THE EMPLOYER’S RISK PRINCIPLE

The article discusses the employer’s risk as a principle of labour law. The idea of employer’s risk is that the employer bears the consequences of obstacles in the performance of the employment relationship that it has not caused. The author distinguishes the obstacles: not related (the employer’s risk in a strict sense) and related to the employee (personal risk). As a rule, the employer bears the risk of circumstances not related to the employee. The nature as well as the application scope of regulations allow to formulate a normative principle of the labour law. At the same time the employer bears the risk of the obstacles related to the employee only in cases specified in the labour law, both: statutory standards as well as autonomous provisions. As a result, the personal risk of the employer cannot be considered to be a normative principle of the labour law.

Application of the Risk Principle in the Supervision and Treatment of Individuals Who Have Sexually Offended: Does “Oversupervision” Matter?

Individuals who sexually offend are commonly misunderstood as being high risk. According to the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) principles, treatment and supervision levels should be determined by actuarial risk for the best outcomes. To date, no studies have examined these principles with individuals on supervision for a sexual offense. This study applies the RNR principles to a sample of 133 men and women serving probated sentences for a sexual offense and mandated to specialized treatment. Results indicate low-risk individuals convicted of a sexual offense were more likely to be compliant with probation and treatment than moderate-risk individuals. An analysis of risk level and supervision overrides ( N = 75) provides support for the prediction that low-risk individuals supervised at high levels may be more likely to have compliance problems. Results suggest similar outcomes when violating the risk principle for individuals who have sexually offended to the findings among general justice-involved people.

A Perspective on the Integration of eHealth in Treatment of Offenders: Combining Technology and the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model

While there are multiple ways in which eHealth interventions such as online modules, apps and virtual reality can improve forensic psychiatry, uptake in practice is low. To overcome this problem, better integration of eHealth in treatment is necessary. In this perspective paper, we describe how the possibilities of eHealth can be connected to the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model. To account for the risk-principle, stand-alone eHealth interventions might be used to offer more intensive treatment to high-risk offenders. The need-principle can be addressed by connecting novel experience-based interventions such as VR and apps to stable and acute dynamic risk factors. Finally, using and combining personalized interventions is in line with the responsivity-principle. Based on research inside and outside of forensic psychiatry, we conclude that there are many possibilities for eHealth to improve treatment—not just based on RNR, but also on other models. However, there is a pressing need for more development, implementation and evaluation research.

Jus post vim Revisited

This chapter revisits the theme of jus post vim in the non-ideal form. It begins by looking at the grey area between vim success and failure, characterized by shaky containment (the lingering doubt that the enemy is really contained) or by persistent contested order that threatens the ability of law enforcement mechanisms to uphold a minimalist view of order in certain states. Among the vim failures are the unjust escalation to war, the unfazed enemy outcome, the recurring last straw scenario, and the intractable contested and fragmented sovereignty dilemma. The chapter continues by exploring jus ex vi, or the ethical consideration of terminating the use of limited force, further to tease out what success and failure might look like. The key to defining success and knowing when to end vim operations depends on the just management of military risk principle. The chapter concludes by exploring moral options in cases of failure. Building on the observation that framing the use of force as punishment can be more restrictive than open-ended justifications based in self-defense constructed as prevention or protection against future acts of aggression, the chapter concludes by arguing states might have recourse to the punishment principles. Drawn from an interpretation of the just war tradition privileging a presumption against war as being at the heart of just war thinking, the escalation management and demonstrable retribution criteria depict the narrow moral logic where the legitimate goal of limited force is something other than the moral truncated victory of jus post vim.

Jus in vi

Jus in vi is the set of moral principles governing how limited force is used. Taking the traditionalist jus in bello principles as a starting point, this chapter interrogates what necessity, proportionality, and distinction look like in a limited force context and makes the case for the novel psychological risk principle by evaluating how concepts such as “excessive,” “military advantage,” and “harms” and “goods” fit into our thinking about vim. The keystone of jus in vi is the predisposition toward maximal restraint maxim. The chapter thus begins by making the case for why jus in vi principles should be more restrictive than their jus in bello counterparts. It continues by exploring how a circumscribed view of necessity sets the groundwork for constraining proportionality calculations and shaping the way we think about distinction in more restricted ways. The notion of jus in vi proportionality is then explored, with concerns about escalation and psychological risk driving the analysis. Drawing insights from revisionist just war theory to consider jus in vi distinction, the chapter concludes by making the case for affording greater protections to both combatants and non-combatants compared to standard just war accounts. Unlike war, in which almost any soldier can be targeted, in a context of limited force only those who are an active threat can be justly targeted. Both innocent non-combatants and non-threatening combatants should be preserved from the more predictable harms of limited force, though this differs depending on whether the use of limited force is protective, preventive, or punitive.

