Search

Land and housing are in crisis. Rising rents and land prices have triggered severe housing problems, particularly for low-income and average-income households. In addition to residential apartment distribution, land speculation has become increasingly relevant. Since affordable housing is dependent on the availability of land, this reinforces existing housing difficulties. To understand some basic implications of the crisis, it is necessary to examine the political-economic entanglements of land and housing within the capitalist economic system. Two crucial questions are who owns the land and how it is distributed. Accordingly, landownership plays a crucial role in urban political economy as ownership influences who can and cannot live in central areas of a city. Based on these assumptions, this article aims to reveal some of the basic entanglements of land and housing and explains why one can speak of a crisis. It situates the topic in a broader context to raise fundamental questions about property. It will also provide insights into how property dynamics affect residents and their access to urban spaces by taking a closer look at the Italian city of Venice.

In a landmark decision, the Hague Court of Appeal ordered the Dutch government on 12 February 2024 to stop supplying Israel with F-35 fighter jet parts because there was a “clear risk” that serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) would be committed with the aircraft in Gaza. In their unanimous decision, the three judges relied on the European Union (EU) Common Position on Arms Exports and the Arms Trade Treaty as they apply to Dutch law, which outline criteria against which military exports must be assessed to determine the risk of abuse. The judgment made important findings on the nature of these risk assessments, which may have significant implications in future litigation.

Die bevorstehende Verabschiedung der EU-Richtlinie über die Sorgfaltspflichten von Unternehmen im Hinblick auf Nachhaltigkeit (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, CSDDD) könnte die Regulierung der Waffen- und Rüstungsindustrie in Europa drastisch verändern. Während sich das EU-Parlament, die Kommission und der Rat darauf vorbereiten, in den so genannten „Trilog“ einzutreten, um einen endgültigen Text zu verabschieden, ist noch offen, ob sie auch den Waffenhandel in den Geltungsbereich der Richtlinie einbeziehen werden. In diesem Beitrag beleuchten wir einige Accountability-Defizite in derzeitigen europäischen Regelungen über die Ausfuhr von Feuerwaffen. Die CSDDD könnte dazu beitragen, jene Defizite zu beheben und gleichzeitig den illegalen Handel und die Umleitung von Waffen zu verhindern.

The imminent passage of the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) into law could drastically change the regulatory makeup of the civilian firearms industry in Europe. As the EU Parliament, Commission and Council prepare to enter the so-called ‘trilogues’ to adopt a final text, an open question is whether they will include the arms industry within the scope of the Directive. If so, the resulting provisions could include corporate due diligence obligations for downstream elements of the value chain, thus reinforcing monitoring and accountability. This post highlights the accountability deficit in the current European firearms export regime and shows how the CSDDD could help redress this situation while preventing trafficking and diversion.

Human rights and decolonization have a complicated relationship. From their inception in the mid-20th century as normative features of the nation-state, human rights co-existed with imperial colonial systems. As aspirational values molded on the Western philosophical tradition, human rights also served as empowering tools in the moment of decolonization while simultaneously hampering claims to national independence. This is why, in the engagement with the ongoing legacies of colonialism, we have embarked on this symposium to examine human rights both as a language of critique and as a constitutive part of the imperial legacy.

To evaluate side effects and patients' assessment of fiberoptic bronchoscopy under local anesthesia, 122 consecutive patients answered questions from an outside interviewer (an experienced psychiatrist) and not from the endoscopists themselves. The effect of premedication with midazolam (5 mg i.m.) and hydrocodonum (15 mg i.m.) was compared in a randomized study. In a multiple choice questionnaire 68% of all patients indicated considerable fear in the days before bronchoscopy. They were more afraid of the possible diagnosis of cancer (23%) than of dyspnea or asphyxiation (14%). Coughing is considered the worst side effect of bronchoscopy by 25% of patients (36% of the endoscopists) followed by dyspnea during insertion of the scope (21%) and discomfort during local anesthesia. Although the patients premedicated with midazolam are more sedated (p = 0.025 by physicians' assessment vs. p = 0.11 in patients' view), they cough more (p = 0.001 vs. p = 0.22) and usually tolerate the examination less well (p = 0.009 vs. p = 0.08) than patients premedicated with hydrocodonum. 42% of patients premedicated with midazolam had anterograde amnesia. Although they did not remember all the unpleasant side effects, only 77% said they would repeat the procedure with the same premedication, compared with 90% of patients premedicated with hydrocodonum (p = 0.08). Before and two hours after premedication the reaction times had not changed (optical sign, Wiener reaction device) and were identical in the two patient groups. At that time 37% of the patients premedicated with midazolam and 27% of those premedicated with hydrocodonum were still sleepy and could not be regarded as fit for any form of travel.