Explore the vast range of titles available.

The book investigates the emergence and the development of irregular fighters, such as guerrillas, rebels, insurgents, and terrorists throughout the history of modern war. It presents a historically based critique of the twenty-first century notion of the irregular fighter as an 'unlawful combatant'.

Abstract Although compliance with the founding values is presumed in its law, the Union is now confronted with persistent disregard of these values in two Member States. If it ceases to be a union of Rule-of-Law-abiding democracies, the European Union (EU) is unthinkable. Purely political mechanisms to safeguard the Rule of Law, such as those in Article 7 Treaty of European Union (TEU), do not work. Worse still, their existence has disguised the fact that the violations of the values of Article 2 TEU are also violations of EU law. The legal mechanisms tried thus far, however, do not work either. The fundamental jurisprudence on judicial independence and irremovability under Article 19(1) TEU is a good start, but it has been unable to change the situation on the ground. Despite ten years of EU attempts at reining in Rule of Law violations and even as backsliding Member States have lost cases at the Court of Justice, illiberal regimes inside the EU have become more consolidated: the EU has been losing through winning. More creative work is needed to find ways to enforce the values of Article 2 TEU more effectively. Taking this insight, we propose to turn the EU into a militant democracy, able to defend its basic principles, by using the traditional tools for the enforcement of EU law in a novel manner. We demonstrate how the familiar infringement actions—both under Article 258 and 259 TFEU—can be adapted as instruments for enforcing EU values by bundling a set of specific violations into a single general infringement action to show how a pattern of unlawful activity rises to the level of being a systemic violation. A systemic violation, because of its general and pervasive nature, in itself threatens basic values above and beyond violations of individual provisions of the acquis. Certified by the Court of Justice, a systemic violation of EU law should call for systemic compliance that would require the Member State to undo the effects of its attacks on the values of Article 2. The use of Article 260 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) to deduct fines from EU funds due to be received by the troubled Member State would provide additional incentives for systemic compliance. We illustrate this proposed militant democratic structure by explaining and critiquing what the Commission and Court together have done to reign in the governments of Hungary and Poland so far and then showing how they can do better.

\"When Leah and her husband, Clay, move from Seattle to Maine, she envisions a vibrant new neighborhood packed with families-- playmates for her twins, new friends she can confide in and bond with. But while Clay works long hours to establish his brewery, Leah is left alone each day in a nearly deserted housing development where the only other occupants are aloof and standoffish. Bored and adrift, Leah finds herself watching Clarissa and Russell Gaines next door, envying their stylishly decorated home and their university careers. But Leah's obsession with the intriguing, elegant Clarissa grows until she's not just spying from afar but sneaking into their house, taking small objects, reading Clarissa's diary. It contains clues to a hidden turmoil Leah never guessed at, and a connection to a local college girl who's disappeared\"--Amazon.com.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(3), 1497-1500 | European Forum Highlight of 27 February 2025 | (Abstract) This Highlight provides a concise overview of Opinion 28/2024 of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which outlines the EDPB’s position on the application of certain aspects of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to AI models. The Opinion constitutes a significant update on how to reconcile the protection of personal data under the GDPR with AI

Countries have been developing and deploying anti-corruption tools based on artificial intelligence with hopes of them having positive capabilities. Yet, we still lack empirical analyses of these automated systems designed to identify and curb corruption. Hence, this article explores novel data on 31 bottom-up and top-down initiatives in Brazil, presented as a case study. Methodologically, it uses a qualitative analysis and draws on secondary data and interviews to assess the most common features, usages and constraints of these tools. Data collected are scrutinised under a new conceptual framework that considers how these tools operate, who created them for what purpose, who uses and monitors these tools, what types of corruption they are targeting, and what their tangible outcomes are. Findings suggest that in Brazil, AI-based anti-corruption technology has been tailored by tech-savvy civil servants working for law enforcement agencies and by concerned citizens with tech skills to take over the key tasks of mining and crosschecking large datasets, aiming to monitor, identify, report and predict risks and flag suspicions related to clear-cut unlawful cases. The target is corruption in key governmental functions, mainly public spending. While most of the governmental tools still lack transparency, bottom-up initiatives struggle to expand their scope due to high dependence on and limited access to open data. Because this new technology is seen as supporting human action, a low level of concern related to biased codes has been observed.

