Search

Both international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) make extensive references to humanity. Yet the role attributed to humanity differs between the two. Humanity is seen in IHRL as the source of the rights, whereas in IHL it is interpreted as a moral obligation to avoid harm. This article challenges this perspective. Relying upon contemporary interpretations of IHL, it will be argued that, in a moral sense, IHL matches up closely with IHRL. Crucial here is that humanity, rather than reflect a utilitarian perspective to avoid harm, is worded in stronger terms. To reflect this accurately, it is argued that IHL is best seen as a reflection of TM Scanlon's contractualism as opposed to utilitarian reasoning. Relying upon the similarities in moral reasoning visible in both bodies of law, the article argues that this should also be reflected when it comes to redress for violations. In a concrete sense, the argument here is that this also presents a moral requirement to recognise individual claims within IHL. To give legal effect to this moral demand, it is suggested that IHRL might play a role in bridging the gap between the moral and legal considerations in IHL.

Private sector actors have long been involved in surveillance. This extends to surveillance undertaken in crisis contexts and conflict situations, where humanitarian needs commonly arise. Prior research has problematized the surveillance-industrial complex’s involvement in aid initiatives and humanitarian interventions, but new dynamics are creating novel dilemmas. This contribution to a dialogue on surveillance in contemporary conflict discusses how surveillance firms are exploiting humanitarian crises as a means to aidwash their technologies and services. In this context, aidwashing practices involve the use of corporate social responsibility initiatives and forms of public-private partnership with aid actors to burnish surveillance firms’ reputations and distract the public from corporate misbehavior, ethical misdeeds, and dubious data practices. In this piece, I draw on two recent cases—a partnership to develop advanced data analytics for the optimization of humanitarian food assistance and the donation of facial recognition services in an ongoing armed conflict—to interrogate the surveillance industry’s public relations activities in humanitarian emergencies and conflict situations and reflect on the inner workings of—and resistance to—aidwashing.

Five judgments from the Court of Justice on social security are reported on in this case note. First, Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringbank v X and Y (C-713/20) concerns the legislation applicable under Regulation 883/2004 to temporary agency workers in relation to periods between contracts. Second, DN v Finanzamt Österreich (Recouvrement de prestations familiales) (C-199/21) deals with the right to receive family benefits for a parent not residing with his child but bearing the costs of maintenance. Third, MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden (C-638/20) is about the export of student financial assistance for family members of migrant workers under Article 45 TFEU. Fourth, the requirement to register a partnership for the purpose of accessing a survivor's pension in a Member State, although that partnership was lawfully concluded and registered in another Member State, is under scrutiny in Caisse nationale d’assurance pension (C-731/21). Fifth and finally, FK v Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien (C-58/21) discusses the requirement to waive one's right to practise as a lawyer in other Member States in order to be granted an early retirement pension in light of Articles 45 TFEU and Article 49 TFEU.

The Court of Justice has recently rendered four judgments (C-302/19; C-94/20; C-350/20; C-462/20) concerning the access to social security and social assistance for third-country nationals. In the recent years, there have been attempts by some Member States to restrict or exclude access to social security or social assistance for third-country nationals. The goal of this paper is not only to inform the reader about the Court of Justice’s judgments but also to put those judgments in perspective with previous cases as well as to discuss potential future EU legislative responses to it.

States have been increasingly engaging in a practice of ex gratia payments during armed conflict as a way to win ‘hearts and minds’ or mitigate local animosity from combat operations that cause civilian loss or damage. These represent voluntary payments for damages which are not the result of a violation of the laws of war. This practice provides a contrast to reparations, which are the result of a legal obligation to remedy breaches of law. This article critically assesses how these two concepts interact with each other. Analysing the current practice, this work argues that ex gratia payments can represent another barrier for victims seeking redress. Crucial here is that these payments are seen as both an explicit and implicit waiver of any future claims. This ignores the potential for synergy between the two concepts on both moral and operational grounds. To better facilitate this potential synergy, this article takes inspiration from some of the human rights jurisprudence surrounding reparations programs and considers ex gratia payments in light of their standards instead of accepting them as a blanket waiver. This would align these payments better with both the operational and moral imperatives underlying these payments.

