The public health systems of liberal states systematically fail to meet the goals and obligations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which aims to facilitate full societal participation and independent life choices by all impaired persons, as well as the unburdening of their private caretakers. This failure does not stem from a lack of money or effort by governments and other societal institutions, but flaws in the anatomy of these systems. As these systems confine institutional assistance to the needs of persons with certain delineated disabilities, they neglect the needs of other persons, whose disabilities do not fit this mould. The responsibility for the latter group thus falls to their immediate social circle. These private caretakers are in turn seldom supported. To remedy this situation, I will present the alternative paradigm of vulnerability theory as the possible foundation for a more inclusive approach to public health.

Uit het Perspectief-rapport (januari 2020) blijkt dat het besluit om het eigen leven te beëindigen zonder dat er sprake is van een medische grondslag niet samenhangt met de leeftijd van de betrokkene. Aan een wettelijke regeling die de zelfgekozen dood mogelijk maakt voor mensen met een ‘voltooid leven’, zoals voorgesteld door D66, bestaat daarom geen behoefte. De eis van een medische grondslag is echter onnodig restrictief en verdient dan ook heroverweging. Dat hoeft er niet toe te leiden niet-artsen bij de uitvoering van een besluit tot levensbeëindiging te betrekken.

This article tells the story of University of Strathclyde Mediation Clinic through the eyes of its founder. Taking its first case in 2012, by the start of 2021 it will be providing a free mediation service in 16 of Scotland’s 39 sheriff courts, covering more than half the country’s population. Yet it started with no plan, no budget and a few volunteers. The article makes the case that mediation clinics, like mediation itself, call for improvisation, coining the term ‘pracademia’ to describe how such clinics straddle the two worlds of practice and theory.

Within the past half century, a market in adoptable children has emerged. The imbalance between the demand for and the supply of adoptable children, combined with the large sums of Western money, incite greedy actors in poor countries to illegally obtain children for adoption. This renders intercountry adoption conducive to abuses. Private adoptions are particularly prone to abusive and commercial practices. Yet, although they violate both international and national law, German and Dutch family courts commonly recognize them. They argue that removing the child from the illegal adopters would not be compatible with the rights and best interests of the individual child concerned. In 2017, the ECtHR rendered a ground-breaking judgement in Campanelli and Paradiso v. Italy. In this case, the Court dealt with the question as to whether removing a child from the care of an Italian couple that entered into a surrogacy agreement with a Russian clinic, given that surrogacy is illegal in Italy, violated Article 8 ECHR. Contrary to previous case law, in which the ECtHR placed a strong emphasis on the best interests of the individual child concerned, the Court attached more weight to the need to prevent disorder and crime by putting an end to the illegal situation created by the Italian couple and by discouraging others from bypassing national laws. The article argues that considering the shifting focus of the ECtHR on the prevention of unlawful conduct and, thus, on the best interests of children in general, the German and Dutch courts’ failure to properly balance the different interests at stake in a private international adoption by mainly focusing on the individual rights and interests of the children is difficult to maintain.

---

In de afgelopen halve eeuw is er een markt voor adoptiekinderen ontstaan. De disbalans tussen de vraag naar en het aanbod van adoptiekinderen, in combinatie met grote sommen westers geld, zet hebzuchtige actoren in arme landen ertoe aan illegaal kinderen te verkrijgen voor adoptie. Dit maakt interlandelijke adoptie bevorderlijk voor misbruik. Particuliere adoptie is bijzonder vatbaar voor misbruik en commerciële praktijken. Ondanks het feit dat deze privé-adopties in strijd zijn met zowel internationaal als nationaal recht, worden ze door Duitse en Nederlandse familierechtbanken doorgaans wel erkend. Daartoe wordt aangevoerd dat het verwijderen van het kind van de illegale adoptanten niet verenigbaar is met de rechten en belangen van het individuele kind in kwestie. In 2017 heeft het EHRM een baanbrekende uitspraak gedaan in de zaak Campanelli en Paradiso t. Italië. In deze zaak behandelde het Hof de vraag of het verwijderen van een kind uit de zorg van een Italiaans echtpaar dat een draagmoederschapsovereenkomst met een Russische kliniek is aangegaan, in strijd is met artikel 8 EVRM, daarbij in ogenschouw genomen dat draagmoederschap in Italië illegaal is. In tegenstelling tot eerdere jurisprudentie, waarin het EHRM sterk de nadruk legde op de belangen van het individuele kind, hechtte het Hof meer gewicht aan de noodzaak om de openbare orde te bewaken en criminaliteit te voorkomen door een einde te maken aan de illegale situatie die door het Italiaanse echtpaar was gecreëerd door onder andere het omzeilen van nationale wetten. Het artikel stelt dat, gezien de verschuiving in de focus van het EHRM op het voorkomen van onwettig gedrag en dus op het belang van kinderen in het algemeen, de Duitse en Nederlandse rechtbanken, door met name te focussen op de individuele rechten en belangen van de kinderen, er niet in slagen om de verschillende belangen die op het spel staan ​​bij een particuliere internationale adoptie goed af te wegen.

