Enforcement of International Human Rights Law by Domestic Courts: A Theoretical and Practical Study

Netherlands International Law Review -     

From DJ talk to music journalism*

Drawing on 5 hours of data from a very popular and one of the longest-running music radio programs, the current study uses a combination of conversation analysis and sound semiotics to study the interconnection among talk, music and sound in DJ talk, an area which is somewhat of a blind spot in radio studies. The analysis demonstrates that the music program is primarily a program that unfolds through a music information “chain” and evolves through a musical narration of historical important moments of the artists or music genres that are being presented. The results illustrate a number of principal features of a music journalism show and highlight the unique DJ style and its role in the completion of the show.     

The Law Lords and Human Rights

This article presents an empirical analysis of the impact of the Human Rights Act on the House of Lords. Drawing on a database of judgments from 1994 to 2007, changes in judgment‐giving behaviour are identified by charting patterns of agreement and dissent across different categories of case. Voting records are also examined in order to identify whether significant differences exist between individual Law Lords in their approach to human rights cases.     

Homicide by insulin administration

This report describes a case of homicide by insulin administration and a study of the effects of storage conditions on insulin in serum. The study revealed insulin to be remarkably stable at refrigerator temperatures. Therefore, for forensic science purposes, insulin immunoassay data are interpretable even when serum is not stored by the standard laboratory method of freezing.     

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

How do courts award noneconomic damages? Does it matter if the state is the defendant? This article addresses these questions in the context of medical malpractice appeals to the Spanish Supreme Court. Moreover, this study provides the first empirical analysis of the quantification of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in administrative courts, where the state is the defendant, and in civil courts. This separation of jurisdictions is a common feature in civil law tradition countries. Yet, critics of this separation in general, and specialized courts in particular, argue that parties might be subject to different treatments and that similar cases might reach different outcomes, namely in terms of the quantification of damages. A consistent result of this paper is that no significant differences between noneconomic damages in civil and administrative appeals were found. The separation of jurisdictions does not necessarily imply that courts reach different outcomes, even when the state is the defendant. Citizens should not refrain from bringing their claims forward against the state, a more powerful party. In the current era of increasing juridification and judicialization of modern life (Ginsburg 2009; Hirschl 2006; Hirschl 2011), it is crucial for society that citizens and other parties litigating with the state are not disadvantageously treated.