La ricerca prende spunto dalla recente accresciuta attenzione, da parte della magistratura, all’attività di protezione civile in relazione alla previsione, valutazione e gestione del rischio. Ciò è agevolato dal fatto che l’ordinamento italiano, a fronte del verificarsi di eventi avversi, reagisce usualmente facendo ricorso al diritto penale. Si tratta però di una scelta non priva di conseguenze e che, come già avvenuto in settori affini, quale quello sanitario, rischia di produrre delle significative conseguenze negative, a discapito della stessa efficacia del Sistema di Protezione civile. La prima parte della tesi è così dedicata alla ricognizione del fenomeno della “criminalizzazione” dell’attività di protezione civile e delle conseguenze che ciò ha comportato. Si passa poi all’individuazione delle cause, sia sociologiche, sia giuridiche, che hanno condotto a questo recente, esasperato controllo giudiziale sulla Protezione civile. Nel terzo capitolo è svolta una disamina dei ruoli e compiti della Protezione civile, nonché di alcune sentenze particolarmente rappresentative dei vari orientamenti giurisprudenziali che si sono sviluppati in questo settore. L’ultima parte contiene una ricognizione delle criticità che ancora affliggono l’operato della Protezione civile e che inducono all’adozione di comportamenti difensivi, cui segue l’analisi del progetto di riforma della materia, nonché la formulazione di alcune ulteriori considerazioni personali. / The research has been inspired by the recent increased judicial focus on Civil protection activities. This phenomenon depends on the fact that the Italian legal system reacts to the failure of Civil protection duties essentially by using criminal law. This kind of reaction, as it has already been demonstrated in other cases, such as medical malpractice, has some contraindications, because it leads to defensive behaviours. The first part of the thesis is thus dedicated to the recognition of the judicial focus on civil protection activities and the relevant consequences. Then are studied the factors, both sociological and juridical, which have led to this recent exaggerated judicial control over Civil protection. The third chapter concerns the roles and duties of Italian Civil protection and then are examined some leading cases in this matter. In the last part it is conducted a recognition of the crucial problems that still affects Civil protection and that lead to defensive behaviours. It follows an analysis of the reform project of Civil protection and at last some personal proposal to solve the problem of “defensive civil protection” are given.

Rule 31.22 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provides, as a general rule, that those who receive documents through disclosure during civil proceedings may use them only for the purpose of the proceedings at hand. The general rule is subject to three exceptions, and judges have discretion to authorise subsequent use for other purposes. However, the foundational presupposition underpinning CPR 31.22 is that subsequent use, generally speaking, is improper. The thesis has two primary aims: (1) to demonstrate that the rule governing subsequent use (as developed in the case law) is theoretically and practically flawed, and that maintaining a blanket, general rule against subsequent use is unsound in principle, unjust, and procedurally inefficient; and (2) to generate a normative and procedural framework suitable for reform. Part I outlines the content, origins and operation of CPR 31.22. Through historical analysis, it suggests that presumptively categorising as improper all forms of subsequent use beyond the original litigation contradicts traditional authority. By identifying and examining the three principal rationales said to justify the modern rule, it argues that none affords sound justification. By analysing the exceptions to the rule, including judicial discretion, it seeks to show that such measures are incapable of remedying the defects in the underlying rule. Part II attempts to formulate a theoretically defensible, procedurally viable model for reforming CPR 31.22. It suggests that the presumption against subsequent use should be abolished, and the law reoriented around two central norms: the harm principle and a balancing approach. It tests this theoretical model by applying it to seven paradigmatic categories of subsequent use. Finally, it outlines a possible structure for procedural reform.

The topic of this thesis is the prolonged denial and eventual recognition of the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Australia following the British assertion of sovereignty. The analysis considers the manner in which the denial and subsequent recognition of Indigenous rights has affected the system of government of the dominant society (the Commonwealth of Australia) in terms of the establishment and evolution of the constitutional framework and associated processes of institutional change in the principles, structures and procedures of the system of government. The primary jurisdiction in which this topic is explored is the Northern Territory of Australia; the primary contexts are the recognition of Indigenous land rights (defined broadly to include associated natural and cultural heritage and resource rights) and the Indigenous right to self government within ‘the state’ (the internationally constituted and recognised polity of the Commonwealth of Australia). / The thesis draws on analogous developments in Canada and New Zealand to demonstrate that, while significant progress has been made in the recognition of Indigenous rights since the 1960s, many forms of recognition remain conceptually and procedurally limited. In particular, associated regimes have almost invariably been devised and implemented within a fundamentally monocultural context in which Indigenous rights remain subject to unilateral abrogation or extinguishment by Commonwealth governments. In addition, the legal basis of and requirements for recognition of Indigenous rights according to Commonwealth law result in extremely variable levels of recognition in different areas and contexts, and principles and procedures for the mutual recognition and co-existence of Indigenous and Commonwealth law and systems of government are only partially apparent in the Federal and Northern Territory systems of government. In addition to extending and deepening the recognition of Indigenous rights throughout all relevant institutions of the system of government, to address these deficiencies the thesis argues that constitutional recognition and protection of Indigenous rights and the negotiation of treaties are essential if the Indigenous right of self-determination is to be respected and accommodated by the dominant society.

Thesis (doctoral)--Univ. Köln, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [xxxiii]-lxxxix)

Thesis (D. Jur.)--York University, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 377-399). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ59160.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 1989. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-55).

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 66-71).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Potsdam, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [644]-672) and index.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 73-78).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Münster, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.