This chapter begins by introducing remuneration – as a term encompassing both compensation corresponding to the work an international official performs and benefits addressing their personal circumstances – as integral to the treaty-based obligation upon international organizations to secure staff possessing the highest standards of efficiency and technical competence, with due regard to recruitment on as wide a geographical basis as possible. Second, the legal principles of remuneration are identified, namely: (1) Compensation must secure staff of the highest standard; and (2) Pay must be equal for equivalent work. Third, two attendant legal duties of remuneration are considered, namely: (1) Benefits must ensure geographic diversity; and (2) Remuneration revision methodology must be objective. Fourth, the practice of tax reimbursement is examined. Fifth, and in conclusion, this employment law of remuneration at international organizations is restated.

This chapter gives an overview of how flow cytometry (FCM) data are processed, visualized, and analyzed, along with general analysis strategies. Rather than delving into technical details (which are discussed in lab SOP and other publications), this chapter focuses on understanding the principles of FCM data analysis from a data analyst’s perspective and offers practical tips on how to assess data quality, recognize the technical constraints of the assay, and distinguish true signals from biological or technical artifacts. Moreover, in addition to traditional data analysis approaches, this chapter will also touch on the recent trend of using machine learning, or AI, for data visualization and analysis.

The conclusion discusses valuation, the activity of giving value to things and people, to stress residents’ economic and political choices.

Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is defined as the inability of a fetus to achieve its genetic growth potential, and the aetiology is multifactorial. However, the most frequent aetiology is placental insufficiency, which results in fetal chronic hypoxia leading to FGR. FGR is associated with several short- and long-term adverse outcomes, especially stillbirth and cerebral palsy. Fetuses affected by chronic hypoxia undergo several adaptive mechanisms in order to secure enough oxygen and nutrient supply to the vital organs. These changes are responsible for some of the features observed in the antepartum cardiotocography (CTG) traces of FGR fetuses. Labour represents a stressful event for the fetoplacental unit, as uterine contractions are associated with an intermittent reduction of up to 60% of the uteroplacental perfusion, and therefore FGR fetuses with an antenatal placental insufficiency have an increased risk of intrapartum hypoxic–ischaemic injury. This is because the superimposed hypoxic stress of labour has the potential to exacerbate ongoing chronic hypoxia. Caution is warranted when using uterotonics as FGR fetuses may not tolerate additonal hypoixc stress.

Justice between private individuals has commonly been viewed as a matter for civil courts. In recent years, however, regulatory agencies have played a role in providing redress to aggrieved individuals in mass damage cases. This chapter examines how regulatory enforcement deals with and should deal with the issue of private law remedies for regulatory violations. It focuses on the actual and desirable role of national and European regulatory agencies, which typically use administrative law means to deter regulatory breaches, in providing compensation to victims of mass violations of EU private law. The chapter presents three models of the relationship between regulatory enforcement powers and private law remedies within the operation of administrative agencies – separation, complementarity, and substitution – and discusses their main characteristics, manifestations, and implications. Each model is analysed in terms of its potential to reconcile the pursuit of the public interest in deterring regulatory violations with a traditional private law concern to ensure interpersonal justice by compensating their victims. The models also reflect and address the tension between uniformity and diversity in the remedial domain. The chapter concludes by elucidating the practical relevance of its findings in the broader context in which regulatory agencies operate in different jurisdictions.

It has been widely recognised in the legal as well as law and economics literature that both regulatory and private enforcement are needed to ensure the effectiveness of market regulation in general and EU private law in particular. This chapter unpacks the interplay between these two enforcement mechanisms, focusing on three major issues that arise in practice: the disclosure of evidence gathered by regulatory agencies, the limitation periods for private enforcement actions, and the combined application of administrative sanctions and private law remedies. The chapter constructs three models of the relationship between public and private enforcement – separation, substitution, and complementarity – and explains their main characteristics, manifestations, and implications. It also assesses the potential of each model to strike the right balance between deterrence in the name of the public interest and compensation in the name of interpersonal justice, as well as between uniformity and diversity in regulatory and private enforcement, and draws out some of the practical implications of this analysis for EU private lawmaking and enforcement.

Reparations are a key mechanism for delivering justice to victims and survivors of armed conflicts. The first generation of victim engagement was marked by demands for reparations from state authorities, making them a core element of post-war justice. This chapter examines how the nature of a past conflict shapes the conditions for victim engagement in reparations. It is shown that social classifications of victim groups that arose during or prior to conflict act as a moderating factor, influencing who is deemed eligible for compensation. However, these classifications are not fixed; victims and survivors can actively reshape them through transitional justice processes. This chapter examines how social classifications shape reparation policies by analysing three case studies – Guatemala, Timor-Leste, and Northern Ireland – each representing a distinct type of conflict. It explores the opportunities and constraints victims face in articulating and securing compensation claims, highlighting how these are influenced by evolving social classifications.

Abraham Lincoln was conscious that the constitution gave him no authority to emancipate slaves under peacetime circumstances. Hence, his first movement toward emancipation was a plan for gradual, compensated emancipation of the slaves of the loyal border states. But even this plan was opposed by those states. So, in mid-1862, Lincoln turned to the powers he believed the constitution conferred on him as commander-in-chief to liberate the confederacy's slaves as a military measure for winning the war. He issued a preliminary emancipation proclamation in September, 1862, attempting to make it palatable beforehand by extracting promises of colonization abroad by the freed slaves. He then proceeded to issue a final proclamation on January 1, 1863. The colonization plan came to nothing. But Lincoln remained anxious about the constitutionality of his proclamation, and in January, 1865, obtained from congress a 13th amendment entirely abolishing slavery.

