Search

Copyright of Revista de la Universidad del Zulia is the property of Catedra Libre Historia de la Universidad del Zulia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the late nineteenth century, Western Powers launched military campaigns in sub-Saharan Africa resulting in the colonization of vast territories and the spoliation of cultural property. To justify the conquest, they asserted the supremacy of Western culture and disregarded principles of international law in their dealings with African states, communities, and individuals. This article examines colonialist legal justifications such as the denial of statehood of pre-colonial sub-Saharan African societies, the notion that conquest and spoliation were justifiable, and the belief that African legal systems lacked concepts of property. The article details why these arguments contradict well-established nineteenth-century legal principles, particularly state sovereignty and private property, which together form the conceptual basis for the prohibition of spoliation. The universal nature of those principles allows for the nondiscriminatory application and interpretation of historical law and consequently the protection of African pre-colonial states and private as well as public cultural property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Emancipação is the property of Revista Emancipacao - Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Geo UERJ is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Direito da Cidade is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this note, we examine access to electricity as a right in South African law. We also consider whether deprivations, interferences and disruptions of electricity supply are justifiable limitations of the right. While recent court decisions view access to electricity as a supplement to the Bill of Rights, judicial treatment of electricity as a right precedes the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the courts treated access to electricity as a common law right in the context of servitudes and personal and contractual rights. Under the Constitution, the right to access to electricity flows from the constitutional and statutory obligations of Eskom, South Africa's power utility, to provide reliable electricity supply and to ensure just administrative action when taking actions that result in the deprivation of electricity. From a Bill of Rights perspective, the cases show that the right to electricity, albeit not expressed in the text of the Constitution, is a condition for the exercise of other rights, including the rights to human dignity and access to adequate housing, water and health care. We conclude that the deprivation of electricity through loadshedding and other interruptions by Eskom, landlords and body corporates are violations of the right to access to electricity. These violations could be remedied through spoliation and constitutional remedies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie VII, Historia del Arte is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Forensic engineering analysis of residential plumbing components can be a daunting task, particularly due to the manner in which they may be handled from the onset of a failure event. Usually, a water loss is discovered by a homeowner or tenant of a building where the source of the leak is easily determined. Remediation of a plumbing loss is likely to begin quickly and often compromises the investigation (i.e., the condition of the failed component changes, connections to the plumbing system are removed, etc.). Under most circumstances, the evidence is handled and collected by people without forensic training, such as the occupant or plumber, making spoliation a significant concern. This paper will discuss the scientific processes and evidence handling techniques utilized by forensic engineers to determine whether a product defect, installation defect, environmental condition, maintenance, or wear and tear were contributory factors to a plumbing loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Why do patients sue following spine surgery? Here we reviewed some of the most frequent reasons for medical negligence suits against surgeons, adjunctive medical personnel, and or institutions/hospitals. Methods: Summarizing the multiple reasons for suits against spine surgeons, their colleagues/consultants, and hospitals should help surgeons identify the problems leading to suits, and improve patient care. Results: Several of the most common reasons for medical negligence suits include: lack of informed consent, ghost surgery, failure to diagnose and treat (e.g. including preoperative, perioperative, and post-surgical complications), performing unnecessarily risky, excessive and/or unnecessary surgery; failure to provide adequate postoperative care; absent or inadequate intraoperative neural physiological monitoring; and spoliation (e.g. fraudulent surgical, office, and/or hospital notes/records). Conclusions: There are many reasons why patients sue their spine surgeons. Being aware of the factors that lead to suits, spine surgeons should learn to provide better preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care, and, thus, limit perioperative morbidity and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Eptic Online is the property of Revista Eptic Online and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: During the Second World War Germany and German nationals looted the Netherlands and its nationals of many valuable assets, that were taken to Germany. Often the looting took the form of forced sales. In some cases, the sales price was too low, in other cases the German buyer paid market value or more, but often the buyer paid with guilders looted from the Dutch State. After the liberation of the Netherlands the 'restoration of rights regime' enabled victims of forced sales to seek annulment of the sales. This article concentrates on those movable goods that were sold to German buyers and that, after the war, returned from Germany to the Netherlands with the help of the Allied Forces, the so-called recuperation goods. If the seller did not seek annulment before the deadline of July 1951, for example because the price paid was considerable so that he preferred to keep the purchase price, or if his request was rejected, the Dutch State should not be forced to return these goods to their German buyer. Therefore, these goods were first subjected to Royal Decree E 133 which expropriated all German owned property in the Netherlands. Upon return to the Netherlands the recuperation goods became State property, but this measure could be undone by the seller successfully seeking annulment of the sales contract under Royal Decree E 100. However, if no annulment took place, the State remained owner of these goods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Looting and spoliation of archaeological sites represent a known crisis in many parts of the world, and it is widely acknowledged that despite what we know about the scale of site destruction, the reality is worse. Available evidence suggests that the scale and severity of