Colleges and universities of applied sciences are involved in a wide range of activities related to international business education. International collaborations have always raised concerns because the participants in theseactivities coming from various jurisdictions also bring certain security and legal risks. The universities and their SME partners are therefore subject to the rules of deemed export. Multinational companies have internal regulations, trainings and processes to ensure compliance with export control rules. The Members of the COMMITTED consortium found that many European universities and partnerSMEs involved in international business education lack such internal regulations, trainings and processes. The Manual on Deemed Export in Academia for International Business Educators has been developed as a guide to support compliance critical thinking and due diligence in handling public security issues.
Hoofdstuk 20 Part II in Understanding Penal Practice van Ioan Durnescu en Fergus McNeill Criminological and penological scholarship has in recent years explored how and why institutions and systems of punishment change – and how and why these changes differ in different contexts. Important though these analyses are, this book focuses not so much on the changing nature of institutions and systems, but rather the changing nature of penal practice and practitioners The first part of the book focuses on understanding practice and practitioners, exploring how changing social, cultural, political, and organisational contexts influence practice, and how training, development, professional socialisation and other factors influence practitioners. The second part is concerned with how practitioners can be best supported to develop the skills and approaches that seem most likely to generate positive impacts. It contains accounts of new practice models and approaches, as well as reports of research projects seeking both to discover and to encourage effective practices
MULTIFILE
The article engages with the recent studies on multilevel regulation. The starting point for the argument is that contemporary multilevel regulation—as most other studies of (postnational) rulemaking—is limited in its analysis. The limitation concerns its monocentric approach that, in turn, deepens the social illegitimacy of contemporary multilevel regulation. The monocentric approach means that the study of multilevel regulation originates in the discussions on the foundation of modern States instead of returning to the origins of rules before the nation State was even created, which is where the actual social capital underlying (contemporary) rules can be found, or so I wish to argue. My aim in this article is to reframe the debate. I argue that we have an enormous reservoir of history, practices, and ideas ready to help us think through contemporary (social) legitimacy problems in multilevel regulation: namely all those practices which preceded the capture of law by the modern State system, such as historical alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practices.
