Directive

About: Directive is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5695 publications have been published within this topic receiving 56084 citations.

Service user and clinical perspectives of psychiatric advance directives in New Zealand.

Abstract: Advance care planning is becoming an increasingly important feature of health service provision. Although the New Zealand Mental Health Commission has advocated strongly for the provision of advance directives in mental health services, little is known about clinician or service user views on advance directives. The aim of the study was to survey the perspectives of service users and clinicians on the use of psychiatric advance directives. The study used an anonymous online survey to collect data from 110 mental health service users and 175 clinicians. Survey items included existing knowledge, preferred content and potential benefits of advance directives. Descriptive statistics and intergroup comparisons were conducted. Over 90% of service users and clinicians agreed that they support advance directives in mental health. There were similarities in the preferred content of an advance directive across the two groups, particularly regarding the notification of support persons, cultural support and preferred methods of de-escalation. Significant differences in opinion were found regarding the use of coercive measures and the ability of mental health legislation to override advance directives. The results indicate strong support for the use of advance directives within New Zealand mental health services, as well as for further research in the area.

The Compatibility of the Habitats Directive with the Novel EU Green Infrastructure Policy

Abstract: Green Infrastructure is a novel EU policy response to the continuous degradation of natural capital. The central idea behind this initiative is the recognition of environment as an infrastructure resource capable of delivering a wide range of ecosystem services. With its GI strategy, the European Commission aims to provide a framework for integrating GI into sectoral policies including nature conservation. According to the Commission, at this point GI can be implemented within the context of existing legislation. In this article we will focus on assessing the cornerstone of EU nature conservation legislation, the Habitats Directive, through the lens of GI. The analysis revealed that the Directive has several weaknesses from the perspective of GI and thus re-consideration of some provisions or revision of the Directive may be needed in order to support the EU GI initiative

The climate-related information in the changing EU directive on non-financial reporting and disclosure: first evidence by Italian large companies

Abstract: PurposeThis paper investigates the quality and quantity of climate-related information disclosed by public interest entities (PIEs) in the non-financial disclosure scenario. Thus, this paper aims at drafting the state of the art on what is climate-related information disclosed by PIEs in the changing EU non-financial regulation assuming the Italian scenario and the industrial industry as significant in achieving the research aims.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used the content analysis composing the sample of 34 large listed companies (i.e. PIEs) belonging to the industrial sector in Italy. The authors choose the Italian PIEs’ sustainability reports published in 2019 after the adoption of the EU directive and its guidelines. The authors adopted a coding and classification system, investigating the climate-related information through a systematic, objective and reliable method. The authors defined 99 indicators along the structure of the European Commission's guidelines and the indicator of disclosure, climate-related information indicator (CII). The framework mainly derives from the corporate disclosure theory and legitimacy and stakeholders' theories.FindingsThe results show the lack of several required climate-related information or a not in-depth presentation of information. Thus, findings are interesting in emphasizing that the current climate-related disclosure is at an early stage in complying with the European Commission's guidelines. Additionally, the findings enlarge previous theories on corporate disclosure, proposing new insights in the light of the recent interest in climate-related information.Research limitations/implicationsEvidence contributes to extending the existing literature, drafting the state of the art of what is the quality and the quantity of the climate-related information in the corporate disclosure in the European scenario.Practical implicationsThis paper is directed to propose the state of the climate-related disclosure following the EU directive guidelines, proposing some evidence to support the path toward the integrations of information by several parts (e.g. companies, regulators and so on).Originality/valueThe paper is a useful baseline for academics, practitioners, policy-makers and regulators in understanding actions to adopt in the climate-related disclosure and what could be the impact of forthcoming regulations in the field, also having some metrics (e.g. score value of disclosure, the indicator of climate-related information disclosure – CII).

The case for a common European refugee policy

Abstract: Legal and political issues left the management of the 2015-16 refugee crisis mostly in the hands of national governments, but this is incompatible with an integrated economic area that has largely abolished internal borders. It is also incompatible with some founding European Union principles, such as the existence of a common European policy on the mobility of people. A greater role for European institutions and policies is needed both for policing the common borders and imposing common welcome policy standards for refugees, based on best practices. EU measures are also required to face the long-term problems related to immigration, as it is very likely that economic and demographic differences between the EU and neighbouring countries will lead to further crises in the future. Planning for this requires ample and dedicated resources, and a long-term strategy based on agreements with immigrants’ countries of origin, a task that no EU country can pursue alone. Some progress has been made to strengthen the role of the EU, with the adoption of new directives, such as the Asylum Procedures Directive, and the establishment of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. However, the situation is still far from satisfactory. There are major differences in refugee welcome and integration policies in EU countries, as shown by differences in asylum request outcomes in different countries and the different integration processes. There is also a serious lack of information about the skills and competences of refugees in different countries. This is a problem because this information is a necessary first step for an integrated welcome policy that might transform a challenge into an opportunity for aging European economies. Such differences between EU countries are not only inequitable but also inefficient. They lead to massive distortions in the functioning of European labour markets and create incentives for refugees to seek asylum in specific countries. Moreover, the promise made by EU institutions of a refugee relocation programme is presently not being kept, leaving the countries of first entry to carry disproportionate burdens. Legal procedures are part of the problem because the Dublin Regulation, approved under different circumstances, obliges the first-entry country to examine asylum requests. However, political obstacles play the main role. EU countries are very different in terms of their cultural attitudes towards immigration and it is difficult to impose a common solution on them. Practical solutions, based on the countries that do not want refugees making compensation payments, are probably the most realistic avenues to follow.

Accountable, not liable: Injunctions against intermediaries

Abstract: An injunction is usually understood as an order requiring the person to whom it is directed to perform a particular act or to refrain from carrying out a particular act. This conventional definition of injunction addresses a person who acts against the law – an infringer – and should be stopped from doing so. Such a person acts in a way that the rights of other people prohibit. Seeking an injunction is thus nothing but the request of a right holder to an authority (court) for the individual compliance of a particular person with the abstract letter of the law. Injunctions against intermediaries, based on Art. 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive and Art. 11(III) of the Enforcement Directive , however, do not target such persons. They address by-standers who (also) comply with the law. The basis for this kind of injunction is thus not an act of disrespect towards the rights of others, but the mere existence of circumstances giving hope to right holders, that if they are assisted by such a person, they will be better off. Put differently, such injunctions want to achieve better enforcement by seeking a help of intermediaries who can do more, but do not have to, as they did all the law required from them in order to avoid liability in tort.This paper thus, as its primary goal, examines a two tier model of regulating intermediaries. A situation where intermediaries do not owe any duty of care under tort law, but are still obliged by injunctions (accountable) to provide assistance. It undertakes a thorough law and economics analysis of Intermediary liability and conceptualizes the role of injunctions against non-infringing intermediaries. The analysis is structured as follows. In the first step, an economic analysis of tort law, injunctions and market transactions is used to understand functioning of the different liability regimes, such as negligence rule and strict liability (see Part 2 and 3). In the second step, the framework is applied to Internet intermediaries and the optimal legal regulation is suggested (see Part 4). In the third step, the findings are summarizes into policy lessons (see Part 5) pertinent to two currently pending debates: should the policy makers (1) replace notice-and-take down policy by the stay-down policy and (2) should they export, reform or entirely repeal the European policy of injunctions against non-infringing intermediaries based on Art. 8(3) of the InfoSoc Directive and Art. 11(III) of the Enforcement Directive.