Long before the coming of the Bill of Rights in written Constitutions, the common law has had the greatest regard for the personal liberty of the individual. In order to safeguard that liberty, the remedy of habeas corpus was always available to persons deprived of their liberty unlawfully. This ancient writ has been incorporated into the modern Constitution as a fundamental right and enforceable as other rights protected by virtue of their entrenchment in those Constitutions. This article aims to bring together the various understanding of habeas corpus at common law and the principles governing the writ in common law jurisdictions. The discussion is approached through a twelve-point construct thus providing a brief conspectus of the subject matter, such that one could have a better understanding of the subject as applied in most common law jurisdictions.

In this episode of ‘In conversation with’ we are interviewing dr. Amalia Campos Delgado about her research on migration and border control in Mexico.

In the Netherlands, immigration detention is classified under administrative law. More precisely: it is a form of administrative coercion. But immigration detention is also deprivation of liberty, or a habeas corpus measure. This makes it the most far-reaching form of administrative coercion you can think of. The regime and house rules of immigration detention differ just a little from those of criminal deprivation of liberty. The draft bill on the Return and Detention Act provides some improvements. For asylum seekers that cause nuisance, there is the Enforcement and Supervision Location, where the foreign national is given an area restriction and must remain within the municipal boundaries. Due to the liberty restrictions, immigration detention should always be the last resort.

Met de in april 2019 aangenomen Europese Toegankelijkheidsrichtlijn wordt gepoogd de toegankelijkheid van producten en diensten voor personen met een beperking te verbeteren. De richtlijn geeft hiermee uitvoering aan het VN-verdrag inzake de rechten van personen met een handicap. Dit artikel beschrijft de totstandkomingsgeschiedenis van de richtlijn, de belangrijkste kenmerken ervan en wat de te verwachten toegevoegde waarde van de richtlijn zal zijn.
Richtlijn (EU) 2019/882 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 17 april 2019 betreffende de toegankelijkheidsvoorschriften voor producten en diensten, PbEU 2019, L 151/70.

In law enforcement animal assisted interventions have become popular. Unfortunately in evaluation studies often animal welfare is not included. The question rises to what extent this work might be harmful for participating animals and what alternatives we may offer. In this contribution we describe how robots have been introduced and are being used in the world of care. Might robots be a good alternative for animal participation in risky situations in law enforcement? We conclude by raising a number of pertinent questions for further research.

In principle, healthcare received on initiative of an insured person, in another Member State than the Member State of residence, constitutes ‘scheduled treatment’ within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation 883/04/EC, the reimbursement of which is subject to prior authorization. This can be different in ‘individual circumstances’.

In a summary proceeding, the Court of Rotterdam has held that it is not clear whether the Non-Seafarers Work Clause, prohibiting lashing work on board of container ships being carried out by the crew, does indeed contribute to better employment and/or working conditions of seafarers. As a result of which the Clause – at this time – cannot be held to be outside the scope of competition law and the claim for compliance with the provision has been rejected. In the media, unions have stated that they will continue to enforce compliance with the Non-Seafarers Work Clause. It remains to be seen whether a court in main proceedings will reach a similar verdict.

The Austrian Supreme Court has asked preliminary questions about the lawfulness of Section 10(2) of the Austrian Law on Annual Leave which stipulates that an employee is not entitled to an allowance in lieu of annual leave in respect to the current (last) working year if they terminate the employment relationship prematurely without good cause.

This case involved an employee who claimed that he was unfairly dismissed for using a trade union to bring a grievance over measures his employer had taken on account of the coronavirus pandemic. The Employment Tribunal (ET) found that he was likely to be able to show at the full hearing of the case that this was an automatically unfair dismissal on grounds of his trade union membership or activities. It awarded the remedy of ‘interim relief’, ordering the employer immediately to reinstate him pending the full trial of the matter. The ET’s decision might signal a potential rise in claims for interim relief in future cases.

