Search result: 504 articles

x
Conference Paper

Blockchain in Arbitration Development

Multi-Signature Wallet Showcase

Journal International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, Issue 2 2017
Authors Alexander Gurkov
Author's information

Alexander Gurkov
Alexander Gurkov is Post-doctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, attorney, Saint-Petersburg Bar Association and affiliated researcher of the Legal Tech Lab, Helsinki.
Article

The Ringworm Case and the Lost Opportunities for the Construction of a Collective Healing Process

Journal International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, Issue 1 2017
Keywords public health, apology, disclosure of medical errors, collective healing process, ringworm case
Authors Dr. Nili Karako Eyal
AbstractAuthor's information

    The issue of apology and disclosure of medical errors in the context of the physician- patient relationship has attracted increasing attention in recent years. On the other hand, it has received little attention in the context of public health activities, thus missing the collective healing potential of apologizing and providing information to the public.
    The purpose of this paper is to enrich the discussion regarding apologies and disclosure errors in the context of public health. To fulfil this purpose, the paper addresses the ringworm case, which is a well- known episode in the history of Israeli public health policy. More specifically, the paper focuses on a decision handed by the Israeli Supreme Court in the Eibi Case (2015), which recognized a duty to inform ringworm patients about the medical error involved in their treatment and its results. The paper seeks to examine whether this decision succeeded where other legal means failed, in the construction of a collective healing process. The paper concludes that although the Eibi Case provided the court an opportunity to contribute to the creation of a collective healing process of ringworms patients, the decision didn’t fully realize this potential.


Dr. Nili Karako Eyal
Dr. Nili Karako-Eyal is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, The College of Management Academic Studies, Rishon LeZion, Israel.

    The Israeli health system consists of approximately 200,000 employees in a variety of positions, such as: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, psychologies, physical therapists, lab workers, speech therapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, orderlies, administrators and housekeeping workers and many more. (Ministry of Health, 2016). The system has gone through long-lasting struggles, conflicts and crises initiated by power groups and various functional representations and unions. This article will focus on conflicts occurring between doctors, in their professional occupation, and the governmental ministries (Health and Treasury). In addition, it will examine the processes that encourage the occurrence of conflicts in the health system. Even though doctors do not represent the entire health system, it is important to emphasize that they are its beating heart. Their weight in the general health system is extremely high, much higher than their relative part therein.
    In addition, this article will examine a struggle by doctors to shorten their long shift hours, by exposing the root causes and the reasons that led to the struggle’s demise, without the achievement of their declared goals. This article will suggest that tools appropriate for a true resolution of conflicts in the health system should be tailored and specific to the complexity of the system (as in a delicate surgery), as opposed to more general tools such as mediation, and certain “copy-paste” tools used for conflict resolution in other disciplines.


Adi Niv-Yagoda
Dr. Adi Niv-Yagoda, Ph.D, LL.M, LL.B is an expert in medical law and health policy; Advocate and Lecturer at the School of Medicine and Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University.
Article

Therapeutic Justice and Vaccination Compliance

Journal International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, Issue 1 2017
Keywords public health, trust, vaccination, health law, health policy
Authors Shelly Kamin-Friedman
AbstractAuthor's information

    Recent decades have witnessed the appearance of multiple grounds for vaccine hesitancy. One of the options to deal with this phenomenon is legislative. Given that vaccination enforcement through law raises allegations of infringement of constitutional rights, interventions seeking to promote vaccination compliance should rather address the factors that influence vaccine hesitancy, which are – by and large – related to trust in health authorities. Trust in health authorities may be promoted by a procedure for compensating the comparatively few vaccination victims reflecting a willingness to acknowledge liability and commitment to social justice.
    A qualitative study of the Israeli Vaccination Victim Insurance Law was conducted by the author. The study involved document content analysis (legislative protocols, Court judgments) and semi-structured in-depth interviews with informants representing different legal, medical and ethical perspectives. The thematic analysis found that the Israeli Vaccination Victim Insurance Law and its implementation in Court do not attain their therapeutic potential with respect to the promotion of trust. Barriers to claim submissions and the denial of all claims submitted according to the law do not permit the acknowledgement of liability or the demonstration of the authorities’ commitment to social justice.
    Recognizing the therapeutic power of the Law may lead to adaptations or amendments promoting trust in the health authorities and subsequently fostering vaccine compliance.