This paper presents the results of a mixed-methods study on the child’s right to freedom of expression in Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara (MCWS). Qualitative data for this paper was obtained by the author and student researcher through covert f ield research and online interviews. The data is analysed according to three academic perspectives: first a legal doctrinal perspective, which discusses the content of the child’s right to freedom of expression under international law. Second, a normative pluralism perspective, which shows how the child’s right to freedom of expression is protected and/or violated on different social levels in MCWS, such as the state, the school and the family. Third, a narrative theory perspective, which discusses the two dominant narratives in MCWS (the Sahrawi activist and the Moroccan nationalist narrative), both of which are the presentations, the subject, and a cause of the illegal restrictions placed on the child’s freedom of expression for children living in MCWS. The paper ends with a presentation of an alternative, third narrative: a silent narrative, which according to the author has the potential to be a new political space where certain topics can be discussed more freely

In this case note, nine judgments of the Court will be discussed. The first two judgments discussed concern the principle of equal treatment in relation to family benefits ( S v Familienkasse and Commission v Austria). Additionally, both the first and third judgments reported relate to the interpretation of the Citizenship Directive (Directive 2004/38) ( S v Familienkasse and VI). The other judgments on social security deal with the calculation of old-age pension ( CC) and the legislation applicable for flight and cabin crew ( INAIL and INPS) under Regulation 883/2004. The four remaining judgments are cases of discrimination on grounds of sex in the context of pensions ( KM v INSS and EB v BVAEB), on grounds of age ( A v HK Danmark and HK/Privat) and between temporary agency workers and ‘regular’ workers ( Luso Temp).

This article examines the structural elements of the Collective Complaints Procedure, seen as an avenue of socio-economic rights strategic litigation, that potentially enable or impede NGOs and trade unions in addressing violations of the European Social Charter before the European Committee of Social Rights. The findings show that the procedure is a unique form of collective redress in the human rights system, with exceptional structural characteristics, which render it an avenue of strategic litigation by its nature. Its main strength lies in that it enables the participation of organisations and vulnerable groups of people that are denied access in political or judicial fora, either at the domestic or supranational level, to deliberate on social policy issues and put pressure on States to address social issues on the basis of economic and social rights.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), though a product of the international environmental law of the 1990s, has crept into the language of most, if not all, areas of common concern at UN level. In this chapter, we trace the development and evolution of the principle of CBDR as an expression of fairness and solidarity in international law and focus on its application in international environmental law. We then further explore whether a logic of CBDR is now reflected in the recent global refugee policy instruments at UN level and whether traces of the principle can be found in EU asylum policy and the Common European Asylum System. We conclude that a logic of CBDR permeates recent asylum and refugee policy at UN and EU level, albeit manifested and operationalised in distinct ways. In the first instance at UN level, although a version of CBDR vaguely frames the non-binding responsibility sharing arrangements under the Global Compact on Refugees, it is not explicit or concrete to help us understand what a common responsibility to protect the refugees entails concretely and how such common responsibility ought to be equitably shared. Failing to explicitly debate and adopt the principle even in a soft law instrument, the Global Compact on Refugees missed the opportunity to collectivise the responsibility to protect refugees and meaningfully address the perennial gap of the Refugee Convention. In the second instance, at EU asylum policy level, the legislative developments do reflect a logic of differentiated contributions in what is conceived as a common responsibility. However, differentiation is not serving a conception of solidarity and fair sharing, but merely political expediency by endorsing certain states’ reluctance to engage with refugee protection.

Within the European Union, border regions represent 40% of its territory and they are home to a third of the EU’s population. Located at the edge of national borders (i.e. the EU’s internal borders), these regions provide opportunities to reap benefits from interactions of different cultures, languages, markets, and societies. However, from a law-making point of view, these regions – and particularly their cross-border 'conglomerates' – provide rather challenging subjects. The article's central question is how a cross-border impact assessment during the legislative process can ensure better regulation in the light of regional policy. The first section reflects on the nature and origins of obstacles to mobility and cooperation experienced by cross-border regions. It will provide concrete case examples of EU policies where so-called ‘cross-border effects’ can be analysed. The second section presents existing approaches and methods for identifying and assessing possible effects for cross-border regions. In addition, the practice of a bottom-up regulatory cross-border impact assessment will be discussed. The third section elaborates further on what the current state of affairs in EU’s policy-making and impact assessment looks like. Finally, we will discuss how a cross-border impact assessment would fit within the procedure of EU’s policy-making and other initiatives and conclude with some policy recommendations.

