Historical Development. The environmental legislation was initiated in Scandinavia during the 1970ies and had a great impact on waste management in the countries. At this time most of the waste was landfilled and with an increasing population and higher consumption rates, more and more waste was produced. Scandinavia faced similar issues as West Africa is facing today. The Swedish environmental legislation stated that the amount of landfills should decrease and focus should be on recycling. A solution was to supply the cities with energy via incineration of the waste. District heating had already been introduced, as early as in the 1940ies and distribution of energy from waste was therefore fairly easy to implement. The municipalities were responsible for waste management. A few years later the municipalities were allowed to charge waste owners for the costs of managing the waste they supplied. An infrastructure of separate collection and recycling started to form in Sweden. Waste was now being transported longer distances than before. Since the 1970ies the environmental laws have developed and more emphasis was put on recycling and producer responsibility. Today, the national waste management plan in Scandinavia follows the EU framework directive based on the principle of waste hierarchy: prevention, reuse, recycle recovery and disposal. Today, 96% of the waste in Sweden is recycled and the amount of landfills is still decreasing (Minska avfallet 2011). Waste should only be landfilled if the waste cannot be treated in any other way and is charged by a landfill tax (RVF 2005a).
Historical Development. In: Xxx XX, Xxxxxxx XX, Xxxxxxx XX, St. Xxxxx ME, eds. Principles and practice of public health surveillance. 3rd ed. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Historical Development. The emergence of the joint use of the maritime zones first conceptualized in the US during the 1930s44. However, the cases in the US were not in an international manner but rather suggestions to disputes between the States in the US. The use of the JDA was then limited to joint petroleum development and present in land borders and maritime borders 41 Xxxxxxxx / Xxxxx, 142. 42 Schopmans, 99. 43 Ibid. 44 Xxxxxx, X.: “Joint Development in the South China Sea: A New Approach”, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2006, Vol. 21, p. 90. of the US45. With the presidential decree of Xxxxxx in 1945, the US claimed sovereign rights over the CS therefore the natural resources, minerals, oil and natural gas46. With the increasing claims by the States in the northern and southern continents of America, the maritime disputes arise on the overlapping CSs of the States. At that point, the concept of JDA separated from its use on land territories and shifted to resolving the maritime delimitation issues. Following the maritime boundary delimitation disputes arise in the new world, the idea of JDA later appeared in the Europe in 1950s and 1960s regarding on some cases of joint development of oil, gas and coal. As for the situation in Europe, the approach was the same for the usage of the agreement on the resources on resolving the maritime delimitation issues47. It should be mentioned that the JDA has three crucial turning points as for its concept and its acceptance as a provisional maritime boundary agreement. The JDA between the Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in 195848 is considered as the very first agreement and example of the JDA long before the introduction of obligations the States put under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the UNCLOS. The agreement itself is embedded in a maritime boundary delimitation agreement, where the CS between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia drawn in Arabian Gulf. Second turning point for the JDA history is the suggestion of JDA by a Judge Xxxxxx
Historical Development. After the codification of the international customary law to the UNCLOS, the party States have taken and considered the UNCLOS as a constitution of the law of the sea. The judgement on the North Sea Continental Shelf Case regarding the change of the principle has taken into consideration and added in to the UNCLOS as a way of delimiting the CS or EEZ of the disputing States. The settlement of the maritime boundary delimitation disputes has shifted from the “equidistance” method to the “equity and equitable solution” principle in accordance with the “three-stage approach”. The Arbitral Tribunal on the Eritrea Yemen Arbitration suggested a JDA with stating that the disputing States should consider the unitization and sharing any resources that is 67 Xxxxxx, X.: “Interim Measures Pending Maritime Delimitation Agreements”, American Journal of International Law, 1984, Vol. 78, p. 358. (Interim Measures) 68 Xxxxxxx / Xxxxxxx, 96. in the disputed maritime zone69. It should be mentioned that there are no JDA through a direct arbitral or tribunal award yet.
Historical Development. (2006-2011) and baseline projection (2012-2030) for freshwater fish production and consumption (thousand tonnes) in Finland
Historical Development. Equal treatment is a basic principle of Dutch law (Bleijenbergh et al., 2010). Since 1983, the prohibition of discrimination is outlined in Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution: ‘All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.’ The prohibition aims at preventing discrimination by government. The aim of preventing discrimination between citizens is implemented in the Equal Treatment Act (ETA) and other equal treatment legislation. The ETA came into force on 1 September 1994. A disadvantage of the present legislation is that observance is mainly left to the initia- tive of individuals and depends on their ability and willingness to complain whether or not the law is actually used. Supervision of how closely equal treatment legislation is adhered to is a task for both the Dutch courts and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (NIHR, formerly called the Equal Treatment Commission). The NIHR is an independent, professional organization, which explains, monitors and protects human rights, promotes respect for human rights (including equal treatment) in practice, policy and legislation, and increases the awareness of human rights in the Netherlands. The NIHR also investi- gates whether discrimination is or has been taking place as referred to in the equal treat- ment legislation. This type of investigation leads to an assessment. It is not the task of the NIHR to deal with individual complaints about violations of human rights, other than those relating to equal treatment. Citizens can ask the NIHR to give an opinion in specific cases. In such cases, the NIHR will investigate whether the equal treatment law has been violated. In contrast to legal judgments, opinions of the NIHR are not binding. Moreover, the NIHR will search independently for information, whereas the courts mainly depend on evidence that lawyers put forward. Other differences are that lodging a complaint with the NIHR is free of charge and a lawyer is not required. Since victims of discrimination are often not in the best position to complain, the NIHR’s ability to act on its own initia- tive takes away an important obstacle for the principle of equality to become instrumental (Havinga et al., 2000). Since 1999, the Dutch government has attempted to integrate all Dutch equal treatment Acts and provisions into one Integrati...
Historical Development. Discussions on the collaborative programme between the two institutions commenced in 2002. The objectives of the programme and an outline programme structure were rapidly developed and further discussions involving teaching teams and university management enabled the course content and delivery method details to be established. During development, the strategically important Professional Body (UK) and Government (China) approvals for the programme were gained. In the UK, the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers confirmed that graduates from the programme would possess the educational base to train towards the professional status of Incorporated Engineer after obtaining the honours bachelor degree. In China, the much-coveted Ministry of Education (MoE) approval for the programme was granted meaning that graduates of the programme would have national recognition of their joint ENU – SNU award. In order to be granted MoE approval, the programme structure (see Section 2.4) had to be such that at least 45% of the programme is taught in English and one third of the programme professional or technical course is taught by the British partner University (i.e. ENU). The Joint Programme Agreement was drawn up and signed by senior management of both institutions in 2004.
