Rezension zu: Irini Katsirea, Public Broadcasting and European Law

Public broadcasting has always been a regulatory field somewhat zealously guarded within the nation states' sphere and kept willingly untouched by regional or international rules. Values inherent to the role of public broadcasting, such as cultural and national identity, social cohesion, pluralism and a sustained public sphere, were thought too critical and too historically connected with the particular society to allow any "outside" influence. Different regulatory models have emerged to reflect these specificities within the national boundaries of European countries. Yet, as media evolved technologically and economically, the constraints of state borders were rendered obsolete and the inner tension between culture and commerce of the television medium became more pronounced. This tension was only intensified with the formulation of a European Community (EC) layer of regulation, which had as its primary objective the creation of a single market for audiovisual services (or as the EC Directive beautifully put it, a "Television without Frontiers"), while also including some provisions catering for cultural concerns, such as the infamous quota system for European and independent productions. Against this backdrop, public broadcasting makes a particularly intriguing subject for a study of regulatory dilemmas of national versus supranational, integration versus intergovernmentalism, culture versus commerce, intervention versus liberalisation, and all this in the dynamic setting of contemporary media. The present paper reviews Irini Katsirea's book PUBLIC BROADCASTING AND EUROPEAN LAW and seeks to identify whether all elements of the complex governance puzzle of European public service broadcasting rules are analytically well fitted together.

Europe and Islam: Alarmists, Victimists, and Integration by Law

This article reviews the minefield of Muslim integration in Europe, paying special attention to the legal integration of Islam, which has not yet found the attention that it deserves. In a first step, the article contrasts ‘victimist’ and ‘alarmist’ views on contemporary Muslim integration, both of which are found misleading. Instead, as argued in the second part, significant progress has been made through the legal route. The conclusion provides a reflection on the role of Islam for Europe’s ‘liberal identity’ today.

Current Challenges regarding the International Refugee Law, with focus on EU Policies and EU Co-operation with UNHCR. CEPS Paper on Liberty and Security in Europe No. 59, September 2013

From an examination of the instruments of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and related policy measures regarding border surveillance and migration management, two interrelated issues stand out as particularly sensitive: Access to asylum and responsibility for refugee protection. The prevailing view, supported by UNHCR and others, is that responsibility for the care of asylum seekers and the determination of their claims falls on the state within whose jurisdiction the claim is made. However, the possibility to shift that responsibility to another state through inter-state cooperation or unilateral mechanisms undertaken territorially as well as abroad has been a matter of great interest to EU Member States and institutions. Initiatives adopted so far challenge the prevailing view and have the potential to undermine compliance with international refugee and human rights law. This note reviews EU action in the field by reference to the relevant legal standards and best practices developed by UNHCR, focusing on the specific problems of climate refugees and access to international protection, evaluating the inconsistencies between the internal and external dimension of asylum policy. Some recommendations for the European Parliament are formulated at the end, including on action in relation to readmission agreements, Frontex engagement rules in maritime operations, Regional Protection Programmes, and resettlement.

Robbery under law; or, The battle of the millionaires; a play in three acts and three scenes, time, 1887; treating of the adventures of the author of "Who's looney now?" by John Armstrong Chaloner.

Robbery under law.--The hazard of the die.--The temple of Apollo and the muses.--Ali Baba and the forty thieves.--The prison house.--Aladdin and his wonderful lamp.--Scorpio.--"The play's the thing."--"The shaving of Shagpat."--In re the Paris prize.--"Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit."--Isis unveiled.--Newspaper reviews [etc.]--David-up-to-date.

Privacy in the Smart City: Implications of Sensor Network Design, Law, and Policy for Locational Privacy

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Justifying partial rescission in English law

Comments on the refusal of the English courts to recognise the existence of a remedy of partial rescission, suggesting that in certain restricted instances justification exists for the grant of such a remedy. Considers the nature of the remedy of rescission under English law, the English courts' approach towards partial rescission and the nature and scope of the discretions available to the courts, noting the decisions in TSB Bank Plc v Camfield and De Molestina v Ponton. Reviews the historical origins of the remedy of rescission, including the distinction between fraudulent and non fraudulent misrepresentation and the origins of the so called concurrent and auxiliary equitable jurisdictions. Compares the approach of the Australian courts and highlights examples of recognition of partial rescission under international law.

"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.

The ILC's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Completion of the Second Reading

In 2001 the International Law Commission finally adopted on second reading the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, bringing to an end nearly 50 years of ILC work on the subject. This article reviews the final group of changes to the text, focusing on the definitions of ‘injury’ and ‘damage’, assurances of non‐repetition in the light of the LaGrand case, procedural aspects of countermeasures and the controversy over measures taken in response to a breach by states which are not individually injured. The focus of debate now turns to the UNGA Sixth Committee, which will have to decide what to make of the Draft Articles. The ILC itself recommended an initial resolution taking note of the Articles, with subsequent consideration (after a period of years) of a possible diplomatic conference with a view to concluding a convention. This modest proposal allows for further reflection on the text and may help to avoid possibly divisive and inconclusive debate in the Sixth Committee. At the same time it allows time for better understanding of the many changes made as compared with the first reading text (1996).

Engaging Students in the Implementation of Criterion Referenced Assessment in First Year Law

The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) University Academic Board approved a new QUT Assessment Policy in September 2003, which requires a criterion-referenced approach as opposed to a norm-referenced approach to assessment across the university(QUT,MOPP,2003). In 2004, the QUT Law School embarked upon a process of awareness raising about criterion-referenced assessment amongst staff and from 2004 – 2005 staggered the implementation of criterion-referenced assessment in all first year core undergraduate law units. This paper will briefly discuss the benefits and potential pitfalls of criterion referenced assessment and the context for implementing it in the first year law program, report on student’s feedback on the introduction of criterion referenced assessment and the strategies adopted in 2005 to engage students more fully in criterion referenced assessment processes to enhance their learning outcomes.