Applying the risk principle to optimize accuracy and equity in correctional risk assessment: Results From a Simulation

As the use of risk assessments for correctional populations has grown, so has concern that these instruments exacerbate existing racial and ethnic disparities. While much of the attention arising from this concern has focused on how algorithms are designed, relatively little consideration has been given to how risk assessments are used. To this end, the present study tests whether application of the risk principle would help preserve predictive accuracy while, at the same time, mitigate disparities. Using a sample of 9,529 inmates released from Minnesota prisons who had been assessed multiple times during their confinement on a fully-automated risk assessment, this study relies on both actual and simulated data to examine the impact of program assignment decisions on changes in risk level from intake to release. The findings showed that while the risk principle was used in practice to some extent, the simulated results showed that greater adherence to the risk principle would increase reductions in risk levels and minimize the disparities observed at intake. The simulated data further revealed the most favorable outcomes would be achieved by not only applying the risk principle, but also by expanding program capacity for the higher-risk inmates in order to adequately reduce their risk.

Liability for damage caused by unsafe innovative food – a legal perspective

The subject of the considerations presented in the article are issues related to the liability for placing unsafe innovative food on the market. They are aimed at answering the question of whether the tort liability regime based on the risk principle meets the requirements of the modern agri-food sector and provides effective protection of consumer’s health and life against threats that may result from product innovations. The adoption of legal solutions providing for producer’s strict liability for an unsafe product must be assessed positively. They facilitate the consumer’s ability to seek redress for damage caused by an unsafe product. Unfortunately, these regulations do not take into account fully the specific nature of food, especially innovative food, limiting the possibility of redressing damage caused by this type of food.

An analysis of the normative parameters of reward and risk in Islamic finance

Purpose This study aims to define the parameters of the reward-risk principle in Islamic finance as established in the literature and discuss propositions that are presented on how such a principle is to be applied to Islamic banking products. Design/methodology/approach A descriptive approach is used to explore the normative parameters and criticisms of the application of reward-risk in Islamic finance. Findings The study finds that the principle of reward-risk is embodied in the multi-component concept of ʿiwaḍ (counter value) which must be evident in market transactions that involve commercial exchanges. The components include risk, costs, effort, value-adding and capital, all of which apply uniquely to different contractual forms of financing. Research limitations/implications The study uses academic literature and industry documents along with modest contact with prominent practitioners who provided general feedback on prevalent Islamic finance industry practices. Practical implications This study exposits the variety of approaches in applying the reward-risk principle and sheds light on the primary elements of the principle which will facilitate its greater consideration by the Islamic finance industry. Originality/value This study is a meaningful attempt at conveniently summing up and applying the parameters that are considered when discussing the scope of the reward-risk principle in Islamic finance.

Evaluation of the Implementation of a Risk-Need-Responsivity Service in Community Supervision in Sweden

The effective use of the core treatment principles from the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model has the potential to reduce criminal recidivism significantly. A pilot trial of the RNR-based model Krimstics in the Swedish probation service showed increased RNR adherence but no effects on recidivism. The subsequent implementation of Krimstics involved the training and clinical support of more than 700 probation officers working with community supervision. In parallel, an implementation evaluation examining RNR adherence was undertaken, collecting and coding audio-recorded supervision sessions and case file data. Findings showed that Krimstics-trained probation officers ( N = 96) used cognitive behavioral therapy-based techniques in supervision sessions while demonstrating moderate-to-high levels of relationship building skills. However, adherence to the risk principle was lacking and key cognitive behavioral techniques showed poor quality. Although Krimstics has increased RNR adherence in a Swedish context, challenges with implementing theory into practice may obscure the assessment of the service’s effectiveness.