There are two main thesis to the work "A Company as the injured party in criminal procedure": (i) civil law recodification, in the context of company actions or actions made on behalf of a company, represents a positive change for the injured party when submitting a proposition for the court to impose a duty to compensate the damage in its sentencing judgment and as well determinates a limitation period, (ii) the process of assigning or withdrawing a status of the injured party is not described accordingly in the contemporary procedure act, especially regarding the exact form needed for this decision. These issues are closely tied to the types of damage applicable in a criminal procedure, injured party categories and to the details of submitting the compensation duty motion. A comparison of different company actions before and after recodification implies that there is a possibility of approbating the juridicial act of legal proceedings of a company that are invalid due to the company's procedure errors. Determining a limitation period by the day of the original motion stays unimpaired. Repeating the legal procedure and putting the limitation period to the day after its valid execution was necessary with the latest legal version. The second thesis was verified as well by exploiting contemporary...

This paper utilizes data on physician malpractice insurance premiums and state tort law to analyze how physicians in various medical specialties are differentially affected by caps on noneconomic damages. As higher premiums put pressure on legislators to enact damage caps, I instrument caps on noneconomic damages with enactment of tort reform measures that do not affect malpractice premiums to uncover the effect of caps on noneconomic damages on such premiums. I find evidence to support that, in terms of dollars saved, physicians in high risk specialties benefit more from noneconomic damage caps than physicians in low risk specialties. However, in percentage terms, I find that physicians in all specialties essentially benefit equally from caps on noneconomic damages.

AFRIKAANS: Die doel van die proefskrif is ‘n ondersoek van die verskynsel van voordeel-toerekening en die ontwikkeling van ‘n betroubare voordeeltoerekeningsleer. Gevolglik word ‘n ondersoek na die bestaan, die klassifikasie en die grondslag van die toerekenbaarheid van voordele teenoor die skadevergoedingsaanspraak gedoen. Hiermee saam word ook ‘n ondersoek na sekere vergelykbare aspekte in die Engelse, Nederlandse en Australiese reg onderneem. Voordeeltoerekening verwys in die breë na daardie beoordelingsproses waarby gunstige newewerkings, as gevolg van die skadestigtende gebeurtenis, ten aansien van moontlike inagneming daarvan by die bepaling van skadevergoeding beoordeel word. ‘n Voordeel kan gesien word as ‘n gunstige newewerking as gevolg van ‘n skade- of voordeelstigtende gebeurtenis wat die benadeelde se vermoë vermeerder of meebring dat die vermoë nie verder verminder nie. Daar kan vandag geredelik aanvaar word dat daar geen enkele teorie is om voordeeltoerekening te verklaar nie. By bepaling van skadevergoeding behoort daar altyd vir die bestaan van verrekenbare voordele getoets te word. As vertrekpunt moet die voordeel 'n feitelike kousale verband met die skadestigtende gebeurtenis vertoon. Sou die voordeel nie in hierdie feitelike kousale verband staan nie, is die gevolg daarvan dat die voordeel as res inter alios acta of as kollateraal beskou kan word. Voordele wat wel aan die feitelike kousaliteitstoets voldoen, word nie summier verreken nie. Hierdie voordele word aan 'n verdere norm beoordeel. Die toerekeningsnorm word in die algemeen in beginsels van openbare beleid gevind. Openbare beleid is uiteraard 'n vae begrip waaraan ‘n meer konkrete inhoud en betekenis verleen moet word. Openbare beleid kan gesien word as verteenwoordigend van elemente soos redelikheid, billikheid en regverdigheid. Hierdie elemente moet teen die agtergrond van die bestaan van die behoeftes van die eiser, die verweerder, die bron van die voordeel en die gemeenskap se belange toegepas word. Hiervolgens kan voordele toegereken word, indien die vereistes van redelikheid, billikheid en regverdigheid dit dikteer. Dit is nodig om die voordeeltoerekeningsleer van 'n vaste teoretiese fondament te voorsien ten einde aan die voordeeltoerekeningsleer betekenis en praktiese werking te verleen. In die praktyk het die teoretiese onderbou en die aard van die verskillende voordele meegebring dat kasuïstiese voordeelklasse ontstaan het. Hierdie voordeelklasse kan volgens die aard en die