Une approche « écologique » des communs dans le droit

De nos jours, de plus en plus de groupes d’habitants s’engagent localement et déploient des pratiques de vie qui sont enracinées dans leurs milieux. Nous nommons ce genre d’agir « commoning ». Il y a commoning quand /1/ des personnes /2/ s’auto-organisent /3/ autour d’une « chose », par exemple une terre ou un cours d’eau, qui les concerne et les responsabilise collectivement, /4/ et poursuivent des activités marquées par leur générativité, plutôt que par l’extraction. À travers trois cas de figure, l’article met le droit à l’épreuve de ce genre d’agir. Ainsi, il explore d’abord le statut du patrimoine comme « transpropriation » tel qu’il fut réélaboré afin justement d’accommoder le droit au « retour des communs ». Ensuite, le regard est porté sur le statut juridique de « patrimoine collectif » où « civique », tel qu’il prend forme à travers les derniers développements législatifs et jurisprudentiels concernant les usi civici en Italie, une forme de communs héritée du passé. Enfin, il s’agira de repenser le terme « milieu » à la lumière d’une récente évolution judiciaire et législative en Nouvelle-Zélande. Ici, le milieu est l’ensemble des rapports à proprement parler « écologiques » qui forment un biotope. Au bilan, il apparaît que le droit s’ouvre marginalement à la reconnaissance de milieux en tant que réseaux d’interactions et d’interdépendances vivants, tout en amadouant localement la prédominance de sa perspective moderne dans laquelle opèrent encore un nombre d’oppositions et de grands partages entre sujet et objet, nature et culture, humain et non-humain et individu et collectif. Dans la même veine, le droit semble pouvoir faire place, certes localement aussi, à la reconnaissance du rôle de communautés d’habitants qui prennent part au maintien des conditions de régénération du territoire « dans la durée » et à la transmission intergénérationnelle de la vie et du milieu dont elle dépend, et vice versa. Compte tenu de ces constats et des possibles qu’ils ouvrent, l’article formule des propositions par rapport à une possible protection juridique du commoning, tout en espérant que ce genre d’agir durable et génératif puisse commencer à exister plus que marginalement dans le droit.Nowadays, more and more groups of inhabitants are increasingly involved in practices rooted into the local lands and territories they inhabit. We call this kind of action: “commoning”. There is commoning when /1/  people get involved into /2/ practices of self-organization /3/ around a “thing”, such as, for instance, a land or a watercourse, that concerns and makes them collectively responsible, and /4/ pursue activities marked by their generative nature, rather than by extraction. Through three case studies the article tests the suitability of the law towards this kind of action. It first explores the notion of “transpropriation” to accommodate the “return of the commons” in law, inspired by the features of the “heritage” institute. Then, the focus shifts towards the latest legislative and jurisprudential developments concerning “civic usages” in Italy (i.e. usi civici), a form of commons inherited from the past. Finally, the study addresses the notion of “milieu” in the light of judicial and legislative developments that have recently taken place in New Zealand. The sense attributed to the notion of milieu here, has to do with a whole of “ecological” relations that form a biotope. All in all, it appears that the law modestly and marginally opens itself to the recognition of the networks of interaction and interdependencies among all living beings that inhabit lands, rivers and territories and to see these as living places. In doing so, law starts to mitigate its predominant modern perspective in which a number of oppositions and major divisions still operate between subject and object, nature and culture, human and non-human and individual and collective. In the same vein, law starts to recognize that communities of inhabitants take full and proper part in the conservation, maintenance and regeneration of the conditions of life of a milieu. Following these observations and the possibilities they open up, the article makes proposals for the possible legal protection of commoning, while hoping that this kind of sustainable and generative action can begin to exist more than marginally in law

CANDID PRIMER: Including Social Sciences and Humanities scholarship in the making and use of smart ICT technologies

publishedVersio

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Outcome of distal tibia physeal fractures: a review of cases as related to risk factors