This article assesses the multilateral rules regulating e-commerce to identify their adequacies to provide the issues the European Union (EU) needs to consider as a player in World Trade Organization (WTO) e-commerce negotiations. The analysis uses six factors: facilitating imports and export, addressing tariffs as a form of government revenue, attracting investment, preserving policy space for digital industrialization, providing development assistance, and providing for different rights and obligations according to development levels. While existing multilateral rules have relevant provisions for regulating e-commerce, there are several limitations. The existing multilateral rules were designed to regulate broader issues, which ignore the new issues brought by digitalization. The EU Single Market, proposals for the digital services tax and the New Deal for Consumers provide important lessons that can help in shaping e-commerce rules at the WTO.

This article examines the applicable framework for procedural transparency under the EU Investment Screening Regulation and sets forth two arguments. First, with respect to Member State screening procedures, the Regulation cannot guarantee meaningful procedural transparency either at the administrative or judicial stage. Procedural transparency in investment screening is problematic because the screening relates to perceived threats to security or public order, which would be undermined by disclosure. However, a lack of procedural transparency is itself a problem that may result in factual mistakes, security overreach, and abuse, including the use of screening for security-unrelated purposes. Second, to address this conundrum, the article argues that the European Commission could play a role in mitigating the risks inherent in lack of procedural transparency by being given the power to audit or review ex post facto the screening decisions taken by the Member States. The article outlines how such a review mechanism might work in a way that would also satisfy investors’ right to recourse.

International law regulates the rules governing the relations between states among themselves or those to which international organizations are a party. A state must satisfy statehood criteria and other requirements in order for it to be considered as a subject of international law. In addition to states, intergovernmental organizations emerged as another subject of international law, which allows them, inter-alia, to conclude treaties and exchange diplomatic missions with states. International legal rules are mainly derived from sources such as customary law and treaties, in addition to other secondary sources such as principles of justice and equity, general principles of law, court rulings, international jurisprudence, and others. International custom is the traditional source of international law. It is represented in the progression of international behavior in a specific pattern accompanied by a sense of its obligation, that is, as a basis for a right or an obligation guaranteed by law. On the other hand, treaties are governed by the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which regulates treaty provisions from its making, through the principles guiding reservations and interpretation, to terminating or suspending them. Both treaties and norms regulate topics that concern the international community such as humanitarian law, human rights, diplomatic immunities, treaty law, state responsibility and settlement of disputes.

It is increasingly challenging for policymakers and other stakeholders to appreciate the growing complexity of the digital identity ecosystem, the technologies involved, and the broad implications of their deployment. This article seeks to help clarify these current debates and controversies by highlighting some of the technological transformations that are underway in the sector. We trace the ongoing transitions from "Big ID" systems to self-sovereign identity (SSI) approaches and digital wallets to the recent emergence of super apps, analyzing the different geographies of these systems and their impacts on exclusion and power relations. We argue that all technologies are political, and digital identity technologies especially so. Despite recent moves towards decentralization couched in the rhetoric of individual empowerment, most systems continue to exhibit features of centralization and tend to reinforce existing institutional arrangements.

The war of aggression by a permanent member of the Security Council, combined with the availability of its assets on the territory of other states, creates an opportunity to solve one of international law’s enigmas: the legality of third-party countermeasures in the general interest. Would confiscating Russia’s frozen Central Bank assets and making the proceeds available to repair the war damage in Ukraine be permissible as such a countermeasure? This paper argues that state immunity cannot be relied upon to prevent the freezing or confiscation of foreign central bank assets by direct executive action; that freezing foreign state assets is permissible as a third-party countermeasure to stop a serious case of aggression; and that confiscation would not qualify as a countermeasure but may be permissible as a ‘lawful measure’ to repair the damage. Recent changes in Canadian legislation support the existence of such a permissive rule. On the other hand, controversial measures by the United States to control the assets of the Afghan Central Bank demonstrate the need for safeguards against abuse.

This study has been commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, Directorate-General for Internal Policies at the request of the ENVI Committee. It analyses EFSA’s independence and transparency policies and examines how legislative provisions have been implemented by EFSA and whether rules and practices adopted by EFSA can be improved.

On account of the immunities which foreign State officials enjoy under international law, universal jurisdiction trials fail to offer justice to victims of crimes orchestrated by State authorities. The ICC Appeals Chamber has affirmed that immunities are inapplicable before international courts as no customary rule providing immunities before international courts has taken shape. While plausible, a critical assessment should still be made of which features an international court should have to be genuinely distinguishable from domestic courts, and thereby not be concerned with immunities. In this paper, it is argued that, unlike domestic courts, certain international criminal courts may be expressly endorsed by the international community as organs which may restore peaceful relations between and among states – the very rationale underlying personal immunity – and, as such, provide victims with access to justice.