kenmerke daarvan weer in voordeelgroepe toegedeel word. Elke voordeelgroep besit sy eiesoortige teoretiese kenmerke waaraan die voordeel getoets kan word vir kategorisering en die moontlike toerekening daarvan teenoor die skadevergoedingsaanspraak. Vyf voordeelgroeperings kan vir doeleindes van voordeeltoerekening onderskei word. Eerstens is daar pseudovoordele. Hierdie voordele is nie egte toerekenbare voordele nie maar is deel van die skadeberekeningsproses. Tweedens is daar kwantifiseringsvoordele wat ook nie egte voordeeltoerekeningsvoordele is nie maar algemene faktore of elemente behorende tot die skadevergoedingsreg ten einde skade meer akkuraat te bereken. As sodanig vorm hierdie faktore ook deel van die skadeberekeningsmaatstaf. Derdens word aanpassingsvoordele as egte voordeel-toerekeningsvoordele onderskei. Dit is voordele waarmee die voorlopige skade-vergoedingsbedrag aangepas word, ten einde die finale skadevergoedingsbedrag te kan bereken. Vierdens word skadebeperkingsvoordele geïdentifiseer. Dit is voordele wat na die skadestigtende gebeurtenis ontstaan en wat meebring dat die omvang van die skade beperk word. Hierdie voordele kan of aanpassingsvoordele of voordele behorende tot die korrekte skadeberekeningsmaatstaf wees. Vyfdens word kollaterale voordele onderskei. Dit is voordele wat na oorweging van 'n moontlike toerekening, nie tot die skadevergoeding toegereken word nie. Hierdie groepering is 'n blote resultaat van die nie-toerekening van die voordeel. Hierdie groeperings neem nie die plek van die reeds geïdentifiseerde voordeel-klasse in nie maar bestaan oorhoofs daartoe. Ten einde die hedendaagse diversiteit van voordele binne die raamwerk van 'n voordeeltoerekeningsleer te kan akkommodeer, is dit noodsaaklik om voordele te kategoriseer. ’n Voordeel kan dualisties gekategoriseer word na aanleiding van die individuele aard of karakter van die spesifieke voordeel en ook na die oorhoofse groepering daarvan. Hierdie kategorisering het tot gevolg dat voordeelklasse ontwikkel het na aanleiding van die soortgelyke aard van die voordele. Daar kan aan die voordeelklasse 'n eiesoortige identiteit gegee word wat 'n bepaalde klas van 'n ander klas kan onderskei. Uit die klassifikasie van voordele word riglyne aan die praktyk verskaf wat as beoordelingsmaatstaf kan dien, waaraan voordele ten opsigte van die toereken-baarheid daarvan in die sfeer van die skadevergoedingsaanspraak beoordeel kan word. So word erkenning aan die behoefte en die bestaan van 'n selfstandige voordeeltoerekeningsleer verleen. ENGLISH: The purpose of this doctoral dissertation is the examination of the phenomena of collateral benefits and the development of a reliable collateral benefit doctrine. Hence the inquiry into the existence, the classification and the basis for accounting of benefits against a claim for damages. Simultaneously an investigation is also undertaken regarding certain comparable issues in the English, Dutch and Australian legal systems. Collateral benefits in a wide sense refer to an evaluating process whereby the positive side-effects, caused by a damage-causing event, are being evaluated in respect of a possible deduction thereof against a claim for damages. A benefit can be seen as a positive side-effect as result of a damage or benefit-causing event which produces an increase of the injured person’s patrimony or is the cause that there is no further reduction in the value of the person’s patrimony. It can readily be accepted these days that there is no single norm or theory that adequately defines the doctrine of collateral benefits. It is therefore necessary, whenever damages are to be determined to test for the presence of accountable benefits. As point of departure the benefit must have a factual causal nexus between the benefit and the damage-causing event. The benefit can be regarded as being res inter alios acta or as collateral if it does not comply with the requirements of factual causation. Benefits which do comply with factual causation are not set off forthwith. These benefits must be evaluated against a further norm. The accounting norm is generally to be found in principles of public policy. Public policy is naturally a vague concept which requires a more concrete content and meaning. Public policy can be seen as comprising elements such as reasonableness, equity and justice. These elements must be applied against the backdrop of the needs of the plaintiff, the defendant, the source of the benefit and the interests of the community at large. Benefits can therefore be set off if the requirements of