Assessing the best interests of the child in cases of cross-border surrogacy: inconsistency in the Strasbourg approach?

This article examines the approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to assessing the best interests of the child in three recent cases of cross-border surrogacy, namely Mennesson v France, Labassee v France and Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy. It is argued that these cases reveal inconsistency in the ECtHR’s assessment of the best interests of the child. In Mennesson and Labassee, the ECtHR found that the national authorities’ refusal to legally recognise the relationships between the children and the intended parents amounted to a violation of Article 8 ECHR, whereas no violation was found in Paradiso. A notable distinguishing feature of Paradiso was that there was no genetic relationship between the child and the intended parents, and it is this point that seemingly led the Court to assess the best interests of that child differently to the others.     

Does context matter in academic entrepreneurship? The role of barriers and drivers in the regional and national context

With pressure on universities to better contribute to society, academic entrepreneurship is an increasingly recognised source of new knowledge and technologies as well as being a driver of the movement to a knowledge society. However, whilst growing, the level of academic entrepreneurship in Europe is still relatively low. Two reasons that are factors influencing this are inhibitors (barriers) and facilitators (drivers), however the understanding of how their interplay influences academic entrepreneurship, particularly across different context is lacking. For this reason, this study focussed on two environmental settings, European regions and countries, seeking to understand if it is the hurdle (barrier) or (and/or) tail-wind (drivers) that most impacts academic entrepreneurship and how does the regional or national context influence this. An online survey was translated into 22 languages and undertaken in 33 countries in Europe and the European Economic Area. From the original data set, 12 countries in four European regions provided a sample of 2925 responses, with a second step to focus on four ‘lead’ countries within those regions. The results show that there is a significant difference in the university-business cooperation barriers and drivers that effect academic entrepreneurship in the European regions. Furthermore, different barriers and drivers were found to significantly affect the four lead countries with barriers and drivers being able to provide a good explanation of the extent of academic entrepreneurship in the UK and Germany, and a limited explanation of entrepreneurial activity by Spanish and Polish academics. Overall the article contributes to the literature of resource-based theory and also the understanding of factors influencing European academic entrepreneurship.     

The European Arrest Warrant in a context of distrust: Is the Court taking rights seriously?

During a time of distrust towards some Member States, the position of fundamental rights when executing a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has been strengthened. The article considers whether the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is now ‘taking rights seriously’ as regards the EAW. To this end, it employs a theoretical and contextual approach that supports a comprehensive analysis of case-law. First, the article borrows from a theory of rights as trumps and observes that rights are no longer treated as norms with no special force that are in the way of cooperation interests. Second, the article offers a contextual exegesis of this trajectory, by mapping drivers of distrust and evaluating their impact on the position of rights. Through contextualisation, it is argued that distrust, although limited by its circumstances, has offered a compelling opportunity for the ECJ to take rights seriously, paving the way forward for future case-law.     

Supplementing the sunshine- what is the role of psychiatrists,particularly in a forensic context,in maintaining patients vitamin D levels?

Vitamin D has an integral role in maintaining calcium homeostasis in the blood. It is well established that prolonged and severe vitamin D deficiency leads to rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults. Increasing evidence indicates that deficiency has associations with a number of other physical and mental health conditions. Doctors should ensure that their patients have information so that they can make informed decisions about their health, be it their physical or mental health. Recent NICE guidelines on vitamin D recommend that health care professionals have a role in informing patients about vitamin D supplements. This is especially relevant for forensic psychiatrists, as their patients often fall into recognised at risk groups for lowered vitamin D levels. One could argue that patients who have long admissions in secure wards are a specific at risk group and that supplementation should be routine.     

Should preemption apply in a pharmaceutical context? An analysis of the preemption debate and what regulatory compliance statutes contribute to the discussion

Should the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s determination that a product is safe negate a private litigant's cause of action under state law in all circumstances, unless the FDA determines that the manufacturer withheld relevant information regarding the safety of the product? This Note concludes that such federal preemption is proper because the FDA is fully capable of making a determination regarding the adequacy of the information disclosed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer without state interference. Additionally, such interference on the state level hinders the FDA's objectives and effective functioning. Thus, determinations about the adequacy of the information provided to the FDA should remain in the Agency's sound discretion and not be questioned at the state level.     

The perspective of “justice” of international law in the global context

After the Cold War and the quick development of globalization, non-state acts by international organizations, transnational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), etc., are becoming more active. Global issues with regard to, inter alia, environment, human rights, terrorism are constantly emerging, which bring great challenge to the Westphalia System that is based on state sovereignty and centered on the national state. At the same time, the values, which include “individualism” and “global justice,” are constantly casting impact on international legal system. Doubtlessly, in the current context of international relations, “justice among states” is still the reasonable positioning of the value of modern international law. However, making “individualism” and “global justice” compatible and modifying “justice among states” is an inevitable trend. At the same time, the rule brought about by the modification on the value of justice must be handled properly.