The recovery of finger marks from soot-covered glass fire debris.

This study aimed to expand the scope of previous research by assessing the effectiveness of soot-removal techniques on glass from petrol-bomb debris using methods of 1% and 2% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solutions, ultrasonic bath and vacuum suction. Of particular interest were the 1% and 2% NaOH solutions applied to the soot-covered surfaces. Petrol bombs containing petrol or a 50:50 mix of petrol and motor oil were exploded and the debris was collected for analysis. Favourable results were found to varying degrees using each of the soot-removal methods with the 1% and 2% NaOH wash solutions, being the most useful. The 2% NaOH solution also proved successful as a soak to loosen and remove heavy contamination of soot and accelerants without damaging the finger mark beneath. This study also found that recovery of finger marks in blood from beneath soot using the 2% NaOH solution was possible. Finger marks were also applied to glass bottles with plastic adhesive labels, and providing the fire damage is not too great marks were also retrievable. Results from this study lead to the conclusion that the NaOH wash solution is ideally suited for soot removal to reveal latent and blood-contaminated marks both within the laboratory and at crime scenes.     

To Wonderland Through the Looking-glass: Conceiving a Critical Legal Argument for Contractual Justice in the South African Law of Contract †

The aim of this paper is to identify the possible substructure (looking glass/es) of a critical legal argument for contractual justice (Wonderland) in the South African law of contract. South African contract law still fails, ten years after the constitutional transformation, to reflect the constitutional ideals of freedom, equality and human dignity in an acceptable manner. I argue that this disposition places a question mark over the legitimacy of contract law and marginalizes opportunities for the social change envisaged by the Constitution. The paper explores Duncan Kennedy’s Form and Substance-argument and indicates that the reluctance to accommodate these values may be attributable to the fact that the majority of role-players position themselves on the individualism/rules side of Kennedy’s continuum – a paradigm that perceives the law of contract as a body of positivistic rules to be applied neutrally and regardless of the social or socio-economic distortions its application may generate. In an attempt to move away from this traditional approach, the privileged paradigm is criticised. A typical CLS-approach is followed which employs sociology, psychological jurisprudence and game theory to criticise the law from outside the restrictive realms of law itself. Simultaneously, I attempt to illuminate the argument for a shift (step through the looking glass) to another paradigm. I conclude that our judiciary finds itself in a position similar to that of Plato’s prisoners in the cave and will not reach the point where they apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice. Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. †Paper presented at the Critical Legal Conference, 4 September 2004, London, UK. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice P.J. Olivier. The paper is based on research conducted for the thesis in partial fulfilment of the degree LLD in the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria under the title ‘A critical legal argument for contractual justice in the South African law of contract.’ The degree supervisor is Professor Karin van Marle in the Department of Legal History, Comparative Law and Jurisprudence. The author wishes to thank the following persons for valuable deliberations and input: Karin van Marle, Graham Bradfield and Anashri Pillay. In addition, the author wishes to acknowledge and thank the University of Cape Town for financially supporting this research. apply relevant (constitutional) values directly to contractual disputes. The State is thus responsible for infusing contract law with contractual justice, by implementing legislation to this effect in order to limit the hegemonic consequences of the judiciary’s obsession with freedom of contract and utopian rules, which fail in reality to further the ideal of justice.     

Implementing Equal Justice for Parents in Washington: A Dual Approach

In many states, legal representation for parents of dependent children is inadequate and can be a source of delays in securing permanency for children and unnecessarily protracted court proceedings. Often, such parents also face barriers to accessing services and independent evaluators. These issues are being addressed in the state of Washington through two approaches. The first is a successful enhanced legal representation program that has substantially improved case outcomes. The second is a statewide committee using innovative means to examine systemic responses to the challenges of the Adoption and Safe Families Act.     

Naturschutz bei der Ausbringung von gentechnisch veränderten Organismen – Teil 1

Die Ausbringung von gentechnisch ver?nderten Organismen (GVO) in das Freiland – namentlich in Gestalt von gentechnisch modifiziertem Saatgut – erfolgt im Wege der (meist experimentellen) Freisetzung oder des gro?fl?chigen Anbaus. Die damit verbundenen Umweltrisiken werden mittels der Freisetzungsgenehmigung und der Genehmigung des Inverkehrbringens (IVB) kontrolliert. Nach Erteilung der IVB-Genehmigung finden zus?tzlich Kontrollen beim Ausbringen des GVO statt. Das gilt nach den allgemeinen Regeln des Wirtschaftsverwaltungsrechts insoweit, wie die Einhaltung der Genehmigung zu überwachen ist. Hinzu kommt jedoch, dass die Genehmigung des Inverkehrbringens, die für alle Standorte in der EU gilt, m?glicherweise nicht alle Risiken der konkreten Ausbringung erfassen kann und deshalb nachgeschaltete sog. nachmarktliche Ma?nahmen notwendig werden. Dieses Problem entsteht in ?hnlicher Weise bei den sog. vereinfachten oder differenzierten Verfahren der Freisetzungsgenehmigung, wenn die Genehmigung erteilt wird, aber die Ausbringungsstandorte noch offengelassen werden. Auf allen vier genannten Stufen – bei der Freisetzungsgenehmigung, der IVB-Genehmigung, den nachmarktlichen Ma?nahmen und den vereinfachten/differenzierten Verfahren – stellt sich die Frage, inwieweit dafür gesorgt wird, dass die Schutzgüter des Naturschutzrechts vor Sch?den bewahrt werden. Weitergehend ist denkbar, dass manche Fl?chen von GVO ganz freigehalten werden. Das Schutzziel best?nde dabei nicht in der Bewahrung der Umwelt vor Sch?den, sondern in der Koexistenz naturnaher ?kosysteme mit menschlich st?rker beeinflussten ?kosystemen. Für die Koexistenz gentechnikfreier konventioneller und organischer Landwirtschaft ist dies anerkannt. Für die Koexistenz gentechnikfreier Naturgebiete ist der Gedanke erst noch zu entwickeln. Hieraus ergeben sich für diesen Beitrag die folgenden Fragen: (1) Inwieweit sind Naturschutzbelange zu beachten a) bei der Freisetzungsgenehmigung b) bei der Genehmigung des IVB von GVO c) bei der Kontrolle des Ausbringens nach IVB-Genehmigung d) bei der Kontrolle des Ausbringens nach einer im vereinfachten oder differenzierten Verfahren erteilten Freisetzungsgenehmigung? (2) Inwieweit ist Gentechnikfreiheit mancher Gebiete als eine besondere Art von Naturschutz zul?ssig? Die vier ersten Fragen richten sind auf Regime der Vermeidung von Umweltsch?den (dazu unten B), die letzte Frage auf ein Regime der Koexistenz naturnaher ?kosysteme mit gentechnikverwendender Landwirtschaft (dazu unten C). Vorab ist das einschl?gige Recht zu bestimmen (A).     

The Revitalization of the Permanent Court of Arbitration

Netherlands International Law Review -