This chapter argues that Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not require proof of innocence. At the same time, it only requires compensation for some wrongful convictions and may require updating especially for false guilty pleas. International criminal courts have a potential to be hybrids of adversarial and inquisitorial systems that provide optimal protection against wrongful convictions. Unfortunately, this has often not been the case, raising the risk of false guilty pleas. Nevertheless, the International Criminal Court has made improvements compared to previous courts. Except in Australia, the right to appeal under Article 14(5) of the ICCPR is underdeveloped. South Africa’s approach to appeals is especially restrictive. Proposals to recognize a new international right to claim and prove innocence are critically examined. Article 9(5) provides a broad but often underenforced right to compensation for unlawful detention. Compensation should not, in accordance with international law remedial principles, be limited to monetary compensation. Compensation is not sufficient because it only subjects the human rights violated by miscarriages of justice to liability rules and does not ensure their non-repetition.

Miscarriages of justice encompass more injustice than wrongful convictions or proven innocence. Proven innocence is the most severe rationing of justice, but it is popular, especially for non-lawyers and in mass imprisonment societies such as China and the United States. Originally used as a rationale for compensation in the United States, it now also rations post-conviction relief. It has been used to ration compensation in England since 2014 but was rejected in the 2024 Canadian reforms, creating a Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission. Some Australian states have been attracted to it in recent legislation, but the Chamberlain and Folbigg wrongful convictions have properly been corrected because of reasonable doubts about the guilt of the two women. Following Ronald Dworkin, there needs to be greater concern about inequality in the distribution of the risks of injustice. The danger of wrongful conviction reforms providing justice for a few while legitimating injustices for many is most acute in authoritarian societies such as China, but not absent in democracies. Comparative law, legal process and historical analysis can contribute to richer understandings of miscarriages of justice. Two different future scenarios, one that provides justice for less and another that provides justice for more, are outlined.

Abstract: This chapter considers three key types of international judicial remedies, exploring their content, availability, and behavioural influence. Through Mere Adjudication, an adjudicator establishes the existence, applicability, and content of legal rules. Through a Declaration of Breach, a court declares that a party’s conduct violates legal obligations. Where a violation is found, international courts often establish Consequential Duties, determining how a wrongdoer must act to bring an end to its violation and provide reparation for injury. Overall, international judicial remedies seek to prevent states’ adoption of unilateral remedies, grounded on their own understanding of the law and facts. International courts are unable to determine the application of coercive measures against states. Thus, every remedy is a communication regarding either the interpretation of the law or the application of this law to conduct. Judicial pronouncements have remedial value if they are able to mobilise pro-compliance forces, internal and external to states, by which the international normative framework guides state conduct.

Starting with the pioneering work of Edwin Borchard, the American focus has been on proven factual innocence. This concept has a populist appeal and fits with America’s moralistic and highly punitive approach to crime. Proven innocence has inspired both legislative reforms and executive grants of clemency. It has had somewhat less success with American courts. American Federal courts require proven innocence for some defaulted habeas corpus claims but have not recognized free-standing innocence claims. Death row exonerations have played a role in executive moratoriums and legislative abolition of the death penalty in some states but have not resulted in judicial abolition. Mass exonerations related to policing and forensic science scandals have received far less attention than the UK’s post office scandal even though they reveal much about false guilty pleas and systemic discrimination. Generous systems of legislative compensation and civil rights litigation are related to the popular appeal of proven innocence and successful civil right litigation. Finally, some possible future directions for American innocence projects and movements in light of Trump’s first presidency and his re-election in 2024 are assessed.

This chapter examines what is known about China’s remedied wrongful convictions including three well-publicized “back from the dead” cases. The predominant cause was false confessions obtained through police torture. As in the United States, remedied cases typically involved multiple rounds of litigation that establish proven or obvious innocence. China’s responses to well-publicized wrongful convictions from 2006 to 2013, including the introduction of an exclusionary rule for involuntary confessions, are assessed. These reforms may help legitimate or wrongful conviction wash an unjust system. Unremedied wrongful convictions may increase under a 2018 law to encourage guilty pleas. The precarious and marginal role of defence lawyers is examined. Compensation has increased for the wrongfully convicted and is available to the wrongfully detained. The extension of the authoritarian Chinese system would have regressive effects, given Hong Kong’s broader focus on miscarriages of justice and Taiwan’s more democratic approach and lesser reliance on guilty pleas.

As in China, many of India’s remedied wrongful convictions involved police-induced false confessions. They likely reveal only a small “tip of the iceberg,” given the many missing remedied wrongful convictions found in other jurisdictions. Indian appellate courts are not reluctant to overturn convictions in part because of the absence of jury trials. India’s record of remedied wrongful convictions supports the abolition of the death penalty, with no exception for terrorism cases. Criminal laws enacted by the Modi government at the end of 2023 have increased the risk of wrongful convictions by, for example, increasing police custody, forensic investigations and restricting executive clemency. The 2023 laws did not implement the 2018 Law Commission recommendations to provide compensation for both the wrongfully detained and the wrongfully convicted, even though three-quarters of prisoners in India are awaiting trial.. Finally, possible futures for innocence projects and innocence movements in India are explored, with attention to the need to be sensitive to local conditions.