Shelly Kamin-Friedman
Adv. Shelly Kamin-Friedman, LL.B, MHA is a specialist in Health Law and a Ph.D. candidate at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.
Article

Intersecting Professions

A Public Health Perspective on Law to Address Health Care Conflicts

Journal International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, Issue 1 2017
Keywords public health, Alternative Dispute Resolution, public law, health promotion
Authors Michal Alberstein and Nadav Davidovitch PhD
AbstractAuthor's information

    This paper examines the intersection between the two professions – law and medicine – with reference to systematic transformations that have characterized their development in the past century. In particular, the paper examines the co-emergence of the new public health and health promotion scholarship along with the development of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement in the second half of the 20th century. The two movements, with their later developments, have aspired to change the focus of professionals in the field, and both have been tremendously successful on the one hand, and on the other have remained marginal to mainstream training and identity building of contemporary lawyers and doctors.


Michal Alberstein
Michal Alberstein is a Full Professor at The Faculty of Law, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. She is also the Primary Investigator on an ERC consolidator grant to study Judicial Conflict Resolution (JCR).

Nadav Davidovitch PhD
Nadav Davidovitch, MD, MPH, PhD is an epidemiologist and public health physician. He is a Full Professor and Director, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and the Guilford-Glaser Faculty of Business and Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel.
Editorial

Foreword

Journal International Journal of Conflict Engagement and Resolution, Issue 1 2017
Authors Michal Alberstein, Nadav Davidovitch PHD and Shelly Kamin-Friedman
Author's information

Michal Alberstein
Michal Alberstein is a Full Professor at The Faculty of Law, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. She is also the Primary Investigator on an ERC consolidator grant to study Judicial Conflict Resolution (JCR).

Nadav Davidovitch PHD
Nadav Davidovitch, MD, MPH, PhD is an epidemiologist and public health physician. He is a Full Professor and Director, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences and the Guilford-Glaser Faculty of Business and Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel.

Shelly Kamin-Friedman
Adv. Shelly Kamin-Friedman, LL.B, MHA is a specialist in Health Law and a PhD candidate at the Department of Health Systems Management, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.

Márton Leó Zaccaria
Senior Lecturer, University of Debrecen Faculty of Law, Department of Agricultural Law, Environmental Law and Labour Law.

Petra Lea Láncos
Researcher – Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung (Speyer); Associate Professor – Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Faculty of Law (Budapest); Freelance interpreter (ACI) of the European Union.

Áron Péter Balogh
PhD student, University of Debrecen Marton Géza Doctoral School of Legal Studies.

    A recent decision by the Irish Supreme Court ruled that the blanket ban on asylum seekers working in Ireland was unconstitutional and had to be changed.


Orla O’Leary
Orla O’Leary is a Senior Associate at Mason Hayes & Curran in Dublin (www.mhc.ie).
ECJ Court Watch

ECJ 26 July 2017, case C-175/16 (Hälvä), Working time

Hannele Hälvä and Others – v – SOS-Lapsikylä ry, Finish case

Journal European Employment Law Cases, Issue 3 2017
Keywords Working time
Abstract

    Relief workers who look after children in a family environment for SOS-Lapsikyläry, so relieving the children’s foster carers, do not fall within the scope of the exception provided for in Article 17(1) of the Working Time Directive.


Anton de Waal
Anton de Waal Alberts, Parliament of South Africa.

