Search

The article explores the potential liability of governments in relation to negligence and omissions with respect to COVID-19 measures. The focus is on China and The Netherlands. State liability can arise if governments have been negligent in addressing the threat of the COVID-19 epidemic, specifically where they have created risks due to not implementing restrictions or not doing so in a timely manner, or otherwise have failed to protect public health and human lives.

The article discusses risk regulation and its reality. Topics discussed include tentative definition of risk regulation and its boundaries, the future of risk regulation and the role of facts, values and preferences, and the importance of risk regulation research which is used to expose disguise and hide strategies.

The article discusses the standing requirements for private parties, rationale and justification for the current restrictive conditions under the law of the European Union (EU). It outlines the effects of expanded standing for private parties on the legality, quality and effectiveness of EU risk regulation. It notes the functional characteristics of judicial review and elaborates how the issues are different for risk regulation.

The article presents the author's views on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It is opined that the definitions of climate change under the Paris Agreement's policy and science sphere are inconsistent and apocryphal, which impedes the scientific enterprise of climate research. It is stated that climate science is policy-led instead of climate policy being science-led, as the Paris Agreement seems to require.

The article presents the author's views on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, concluded at COP-21 in December 2015. It is opined that the Paris Agreement would appear to be a procedural framework for future, flexible climate policy- making by the parties, dressed up with some non-binding language that emphasizes ambition and progression.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 In Joined Cases C-503/13 and C-504/13, preliminary ruling in the proceedings Boston ScientificMedizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt — Die Gesundheitskasse (C-503/13), Betriebskrankenkasse RWE (C-504/13)1 On 5 March 2015, the European Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling on two issues arising under the EU Product Liability Directive,2 which imposes objective, no-fault or strict liability, but not absolute liability, for defective products. Despite the wide range of issues arising under this directive, the Court has had only a few occasions to construe its ambiguous terms. This case, however, provided an opportunity to the Court to settle key issues relating to the defect test and the scope of damages compensable under the directive. As in other civil law cases, the question arises whether the Court's light treatment will provide a sound basis for the further development of product liability in Europe. The Court did not answer the questions posed by the referring court, but in some respects went beyond these questions and in other respects avoided the difficult issues raised thereby. As discussed in this note, the Court paints with a broad brush, and the test set forth in its judgment to determine whether a product is defective, may itself be defective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights on the opinion delivered by German Advocate General Juliane Kokott of the European Union Court of Justice on February 12, 2015 on the concept of articles under the 2006 Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation. Topics include whether component-article is an article itself, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) guidance, and substances of very high concern listed on the Candidate List (SVHCs).

The article discusses the court case ATC and Others v Commission which involves Animal Trading Co. It states that animal trading deals with the duties of the institutions in administrative proceedings, precautionary principle, and proportionality principle. It says that the European Union (EU) has enjoyed a wide discretion in deciding what measures could be imposed to control risks correlated with avian flu.

The article discusses the transparency in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations. The significant opportunity of the TTIP for creating a process for regulatory cooperation, harmonization, and convergence is tackled. The Europe precautionary principle's (PP) relation to post-modernism, and its influence on European Union (EU) regulatory procedure and science is also explored.