Umweltsonderrecht für Vorhaben der Landesverteidigung

Im deutschen Umweltrecht finden sich an verschiedenen Stellen Sonderregelungen für Vorhaben der Landesverteidigung. Ausgehend von der Fragestellung, welche Vorhaben hiervon erfasst sind, werden nachfolgend die wichtigsten dieser Sonderregelungen vorgestellt. Die Untersuchung beschränkt sich dabei auf Bestimmungen zum medialen Umweltschutz, der die klassischen Umweltmedien Boden, Wasser und Luft zum Regelungsgegenstand hat ¹ , und widmet sich außerdem einer Sondervorschrift im Waldrecht. Dagegen bleiben Vorschriften beispielsweise zum Strahlenschutz, zu Gefahrstoffen oder zur Gefahrgutbeförderung ² sowie zum Luftverkehr3 ausgeklammert. * Der Verfasser ist am Landratsamt Neustadt a. d. Waldnaab u. a. für Verwaltungsverfahren im Zusammenhang mit Europas größtem Truppenübungsplatz Grafenwöhr, der der US-Army zur Nutzung überlassen ist, zuständig.1) Breuer in: Schmidt-Aßmann (Hrsg.), BesVerwR, 12.Aufl. 2003, S. 531.2) Siehe dazu Repkewitz, Bundeswehr und Umweltschutz, 1999, S. 288ff.; Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, 3. Aufl. 2004, § 5 Rdnr. 552.     

Kyoto,Europe?—An Economic Evaluation of the European Emission Trading Directive

To meet its obligations accepted in the Kyoto Protocol cost effectively, the European Union introduces a scheme of Greenhouse Gas Allowance Trading for its member states. This paper evaluates the cost effectiveness, ecological accuracy and dynamic incentives of this approach.The EU-emissions trading constitutes an important shift in the paradigm of environmental policy, from command and control to a market based approach. Still, the EU-system does not fully realize the economic potential of the transferable discharge permit policy. Especially, the limited scope of trading regarding geography, pollutants, sectors and activities reduces the quality of the system. Moreover, the EU-Directive is unspecific in many respects and it leaves many decisions defining the rules of the game to the individual member state. Uncertainty and heterogeneity increase transaction cost and thereby hamper the effectiveness of the system.JEL Classification: Q54, Q58, K32     

Racial Disproportionality in U.S. State Prisons: Accounting for the Effects of Racial and Ethnic Differences in Criminal Involvement,Arrests, Sentencing,and Time Served

Objectives

An important indicator of discrimination in the criminal justice system is the degree to which race differences in arrest account for racial disproportionality in prisons (“accountability”). A recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study raised concerns by reporting low and declining estimates of accountability. Our improved measure accounts for unreported Hispanic arrestees. We measure accountability at intermediate stages, including commitments to prison and time served. We also use victim reports to extend accountability from arrest to differential involvement in violent crimes.

Methods

Our methods utilize information on self-reported racial identity of Hispanic prisoners to provide more accurate comparison with the race of arrestees. We also assess accountability for 42 individual states and 4 regions.

Results

Our national estimate of accountability is close to previous estimates and much higher than those in the NAS report. Accountability is high for the serious violent crimes of murder and rape, and low for drug trafficking, drug possession, weapons, and aggravated assault, which involve more discretion in arrest, labeling and charging.

Conclusions

Our more accurate accountability results contradict the NAS report of low and declining accountability. Regional accountability estimates show no consistently stronger or weaker region. We also show a corrected national estimate of the ratio of black-to-white incarceration-rates has dropped from 6.8 in 1990 to 4.7 in 2011, an important correction to concerns of increasing discrimination. Reports of offenders’ race by victims and arrestees’ race are found to be close, supporting use of arrest as an indicator of involvement in violent crimes.

     

Freedom of Opinion and Freedom of Expression: Some Reflections on General Comment No. 34 of the Un Human Rights Committee

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a body of 18 independent experts (including a member from the Netherlands, Professor Cees Flinterman) who are tasked with monitoring compliance with the provisions of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in force 23 March 1976). The Committee deploys four principal activities — periodic examination of State Party reports, interpretation and progressive development of the provisions of the Covenant in the form of General Comments, and adjudication of individual complaints under the Optional Protocol, as well as follow-up procedures. This article analyzes the Committee’s second General Comment on Article 19 of the Covenant, which stipulates freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. In 52 paragraphs the General Comment systematically examines, defines and delimits the concepts contained in the three subparagraphs of Article 19, basing itself primarily on the Committee’s concluding observations upon examination of State Party reports and on the case-law in response to petitions under the Optional Protocol. The Committee highlights the primacy of freedom of opinion, recognizing that it is crucial for a democratic society that persons have access to truthful, reliable and pluralistic information, including through the internet, in order to develop a personal opinion whose expression must then be protected by law. The Committee notes, however, that whereas it is inadmissible to impose any restrictions on freedom of opinion, there are certain responsibilities that attach to the exercise of freedom of expression, namely the respect of the reputation of others as well as considerations of health, morals and national security. The Committee holds that so-called ‘memory laws’ as well as blasphemy laws are incompatible with Article 19 and that defamation laws must strike a balance between competing rights and interests. Paragraph 49 of the General Comment clearly affirms the right to hold non-conformist historical views and the right to be wrong. While it is not the function of lawyers or judges to establish what historical truth is, Article 20 of the Covenant imposes an obligation on governments to prohibit incitement to racial hatred or violence, the criminalization of which requires narrow definition of the elements of the crime.

     

Does Incapacitation Reduce Crime?

Questions and answers about incapacitation abound in all discussions about criminal justice policy. They are among the most pressing of all research issues, yet estimates about the incapacitation effect on crime vary considerably, and most are based on very old and incomplete estimates of the longitudinal pattern of criminal careers. This paper provides an overview of the incapacitation issue, highlights information on recent estimates of criminal careers that are useful to the incapacitation model, and outlines an ambitious research agenda for continued and expanded work on incapacitation and crime that centers on developing better estimates of the characteristics of criminal careers and their relevance to policy choices.