Peter Martinez
Peter Martinez, SpaceLab, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Cape Town.
Article

Why Better Regulation Demands Better Scrutiny of Results

The European Parliament’s Use of Performance Audits by the European Court of Auditors in ex post Impact Assessment

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1-2 2017
Keywords EU budget, European Parliamentary Research Service, policy evaluation, scrutiny, oversight
Authors Paul Stephenson
AbstractAuthor's information

    Ex post impact assessment (traditionally considered part of policy evaluation) received less attention in the preceding ‘Better Regulation’ package (2011) than ex ante impact assessment. Yet, the insights generated through ex post impact assessment provide crucial input for streamlining legislation. In recognition of its contribution, the current agenda (2015) extends the reach to policy evaluation, and from financial instruments to regulatory instruments. In light of existing experience with impact assessments in Commission Directorates-General (DGs), the European Union (EU) institutions have been increasingly aware of the need to develop staff expertise in ex post (policy) evaluation, which has in the past been largely outsourced to external parties. Making sense of collected input and incorporating it within impact assessment is time consuming. Indeed, taking up the findings for practical use is a challenge for political decision makers but essential for the purposes of accountability, scrutiny and institutional learning. The challenge is more so, given the wealth of information being generated by multiple parties and the increasing technical and financial complexity of certain policy areas. The role of the Commission as an advocate of ‘Better Regulation’ has been studied extensively. However, we know relatively little about the role of the European Parliament (EP) in ex post evaluation. This article contributes to the literature on ‘Better Regulation in the EU’ by shedding light on the EP activities in the realm of scrutiny and evaluation. In particular, it looks at the Parliament’s use of special reports produced by the European Court of Auditors (ECA) through its performance audit work and how it takes on board the findings and recommendations in its scrutiny of budgetary spending. Moreover, it examines the emerging role of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) in monitoring the outputs of the ECA and other bodies engaged in audit and evaluation, and thereby, the way in which the EPRS is helping increase the Parliament’s capacity for scrutiny and oversight.


Paul Stephenson
Maastricht University.
Article

Alternative Forms of Regulation: Are They Really ‘Better’ Regulation?

A Case Study of the European Standardization Process

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 1-2 2017
Keywords Better Regulation, co-regulation, standardization, judicial review
Authors Mariolina Eliantonio
AbstractAuthor's information

    One of the commitments of the Better Regulation Package is to consider ‘both regulatory and well-designed non-regulatory means’. Such mechanisms include co-regulation, i.e. administrative processes which involve the participation of private parties, such as the social partners or the standardization bodies, as (co-)decision makers. While the involvement of private parties in European Union (EU) administrative governance has the clear advantage of delivering policies which are based on the expertise of the regulatees themselves, private-party rule-making raises significant concerns in terms of its legitimacy. This article aims to discuss the gaps of judicial protection which exist in co-regulation mechanisms, by taking the case study of the standardization process. After an introduction to the issue of co-regulation and the rationale for the involvement of private parties in EU administrative governance, the standardization process will be examined and the mechanisms of judicial supervision will be reviewed in order to establish the possible gaps of judicial protection.


Mariolina Eliantonio
Dr. M. Eliantonio is an associate professor of European Administrative Law at the Law Faculty of Maastricht University, The Netherlands.

    A Spanish Supreme Court decision issued on 17 October 2016 (no. 848/2016) declares employee terminations void because the employer failed to respect the proper collective redundancy procedures based on the thresholds provided by EU Directive 98/59. The thresholds in the Directive refer to the number of employees at the establishment, whereas thresholds under Spanish law refer to the whole company. In implementing the Directive, Spanish law had aimed at being more favourable to employees, but this did not happen on the facts of this case.


Sonia Cortés
Sonia Cortés is a partner with Abdón Pedrajas & Molero, www.abdonpedrajas.com.
Article

NewSpace

Putting an End to National Prestige and Accountability?

