The Interplay of Adolescents’ Aggression and Victimization with Friendship and Antipathy Networks within an Educational Prosocial Intervention

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - How the interplay between peer relationships and behaviors unfolds and how this differs between classrooms is an understudied topic. This study examined whether...     

Zur Berücksichtigung des Denkmalschutzes im Bundeswaldgesetz

Die von Deutschland nach Art. 59 Abs. 2 GG ratifizierten europ?ischen und internationalen übereinkommen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz müssen in nationales Recht transformiert werden. W?hrend die L?nder im Rahmen ihrer Kompetenz (Art. 30, 70, 83 GG) Denkmalschutzgesetze erlassen haben, hat der Bund in einschl?gigen Gesetzen wie dem Bundeswaldgesetz den Denkmalschutz bisher nicht berücksichtigt. Dabei ist bei einem Waldanteil von 30% der Wald mit seinen historischen Kulturlandschaften und seinem Waldboden als Archiv der Natur- und Kulturgeschichte von besonderer Bedeutung. Da Deutschland 60 Jahre nach Kriegsende endlich auch ausdrücklich ein Kulturstaat werden soll, ist es an der Zeit, dass die Belange des Denkmalschutzes auch im Bundeswaldgesetz (z.B. §§ 1, 2, 9 oder 11 BWaldG) berücksichtigt werden. Einige Verpflichtungen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz sind heute ohnehin bereits V?lkergewohnheitsrecht (Art. 25 GG).     

Social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners

Research about incarceration has moved beyond studies of the individual prisoner to examine how incarceration impacts prisoners' families and neighborhoods. Much of the family-centered work highlights the potential benefits for the prisoner of maintaining ties to family during the incarceration period, and particularly after release. Less thoroughly considered is the potential benefits and costs to families of maintaining a relationship with an incarcerated individual. This article addresses this topic with a qualitative study of prisoners' families, as well as a review of census data in one high incarceration neighborhood. Research findings suggested that there were significant costs, both social and economic, to a prisoner's family if they desired to maintain the most basic level of connection with him. The study further suggested that families and prisoners were put in a position requiring constant negotiation of competing interests.     

Family-owned,limited close corporations and protection of ownership

Protected ownership and freedom of contracts are two basic parts of the institutional framework of successful countries according to Douglass North, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1993. The incentives to make long-term investments are strengthened if ownership rights are protected and freedom of contracts is a basic element in the process of efficient allocation of scarce resources. An important engine in prosperous societies is the family firm. Most companies in these societies can be classified as family firms and a major part of GDP is produced by family businesses. Consequently, how ownership is protected in family firms is an important issue.Three important factors of private ownership of property are the rights to determine use of owned assets, the return generated from them and to transfer the assets at mutually agreeable terms to a new owner(s).The incentives of a founder entrepreneur to put efforts into the establishment of a firm are determined by all the three factors. We will here pay special attention to the third factor, transfer of the ownership of the firm. The founder often places contractual restrictions on such transfers to ensure that the structure of ownership is stable and that the firm stays in the family. The possibility to do so is part of the freedom of contracts and is associated with the extent of ownership held as well as the incentives to invest in new businesses.This paper is primarily about how protection of family ownership can be achieved from a legal point of view and discusses the reasons to enforce these legal relationships in the future for second, third, fourth etc. generations of family owners.     

Zum Regelungsumfang des Art 16 Z 2 LGVÜ/Art 22 Z 2 EuGVVO

Klagen gegen einen internationalen Sportverband, die auf Feststellung der Unwirksamkeit einer Sperre eines bei einem nationalen Sportverband besch?ftigten Trainers von Wettbewerben dieses Sportverbandes und auf Unterlassung von Handlungen, die eine Akkreditierung verhindern bzw erschweren, gerichtet sind, unterliegen der ausschlie?lichen inl?ndischen Gerichtsbarkeit des Sitzstaates; eine Verbindung solcher Klagen mit einer gegen den nationalen Verband gerichteten gleichartigen Klage ist daher unzul?ssig. – Eine damit zusammenh?ngende Schadenersatzklage gegen den internationalen Verband steht auch nicht in dem von Art 6 Nr 1 LGVü geforderten Zusammenhang mit einer Klage gegen den nationalen Verband wegen Aufl?sung des Trainervertrages aufgrund der Sperre.     

Peter Ebsen, Emissionshandel in Deutschland

Ohne Zusammenfassung