A new approach to the right to privacy,or how the European Court of Human Rights embraced the non-domination principle

As it is currently regulated, the right to privacy is predominantly conceived as a subjective right protecting the individual interests of natural persons. In order to determine whether this right has been affected in a specific situation, the so-called ‘non-interference’ principle is applied. Using this concept, it follows that the right to privacy is undermined if an ‘infringement’ with that right by a third party can be demonstrated. Although the ‘infringement’-criterion works well when applied to more traditional privacy violations, such as a third party entering the home of an individual or eavesdropping on a private conversation, with respect to modern data-driven technologies, it is often very difficult to demonstrate an actual and concrete ‘infringement’ on a person's right or freedom. Therefore, an increasing number of privacy scholars advocate the use of another principle, namely the republican idea of ‘non-domination’. At the core of this principle is not the question of whether there has been an ‘interference’ with a right; rather, it looks at existing power relations and the potential for the abuse of power. Interestingly, in recent times, the European Court of Human Rights seems to accept the republican approach to privacy when it deals with complex data-driven cases.     

New Trends in the Criminalization of Stalking in the EU Member States

Article 34 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence obliges signatory states to criminalize stalking. This article provides an inventory of criminal anti-stalking legislation in the 28 EU Member States in order to see whether they live up to this obligation. Although the number of Member States with dedicated legislation has increased significantly (n = 21) there are some questionable trends, such as the proliferation of criminal provisions which require the victim to have experienced fear or distress or an inclusion of an exhaustive list of stalking tactics. Although the states are not in evident violation of article 34 their perception of what constitutes stalking sometimes deviates from the intentions of the Convention.     

Staff members’ evaluation of inpatients’ motivation for aggression – the roles of staff restrictions and aggression severity

Improved understanding of inpatient aggression can come from systematic assessment of motivation for aggressive incidents. This study investigates staff members’ evaluation of motivation for aggressive incidents, and how such evaluations are influenced by staff restrictions and aggression severity. Staff reports of aggressive incidents in a secure psychiatric unit were collected in clinical practice over a ten-year period (2006–2015). Motivation for aggression was assessed with the Aggressive Incident Motivation Evaluation Scale, measuring irritable, instrumental, and defensive dimensions. Information about staff restrictions was collected with the Staff Observation Aggression Scale – Revised, and severity was rated with the Visual Analog Scale. Multilevel analyses of 2649 aggressive incidents, committed by 67 inpatients, revealed greater variation in aggression motivation across incidents than between individual patients. Staff restrictions preceding the aggressive incident and rating of severity were positively related to staffs’ evaluation of motivation for aggression, but their impacts differed across motivational dimensions. Staff reports of motivation provide important additional information beyond current standard report forms. Systematically evaluating motivation is essential to risk management, and may contribute to develop more fine-tuned interventions for preventing and managing aggression in inpatient settings.     

Evaluating industrial modernization: Methods, results, and insights from the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance

This paper examines the experience of the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance (GMEA) in implementing an evaluation of its industrial extension services. As part of the U.S. Manufacturing Extension partnership, GMEA provides assistance to manufacturers to resolve industrial and business problems and upgrade technology, training, and business performance, focusing primarily on firms within the state of Georgia. The program has established an evaluation component along with other assessment and review mechanisms. Several evaluation methods are employed, including customer surveys, economic analyses of benefits and costs, controlled studies, and logic-based case studies. The article examines the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches, reviews the insights each method offers, and discusses how the resulting evaluative information is used.     

Contrasting perspectives on the evaluation of industrial modernization: Introduction to the symposium

This paper examines the experience of the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance (GMEA) in implementing an evaluation of its industrial extension services. As part of the U.S. Manufacturing Extension partnership, GMEA provides assistance to manufacturers to resolve industrial and business problems and upgrade technology, training, and business performance, focusing primarily on firms within the state of Georgia. The program has established an evaluation component along with other assessment and review mechanisms. Several evaluation methods are employed, including customer surveys, economic analyses of benefits and costs, controlled studies, and logic-based case studies. The article examines the strengths and weaknesses of these different approaches, reviews the insights each method offers, and discusses how the resulting evaluative information is used. The views expressed in this paper are the authors' and not necessarily those of the Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance or its sponsoring organizations.     

Controlled Restructuring in Finland?

Surveying the economic legislation and policies of the new Blue - Red coalition government in Finland in six separate fields - competition policies, industrial relations, income policies, the financial system, taxation and the public sector - the question is asked whether the different measures can be seen as parts of an overall strategy to change the Finnish mode of regulation. Is it possible that we are witnessing the development of a two-tiered form of corporatism, combining a more traditional social corporatism on the macro-level and a new liberal corporatism on an intermediate level of production and innovation?