Risk allocation in implementation of urban development projects - comparison of Finland, the Netherlands, and the UK

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kauko Viitanen ◽  
Erwin van der Krabben ◽  
Eero Valtonen ◽  
Heidi Falkenbach
2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
EW Stapper ◽  
M Van der Veen ◽  
LB Janssen-Jansen

Planning consultants are increasingly hired to organize citizen participation processes for urban development projects. However, the ways in which planning consultants engage in and perceive the involvement of citizens in urban development projects remain relatively understudied. This article opens the black box of consultancy employees’ perceptions toward citizens in urban development processes. Employees from two consultancy firms in the Netherlands were interviewed, and several focus groups were organized. This research shows that consultants have wide-ranging views concerning the ways of incorporating citizens’ interests in urban development projects. With the use of Q-methodology, a typology of how consultants engage with citizens is proposed. Furthermore, we show that the different perceptions of consultants lead to a different approach in identifying the needs and problems of citizens. This finding gives insight into the context in which decisions about urban development are made.


2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-101
Author(s):  
Brian Moore ◽  
Joris van Wijk

Case studies in the Netherlands and the UK of asylum applicants excluded or under consideration of exclusion pursuant to Article 1Fa of the Refugee Convention reveal that some applicants falsely implicated themselves in serious crimes or behaviours in order to enhance their refugee claim. This may have serious consequences for the excluded persons themselves, as well as for national governments dealing with them. For this reason we suggest immigration authorities could consider forewarning asylum applicants i.e. before their interview, about the existence, purpose and possible consequences of exclusion on the basis of Article 1F.


Author(s):  
Nico van Eijk

The point of departure for this chapter is the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Digital Rights Ireland case, which annulled the European Data Retention Directive, in part because the use of retained data was not made subject to independent oversight. Next, it examines judgments from the national courts of the Netherlands and the UK, also focusing on the independent oversight issue, declaring invalid the data retention laws of those two countries. From the Digital Rights Ireland case and others, seven standards for oversight of intelligence services can be drawn: the oversight should be complete; it should encompass all stages of the intelligence cycle; it should be independent; it should take place prior to the imposition of a measure; it should be able to declare a measure unlawful and to provide redress; it should incorporate the adversary principle; and it should have sufficient resources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document