There is no formal hierarchy between, or international rule of precedent applicable to, the three regional human rights systems and the eight UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies with active competence to entertain individual complaints. By scrutinising the practice of duplicative proceedings of UN Treaty Bodies (UNTBs), this article makes the argument that the res judicata and lis pendens principles have not prevented the UNTBs from reviewing cases previously examined by a regional human rights court. In doing so, the case is made that while the UNTBs usually defer to regional courts’ factual and legal findings when analyzing cases with the same parties, substantive rights, facts and events, judgments that apply the margin of appreciation doctrine are much more at risk of being revised and contradicted by UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Distinct opportunities for horizontal dialogue between UNTBs and regional human rights courts are thus opened.

This paper presents our case study on the child’s right to be protected from all forms of violence in the Sahrawi refugee camps, near Tindouf, Algeria. After presenting our general findings and the different applicable social (legal and non-legal) norms, we argue that this study shows a new way to navigate conflicting norms of different normative orders. Namely: instead of choosing between conflicting norms/orders, Sahrawi adults reinterpret key concepts of norms, so that the different applicable norms can be aligned. In this case, they redefined the concepts of “childhood” and “violence”, so that it can be argued that the international legal right of their children to be protected from violence is fully complied with, while they are also aware of, and discuss, frequent fighting between children, as well as physical punishment (beating) of children by adult family members and teachers. The paper argues that this paradoxical position can be understood as an example of what Sartre calls “mauvaise foi”. In this case, the hiding of the factual self happens on the individual level, as well as on the collective level (the collective self of the Sahrawi people: our people do not use violence against children).

The ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice in Case C-118/20 JY v. Wiener Landesregierung EU:C:2022:34 follows the judgments in Rottmann and Tjebbes. These cases concern the relationship between EU law and national citizenship. In particular, they deal with the compatibility of national authorities’ decisions on loss of nationality with the proportionality principle. The JY v. Wiener Landesregierung case highlights the contradictory nature of nationality law, which cannot be fully understood from a purely domestic perspective and yet remains within the sphere of Member States’ competences. Overall, the decision of the CJEU in JY v. Wiener Landesregierung leaves a bittersweet taste in EU lawyers’ mouths. On the one hand, the Court appears to implicitly make clear its aversion for certain national practices. In doing so, it ensures, in the case in question, a higher degree of protection of EU law-derived rights. On the other hand, the ruling does not adequately ensure sufficient safeguards for similar future cases. Finally, the Court seems to have missed a significant opportunity provided by the principle of mutual trust.

This article considers whether covert research methods may be an ethically acceptable method for doing human rights research in areas under control of authoritarian regimes, and, if so, how this research can and should be conducted. The author’s study on the rights of children living in Western Sahara under Moroccan control, where a covert qualitative research method was employed, is taken as a central case study. The article concludes that covert qualitative research in authoritarian zones is ethically acceptable, and sometimes even necessary, under three conditions: 1) the research aims to contribute to the protection of human rights; 2) research subjects remain anonymous; 3) there is no other, overt way to obtain the necessary data. The article aims to present a challenging yet sometimes necessary and valuable method for studying human rights in areas that otherwise may be inaccessible to human rights researchers. It contributes to a longer standing debate on the ethical acceptability of covert research methods, as well as to provide practical guidance to researchers (both academic and non-academic) who are considering using this method to study human rights violations.

The nature and extent of openness depend on the context and/or disciplinary domain. Earlier usage of the term open was in the context of computer systems. For example, in networked systems of computers, 'openness' refers to enabling protocols that connect previously closed systems so that they can communicate with each other. Beyond that, openness has been used to imply a spectrum of meanings, notably since the campaign for open source software development populated the term 'open' and its suggested notions of 'openness' as freedom, entitlement, or norm. As a social form of organising, 'openness' suggests a way of sharing resources. In the corporate context, 'openness' refers to more active involvement of stakeholders in the process of value creation.

This essay examines how EU criminal law, which regulates certain aspects of criminal procedural law of the twenty-seven EU member states, addresses the situation of persons with disabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system. EU law on victims and on suspects and accused persons (partially) addresses disability through the prism of “vulnerability.” This essay argues that associating persons with disabilities with “vulnerability” can be stigmatizing. Moreover, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which requires that persons with disabilities have effective access to justice and receive appropriate accommodations, does not link these rights to a prior recognition of “vulnerability.” Even though the EU is a party to the CRPD, the 2013 Recommendation from the European Commission on Procedural Safeguards for Vulnerable Persons Suspected or Accused in Criminal Proceedings, frames disability in terms of “vulnerability.” In contrast, parts of the EU Victims’ Rights Directive address the situation of individuals with disabilities without using the language of vulnerability.

