Predicting the position of the source of blood stains for angled impacts

Droplets of pig's blood were dropped onto paper at different angles to the horizontal to produce blood stains. Impact velocities varied from 1.82 to 5.76 m/sec, drop size from 3.7 to 5.0 mm in diameter, and the surface sloped at angles between 22.7 degrees and 90 degrees to the horizontal. From the data a single equation relating stain size to drop size and velocity for all impact angles was produced; ab = 111.74 (Re(1/2)We(1/4))(0.75)D(o)D(o) + 0.00084 with R(2) = 0.88, where a is the stain width, b the stain length, Re the Reynolds number, and We the Weber number. A second equation related the number of spines, N, to drop size, velocity, and surface slope for all impact angles as N = 0.76 We(0.5) sin(3)theta with R(2) = 0.9, where theta is the impact angle. Combining these equations the impact velocity can be determined and hence the position of the stain's source.     

EC Competition Policy: Is the Role of the Substantial Part of the Common Market in Determining Jurisdictional Subsidiarity Redundant?

The importance of the principle of subsidiarity lies in its role in drawing the demarcation line between EU and member state responsibility for policy formulation and implementation. In theory, the application of the principle of subsidiarity appears relatively straightforward based on the scale and effects of the action in question. The reality is somewhat more complex, at least in respect of two competition policy instruments—Article 102 EC and the ECMR. At the heart of this complexity is the little understood notion of a substantial part of the common market which, relative to competing jurisdictional subsidiarity tests, can fail to assign cases to the appropriate jurisdiction. This leads to the conclusion that the substantial part test is superfluous as the affects trade criterion and the distinct markets test perform the allocative role more effectively in relation to Article 102 and the ECMR respectively.     

Contents of Volume 24

Volume Contents

Contents of Volume 24     

Central-local state contestations and urban management in Zimbabwe

ABSTRACT

Most scholars agree that the character of the urban governance system in Zimbabwe is a reflection of the dominance of one political party, namely, Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). However, the increasingly prominent role of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in urban governance has heralded, since the early 2000s, a period marked by change, contestation and confusion. Simultaneously, the destabilising effect of contested urban governance politics on urban management in Zimbabwe has become entrenched. This article focuses on the interface between urban governance politics and urban management in Zimbabwe in the post-2000 era. It analyses how central government, through the local government ministry, local government statutes and appointed officials, structures, and even destabilises, the administration of urban affairs. The article concludes that urban governance is not merely a site of political contestation, as it has also profoundly influenced and altered the functioning of urban administration in Zimbabwe.     

Private Damages Actions Under EU Competition Policy: An Exploration of the Ongoing Sea Change in Respect of Such Actions Concerning Articles 101 and 102 TFEU Infringements

The EU has an established history of public enforcement concerning antitrust infringements under what are now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Yet, until recently, this has not been true in respect of private compensatory damages actions in relation to the said articles. Hence, these actions are now seen as reinforcing the existing deterrent provided by pubic enforcement fines. This paper focuses upon the ongoing sea change that aims to enable and encourage compensatory damages claims in relation to harm caused by breaches of 101 and 102 TFEU. It reveals that both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Commission have played pioneering roles in advancing this sea change. It further asserts that, although the rulings of the CJEU have created a hybrid architecture that makes possible private actions in relation to the said breaches under Member state procedural laws before national courts, the architecture itself is problematic as it fails to guarantee that Member states’ procedural rules have a high degree of uniformity, thereby failing to guarantee a regulatory level playing field across the Union concerning the said damages actions. Moreover, not only is the architecture problematic, but it needed further development in respect of rules and requirements in several key areas, such as the right of evidential disclosure, the limitation period issue, collective redress and the quantification of harm, so as to facilitate and encourage claims. The Commission was aware of these concerns, and this paper explores its response. The issues could have been addressed by the establishment of a set of EU procedural rules which national courts would apply in the said actions but the Commission decided upon a different way forward. Working with the said hybrid architecture, and through the vehicle of the 2014 Directive on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, the Commission has amended and created rules and requirements which will form part of Member states’ domestic procedural law—and therefore will be applied by national courts—in order to establish a more level regulatory playing field across the Union which should facilitate and encourage private compensatory damages actions for harm caused by EU antitrust breaches. Of course, a more level playing field means that differences will still remain. Moreover, it will be some time before the success of the Directive can be gauged, and further measures may be required in the future.     

Politics of the left in Taiwan

Abstract

The following interview was conducted in Chinese in the United States during February and March 1980. The interviewee is a Taiwan national whose name and identity have been withheld for protection. “X” has been an understanding & sensitive participant, observer and writer on Taiwan's non-KMT political scene for many years.