The Access Principle

Questions about access to scholarship have always raged. The great libraries of the past stood as arguments for increasing access. John Willinsky describes the latest chapter in this ongoing story - online open access publishing by scholarly journals and makes a case for open access as a public good.

Questions about access to scholarship have always raged. The great libraries of the past stood as arguments for increasing access. John Willinsky describes the latest chapter in this ongoing story - online open access publishing by scholarly journals andmakes a case for open access as a public good.

This open access State-of-the-Art Survey describes and documents the developments and results of the Once-Only Principle Project (TOOP). The Once-Only Principle (OOP) is part of the seven underlying principles of the eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020. It aims to make the government more effective and to reduce administrative burdens by asking citizens and companies to provide certain standard information to the public authorities only once. The project was horizontal and policy-driven with the aim of showing that the implementation of OOP in a cross-border and cross-sector setting is feasible. The book summarizes the results of the project from policy, organizational, architectural, and technical points of view.

On August 21, 2013, chemical weapons were unleashed on the civilian population in Syria, killing another 1,400 people in a civil war that had already claimed the lives of more than 140,000. As is all too often the case, the innocent found themselves victims of a violent struggle for political power. Such events are why human rights activists have long pressed for institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate and prosecute some of the world’s most severe crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While proponents extol the creation of the ICC as a transformative victory for principles of international humanitarian law, critics have often characterized it as either irrelevant or dangerous in a world dominated by power politics. Christopher Rudolph argues in Power and Principle that both perspectives are extreme. In contrast to prevailing scholarship, he shows how the interplay between power politics and international humanitarian law have shaped the institutional development of international criminal courts from Nuremberg to the ICC. Rudolph identifies the factors that drove the creation of international criminal courts, explains the politics behind their institutional design, and investigates the behavior of the ICC. Through the development and empirical testing of several theoretical frameworks, Power and Principle helps us better understand the factors that resulted in the emergence of international criminal courts and helps us determine the broader implications of their presence in society.

This book is designed to introduce doctoral and graduate students to the process of conducting scientific research in the social sciences, business, education, public health, and related disciplines. It is a one-stop, comprehensive, and compact source for foundational concepts in behavioral research, and can serve as a stand-alone text or as a supplement to research readings in any doctoral seminar or research methods class. This book is currently used as a research text at universities on six continents and will shortly be available in nine different languages.

This thesis examines the principle of purpose limitation in data protection law from the perspective of regulating data-driven innovation. According to this approach, the principle of purpose limitation not only protects an individual's autonomy but simultaneously leaves sufficient room for data controllers to innovate when finding the best solution for protection. The first component of the principle of purpose limitation (i.e. to specify the purpose of data processing) is a precautionary protection instrument which obliges the controller to identify specific risks arising from its processing against all fundamental rights of the data subject. In contrast, the second component (i.e. the requirement to limit data processing to the preceding purpose) aims to control the risk caused by data processing that occurred at a later stage and adds to the risks which were previously identified. This approach provides an answer to the question of how the General Data Protection Regulation which does not only effectively protect an individual's autonomy but also helps controllers to turn their legal compliance into a mechanism that enhances innovation, should be interpreted with regard to all the fundamental rights of the data subject.