Safeguards and nuclear- powered submarines a model for special procedures on the nuclear fuel cycle

Other Models for Labor-Management Dispute Resolution: The Wisconsin Experiment

Thromboembolism and oral contraceptives

In defence of human rights

This article interrogates whether and how the concept of ‘patriarchy’ is used by UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies (treaty bodies) and special procedures to interpret state obligations to respect and ensure women’s human rights. There are two key points that arise out of this study: first, that several treaty bodies and special procedures purposely and consistently use the concept of ‘patriarchy’ when discussing women’s human rights, and second, that although not all treaty bodies and special procedures have referred to the terms ‘patriarchy’ or ‘patriarchal’, an examination of those that have reveals a marked difference in how the terms are used by treaty bodies when compared with special procedures. While treaty bodies render the meaning of ‘patriarchy’ as being synonymous with certain harmful practices, such as female-genital mutilation (FGM), special procedures utilise ‘patriarchy’ as a system of power, permeating every facet of society. In this article I will argue that the current state of dissonance between the understandings of ‘patriarchy’ by treaty bodies and special procedures creates an unnecessary ambiguity that does nothing to advance gender equality. Furthermore, utilising a nuanced understanding of patriarchy, as articulated by intersectional and anti-essentialist feminist scholars, would potentially equip treaty bodies and special procedures for more meaningful interpretation of rights themselves, and greater protection of women’s human rights.

Following the establishment of the UN Human Rights Council, the then Secretary-General, KofiAnnan, termed the UN special procedures the ’ crown jewel ’ in the UN system.Earlier, a report to the former Commission stated that they were ‘ the essential cornerstone of United Nations efforts to promote and protect human rights ’and Surya Subedi, a former rapporteur, simply considers them ‘ the public face of the UN human rights system ’. They certainly occupy a unique position. Appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, each mandate reports annually to the Council and/or the General Assembly. The terms of the mandate may dictate the actual work undertaken or leave it open to the appointee. ‘ special procedures ’ is the generic term applied to the special mechanisms of the former Commission on Human Rights (now the UN Human Rights Council) by which individual experts are appointed to examine particular human rights issues, monitor specific countries or territories, develop specific guidelines or consider specific violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The mandates to which they are appointed are not dependent on treaties for their authority, but rather draw support from the terms of the UN Charter. This provides a degree of flexibility on sources (as they are not bound to particular treaties) and, as a consequence, special procedures can use whichever legal arguments and strategies best advance their mandate, embodying a truly integrated approach. Unsurprisingly, a range of users can and do engage with the special procedures. For the purposes of this chapter, the working definition proposed by Ellen Desmet is widely construed: ‘ [a] human rights user is any individual or composite entity who engages with (uses of) human rights ’. Individuals, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations, States themselves and institutions and entities within regional and international organisations are included. Users across Desmet's four categories are included – rights claimants, rights realisers, supportive users (e.g. advocates, defenders and NGOs) and judicial users (courts and tribunals, including, for the purposes of this chapter, UN monitoring systems). The question addressed is: are they system puppets or some (or all) of their users ‘ saviours? In order to determine the answer, the system of special procedures will first be outlined and the key literature identified, analysing the reality of their autonomy.

The article is devoted to an up-to-date problem of special procedure regulated by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The relevance of this problem is caused by the fact that nowadays up to 70 % of criminal cases are settled by means of special procedure, according to court statistics. Moreover, legislators continue to develop new institutions of criminal procedure which lead to the special procedure of hearing regulated by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (simplified inquiry, pre-trial agreement on cooperation). The main aim of this research is to investigate whether the institution of special procedure is adequate to Russian criminal procedure and its historical roots. The author analyses a well-spread opinion that special procedure has deep roots in many historical law documents such as Russkaya pravda, the Statute of Criminal Procedure of 1864, etc. As a result, it is stated that there are no sufficient foundations for such a point of view as, according to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, special procedure, regulated by Chapter 40, is based on the formal confession of guilt made by the accused. Nowadays this plea is not regarded as evidence. On the other hand, Russian criminal procedure legislation up to the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code of 1960 considered confession of guilt made by the accused as perfect evidence. Such an approach was mainly based on the theory of formal evidence. Then the author comes to a conclusion that special procedure is similar to plea bargaining well-spread in the US. This conclusion is based on the same nature of these two institutions where each considers confession of guilt made by the accused as a sufficient foundation for conviction; there is no need for investigation in court; and there are some benefits for the accused who confessed guilt. Thus, the author concludes that special procedure is a new institution in Russian criminal procedure which has no historical background, and that special procedure is similar to plea bargaining. This conclusion can be used in order to reform Russian criminal procedure legislation.

