Exposé in einer Konferenz bei dem Herrn Ambassadeur und in Gegenwart der Herren Kanzlere des Herrn Reichstagsmarschalls und des Herrn von Sartorius, Herzoglich Kurländischen Residenten den siebenten November 1793

http://tartu.ester.ee/record=b1437809~S1*es

Anhang zu den Beilagen des Diariums vom 2. Dezember 1793

http://tartu.ester.ee/record=b1437724~S1*es

The German Investigation of the Accident at Meopham (England)

This report is a recounting of the German investigation of the crash of a commercial Junkers F 13 ge in England. The English report is examined and compared with the German interpretation of the accident

Modellierung raum-zeitlicher Bevölkerungsverteilungsmuster im Katastrophenmanagementkontext

Effektives Katastrophenmanagement erfordert möglichst genaue raum-zeitliche Informationen sowohl über Strukturen als auch über betroffene Personen. Während physische Strukturen sich in der Regel nur langsam verändern und daher auf kurze Sicht weniger zeitkritisch in der Erfassung sind, ist die räumliche Verteilung der Bevölkerung hochgradig variabel über die Zeit (Freire und Aubrecht 2012). Die direkte Erfassung potentiell betroffener Personen bei Katastrophen ist nicht oder nur sehr eingeschränkt möglich, daher wird bei der Planung vorbeugender Maßnahmen und der Abschätzung des Gefahrenpotentials die Bevölkerungsverteilung modelliert. Zensusdaten stellen dabei eine standardisierte Datengrundlage dar, die aber in zweierlei Hinsicht limitiert ist. Zum einen ist die räumliche Ausdehnung der Zählsprengel meist zu groß und unregelmäßig um auf lokaler Ebene ausreichend genaue Aussagen über die betroffenen Personen machen zu können, zum anderen repräsentiert der Zensus die Verteilung der Wohnbevölkerung, also den Ort, wo sich die Personen in der Regel in der Nacht aufhalten. Naturgefahren (und deren Auswirkungen) können räumlich sehr fein differenziert, sowie teils ohne Vorwarnung zu einem beliebigen Zeitpunkt auftreten. Es besteht daher die Notwendigkeit, Information zur Bevölkerungsverteilung sowohl in einem räumlichen Kontext zu verfeinern als auch die zeitliche Komponente mitzuberücksichtigen (Aubrecht et al. 2012)

Delictual accountability and criminal capacity of children : why the age difference?

The doli/culpae incapax presumption, which in the Republic of South Africa sets a minimum age of accountability at seven - one of the lowest in the world, derives from Roman and Roman-Dutch law. Children between the ages of seven and fourteen (the age of puberty in Private Law) rebuttably were presumed to lack accountability under the common law. In practice the incapax presumption was too easily rebutted: the courts incorrectly applied the accountability test and the low minimum age of accountability was out of touch with international law and disregarded the scientific evidence in childhood development. It was on this premise that the Child Justice Act amended the minimum age of criminal capacity to ten, retaining a rebuttable doli incapax presumption for children between the ages of ten and fourteen, albeit, in the face of criticism. However there has been no parallel amendment to Private Law despite the fact that the same test for accountability applies across the spectrum and that the problems with accountability encountered in criminal law are manifest in Private Law. The incapax presumption until now terminates at the age of puberty in Private Law, which may be accounted as gender discrimination. The legislature ought to rectify these discrepancies without delay, to the effect that the provisions of the civil law apply mutatis mutandis to the CJA. But this change would not offer a long-term solution. South Africa is a signatory country to a number of international instruments, such as the UNCRC, the ACRWC and the Beijing Rules, all of which require a minimum age of accountability (at least in the criminal law) to be established and which must not be set too low. The UNCRC declares it cannot be below twelve years and encourages the adoption of a single minimum age of accountability as opposed to the doli incapax presumption that applies in the RSA. The Beijing Rules point out that there is a close relationship between criminal and delictual capacity in being accountable. It is not easy to determine an approach to accountability for children: development science demonstrates that it is around the age of fourteen only that a child’s frontal lobe (the executive seat of the brain) matures and areas of the brain associated with risk and impulse-management continue to develop into late adolescence. At age twelve a child develops hypothetico-deductive reasoning, at which stage they can conceptualize scenarios associated with possible actions. This means the child thinks abstractly and can consider consequences in relation to others for the first time. Children between eleven to thirteen years demonstrate markedly poor reasoning skills and consequential thinking, and they tend to seek the approval of their peers in a phase of sensation-seeking, impulsivity and to take increased risks. Following a fixed minimum-age approach to accountability creates legal certainty that is fast and easy to ascertain but it disregards the characteristics of the individual child. However if a child’s accountability is to be determined on a case-to-case basis it would require the use of a battery of expensive experts that may cause a delay in the execution of justice. There is no uniform method of testing for accountability and tests must be culturally adapted. In addition, one must be mindful of the autonomy of children and attend to the interest of the innocent victims who may come in contact with delinquent minors in establishing a minimum age of accountability. In the absence of statistics relating to the civil and criminal law it is difficult to make an informed recommendation and in the future these statistics should be obtained, but the most appropriate and cost-effective solution to the problems in relation to a child’s accountability appears to be to set a fixed minimum age. With reference to the evidence from childhood development the age of fourteen seems to be the most appropriate. Beyond the threshold age of fourteen any party may approach a court to allege and prove that nevertheless a child lacks accountability; nothing in the law precludes such a plea.Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2018.Private LawLLMUnrestricte

Quaedam de placenta in utero retenta : dissertatio inauguralis medico-obstetricia

http://tartu.ester.ee/record=b2499854~S1*es