REACH: A Step Change in the Management of Chemicals

The EU has regulated chemicals since the late 1960s using both general and sectoral legislation, and exposure-based, hazard-based and risk-based decisions. A new proposal from the European Commission – on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) – will build on the experiences of the existing legislation and introduce some new concepts in the management of chemicals. This article is aimed at assessing the current chemical control mechanisms in the EU and those put forward in REACH to demonstrate how REACH is a new paradigm in chemicals management. REACH will carry forward today's experience and approach to the management of chemicals in the EU and introduces some novel aspects, such as utilizing market-based mechanisms and putting into operation the 'substitution principle'.     

The evolution of European legal integration

This article contributes to the development of theories on European integration by testing and exploring statistical models on the long-term development of legislative activity of the European Commission. Drawing on legal information gained from the European Union’s PreLex database and analyzing it with the help of statistical analyses, we map out growth patterns of EU law between 1976 and 2003. We construct time-series models and models based on non-linear regression. While the performance of models based on the traditional theoretical approaches, intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism, is rather poor, the analysis suggests that nonlinear dynamic models might be an interesting avenue for future conceptualizations of the EU integration process. This article is based on a paper presented at the ECPR Standing Group on the European Union Second Pan-European Conference on EU Politics, “Implications of a Wider Europe: Politics, Institutions and Diversity”, 24–26 June 2004, Bologna, Italy. We would like to thank the seminar participants for useful comments.     

Assessing the Credibility of Refugee Applicants: A Judicial Perspective

The principal responsibility of refugee decision makers is todetermine those to whom refugee protection is owed. The mannerin which these decisions are to be made in Australia is thesubject of ongoing debate. However, that debate is not the subjectof this paper. The focus of this paper is on the credibilityassessment of refugee applicants and its principal purpose isinstructive. It is my hope that it will enhance the credibilityof credibility assessment within existing processes. Its secondarypurpose is to provide a basis from which policy makers may considerlegislative and other procedural change. It has been suggested that the ‘devil is in the detail’in refugee decision making. Working in a common law country,Australian refugee decision makers are afforded the (often binding)benefit of extensive judicial review of the refugee determinationprocess.¹ Thus, for Australian decision makers, the ‘devilin the detail’ is often to be found in a plethora of bindinglegal precedent. Accordingly, while the first part of this paperdiscusses selected matters which have facilitated the assessmentof the credibility of refugee applicants in Australia, as oneof the most authoritative domestic sources available, the secondpart of this paper principally focuses on the expressed viewsof Australian courts after examining credibility findings indecisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal.²     

Unmasking the Crimes of the Powerful

Even in formally open, liberal, democratic states, a series of barriers exist as obstacles to critical criminologists who wish to conduct research that scrutinises the activities of powerful states and corporations. Much evidence suggests that in the current political climate, the barring of access to sources of data, neo-liberal re-configurations in the funding of research, and the narrowing of publishing and dissemination opportunities to counter-hegemonic voices are severely limiting the ability to conduct critical research. This article reports on recent experiences of researchers concerned with unmasking the crimes of the powerful and argues that, despite the obstacles power sources use to obscure and mystify the illegal and violent practices engaged in by states and corporations, there remains fertile space around research agendas, and in universities, for critical researchers to exploit. To gain insight from the ways in which researchers can, and do, establish alternative agendas, this article seeks to explore some of the principles that might inform and encourage those forms of resistance, and to establish how critical criminologists might continue to subject the powerful to scrutiny. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.