Journal International Institute of Space Law, Issue 2 2017
Authors Ulrike M. Bohlmann and Moritz Bürger
Author's information

Ulrike M. Bohlmann
Dr. Ulrike M. Bohlmann, European Space Agency, Paris, France.

Moritz Bürger
Moritz Bürger, B.A., Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Article

Access_open The Demos as a Plural Subject

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2017
Keywords democracy, demos, normativity, Margaret Gilbert, joint commitment
Authors Bas Leijssenaar
AbstractAuthor's information

    Existing conceptualizations of the demos fail to treat issues of composition and performativity consistently. Recent literature suggests that both aspects are required in a satisfactory account of the demos. An analysis of this literature suggests several desiderata that such an account must meet. I approach the definition of demos with a conceptual framework derived from Margaret Gilbert’s plural subject theory of social groups. I propose an account of demos as a plural subject, constituted by joint commitment. This account offers an improved and consistent understanding of normativity, composition, agency, and cohesion of demos.


Bas Leijssenaar
Bas Leijssenaar is PhD-candidate at the Institute of Philosophy, Centre for Social and Political Philosophy of the University of Leuven.
Article

Access_open Belgium and Democratic Constitution-Making: Prospects for the Future?

Journal Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Issue 1 2017
Keywords constitutional change, democracy, participation, Belgium
Authors Ronald Van Crombrugge
Abstract

    How constitutions are changed – and more importantly: how they should be changed – is the subject of ongoing debate. There seems to be a growing consensus, however, that in order for a constitution to be considered legitimate it is required that it was created through a democratic process. This growing consensus stands in sharp contrast with the Belgian experience of constitutional change as an essentially elite-led process that takes place behind closed doors. This article seeks to explore the possibilities for more democratic forms of constitutional change in Belgium. It does so by evaluating and comparing two examples of democratic constitution-making, namely the constitution-making processes In South Africa (1996) and Iceland (2012). On the basis of these two examples, several concrete suggestions will be made, which are not only relevant for the Belgian case but can be applied more broadly to other countries as well.


Ronald Van Crombrugge

    Online dispute resolution (ODR) has been developed in response to the growth of disputes in electronic commerce transactions. It is based on the legal framework of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) by taking into consideration electronic communications and information technology. This article will introduce the current legal framework and practice of ODR in China, find legal issues that affect the development of ODR and, finally, propose suggestions to overcome these barriers.


Jie Zheng
Jie Zheng is a PhD researcher in Ghent University, Faculty of Law, Department of Interdisciplinary Study of Law, Private Law and Business Law. E-mail: <jie.zheng@ugent.be>.
Article

Defining ‘Better’

Investigating a New Framework to Understand Quality of Regulation

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2 2016
Keywords better regulation, businesses, cross-disciplinary approaches, quality of regulation, European Union
Authors Morten Jarlbæk Pedersen
AbstractAuthor's information

    Better regulation is a political and scholarly theme, which has gained in both relevance and salience throughout the last two decades or so. Regulatory quality is the epicentre of these discussions. Despite this, quality is seldom conceptualized in its own right. Thus, beyond loose principles, we are rarely aware of what we mean by ‘better’ regulation, and academic discussions hereof usually centre themselves on other topics such as meta-regulation and processes. This leaves the notion of quality hard to asses especially from a comparative perspective. In this article, a core concept of quality is suggested. This concept is founded on an acknowledgement of the importance of the legal texts when it comes to achieving regulatory aims and objectives. The concept and methodology proposed has components from both law and political science and is sought to be of relevance to scholars and practitioners alike.


Morten Jarlbæk Pedersen
Morten Jarlbæk Pedersen is a Ph.D. fellow at the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen. He has an affiliation with the Confederation of Danish Enterprise, where he has been employed for 5 years before engaging in this research project. For the purpose of the project, he was relieved of responsibilities as a consultant at the Confederation.
Showing 141 - 160 of 504 results
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 25 26
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.