Introduction The physeal fractures represent the 20â\u80\u9330% of all fractures of the child. The distal tibial physis is the third most frequently injured. The most important complication is the premature physeal closure (PPC). Aim of this study is to evaluate risk factors that can influence the outcome like fracture pattern, fracture displacement, mechanism of injury and treatment method. Material and Methods The records of 46 patients treated for distal tibia physeal fractures between 2003 and 2013 were reviewed. Initial injury radiographs were categorized according to Salter-Harris and Dias-Tachdjian classifications and the initial and post-treatment fracture displacementwas measured. Any complex fractures had preoperative CT for additional assessment. Three different types of treatment were compared: closed reduction and casting versus closed reduction and percutaneous pinning versus ORIF. Results Therewas significantly less residual displacement in patients who had ORIF versus those who had closed reduction and percutaneous Kirschner wires or plaster only. In fractures with an intact fibula, we found significantly less initial and residual displacement. The Dias-Tachdjian classification is significantly correlated with the displacement. Patients studied with CT show a less degree of post reduction displacement. At the final follow-up we found only one PPC as complication. Conclusion The physeal fractures are very common in children and the main goal is to avoid any complications. It is clear that the development of complications after distal tibial fractures is due to multiple contributing factors like skeletal maturity, severity of injury, fracture type, degree of comminution and displacement aswell as adequacy of reduction. A premature physeal closure is the most common complication. The fibula fracture can play an important role in initial displacement. The presence of an intact fibula and a good anatomical reduction have a significant positive influence on fracture outcome

The concept of impact assessment

This Chapter introduces the concept of impact assessment, this way laying down a foundation for the present textbook on integrated impact assessment for border control technologies. It intends to offer, in an accessible way, an overview of the said concept, eventually aiming to constitute a reference work for anybody interested in the topic. This Chapter is structured as follows. After the present introduction, it outlines the concept of impact assessment as such, namely its definition, terminology, historical development as well as its merits and drawbacks, ultimately exploring the possibility of integration of multiple evaluation techniques (Section 2). In Section 3, it offers 16 principles and conditions that apply to both the theory and practice of impact assessment (namely, the framework) and, in Section 4, it defines and describes, in a general manner, the consecutive or iterative steps to be undertaken in order to carry out the assessment process of any type and in any area of practice (namely, the method). This Chapter is to be read in conjunction with Chapter 8 and Annex 1, offering a tailored down method and template, respectively, for a report from the process of integrated impact assessment for border control technologies.This Chapter builds on the work of Vrije Universiteit Brussel’s (VUB) Brussels Laboratory for Data Protection & Privacy Impact Assessments (d.pia.lab) and, wherever necessary, revises and updates it. However, nothing in this Chapter is final as the concept of impact assessment is a ‘living instrument’, constantly necessitating a reflection on the most recent stage of its development

Analyse d’impact relative à la protection des données dans l’Union européenne: Une protection des personnes plus solide en complétant le nouveau cadre juridique

