Search results

Surging natural disasters globally has precipitated renewed interests in disaster risk management. Though several global and regional disaster risk management policy frameworks have been put in place, it is necessary to evaluate their successes and capacities to deliver. This chapter reviews key disaster management frameworks, particularly the Yokohama Strategy, the Hyogo Framework for Action and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. It examines the extent to which these policies shaped Africa’s regional disaster risk management processes, with an emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Through documentary analysis and scientific literature review, this chapter identifies key parameters that shaped SSA’s disaster risk reduction (DRR) processes and their implications for DRR policy instruments and impact studies. The analysis reveals a number of findings. First, the roll-out process of global disaster reduction and management policy processes and instruments is yet to optimally impact SSA, in terms of effective disaster management. Second, a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude and severity of natural disasters could contribute to stem the damages linked to their occurrence. This is yet to be achieved. Third, paradigm shifts towards fully appreciating underlying disaster risk factors and manifestations could potentially support the practical drift from disaster coping and management towards risk identification, reduction and resilience building in SSA. Finally, instruments that prioritise capacity building (such as extension services training, research and development, information and communication), organisational governance, sustainable financing and technology, still relatively weak in SSA, should be stepped up to promote DRR capacities and strategies.

Even though Greece is today one of the oldest EU members, it has often been criticized as a ‘laggard’ in the process of European Integration. This critic also applies on its Environmental Policy. While the negotiations for Greece's accession to the European Economic Community were fervent¹ and their results mostly welcomed by the Greek people, a ‘slow start’ was the reality. The then newly elected Socialist government had adopted a non-amicable stance against Euro-Atlantic institutions² (at least on a rhetoric level) which also had a significant effect on the country's Europeanization.

In class action antitrust litigation, the standards for acceptable economic analysis at class certification have continued to evolve. The most recent event in this evolution is the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1435 (2013). The evolution of pre-Comcast law on this topic is presented, the Comcast decision is thoroughly assessed, as are the standards for developing reliable economic analysis. This article explains how economic evidence of both antitrust liability and damages ought to be developed in light of the teachings of Comcast, and how liability evidence can be used by economists to support a finding of common impact for certification purposes. In addition, the article addresses how statistical techniques such as averaging, price-dispersion analysis, and multiple regressions have and should be employed to establish common proof of damages.

Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution originally proposed by Charles Darwin. This process is driven by mutation and death. Therefore, “individual death” is a critical event for evolution of species. Analogous to the significance of individual death in species evolution, recent biological observations have revealed that “cell death” is an important event for maintenance of individuals and offspring. Cell death is caused not only by injuries and pathological conditions, but also by programed intracellular signals. This type of programed cell death is called “apoptosis.” Apoptosis signals are regulated in mitochondria, eukaryotic organelles of symbiotic origin, and play a critical role in survival of individuals by eliminating some cells.

The United States and European countries have for a long time affirmed non-pecuniary loss as a proper title of damages. On both sides of the Atlantic in the preceding decades, we have witnessed an escalation in the monetary amounts awarded for the non-pecuniary component of damages in cases of personal injury.¹ As a result of this escalation, the countries referred to have embarked on a shrill debate in trying to decipher a definition of their concrete notions of non-pecuniary damages² and on their awarding methods.³

This article examines the dialectics of wrongful life and wrongful birth claims in Israel from 1986 until 2012. In May 2012 Israeli Supreme Court declared that while wrongful birth claims were still permitted, wrongful life claims were no longer accepted in a court of law. The article examines the conditions that allowed for and supported the expansion of wrongful life/birth claims until 2012. The article identifies two parallel dynamics of expansion: a broadening of the scope of negligent conduct and a view of milder forms of disabilities as damage that merits compensation. The article further suggests four explanations for such doctrinal evolution, two of which emanate from doctrinal ambiguities and the other two are rooted in social factors that have shaped the meaning of disability as a tragedy and state of inferiority. While recent developments seem promising, the article concludes with a word of caution. Such changes may reproduce past injustices mainly because the compensation mechanism has remained an individual-torts based one, which may run counter to the broader struggle for social change for disabled people.

A private right of action is not expressly mentioned in either §10(b) or Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and hence such a right must be implied. To justify a reasonable cause of action, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a material omission or misstatement; (2) made by the defendant with “scienter” (defined later); (3) which was the actual and proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff; (4) and was relied upon by the plaintiff.³ To reach the issue of damages, defendants’ liability in terms of satisfying the above four elements must be assumed.