reasonableness, equity and justice are met. It is necessary to support the doctrine of collateral benefits with a sound theoretical basis with a view of giving the doctrine content and practical functionality. The theoretical basis and the nature of the various benefits resulted in practicable casuistic classes of benefits. These benefit classes can, according to their nature and characteristics, be divided in benefit groupings. Each benefit group has its own theoretical features whereby the benefit can be tested for categorizing and the possible set off against a claim for damages. Five groups of benefits can be distinguished for purposes of benefit accounting. The first are pseudo-benefits and are not real accountable benefits but are part of the process of establishing the actual damage. Secondly, there are quantifying benefits which are also not proper accounting benefits but general factors or elements which generally belong to the area of the law of damages and which are relevant in quantifying damage more accurately. These factors also form part of the measure of quantifying damage. Thirdly, it is possible to distinguish adjustment benefits as real accounting benefits. These are the benefits that adjust the provisional amount of damages with a view to calculating the final amount. Mitigating benefits can, fourthly, be distinguished. These benefits originate after the damage-causing event and limit the damage. These benefits can either be adjusting benefits or benefits allied to the applicable measure of damage. Then, fifthly, there are collateral benefits. These are those benefits that, after due consideration of a possible set off, are not accounted against damages. This group is a mere result of the non-accounting of the benefits. These groupings do not replace the classes already identified but are present in a superior position. It is necessary to categorize benefits to accommodate the diversity of them at the present time within the framework of the doctrine of collateral benefits. A benefit can be categorised dualistically in terms of the basis of the individual nature or character of the specific benefit as well as to its overhead grouping. This classification arranges the various classes of benefits on the basis of their similarity regarding the nature of the benefits. Each benefit class can be given a distinctive identity which distinguishes it from the other classes. Due to the classification of benefits a guideline can be provided to the legal practice that can be used as a measure to evaluate benefits for accounting against a claim for damages. On this basis acknowledgement is furnished for the requirements and existence of an independant collateral benefits doctrine. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Private Law / unrestricted

A theme which currently dominates environmental regulation in Canada is for a strengthening of the "polluter pays" approach to environmental regulation. This trend sees those who impair the environment held increasingly financially responsible for their actions through such mechanisms as a new generation of statutory liabilities which include liability for environmental response and cleanup charges, the requirement of security in the event of environmental contamination, and the creation of statutory civil causes of action designed to assist claimants in recovering for losses resulting from environmental contamination. These mechanisms are supplemented by an increasing willingness by the courts to give serious consideration to innovative new approaches by private claimants to hold polluters civilly accountable for toxic tort related claims. As a result, those in Canada with potential exposure to this new generation of environmental liabilities will inevitably turn to the insurance industry for coverage. Ironically, it is these same new liabilities which will make it increasingly difficult for insurers to provide the desired coverage. Further, in the event that such coverage is provided, insurers will be required to be especially diligent in evaluating and delineating those environmental risks which they are prepared to cover. Many industrial and commercial enterprises will require environmental impairment insurance in order to carry out operations subject to environmental risk. Insurers providing environmental insurance in this context will effectively find themselves cast into the somewhat unlikely role of environmental regulators within Canadian society. For more than fifty years the insurance industry in Canada has provided a wide range of insurance products