looting are increasing. Legal and ethical remedies exist but have not proven adequate to reduce the impact of looting and antiquities trafficking. This reflects, in part, inadequate resources and uneven enforcement, and also the pressures of rising prices for antiquities, growing market demand, severe economic depression, and lawlessness, particularly in conflict zones. But it also reflects expanding ideological causes for site destruction by others, as well as competing epistemologies and deontological expectations within the discipline itself challenging the site preservation imperative in archaeology. More than ten years ago, a previous review of these topics found the response inadequate; a decade later, matters are worse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A walk down a Paris street, the rue des Rosiers, between 1940 and 1944, noting the victims of French and German anti-Semitic actions of spoliation and deportation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A forensic case involved an allegation of defective minivan brake repairs. On a wet two-lane road, the minivan left the road while stopping, and impacted a telephone pole. The plaintiff driver's complaints implied a dragging brake, and the plaintiff 's expert reported a bent lower caliper bolt. This forensic investigation involved instrumented exemplar analysis of the effects on caliper drag that could be caused by a bent caliper bolt. The investigation methodology was chosen (in part) based on significant evidence spoliation on the part of the plaintiff 's expert. This paper will also discuss the effects of the spoliation and resulting limitations on the scope of the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Medievalismo is the property of Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archeologia dell'Architettura is the property of Edizioni all'Insegna del Giglio and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The South African legal system is uncodified and from a comparative law perspective it is usually classified as a "mixed legal system", meaning a mixture between Romano-Germanic law (in the form of Roman-Dutch law) and English common law. Property law is deeply rooted in Roman and Roman-Dutch law and a sharp distinction is drawn between ownership and possession and the protection of these two institutions. This contribution focuses on the protection of quasi-possession namely the possession of rights. Only certain rights can be possessed in South African law. These are rights of use such as servitutal rights and so-called incidents of possession (for example the access to water and electricity in terms of a contract such as a contract of letting and hiring). There is only one possessory remedy in South African law, the mandament van spolie (spoliation order or actio spolii). This remedy originated in 9th century Canon Law and it protects possession against spoliation (the unlawful deprivation of possession of a thing or an alleged right). In accordance with the Roman, Canon law and Roman-Dutch tradition, when applying the mandament the court is not supposed to investigate the merits of the case (the actual rights of the parties). The Court only establishes whether there was possession of the alleged right (the exercise of actions usually associated with the right) and whether there was spoliation. Recently, however, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal started to focus on the actual rights (real or personal) of the parties involved. It is submitted that this approach is incorrect and that the same results could have been achieved if the Court had followed the traditional Roman and Roman-Dutch approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electronic communications have become an integral form of contact in the securities industry and the expanded use of e-mail presents numerous legal and compliance challenges. Firms must have mechanisms to save e-mail that is characterised as 'business as such' for a period of three years. But saving e-mail causes other ramifications -- the e-mail must be supervised and reviewed, and it must be collected and produced in response to litigation or regulatory requests. When it is considered that the e-mail retention, review and production requirements apply to instant messaging, blackberries, home office computers, twitters, external electronic servers, web-based e-mail accounts and even social networking sites, the challenges of e-mail use are multiplied. No doubt the continued growth of e-mail as an accepted means of communication means that broker-dealers must persist in dealing with strict retention requirements and then address troubling e-mails when discovered during supervisory review, or in the course of litigation or regulatory inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews recent cases highlighting the unique role of inside and outside counsel in quality assurance for each stage of the electronic discovery process, and the willingness of courts to impose sanctions where a determination is made that counsel has not adequately ensured their clients have fulfilled discovery obligations. Parties and their counsel have been sanctioned for failing to identify and direct the thorough preservation of potentially relevant data; search the preserved data comprehensively using defensible methodology, and produce responsive data in a timely, usable, and complete manner. Reliance on internal IT personnel or enterprise level e-mail archiving and retrieval tools may be demanded by the client to manage the costs of electronic discovery, but counsel should be aware of the potential pitfalls. Practical tips are outlined regarding the types of 'reasonable efforts' that counsel may consider taking to fulfill their discovery obligations under US Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and analogous US Securities and Exchange Commission rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computer forensic examiners need to combine art and science to produce the highest valued electronic data content. The wide variety of document types, tremendous volume of dissimilar media, operating systems, programs, and compaction and encryption algorithms all present daunting tasks for the examiner to efficiently organize, process, and filter. The art involves how to get to the core documents, the smoking gun. Individual disk drives, in and of themselves, are very large reservoirs of information. The investigator's job is to assist counsel in establishing priorities for searching drives, directories, and document types. This is where the experience of the examiner and the art of forensic examinations come in. The science involves the tools that capture, sort, and select the data for review by counsel. Further, there exists a wealth of knowledge about how computers operate and where programs and operating systems store data or encode information about where and when information was placed on a computer's hard drive. Experts who excel at combining the science with the art are the ones who are most helpful in assisting counsel making arguments that win court decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]