Reconceiving the UN Human Rights Regime: Challenges Confronting the New UN Human Rights Council

China's growing human rights abuses have attracted the attention of the United Nations (UN) Special Procedures, a central mechanism of the UN's international human rights monitoring system. In response to this growing scrutiny, Beijing has deployed compulsory power through criticism of particular individuals serving as Special Procedure mandate holders and directed funding toward select mandates that align with China's interests; institutional power with repeated efforts to change the rules governing the work of the Special Procedures; and productive power by, for example, introducing the idea that there is a lack of diversity among those serving in the Special Procedures system. China's forceful language had some impact on particular actors, especially UN staff who sought to avoid Beijing's ire. At the same time, China's overall impact on this part of the UN remains modest as the Special Procedures continue to be able to act independently, have spoken out about China's abuses and the selection process has not been captured by Beijing. While there are other parts of the human rights regime where Beijing is able to shape norms, ideas, and procedures, thus far, the Special Procedures have been able to withstand the PRC's projection of power.

Evaluation d'un enseignement de l'auto-analgésie au personnel infirmier

A needle endoscope, with a rigid shaft 2.2 mm wide and 20 cm long, an illumination range of 2-4 cm, and excellent optics, has proved to be very valuable in performing special interventional procedures because it can be inserted in any relatively straight 7-F catheter track. The needle endoscope has been very useful in combination with fluoroscopy for retracing lost drain tracks, evaluating fistulas and sinuses, performing limited pleuroscopy and laparoscopy for biopsy under direct vision, and evaluating the gallbladder and renal pelvis for location of duct openings. The author describes techniques used with the needle endoscope and results in a sample of cases. There has been no morbidity associated with the use of the instrument in over 800 examinations in a 12-year period.

Modern medical advances necessitate the application of many specialized procedures in diagnosis in addition to the usual routine analysis carried out in chemical laboratories. In this volume, Dr. Abelin, a noted Swiss investigator, discusses all the special chemical procedures that have been devised in recent years. Specific directions, with brief critical comments on the determination of steroid hormones, 17-ketosteroids, gluco-corticoids, antidiuretic hormone of the pituitary, histamine, trace elements (arsenic, lead, iron, iodine, silicon, copper, mercury, and zinc), proteins, creatine, galactose, inulin, fructose, 3-carbon acids, alcohol, porphyrins, phosphatases, carbon monoxide, p-aminosalicylic acid, thiocyanate, bishydroxycoumarin (dicumarol®), and chloramphenicol (chloromycetin®) in blood, urine, and other body fluids, are discussed. The procedures are described lucidly in easily read German. The selection has been adopted from the best available methods as described in the world literature, and all procedures are up-to-date. The collection is unique and will be valuable to all clinical laboratory

On the way to European integration, Ukraine is facing many tasks related to the fulfillment of obligations under the Association Agreement with the European Union. One of the key places in the list of such tasks is harmonization of domestic customs legislation in terms of customs procedures with the norms of the European Union. In the context of assistance in solving this problem the essence and structure of customs procedures under the legislation of the European Union were studied. It was established that all customs procedures of the European Union are divided into three groups: release for free circulation, special procedures, export. The following special customs procedures are distinguished: transit (covers external and internal transit), storage (includes customs warehouse and free zones), special use (provides for temporary purpose and end-use), processing (includes processing in the customs territory of the European Union and outside the customs territory of the European Union). One of the most common customs procedures is the release for free circulation and export. The procedure of release for free circulation provides for: collection of duty; collection of other payments in individual cases according to the provisions of the relevant legislation, which obliges to pay them in such cases; application of trade policy instruments and prohibitions and restrictions, if they were not introduced in the previous stages; performance of other necessary formalities required when importing goods. As for the export procedure, it stipulates the following: all goods leaving the customs territory of the European Union must be placed under the customs procedure of export (only goods placed under the customs procedure of processing or transit may be an exception); goods exported outside the customs territory of the European Union are not the subject to customs duties; goods placed in the export procedure remain under customs control until they are in the customs territory of the European Union in the same condition as they were at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration; if the goods remain in the customs territory of the European Union, the exporter must promptly notify the customs authority.