for liability resulting from impairment of the natural environment. In developing and marketing environmental impairment insurance products the insurance industry has primarily relied upon the risk-based analysis which it has historically utilized to provide coverage for more traditional insurance products such as fire, automobile, and marine insurance. However, it is submitted that the attempts by the industry to provide environmental impairment insurance has been fraught with problems, and the success of the products which have been provided has been limited. This in turn raises serious questions as to the ability of the insurance industry to assume responsibility for the regulation of environmental impairment in the future. It is the primary hypothesis of this thesis that the insurance industry has experienced significant difficulties in providing environmental impairment liability insurance in Canada, and that these difficulties are due in large part to the inability of the industry to accurately predict the incidence of loss associated with environmental impairment in Canada. Further, the difficulties with prediction experienced by the insurance industry are primarily the result of its failure to take into account perceptions of environmental risk by the Canadian public and by environmental decision-makers. Finally, this inability to accurately predict has been accompanied by the failure of the insurance industry to recognize the problem, resulting in overconfidence by the industry with respect to its environmental impairment liability products. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

This thesis deals with the internalization instrument and with one of the form of provision and compensation of environmental damage, with the environmental insurance. It focuses on the development of this insurance, on the risk assesment, on the determination of premium and on the existing limitations in the insurance contract. The main problem is devoted to the analysis of the Czech insurance market and especially to the compulsory insurance of a major accident. By interrogation of firms and insurance companies, it evaluates a volontary access of the insurance contract conclusion. I try to show that the state intervation don't have to be so well-founded in this domain, because firms are willing to insure volontary and insurance companies are able to offer volontary insurance too. Free decision making of firms would be better and would lead to more effective solution than the state regulation.

In 1992, the Americans completed its withdrawal from the Philippines, ending almost a century of U.S. military presence. However, it was soon discovered that the U.S. left behind several contaminated sites at its former military bases in the Philippines due to inadequate hazardous waste management. It appears that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to implement clear and consistent environmental policies at Clark and Subic. The U.S. maintains that it is under no obligation to undertake further cleanup at its former installations inasmuch as the Philippines has waived its right to do so under the basing agreement. It will be argued that the Philippines made no such waiver under the Manglapus-Schultz Agreement. Thus, the U.S. remains responsible under international law for the resulting environmental damage at its former bases. States have the responsibility under customary international law to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states. A state will be responsible if it breaches this international obligation. It will be argued that the U.S. breached its obligation under international law when activities within its effective control caused significant environmental damage to areas forming part of Philippine territory. Such a breach may also result in the violation of the emerging right to a healthy environment. Existing human rights, such as the right to life and health, right to food and water, right to a safe and healthy working environment and right to information, will be applied from an environmental perspective to determine whether the Filipinos' right to a healthy environment was violated. While a legal claim can be made for the remediation of the environment and compensation of the victims, it will be argued that existing mechanisms for the settlement and adjudication of international claims are inadequate. States are generally reluctant to submit to the jurisdiction of international tribunals and most of these fora do not allow non-state entities to appear before them. Thus, it would be argued that the most promising approach may well be through political and diplomatic means. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

The demand for natural resources and energy continues to growin the developed world and, with it, the negative impacts on the environment and the rights of the peoples directly affected by extractive activities undertaken by the largest transnational corporations. Three factors compel victims of serious environmental damage to resort simultaneously to any available avenue of legal action (whether judicial or non-judicial, national or international): (1) the link between environmental damage and human rights abuses; (2) weak legislation, combined with the inability or unwillingness of the law-enforcing institutions in many countries where such extractive activities take place; and (3) the absence of international avenues to claim direct liability from corporations. We call this phenomenon intertwined actions, as the various judicial actions undertaken by the victims end up mutually reinforcing and increasing the visibility of the problem. The aim of this paper is to show this reality on the basis of the various instances of litigation that are taking place in the specific context of Shell’s activities in the Niger delta. / La presión de la demanda de recursos naturales y de energía en el mundo desarrollado sigue creciendo y, con ello, los impactos negativos sobre el medio ambiente y los derechos de las personas vinculados en especial a las actividades extractivas llevadas a cabo por las mayores empresas transnacionales. La suma de tres factores —la vinculación entre daños al medio ambiente y vulneración de derechos humanos, la debilidad de la legislación y la incapacidad o la falta de voluntad de la institucionalidad que debe aplicarla en muchos de los países donde se desarrollan dichas actividades y la inexistencia de vías internacionales para reclamar la responsabilidad directamente a las empresas— ha llevado a las víctimas de graves daños ambientales a utilizar a la vez todo tipo de vías disponibles (judiciales y nojudiciales, nacionales e internacionales), en lo que cabe denominar acciones entrelazadas, puesto que todas ellas acaban por reforzarse mutuamente y aumentan la visibilidad del problema. El objetivo de este trabajo es mostrar esta realidad a partir del caso concreto del impacto de las actividades de la empresa petrolera Shell, una de las empresas que opera en el delta del Níger.Este artículo se basa en uno de los estudios de caso realizados en el marco de un proyecto más amplio de investigación vinculado al Proyecto Environmental Justice Organizations, Liabilities and Trade (EJOLT), VII Programa Marco de la Unión Europea, Número FP7-SCIENCE-IN-SOCIETY-2010–1, y al proyecto de investigación, financiado por el Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España, «La garantía jurídica de la vertiente intrageneracional de la justicia ambiental como aspecto social del desarrollo sostenible» (DER2010-19529).

Skadeståndsrätten är en mycket omdiskuterad del av civilrätten, bland annat på grund av åsiktsskiljaktigheter gällande skadeståndets funktion. Vissa hävdar att skadeståndet är till för att prevenera mot skadliga handlingar, andra anser att reparationen eller kompensationen är den främsta grunden för ersättning. En anledning till skadeståndets omstriddhet är därför bland annat storleken på ersättningen. Den anses ibland bedömas skönsmässigt, ibland enligt en standardiserad schablon men kanske oftast efter den faktiskt lidna ekonomiska skadan. I USA, existerar compensatory damages och punitive damages. Compensatory damages är likt vårt skadestånd i Sverige. Punitive damages beskrivs som ett extrakompenserande skadestånd, ofta i avskräckande syfte. Dock finns det betydligt fler funktioner som förknippas med punitive damages, varav vissa går att korrelera med svensk rätt, andra är väldigt unika för det amerikanska rättssystemet. Storleken på punitive damages har liksom det svenska skadeståndet, debatterats flitigt, både i USA och i Sverige. Den historiska utvecklingen av de båda ländernas skadeståndsrätt har varit mycket lik varandra, men det är tydligt att så inte är fallet idag. Skadestånden i USA är betydligt större och bedöms utefter andra grunder, även om både Sverige och USA har samma tankar om skadeståndets syfte. Den här uppsatsen belyser likheterna och skillnaderna mellan den amerikanska och den svenska skadeståndsrätten. Den klarlägger även grunderna för skadeståndet och huruvida det svenska skadeståndet kan eller borde för ändras samt grunderna därför.

