The Grizzly, September 11, 2003

Unique Organizations Attract New Members at Activities Fair • To Party or Not to Party: How is the Question • Reflections on the Post-September 11th World • An Anniversary Like No Other • A Major Decision • A Day in the Life: Lounge Living • Student Spotlight: Locks for Love • Activities Coming to You • Family Day at UC • John Mayer & Counting Crows • Opinions: Please Read: E-mail Abuse is Annoying; A Continuing Story: Out of the Middle East; The [De] Stabilized Situation in Iraq • 9/11: Reliving the Tragedy • SIGI Plus to the Rescue • UC on File Sharing: Joining the Bandwagon • Party Etiquette 101 • Price Comparison: Popular CDs • The Wit and Wisdom of J. D. Salinger • Bears Knock Out Susquehanna, 24-17 • Volleyball Team Makes it Three in a Row • TCNJ Field Hockey Blanks Ursinus • Men\u27s Soccer Comes out Even • Ursinus Women Dominate Soccer Classic • The Kobe Bryant Sagahttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1540/thumbnail.jp

Current-day international child abduction : does Brussels IIb live up to the challenges?

Regulation 2019/1111 tries to tackle the new challenges arising from societal changes and legal developments in international child abduction. The result is a sophisticated set of rules centred on the child and aimed at enhancing their protection. The Regulation provides for the hearing of the child and for speedy and efficient proceedings. In it the EU acknowledges its role in the protection of human and children's rights and sets goals towards deescalating family conflicts. The new EU child abduction regime is at the same time more flexible than its predecessor allowing consideration of the circumstances characterising each single case in the different stages of the child abduction procedure

Current-day international child abduction: does Brussels IIb live up to the challenges?

Regulation 2019/1111 tries to tackle the new challenges arising from societal changes and legal developments in international child abduction. The result is a sophisticated set of rules centred on the child and aimed at enhancing their protection. The Regulation provides for the hearing of the child and for speedy and efficient proceedings. In it the EU acknowledges its role in the protection of human and children's rights and sets goals towards deescalating family conflicts. The new EU child abduction regime is at the same time more flexible than its predecessor allowing consideration of the circumstances characterising each single case in the different stages of the child abduction procedure

Understanding the Best Interests of the Child in EU Child Abduction Proceedings: Perspectives from the Case Law

In cases of international child abduction, human rights law and private international law are in constant interaction. Private international law seeks to prevent and discourage international child abduction, hence its prioritization of the immediate return of the child whenever an abduction takes place. Children's rights law, as part of human rights law, emphasizes that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all matters affecting the child. At the same time, the principle of the child's best interests has acquired importance within the application of the Hague Convention of 1980 and of the Brussels II-bis Regulation. This paper draws on the empirical data obtained during the VOICE project, which analyzed over one thousand European cases on international child abduction, with the aim of understanding if and how judges across Europe give substance to the notion of the child's best interests in their case law. The analysis shows that judges do not always see the immediate return of an abducted child necessarily in his or her best interests. Instead, national courts use the principle of the child's best interests in a multi-faceted way, which leads to many different outcomes in the application of international legal instruments in child abduction cases

To Hear or Not to Hear: Reasoning of Judges Regarding the Hearing of the Child in International Child Abduction Proceedings

The objective of the present Article is to analyze whether there is a tension between the legal framework on the right of the child to be heard and the arguments judges employ in their judgments against the hearing of the child in (non)return proceedings. Thus, the reasoning of judges is critically assessed against what is expected from them based on the applicable legal framework. The legal framework will be set out in Part I. Part II will give a brief overview of the research and the main results with regard to the hearing of the child. In Part III, the reasoning judges use to argue why not to hear the child in an international child abduction case will be discussed and assessed against the States’ legal obligations

Läpp- und Polierbearbeitung von einkristallinen Werkstoffen - Am Beispiel von Lanthanaluminat (LaAIO3)

This is a summary of the report on the research findings of the VOICE project, co-funded by the European Union (JUST-AG-2016/JUST-AG-2016-02/764206). More precisely, this report presents the results of the legal research, conducted by the Universities of Antwerp and Genoa. This research was aimed at investigating (i) whether and how judges give substance to the notion of the best interests of the child in judicial proceedings following an international child abduction, and (ii) whether judges hear children in this regard

The Sedimentary Geochemistry and Paleoenvironments Project.

Authors thank the donors of The American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund for partial support of SGP website development (61017-ND2). EAS is funded by National Science Foundation grant (NSF) EAR-1922966. BGS authors (JE, PW) publish with permission of the Executive Director of the British Geological Survey, UKRI.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe