Questa tesi affronta l'argomento dell'impatto delle attività dei gruppi criminali condotte all'interno degli Stati Membri dell'Unione europea. Negli ultimi anni l'importanza di questo argomento è stata ampiamente sottolineata soprattutto a livello europeo. La ricerca è stata possibile anche grazie alla partecipazione dell'autrice al progetto di ricerca sulla criminalità organizzata finanziato dalla Commissione europea (VI Programma Quadro) e dimostra come il mondo accademico può rispondere alla necessità di una conoscenza dell'impatto del crimine organizzato che sia comparabile a livello europeo. Si tratta di un primo tentativo di definire i criteri di una metodologia comune europea finalizzata alla misurazione dell'impatto di specifiche attività criminali, ai fini della selezione degli indicatori che rispettano tali criteri; in altre parole, questo lavoro intende offrire un primo studio comprensivo di tutti gli aspetti connessi allo sviluppo di una metodologia comune europea che misuri l'impatto delle attività criminali e di conseguenza creare la base per ulteriori ricerche sull'argomento. / This thesis addresses the topic of the harm caused by organised criminal activities carried out across the EU Member States. It is a topic whose importance has been widely remarked upon, in recent years, especially at EU level. This thesis - that benefits from the participation of the author in a Project on OC harm funded under the VI FP of the European Commission - shows how academics can respond to the need for a comparative knowledge on OC harm at EU level. It is a first attempt to define the criteria of a common EU methodology for measuring the harm caused by selected OC activities, and to identify indicators complying with these criteria, therefore putting forward a possible methodology. In other words, this thesis intends to provide a first comprehensive study that will bring together in a systematic way all the issues related to the development of a common EU methodology assessing the impact of OC activities and, therefore, create the basis for further research on the subject.

LL.M. (Labour Law) / Commentators have warned that when men are given absolute control over their fellow men, there is the danger that what appeared pragmatically desirable may become morally intolerable. The current usage of polygraph testing by employers undoubtedly confirms this. In what follows, it will be argued that there is a serious shortcoming in South African law in that there is no legislative framework that governs and regulates the use of polygraph testing in the workplace. It is fairly likely that many South African employers will at some time be faced with dishonesty or criminal activities, such as fraud or theft, without accurately being able to identify where, how, and by whom such dishonesty was committed. If dishonesty and criminal activities are not properly managed, there may be adverse ramifications. As a result, many employers have opted to insert a clause in the employment offer and employment contract that relates to security obligations on the part of the employees or prospective employees. The clause would normally read as follows: “The company may request that you subject yourself to a polygraph test before commencement of employment or if an incident has occurred or and random testing during your period of employment with the Company. The employee hereby declares that he is aware of the company polygraph policy and accepts that this policy as a term and condition of his employment. The employee undertakes to comply with the said policy in all respects and acknowledges that he is bound thereby”. Magna Alloys & Research v Ellis introduced a significant change to the Courts’ approach to restraint of trade agreements by declining to follow earlier decisions based on an English precedent that an agreement in restraint of trade is prima facie invalid and unenforceable. The implication of this decision is that a right to choose a trade, occupation, or profession freely may

近來，由於詐領人壽保險死亡保險金之情況甚為嚴重，使得政府及保險人不得不對人壽保險人免責事由之規範加以留意。而此亦為本文撰寫靈感來源。 故本文乃試從保險法及保險學之角度，對人壽保險人免責事由之意義及內容加以界定，進而於提出各國立法例後，探究目前我國人壽保險人之法定免責事由，並以人壽保險單示範條款為意定免責事由之中心，探究相關之法令規定。 對於人壽保險人免責事由之主要問題乃出自保險法第一百零九條及第一百二十一條，雖現行人壽保險單示範條款第十四條之規定亦源自於此二法條而來。然而，對於其中之爭議點，人壽保險單示範條款仍未加以解決。此外，本文亦兼論有關戰爭、內亂及其他類似的武裝變亂和核子反應造成之損害，保險人是否得以免責。 最後，對於前述之問題，本文建議除了從我國保險法第一百零九條、一百二十一條、第三十二條之內容加以修正之外，亦可從保險犯罪防制中心之成立，進行危險控制之工作。 / Defrauding death benefits of life insurance has become more and more serious recently, so the government and insurers must keep their eyes open about the liability exception of life insurers. This is also the inspiration source of this essay. This essay tries to describe the definition and contexts of the liability exception of life insurers from the insurance law and insurance theories points of view. After bringing the cases and laws in different countries forward, the writer will proceed to the next step: to investigate into the statutory liability exception of life insurers; and then, to center on Model Provisions of Life Insurance Policy, studying the related regulations about the exceptions or exclusions of life policy. The main issues of the liability exception of the life insurers arise from Sections 109 and 121 of the Insurance Law of R. O. C.. Although the Model Provisions of Life Insurance Policy S.14 also came from these rules, the main issues still remain unsolved. Moreover, this essay will also discuss about whether or not the insurers should be liable for the insurance events caused by the wars, civil strifes, other armed forces and nuclear reaction. Finally, this essay suggests amending the Insurance Law of R.O.C., S.109, 121, and 32 to solve the issues mentioned above as well as establishing the Crime Prevention Center of Insurance Institute to carry out the work of risk control.

La lutte contre la criminalité organisée est, aujourd'hui, une des priorités nationales et internationales. Pour ce faire, les États n'adoptent pas cependant toujours les mêmes solutions, comme le montre l'étude comparative des droits français et koweïtien. Sur le plan substantiel, les deux droits ont de nombreux points communs. La criminalité organisée n'a en effet pas été incriminée en tant que telle, aussi bien par le législateur français que koweïtien. Il existe cependant dans ces deux droits plusieurs incriminations permettant d'appréhender ce phénomène criminel. Il s'agit donc ou bien de lutter contre les organisations criminelles, via l'association de malfaiteurs ou l'entente criminelle, ou bien de lutter contre les activités criminelles commises par ces organisations, via la circonstance aggravante de bande organisée ou de groupe criminel organisé. Pour lutter contre la criminalité organisée, les deux droits adoptent également une politique répressive adaptée notamment en permettant aux repentis de bénéficier d'une exemption ou éventuellement d'une réduction de peine lors qu'ils collaborent avec la justice. Sur le plan procédural, les deux droits ont en revanche adopté une approche différente. Le droit français a prévu, en ce domaine, des règles de procédure dérogatoires au droit commun et a donné compétence à des juridictions spécialisées (les JIRS). Le droit koweïtien, quant à lui, se contente des règles procédurales et des juridictions de droit commun pour appréhender la criminalité organisée. Sur cet aspect, si la spécialisation des juridictions françaises ne semble guère transposable en droit koweïtien, le législateur du Koweït pourrait s'inspirer des règles dérogatoires prévues en droit français pour mieux appréhender la criminalité organisée. / The fight against organized crime is today one of the national and international priorities. To do so, however, the countries do not always adopt the same solutions, as shown by the comparative study of French and Kuwaiti laws. Substantially, the two laws have many points in common. Organized crime has not actually been criminalized as such by French and Kuwaiti legislators. There are, however, several criminalizations to apprehend this criminal phenomenon in these two laws. It is either to fight against criminal organizations, via the conspiracy (association de malfaiteurs/entente criminelle), or to fight against the criminal activities committed by these organizations, via the aggravating circumstance of organized criminal group (bande organisée/groupe criminel organisé). To fight against organized crime, both laws also adopt an adapted repressive policy that allows the collaborator of justice to be exempted from penalty or to benefit from a reduction of the sentence. Procedurally, the two laws have adopted different approaches. The French law contains some special criminal procedures, applicable to organized crime, that derogate from ordinary criminal procedures. It also conferred on the specialized courts the competence to adjudicate the organized crime cases (the JIRS). The Kuwaiti law, on the other hand, is content with relying on ordinary criminal procedures and ordinary courts to apprehend organized crime. On this aspect, if the specialization of the French courts does not seem to be transposable into Kuwaiti law, the latter can adopt the French special criminal procedures to better combat organized crime.