Abstract
The Utrecht Law Review is an open-access peer-reviewed journal which aims to offer an international academic platform for cross-border legal research. In the first place, this concerns research in which the boundaries of the classic branches of the law (private law, criminal law, constitutional and administrative law, European and public international law) are crossed and connections are made between these areas of the law, amongst others from a comparative law perspective. In addition, the journal welcomes research in which classic law is brought face to face with not strictly legal disciplines such as philosophy, economics, political sciences and public administration science.The journal was established in 2005 and is affiliated to the Utrecht University School of Law. If you wish to receive e-mail alerts please join the mailing list.
Highlights
In the Netherlands, the history of water management and water safety especially, goes back centuries
Assessment of no-fault liability in the field of water safety management cannot be made without taking into consideration the historical development of the responsibility of the state for water management tasks in general
The author addresses the historical development of responsibilities of the state for water management tasks, recent developments in this area and the system of no-fault liability regarding measures to prevent flooding
Summary
In the Netherlands, the history of water management and water safety especially, goes back centuries. For this reason flood protection consisted of measures to keep the water away from the people through flood defence measures Another aspect of being highly densely populated is that most of the property of the Netherlands is owned by private parties. The current trend in flood risk management is towards a focus on the segmentation of responsibilities among different public and private actors In view of these incompatible trends the question is: Do the current developments in flood risk management – shifting from prevention towards mitigation and disaster management, from integration to segmentation – suit the harmonized compensation regimes? In order to answer this question I will describe the developments of both flood risk management and compensation regimes regarding nofault liability with a focus on responsibilities and connections between these two areas In view of these incompatible trends the question is: Do the current developments in flood risk management – shifting from prevention towards mitigation and disaster management, from integration to segmentation – suit the harmonized compensation regimes? In order to answer this question I will describe the developments of both flood risk management and compensation regimes regarding nofault liability with a focus on responsibilities and connections between these two areas
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
