The German accommodation system for asylum seekers is based on a fundamental ambivalence: it is torn between the idea of social welfare for those in need and the aim of deterring those about to come. In the aftermath of the so called European “refugee crises”, numerous laws were passed that strengthened the idea of deterrence. Moreover, the German administration sought help from private companies to cope with the shortage in refugee accommodation places. As a consequence, the need for private security companies to monitor the mass shelters increased.
The inhabitants of the camp are caught in a situation in which the legal responsibilities are highly complex, with private companies running the shelters and hiring private security companies who enforce the house rules. Taking data from my empirical research at the emergency shelter in Berlin, I aim to illustrate the gap between the legal limits in the security personnel's work in the camps and their actual social role of law enforcers.
According to the Italian Law 161/2017 (amending Legislative Decree 159/2011, s.c. Anti-Mafia Code), non-conviction based confiscation measures, i.e., measures that allow for confiscation in the absence of a prior criminal conviction of an individual, can now be applied also to recover assets of people charged with conspiracy to commit various crimes against the public administration such as, in particular, corruption and concussion.
In Italy, these measures have represented so far one of the main instruments in the fight against Mafia-type criminal organisations: although entailing a restriction of the right to property, they were considered to be compliant with the conditions set in Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR and, due to the emergency situation represented by Mafia, proportionate to the purpose for which they were applied. The new legislation raises the question whether the position of ECtHR about anti-Mafia measures is applicable to similar anticorruption measures.
In this work we will analyze two new scenarios that are forcing the State transformation to guarantee citizens fundamental rights and security: cases where the State needs ITC private operators to fulfill its national security duties and cases where ITC private operators decisions impact State traditional roles.
For instance, courts from different States have decided that in certain cases private operators (Search engines above all) should decide whether the information remain in the web or not, giving private operators roles that historically the State used to play.
Furthermore, States need the support and expertise from private operators to protect citizens rights and to fulfill duties of national security due to new forms of crime such as terrorism or global cyber attacks. We will analyze the scope of the relation between the state and these operators, and the state tools to warrant the fight against new forms of crime without jeopardizing the constitutional rights of corporations
Despite the clarion call of UNCRPD 2006 for embracing the Human rights model of disability, and to recognize right to education as one of the enablers for evolving the dignified social identity of PWD, in India we are engaged in needless debate whether Special education is a norm and inclusive education is an Exception. In Its recent order, Supreme court defied the unequivocal mandate of sections 16 and 17, RPWD Act 2016 by purporting to create a false classification of PWDs to push ‘Blind, Hearing impaired and Autistic’ under the veil of Special Schools. Is this approach in line with India’s obligation under UNCRPD? Does it not vitiate the mandate of Article 24 of UNCRPD? And ultimately does it not negate the constitutional and social identity of certain sections of disability? are some of the questions I would grapple in this paper. I would argue for a context sensitive and flexible education policy by recognizing option of special education with due focus on inclusive education.
The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission proclaimed the European Pillar of Social Rights twenty years after the last Social Summit and the inclusion of social rights in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Ten years of financial turmoil have cut the implementation of social policies in the Member States. Taking into account the European Institutions' limited capacity to act in the field of social policy, how can we go from symbolic words to legal facts? Is there room for new pretorian protection of rights, at this moment social rights, from the judicial activism of the ECJ, in the absence of other legal developments?
This paper proposal put forward a review of the elements already at the EU disposal to build the fourth pillar: the acknowledgement of social objectives (art. 3 TEU), the guiding principles to design its policies (art. 9 TFEU), and the three European Social Charters. It is supported by the Jean Monnet Module 575133-EPP-1-2016-1-ES-EPPJMO-MODULE