Search

The aim of this article is to set the scene for the following special issue, which contains four papers relating to research on parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation in different jurisdictions. In Continental Europe, Parliaments (although in a rather different range: more in countries such as Italy and Spain, less in countries such as Germany) have developed a more-in-depth approach in scrutinising the quality of legislation, i.e. a set of tools, standards and bodies to scrutinise it downstream, than that of Westminster jurisdictions. In the latter, a high-standard quality of legislation is guaranteed upstream by having bills drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, although in the United Kingdom there is currently a debate concerning the opportunity to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation. The hypotheses of this research were that the aforementioned models of parliamentary scrutiny are differently shaped in those jurisdictions due to the drafting model and the form of government established there. Against this background, the United States Congress is a very different animal: due to the peculiarities of the legislative process in the presidential system, the scrutiny in Congress relies on multiple parties. The reason why articles have been commissioned here is to test now on a larger scale the aforementioned hypotheses, which have already been partially proved in a previous article mainly concerning Italy (E. Albanesi, 'Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Quality of Legislation within Europe' (2021) Statute Law Review). This time the analysis will focus on two Continental European parliamentary systems (Spain and Germany), one jurisdiction belonging to the Parliamentary Counsel/Westminster model (Canada) and one presidential system (the U.S.). The articles published here seem to support on a larger scale the aforementioned hypotheses. The article on Canada also helps reflect upon the opportunity to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the quality of legislation in Westminster jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International student mobility amongst and between countries has become increasingly common and forms a central feature of the global higher education system. This paper examines the key learning experiences relating to the student mobility component of the Canadian-European Initiative for Health Promotion Advanced Learning (CEIHPAL) project. CEIHPAL was a unique and innovative project that fostered advanced intercontinental education and learning in health promotion from 2005–2008. With co-funding from the European Commission and the Canadian Government, the project facilitated institutional, student and faculty cooperation, by developing a high level of international communication. In particular, this paper focuses on the student mobility component and experiences of the CEIHPAL programme, a central part of the project activities. Feedback from both Canadian and European students themselves is used to document their participation in the programme, including the benefits derived from taking part as well as the problems and difficulties they encountered. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

One question often raised when ozone professionals gather is “How much ozone capacity is installed?” Although the use of ozone for industrial purposes is growing, the largest use for ozone resides in the use of treatment of municipal drinking and wastewater. It is very difficult to summarize ozone capacity for industrial applications as much data are kept confidential. A number of reports have been published over the years on installed ozone capacity. Ozone capacity estimation is a moving target as plants are built and others removed from service for a number of reasons. This paper summarizes, using data available, ozone capacity for drinking water and wastewater. Focus is on the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan. IOA members and member companies are encouraged to submit additional data to enable this summary to be as accurate and relevant as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Limited access to healthcare for vulnerable immigrant children in Europe and North America is increasingly worrisome as immigration policies harden. This paper analyzes the gap between States'' obligations under international human rights law and the disparate local implementations in diverse countries. Studies that are both multidisciplinary and incorporate micro and macro level indicators are needed to reveal discrepancies between entitlements and access. It is argued that the lack of available data on the magnitude of the problem and on its individual and public health consequences stems from the conflicting situation faced by health institutions required to simultaneously protect the best interest of each child and allocate limited resources. Collaboration in research is urgently needed to assist policy-makers and institutions make informed decisions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]