Studies on African fatherhood represent African fathers as problematic and in South Africa, they are identified as ‘‘emotionally disengaged, physically absent, abusive and do not pay for their children's upkeep'' (Morrell & Ritcher, 2006:81). Many studies link the high rates of absent fathers to poverty and irresponsibility. Such literature is devoid of cultural factors that might be contributing to the high rates of absent fathers in most African communities. Across Southern Africa, intlawulo, a customary practice that involves the paying of a fine by a man responsible for impregnating a woman out of wedlock and his family to the pregnant woman's family. Historically, intlawulo served as a critical means of regulating and mediating unmarried fathers' involvement in their children's lives. Therefore, this explorative qualitative research project explores African fathers' experiences of intlawulo and its subsequent links to father involvement. To gauge their experiences and interpretation of intlawulo and father involvement, I conducted face-to-face in-depth qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 8 black Xhosa speaking South African fathers from Cape Town who have gone through the intlawulo negotiations for the past five years or less. This study aimed to explore how the customary practice of intlawulo or ‘paying damages' influences a father's involvement in his child's life in Khayelitsha, an urban township within Cape Town. It argued that the payment of intlawulo regulates a father's involvement in childrearing, his interaction with and access to his child. In contrast to how fathering has been described in previous literature, this thesis argues that becoming a father is a process and intlawulo is the entry point where it can be denied, stopped and negotiated.

Depuis plus d’un siècle, l’existence du concept de responsabilité contractuelle suscite de vives controverses au sein de la doctrine française. Le retard contractuel, aussi dénommé demeure, ou mora, constitue le second fait générateur de la responsabilité contractuelle, à côté du défaut d’exécution. Les spécificités de la demeure tiennent tant à ses conditions de mise en œuvre qu’à son régime, caractéristiques qui ne cesseront d’être réformées depuis le Moyen Âge, au gré des besoins et valeurs de chaque époque sans cesse en évolution. Fidèle à l’héritage romain dévolu par la Codification justinienne, le jus commune ne parviendra pas à formuler un principe général de responsabilité contractuelle pour retard, admettant que cette question relève davantage du fait que du droit. Il dispose néanmoins du matériau nécessaire à l’édification du principe. Mais le retard n’y est jamais considéré comme une faute, et ce constat est d’autant plus frappant dans les sources du droit propre au Royaume de France qui privilégient la recherche de l’exécution en nature de la dette. Le véritable changement de paradigme s’opèrera à la fin du XVe siècle, puis surtout sous la plume des juristes humanistes, qui, pour la première fois, qualifieront le retard de faute. Toutefois, faute, dommage et causalité ne feront pas l’objet d’une systématisation aboutie, bien que favorisée par l’énonciation d’un principe général de responsabilité civile par Grotius, sous l’égide du précepte du neminem laedere. Aux siècles suivants, l’ambiguïté demeurera manifeste, entraînant d’ailleurs une importante discordance entre les deux sommités de la doctrine française moderne, Domat et Pothier. Finalement, les rédacteurs du Code civil ne prendront pas partie pour un principe de responsabilité contractuelle pour retard, tout en confirmant les traits principaux d’un tel concept. / Since over a century, the concept of contractual liability has been generating strong controversies within the French doctrine. The contractual delay, also called mora, forms the second operative event of the contractual liability, beside of the contractual failure, from which independent issues can be distinguished. Thus some specificities of the mora belong to its deployment conditions as well as its legal regime, characteristics that keep being reformed since the Middle Ages, depending on the needs and the time values constantly evolving. Following the Roman heritage from the Codification of Justinian, the Jus Commune will never succeed in formulating a general principle of contractual liability for delay, admitting that this question belongs more to the fact than the law. Yet, there is the needed ressources to edify such a principle. But the delay is never considered as a tort, and this finding is even more striking in its sources of the French Kingdom. The texts of the jus proprium are indeed very far from establishing a damages system of the delay, encouraging the search of the execution of the debt in nature. The true change of paradigm will happen at the end of the 15th century, and especially with the humanist jurists who, for the first time, will qualify the tort delay. However, tort, damage and chain of causation will not be the object of an achieved systematization, despite the enunciation of a general principle of civil liability by Grotius, under the aegis of neminem laedere precept. During the next centuries, the ambiguity will remain obvious, generating actually a strong discord between the two thoughts leaders of the modern French Doctrine, Domat and Pothier. Finally, the Code Civil redactors will not decide for a principle of contractual liability for delay, while still confirming main features of such a concept.