Infringement actions and EU values – constitutional backsliding in Hungary and Poland – the role of the Court of Justice – judicial independence and Article 19 TEU – the Charter of Fundamental Rights – the toolkit to protect EU values – political and judicial mechanisms – a bottom-up approach

In December 2020, the EU institutions finally approved the new Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation after a controversial legislative process. The new Regulation allows the Commission and the Council to suspend EU funds in case of breaches to the rule of law that have negative effects on the EU budget and financial interests. This article analyses the new Regulation against the background of the rise of conditionality as a tool of EU governance. It argues, in contrast to some of the first analyses of the new Regulation, that the amendments adopted during the legislative process cannot simply be seen as a watered-down compromise, but were crucial to ensure the legality of the new instrument. At the same time, the EU’s growing reliance on conditionality continues to raise profound constitutional questions that still needs to be adequately addressed in the institutional and academic debate.

The concept of ‘working time’ for a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system applicable to firefighters was interpreted by the Court in MG (C-214/20). In the Y case (C-636/19), the Court interpreted the concept of ‘insured person’ for the purpose of reimbursement of healthcare costs under Directive 2011/24. In the TS case (C-538/19), the Court dealt with another cross-border healthcare case. This time the question was whether a Member State can require an authorisation for cross-border healthcare to be subject to the submission of a medical report drawn up by a doctor from its national public health insurance system in light of Article 20 of Regulation 883/2004 and Article 56 TFEU. In ASGI and APN (C-462/20), the exclusion of third-country nationals from the eligibility to the Italian family card was under scrutiny. In SC (C-866/19), the Court clarified that the principle of aggregation applies to the calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit but not to the calculation of the actual amount of benefit under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation 883/2004. In K (C-285/20), the Court held that being on sick leave and receiving sickness benefits can be considered as equivalent to the pursuit of an economic activity for the purpose of applying the rules on unemployment benefits for wholly unemployed frontier workers under Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation 883/2004.

Financial information can play a key role in tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and combatting serious crime more generally. Preventing and fighting money laundering and the financing of terrorism were top priorities of the European Union’s (EU) Security Strategy for 2020-2025, which might explain the fast developments regarding legislative measures to further regulate anti-money laundering (AML) and counter terrorism financing (CTF). In May 2020, the European Commission put forward an Action Plan to establish a Union policy on combatting money laundering and shortly afterwards, proposed a new AML Package.Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) play a crucial role in analysing and exchanging information concerning unusual and suspicious transactions, serving as intermediaries between the private sector and law enforcement authorities (LEAs). Such information includes personal data, which is protected under the EU data protection acquis. The latter is constituted of two main laws, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which applies to general processing and the so-called Law Enforcement Directive (LED) that is applicable when competent law enforcement authorities process personal data for law enforcement purposes.This Article argues that the current legal framework on AML and CTF legislation is unclear on the data protection regime that applies to the processing of personal data by FIUs and that the proposed AML Package does little or nothing to clarify this dilemma. In order to contribute to the discussion on the applicable data protection framework for FIUs, the assessment puts forward arguments for and against the application of the LED to such processing, taking into account the relevant legal texts on AML and data protection.

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) refer to arrangements between the public sector and the private sector, in which they share rewards, responsibilities and risks. PPPs are mainly used to deliver infrastructure and public services. In the recent decade, China has witnessed rapid growth in both the number and investment scale of PPPs projects. With the promotion of sustainable development in the 13th Five-Year Plan, the Chinese government starts to take sustainability into considerations when carrying out PPPs projects. Different from traditional command-and-control measures that impose explicit policy orders on private sectors, PPPs function as a market-based instrument (MBI) that gives private sectors a nudge stimulating their innovation in the market competition. In China's PPPs market, the proportion of foreign investment has been declining in recent years. The 14th Five-Year Plan released in early 2021 emphasises the importance of involving foreign investors to realise sustainable development goals in the coming five years. The Chinese government has released supplementary rules to strengthen the confidence of foreign investors in Chinese PPPs projects. This article sorts out current regulations that directly affect foreign companies’ participation in China’s PPPs projects, further exploring both opportunities and challenges for foreign companies to compete in China’s PPPs market.Keywords: public-private partnerships, PPPs, foreign direct investment, FDI, sustainable development, China