The doctrine of qualified immunity operates as an unwritten defense to civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for violations of their constitutional rights unless a government official violated \"clearly established law, \" which usually requires specific precedent on point. This Article argues that the qualified immunity doctrine is unlawful and inconsistent with conventional principles of statutory interpretation. Members of the Supreme Court have offered three different justifications for imposing this unwritten defense on the text of Section 1983. First, that the doctrine of qualified immunity derives from a common-law \"good-faith\" defense. Second, that it compensates for an earlier putative mistake in broadening the statute. Third, that it provides \"fair warning\" to government officials, akin to the rule of lenity. On closer examination, each of these justifications falls apart for a mix of historical, conceptual, and doctrinal reasons. There was no such defense; there was no such mistake; lenity ought not apply. Furthermore, even if these things were otherwise, the doctrine of qualified immunity would not be the best response. The unlawfulness of qualified immunity is of particular importance now. Despite its shoddy foundations, the Supreme Court has been formally and informally reinforcing the doctrine of immunity. In particular, the Court has given qualified immunity a privileged place on its agenda reserved for habeas deference and few other legal doctrines. Rather than doubling down, the Court ought to be beating a retreat. The unlawfulness of qualified immunity is of particular importance now. Despite its shoddy foundations, the Supreme Court has been formally and informally reinforcing the doctrine of immunity. In particular, the Court has given qualified immunity a privileged place on its agenda reserved for habeas deference and few other legal doctrines. Rather than doubling down, the Court ought to be beating a retreat.

Disposal of unlawful interference incidents is essential for is crucial for the advancement of aviation security. Effective emergency disposal requires a comprehensive approach that includes the perspectives of airlines, airports, and passengers. In this context, each component of the disposal process can fail randomly. The objective of this research is to optimize emergency disposal decisions to enhance the efficiency of civil aviation operations, reduce accidents, and lower costs. Given the dynamic complexity of unlawful interference incidents, a dynamic fault tree consisting of 26 nodes was constructed to analyze the emergency disposal process. To explore the relationships and priorities of each event, the Dynamic Fault Tree is converted into a dynamic Bayesian network. Based on historical statistical data, simulation analysis is conducted in three aspects: posterior probability, sensitivity, and importance. Simulation results reveal that the top three critical nodes in cabin unlawful interference incidents are “structural damage to the cabin,” “inadequate training by airlines,” and “untimely airport police takeover of disruptive passengers.” Further analysis shows that (1) most of the critical nodes are associated with airlines. (2) The decision-making rationale and pathways of the critical nodes can be clearly observed and prioritized. (3) Besides airlines, other entities such as airports can implement targeted emergency disposal measures. Through quantitative analysis and simulation, this study provides decision-making guidance for participating groups on dynamic emergency disposal, thereby enhancing civil aviation security.

One of the most enduring legacies of apartheid is the racialised in-access to property for the (black) majority of South Africans. The large unmet demand for accessible and affordable residential property close to work opportunities has resulted in widespread unlawful occupation of inner city buildings, which in the post-apartheid legal order has been shielded by a constitutional prohibition against arbitrary and unjust eviction. Yet, notwithstanding significant protection against eviction, in what remains a largely private property-dominated paradigm, unlawful occupation is an inherently disruptive act that pits ownership against the use/occupation of the same piece of property. Seeking to better understand the under-scrutinised social reality of such unlawful occupation of privately-owned property, we undertook qualitative research to examine how unlawful occupiers view, traverse and (re)define property-related arrangements. Coming from legal and built environment backgrounds respectively, we were particularly interested to understand the extent to which the legal limbo of unlawful occupation has given rise to a rejection of the hegemony of private property ownership and the construction of an alternative urban property rights consciousness among unlawful occupiers. Our research indicates that, although residents in Johannesburg’s inner city have found ways to deal with their state of unlawful occupation, the occupied spaces currently more accurately reflect a survivalist struggle in a mainstream property ownership-dominated reality than the assertion of a new urban property regime, with occupiers yearning for greater, rather than less, formality and legal authority 种族隔离制度最持久的后遗症之一是南非大多数人（黑人）因种族歧视无法获得房产。大量人口无法获得工作机会较多的地方附近的、能负担得起的住宅物业，导致非法占用市中心建筑的现象普遍存在。在种族隔离结束后的法律制度中，宪法禁止任意和不公正的驱逐，导致上述问题在一定程度上被纵容了。然而，尽管针对非法驱逐保护力度较大，在仍然是私有财产主导的模式下，非法占用是一种内在的破坏性行为，使同一套房产的所有权与使用/占用权相对立。为了更好地了解非法占用私有财产这一尚未得到充分审视的社会现实，我们通过定性研究，探究非法占用者如何看待、跨越和（重新）定义与财产有关的安排。我们分别来自法律和建筑环境背景，因此最让我们感兴趣的是，了解非法占用对法律的破坏在多大程度上导致了非法占用者对私人财产所有权作为支配权的排斥，并建立起另一种城市物业权利意识。我们的研究表明，尽管约翰内斯堡市中心的居民已经找到了应对自身非法占用地位的方法，但更准确地说，目前被占用的空间所反映的，是物业私人所有权占主导地位的现实状况中人们为生存而斗争，占用者们渴望获得更大的正规性和法定权利。