictional boundaries of States through voluntary standards. The regimes of TPR are built by a variety of actors, such as companies, NGOs, independent experts, and epistemic communities. Examples of TPR can be found in food safety, forestry management, trade, and derivatives, among other fields. More specifically, they concern private actors engaging in transnational coordination of standard setting such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) that was developed to foster responsible management of the world’s forests. There are four main characteristics of TPR: legitimacy, quality, effectiveness, and enforcement. I will describe those four characteristics in brief here. First, the legitimacy of TPR is built around consent through voluntary entry, participation, and exit of regulated entities. Important to this contribution is that the legitimacy of TPR goes beyond its legal dimension, measured by purely legal standards. Hence, the legitimacy of TPR is largely determined by standards developed by social and economic institutions relevant to specific TPR regimes. The role of those institutions in standard settings is higher in private TPR regimes than private-public TPR regimes, where some forms of compliance are mandatory. Second, the quality of TPR corresponds to the ex ante and ex post evaluation cycle of regulatory processes. It is also linked with the transparency of TPR. Third, the effectiveness of TPR is measured according to the extent to which the objectives of TPR (or selected TPR regimes) are met. And finally, enforcement of TPRis understood as ‘ensuring compliance with commitments’. Enforcement of TPR can take place through courts, administrative agencies, and private dispute resolution—including the arbitration at the core of this contribution. Cafaggi’s study identified rather selective use of arbitration in TPR, but also recommended changes to make arbitration law more adaptable to TPR. Furthermore, the study recommended that more specialized dispute resolution institutions are created to exclusively serve TPR. Against this background, I shift the main focus of analysis from TPR to arbitration. Whereas Cafaggi argued that arbitration may be suitable for TPR as a means of private enforcement, in this paper I go even further, arguing that arbitration as a means of informal, out-of-court dispute resolution is well suited to strengthen the normativity of TPR. This is so because private arbitration actors (including, inter alia, arbitrators and arbitral institutions) are already equipped with the tools necessary to facilitate cross-border TPR, which is done through informal standards and procedures with origins in the communitarian values and reputational mechanisms used by different communities before the development of modern States. The roots of most private justice regimes—including arbitration—are informed by communitarian values such as collaboration, participation, and personal trust. Those values, together with other core characteristics of arbitration correspond to all core characteristics of TPR, making both systems comparable and complementary. The analytical framework incorporated in this paper follows the four core characteristics of TPR. Hence, the paper is organized into five sections. The first section contains the introduction. In the second section, I analyze the legitimacy of arbitration vis-à-vis the legitimacy of TPR. In the third section, I investigate the accountability of arbitration as a means of quality signaling vis-à-vis TPR. In the fourth section, I focus on the remedies available to arbitrators in a view of TPR’s effectiveness. Finally, in the fifth section, I analyze enforcement through arbitration and its impact on the exclusiveness versus complementarity of TPR regimes. Conclusions follow, including recommendations for future research. Part of topic "The blurring distinction between public and private in international dispute resolution"
MULTIFILE