European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(3), 1463-1484, I. Introduction. - II. Key features of the general framework of implementing and adapting EU law. - III. Sui generis aspects of the framework governing the implementation of the law of EMU. - III.1. The ECB's implementing function under SSM. - III.2. Enforcement as a separate executive function from implementation under art. 291 TFEU. - III.3. The exception of Council implementation under art. 291(2) TFEU. - IV. A constitutional assessment. - IV.1. The ECB's implementing function under the SSM. - IV.2. Implementation by the Council. - V. Conclusion., This Article compares the implementation of EMU law with the framework governing the implementation of EU law in general to determine whether that general framework has been complemented, adapted or transformed by the developments in the area of EMU Law. This Article finds that the legal framework governing the implementation of EMU law indeed deviates from the default framework. However, part of the sui generis framework for implementing EMU law is constitutionally mandated. On the other hand, it is less clear whether the ECB is entitled to supplement legislation or whether in fact it can only implement legislation. A second problematic aspect that this Article identifies is the significant role that the Council takes in implementing EMU law. Finally, it is in the area of EMU law that the Court identified a distinct type implementing power that is not covered by art. 291 TFEU or by other explicit legal bases in the Treaties that directly confer an executive power on the Council. The new type of power is not necessarily restricted to EMU law and can in principle be identified in other areas of EU law, showing the ramifications that the development of EMU law has on other areas of EU law.

In deze Boom Beknopt staat het internationaal recht centraal. Het internationaal publiekrecht wordt op bevattelijke wijze beschreven. Komen o.a. aan bod: - de definitie en historische ontwikkeling van het internationaal publiekrecht, - de plaats van het internationale recht in de Belgische rechtsorde, - internationale rechtspersoonlijkheid, - de internationale rechtsbronnen en de rechtsmacht, - immuniteiten en staatsaansprakelijkheid, - internationale geschillenbeslechting en rechtshandhaving, en - de internationale en regionale organisaties. Daarnaast worden een aantal internationale rechtsgebieden nader besproken: de mensenrechten, het internationaal strafrecht, het internationaal economisch recht en het internationaal milieurecht. Boom Beknopt geeft je snel inzicht in een rechtsgebied. Door de duidelijke schema’s, de puntsgewijze uitleg en de sprekende voorbeelden kom je direct tot de kern van de zaak. Perfect voor examenvoorbereiding of een snelle opfrissing van je kennis! Boom Beknopt is in de eerste plaats bestemd voor studenten die een juridische opleiding volgen aan een universiteit of hogeschool, maar is ook nuttig voor iedereen die snel tot de kern van een vakgebied wil doordringen.

This chapter explores whether the ‘traditional’ reasonable accommodation duty is ‘fit for purpose’ in times of crisis and whether variations of this duty might be better suited to the task. The reasonable accommodation obligation requires duty-bearers to take disability into account, and to make an adjustment, alteration, or accommodation to their standard practices, policies, and structures in order to meet the needs of a particular disabled individual. One limitation of the ‘traditional’ reasonable accommodation duty is that it is ex post, in that it is triggered only when an individual indicates that they are facing a barrier. Other types of reasonable accommodation duties adopt a more pro-active or ex ante approach. One example is the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty in the Equality Act 2010. This requires duty-bearers to consider the foreseeable needs of disabled people in advance of an individual request being made. There is little evidence of Covid-19-related litigation based on the ‘traditional’ ex post reasonable accommodation duty. In contrast, the ex ante anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty in the Equality Act 2010 has been heavily used during the Covid-19 crisis. The fact that it focuses attention on what duty-bearers should have been doing to avoid creating disadvantage, rather than on simply what they can do to remove it once in place, is perhaps more useful in times of crisis. The chapter nevertheless finds that there is much more that needs to be done to build a legal framework that robustly embeds disability equality.

Patents in information and communication technology (‘ICT’) industries have acquired new functions beyond the protection of a product market exclusivity, such as blocking competitors’ operations, improving bargaining positions in commercial negotiations, and influencing the setting of standardised technologies. The multiple functions make ICT patents very valuable to firms, which aggregate them in collections, also known as patent portfolios. This research analyses the activities of the different entities aggregating patents that go under the encompassing term of patent aggregation. Specifically, it assesses whether single patent aggregation instances can have anti-innovative effects and whether, in so doing, they could violate EU competition law, which also protects technological development.