A national collective agreement may reserve to mothers alone an additional maternity leave, as long as it seeks to protect them from the effects of pregnancy and motherhood.

In twee hier te bespreken arresten bouwt het Hof van Justitie voort op de rechtspraak met betrekking tot het recht op schone lucht zoals neergelegd in Richtlijn 2008/50/EG betreffende de luchtkwaliteit en schonere lucht voor Europa.
De belangrijkste aanvulling die het Hof van Justitie in het Craeynest-arrest geeft, is dat ook de wetenschappelijke beoordeling van de luchtkwaliteit door het bepalen van de plaats van een bemonsteringspunt onderworpen kan worden aan rechterlijke toetsing om zodoende het nuttig effect van de richtlijn te garanderen.
Het tweede arrest, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, is opzienbarend omdat het Hof van Justitie hierin oordeelde dat het EU-recht onder bepaalde voorwaarden een nationale rechter als ultimum remedium de verplichting geeft gebruik te maken van een nationale bevoegdheid lijfsdwang op te leggen aan het bevoegd gezag als dit stelselmatig weigert milieumaatregelen te nemen in het kader van Richtlijn 2008/50/EG en als niet aannemelijk is dat dit zal veranderen.
Hoewel gewezen in de context van luchtkwaliteit hebben beide arresten ook implicaties voor andere gebieden uit het milieurecht, zoals biodiversiteit, klimaat en waterkwaliteit.
HvJ 26 juni 2019, zaak C-723/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:533 (Lies Craeynest e.a./Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest en Brussels Instituut voor Milieubeheer); HvJ 19 december 2019, zaak C-752/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1114 (Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV/Freistaat Bayern)

International human rights law (IHRL) was established in the aftermath of the Second World War to prevent a reoccurrence of the atrocities committed in the name of fascism. Central to this aim was the recognition that out-groups are particularly vulnerable to rights violations committed by the in-group. Yet, it is increasingly apparent that out-groups are still subject to a wide range of rights violations, including those associated with mass atrocities. These rights violations are facilitated by the dehumanisation of the out-group by the in-group. Consequently, this article argues that the creation of IHRL treaties and corresponding monitoring mechanisms should be viewed as the first step towards protecting out-groups from human rights violations. By adopting the lens of dehumanisation, this article demonstrates that if IHRL is to achieve its purpose, IHRL monitoring mechanisms must recognise the connection between dehumanisation and rights violations and develop a positive State obligation to counter dehumanisation. The four treaties explored in this article, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, all establish positive State obligations to prevent hate speech and to foster tolerant societies. These obligations should, in theory, allow IHRL monitoring mechanisms to address dehumanisation. However, their interpretation of the positive State obligation to foster tolerant societies does not go far enough to counter unconscious dehumanisation and requires more detailed elaboration.

This article argues that it is legitimate for the state to practice soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds in order to prevent behaviour that is discriminatory. Liberals accept that it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in order to change how people think because ideas and beliefs are wrong in themselves. It is legitimate for the state to intervene with the actions of a person only when there is a risk of harm to others and when there is a threat to social coexistence. Preventive action of the state is legitimate if we consider the immaterial and material harm that discrimination causes. It causes harm to the social standing of the person, psychological harm, economic and existential harm. All these harms threaten peaceful social coexistence. This article traces a theory of permissible government action. Research in the areas of behavioural psychology, neuroscience and social psychology indicates that it is possible to bring about a change in hearts and minds. Encouraging a person to adopt the perspective of the person who has experienced discrimination can lead to empathetic understanding. This, can lead a person to critically evaluate her prejudice. The paper argues that soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds is legitimate in order to prevent harm to others. It attempts to legitimise state coercion in order to eliminate prejudice and broader social patterns of inequality and marginalisation. And it distinguishes between appropriate and non-appropriate avenues the state could pursue in order to eliminate prejudice. Policies towards eliminating prejudice should address the rational and the emotional faculties of a person. They should aim at using methods and techniques that focus on persuasion and reduce coercion. They should raise awareness of what prejudice is and how it works in order to facilitate well-informed voluntary decisions. The version of soft paternalism towards changing minds and attitudes defended in this article makes it consistent with liberalism.