Organic impurity profiling of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) tablets seized in The Netherlands.

In this study, a new method was developed for the impurity profiling of illicit MDMA tablets. The extraction efficiency, linearity, repeatability and reproducibility of the method were evaluated. Eighty two MDMA tablets coming from presumed unrelated large seizures in 2004 (n >500 tablets) were analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in order to assess the discrimination power of the method. The latter was found to be practical, robust, relatively easy to perform, highly discriminative and yielding good chromatography. In addition, some new impurities were detected and identified. Their chemical structures and mass spectra are reported.     

Environmental liability and harmonization in the presence of transboundary effects and hidden assets

Within the context of transboundary disputes, this paper seeks to determine which liability concept, negligence or strict liability, performs better when assets are secure against foreign claims for transboundary damages. Our results indicate that, if assets are hidden from foreign claims, strict liability will not implement the socially optimal outcome, but neither will negligence. However, even though the socially optimal outcome is not always achieved, strict liability weakly dominates negligence. These results suggest that the harmonization of statues that deal with transboundary pollution should be based on strict liability not negligence. JEL classification K32 · Q5 Smith and Eckert both thank SSHRC of Canada for financial assistance. We thank two referees for valuable comments that greatly improved the paper and Matt Smith for his research assistance. All remaining errors are our responsibility.     

The (im)possibility of trade marks being incognito (Netherlands)

In the battle to curry the favour of the fast-food consumer,McDonald's collided head on with its competitor Burger Kingat the beginning of this year; the key question in this disputewas whether Burger King was entitled to use the famous characterRonald McDonald in its commercials or whether, by doing so,Burger King was infringing the trade mark rights of McDonald's.