Le présent document émet des recommandations permettant à l’Union européenne (UE) de compléter l’obligation d’effectuer une analyse d’impact relative à la protection des données (AIPD), telle que définie dans le Règlement Général sur la Protection des Données (RGPD), dans le but d’arriver à une protection plus solide des données à caractère personnel. En avril 2016, l’UE a mis la dernière main à la partie essentielle de la réforme du cadre juridique visant la protection des données personnelles. L’Union prépare actuellement les mesures de mise en œuvre et les lignes directrices donnant pleinement effet aux nouvelles dispositions juridiques avant leur mise en application à partir de mai 2018. Parmi d’autres « nouveautés », cette réforme introduit l’obligation juridique de réaliser une AIPD. Or, cette obligation comporte quelques faiblesses. La présente note cherche à y remédier en apportant des informations supplémentaires à l’actuel processus d’élaboration de politiques, notamment en proposant de « meilleures pratiques » permettant d’arriver à un type d’analyse d’impact générique, qui pourrait être préconisé pour plusieurs domaines (section II). La section III présente une première évaluation de la manière dont ces meilleurs pratiques se rapportent à l’obligation spécifique de procéder à une analyse d’impact, c’est-à-dire, l’AIPD, déterminée par le RGPD. Ces deux sections sont précédées de quelques informations générales sur les analyses d’impact en tant que telles. La section I présente en ce sens une définition et un aperçu historique, ainsi que les avantages et inconvénients des analyses d’impact en général. Enfin, la section IV fournit des recommandations en vue de compléter l’obligation de procéder à une AIPD telle que requise par le RGPD. Ces recommandations proposent notamment : (1) d’élargir la portée de l’obligation de mener une AIPD dans le cadre du RGPD ; (2) de développer des méthodes pour réaliser une telle analyse ; (3) d’établir auprès des autorités de protection des données (APD) des « centres de références » entièrement axés sur la réalisation des AIPD. La présente note de politique s’adresse surtout aux décideurs politiques actifs au niveau de l’UE et des Etats Membres, nonobstant l’intérêt potentiel qu’il pourrait soulever auprès de leurs homologues dans d’autres parties du monde

Data protection impact assessments in the European Union:Complementing the new legal framework towards a more robust protection of individuals

This paper provides recommendations for the European Union (EU) to complement the requirement for data protection impact assessment (DPIA), as set forth in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with a view of achieving a more robust protection of personal data. In April 2016 the EU concluded the core part of the reform of its legal framework for personal data protection. The Union is currently preparing implementing measures and guidelines to give full effect to the new legal provisions before their applicability from May 2018. This reform introduces, among other ‘novelties’, a legal requirement to conduct a DPIA. However, this requirement bears a few weak points. In order to remedy that by informing this on-going policy-making process, the present policy brief attempts to draft a best practice for a generic type of impact assessment, i.e. recommended for different areas (section II). Section III makes an early evaluation of how this best practice relates to the specific impact assessment requirement set forth in the GDPR, i.e. DPIA. These sections are preceded by succinct background information on impact assessments as such: definition, historical overview, and their merits and drawbacks (section I). Section IV concludes this paper by offering recommendations for complementing the DPIA requirement in the GDPR: (1) to expand the scope of the DPIA requirement in the GDPR; (2) to develop methods for conducting such an assessment; (3) to establish ‘reference centres’ on DPIA at data protection authorities (DPAs). This policy brief is addressed predominantly to policy-makers at the EU- and Member State-level, notwithstanding the potential interest it might gain from their counterparts elsewhere in the world

Data protection impact assessment in the European Union : developing a template for a report from the assessment process

This Policy Brief proposes a template for a report from a process of data protection impact assessment (DPIA) in the European Union (EU). Grounded in the previously elaborated framework (cf. Policy Brief No. 1/2017) and method for impact assessment (cf. Policy Brief No. 1/2019), the proposed template conforms to the requirements of Articles 35–36 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and reflects best practices for impact assessment, offering at the same time five novel aspects. First, it aims at comprehensiveness to arrive at the most robust advice for decision making. Second, it aims at efficiency, that is, to produce effects with the least use of resources. Third, it aims at exploring and accommodating the perspectives of various stakeholders, although the perspective of individuals dominates; it, therefore, fosters fundamental rights thinking by, for example, requiring justification for each choice, hence going beyond a mere ‘tick-box’ exercise. Fourth, it aims at adhering to the legal design approach to guide the assessors in a practical, easy and intuitive manner throughout the 11-step assessment process, providing necessary explanations for each step, while being structured in expandable and modifiable tables and fields to fill in. Fifth, it assumes its lack of finality as it will need to be revised as experience with its use grows. The template is addressed predominantly to assessors entrusted by data controllers to perform the assessment process, yet it may also assist data protection authorities (DPA) in the EU to develop (tailored down) templates for DPIA for their own jurisdictions