Starting from the need to respect, in any judicial procedure, the right to liberty and security of the person, in order to guarantee public safety and ensure a high level of social capital, this study addresses the issue of reparation for damage to the individual's liberty during the criminal proceedings. The paper presents the special procedure for reparation of material damage or non-pecuniary damage in case of illegal deprivation of liberty in the regulation of the current Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, with the interpretations given by the High Court of Cassation and Justice for ensuring a unitary judicial practice, as well as with the aspect of unconstitutionality ascertained by the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Romania no. 136/2021. In the context of the legislative interventions envisaged by the latest draft law on amending and supplementing the Code of Criminal Procedure, concrete regulatory proposals are made in the paper so that this special procedure guarantees the exercise of the right to reparation for all situations of unlawful or unjust deprivation of liberty in the course of criminal proceedings, according to the standard of protection established by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The possibility of extending the scope of the special reparation procedure to the case of impairment of individual liberty by restrictive measures of liberty is also being considered.

A centralized constitutional review system, generally known as the Austrian Constitutional Court model established in 1920 by Hans Kelsen, has spread globally after World War II and is now the most active constitutional tribunal in Europe. Interestingly, although the Constitutional Court of Korea was classified as this Kelsenian model, besides a typical kind of constitutional review procedure, the Court runs an additional procedure for the constitutional review of legislation. The latter has some comparatively special and unusual requirements and procedure, but the statistics indicate it has been actively used. It takes the form of a constitutional complaint, but in practice, it is treated as the second type of constitutional review of legislation in Korean constitutional adjudication. Through this special procedure, individuals appear to participate in a tripartite conversation on constitutional interpretation along with the judicial branch and the Constitutional Court. Moreover, to some extent, this sui generis complaint is perceived to make up for the prohibition of constitutional complaint on judgments of ordinary courts (‘Urteilsbeschwerde’) in Korea. In Austria, the individual complaint on constitutional review of statutes was introduced by a constitutional amendment in 2013, whereby the individual parties of the pending cases are entitled to file a constitutional review with the Constitutional Court as of 1 January 2015. In terms of enabling the individual party to request to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review of legislation, the Austrian new complaint is similar to the Korean one, but their requirements and procedures are different. From the perspective of enhanced individual access to the Constitutional Court, however, both complaints may be viewed as an evolution of the Kelsenian model to meet the demands of the times. In this regard, the Korean practice for over three decades may provide useful insights into the implementation of a new practice and further improvement in Austria. This article will examine the Korean ‘Constitutional Review Complaint’ and compare it with the Austrian ‘Gesetzesbeschwerde (Parteiantrag auf Normenkontrolle)’ to explore mutual references that will help improve both institutions. Then, I will assess what this kind of evolutionary invention of the constitutional review implies to the centennial of the Austrian model.

Patient dose measurement in radiological procedures is an important and indispensable way of assessing the quality of procedures and the detriments of exposure to ionizing radiation. It is of particular application for interdepartmental comparison of the quality of procedures, of different protocols and of new techniques. The results of the Patient Skin Effective Dose (PSED) monitored for 9 most common radiodiagnostic and 4 special procedures in Lagos State, Nigeria are reported. The common procedures are the plain radiographs of the chest, skull, cervical spine, sinus, lumbosacral spine, pelvis, abdomen, shoulder and foot and hysterosalpingography (HSG), intravenous urography, barium meal and barium enema are the special or contrast procedures. 1977 procedures were monitored in some selected private and public hospitals for a period of over 12 months. These comprise of 1485 plain radiographic and 492 contrast procedures. Foot has the lowest mean PSED value of 0.310 x 10 -3 Sv while lumbosacral spine has the highest mean of 3.960 x 10 -3 SV among the common procedures. The PSED values in the contrast procedures are generally higher than the plain, with HSG having the lowest mean value of 2.300 x 10 -3 SV and barium enema having the highest mean value of 5.270 x 10 -3 Sv. The results compare favourably with those from other countries earlier reported in the literature. The slight differences observed have been attributed to differences in the patient anatomy, the radiographic exposure parameters and exposure conditions. KEY WORDS: patient skin effective dose, radiodiagnostic procedures, dose limits, radiation hazards. Nigerian Journal of Health and Biomedical Sciences Vol.4(1) 2005: 46-52