Pub Date : 2022-08-17DOI: 10.33344/vol16iss1pp10-17
Jon Hautamäki, Max Atallah
{"title":"Lohkoketjuprojekteista tuttu DAO ja perinteisen ESG:n \"G\" - hajautettu hallintotapa","authors":"Jon Hautamäki, Max Atallah","doi":"10.33344/vol16iss1pp10-17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol16iss1pp10-17","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124435933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-17DOI: 10.33344/vol16iss1pp24-52
Olli-Ville Laukkanen
This article suggests an assessment of new national framework legislation related to biodiversity loss (called “Biodiversity Act”) to be performed in Finland. Such new framework legislation could partly be inspired by the national Climate Change Act (609/2015), and it could inter alia, promote the following aspects explored in this article: realisation of fundamental rights, more effective and coherent governmental planning, and participative democracy. As the central conclusion of the article, a multidisciplinary assessment of new biodiversity-related framework legislation is recommended. Further research regarding the Biodiversity Act should evaluate the realisation of fundamental environmental rights in the context of biodiversity loss. It would benefit from the study of the impacts of national climate change framework legislation, while also elaborating the differing regulatory aspects of biodiversity loss and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Legislation aiming to halt the biodiversity loss should be studied holistically to assess the need and opportunities for legal reforms and connections between branches of legislation, also accounting for the legal development on supranational level.
{"title":"Ehdotus uuden puitelainsäädännön selvitystarpeesta luonnon monimuotoisuuden suojelemiseksi – vertailukohtana vuoden 2015 ilmastolaki","authors":"Olli-Ville Laukkanen","doi":"10.33344/vol16iss1pp24-52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol16iss1pp24-52","url":null,"abstract":"This article suggests an assessment of new national framework legislation related to biodiversity loss (called “Biodiversity Act”) to be performed in Finland. Such new framework legislation could partly be inspired by the national Climate Change Act (609/2015), and it could inter alia, promote the following aspects explored in this article: realisation of fundamental rights, more effective and coherent governmental planning, and participative democracy.\u0000As the central conclusion of the article, a multidisciplinary assessment of new biodiversity-related framework legislation is recommended. Further research regarding the Biodiversity Act should evaluate the realisation of fundamental environmental rights in the context of biodiversity loss. It would benefit from the study of the impacts of national climate change framework legislation, while also elaborating the differing regulatory aspects of biodiversity loss and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Legislation aiming to halt the biodiversity loss should be studied holistically to assess the need and opportunities for legal reforms and connections between branches of legislation, also accounting for the legal development on supranational level.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"140 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134463405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-17DOI: 10.33344/vol16iss1pp54-72
Binga Tupamäki
Human rights are the most universally accepted set of norms that have ever existed. Thus, finding a person or community that would deny their fundamental importance to our society is not easy. According to some views, we live in a global revolution of rights, where fundamental rights are a central part of all political discussions. The dilemma of the universality of human rights holds various aspects, of which this article identifies four. The first and most challenging question is how to justify the fact that human rights universally bind everyone. This must be kept separate from the second, much more practical question of how human rights can be applied universally. Thirdly, the politicization of human rights can be considered an obstacle to universal principles as politics are typically dependent on momentary issues. Fourth, one must consider the inadequacy of human rights in their current form and how human rights fail to solve some of the critical problems they were created to solve. The article's main objective is to go through the challenges of universality at a general level. The purpose of this article is not to offer a certain kind of solution to a specific debate but to map what kind of limitations come into question when considering the universality of human rights.
{"title":"Pohdintoja ihmisoikeuksien universaalisuuden rajallisuudesta","authors":"Binga Tupamäki","doi":"10.33344/vol16iss1pp54-72","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol16iss1pp54-72","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights are the most universally accepted set of norms that have ever existed. Thus, finding a person or community that would deny their fundamental importance to our society is not easy. According to some views, we live in a global revolution of rights, where fundamental rights are a central part of all political discussions. The dilemma of the universality of human rights holds various aspects, of which this article identifies four. The first and most challenging question is how to justify the fact that human rights universally bind everyone. This must be kept separate from the second, much more practical question of how human rights can be applied universally. Thirdly, the politicization of human rights can be considered an obstacle to universal principles as politics are typically dependent on momentary issues. Fourth, one must consider the inadequacy of human rights in their current form and how human rights fail to solve some of the critical problems they were created to solve. The article's main objective is to go through the challenges of universality at a general level. The purpose of this article is not to offer a certain kind of solution to a specific debate but to map what kind of limitations come into question when considering the universality of human rights.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125405162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On 1 May 2021, the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) entered formally into force. This article asks whether mutual trust exists after Brexit and whether it plays any role in the future judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK, provided for in the newly applicable TCA. The human rights conditionality introduced by the TCA, and the new government mechanism established to enforce it, aim to ascertain continuous cooperation between the EU and the UK without additional guarantees on adequate human rights protection despite Brexit. The argument is that instead of mutual trust, the UK’s continuous adherence to the ECHR will become the guiding principle when it comes to the observation of fundamental rights in judicial cooperation. The findings indicate that in the future the ECtHR may have an increasing role in determining the required level of protection of fundamental rights.
{"title":"Who's Trusting Who? Observation of Fundamental Rights in Judicial Cooperation After Brexit","authors":"Vellamo Jutila","doi":"10.33344/vol11ypp34-46","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol11ypp34-46","url":null,"abstract":"On 1 May 2021, the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) entered formally into force. This article asks whether mutual trust exists after Brexit and whether it plays any role in the future judicial cooperation between the EU and the UK, provided for in the newly applicable TCA. The human rights conditionality introduced by the TCA, and the new government mechanism established to enforce it, aim to ascertain continuous cooperation between the EU and the UK without additional guarantees on adequate human rights protection despite Brexit. The argument is that instead of mutual trust, the UK’s continuous adherence to the ECHR will become the guiding principle when it comes to the observation of fundamental rights in judicial cooperation. The findings indicate that in the future the ECtHR may have an increasing role in determining the required level of protection of fundamental rights.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114666550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Telecommunications industry uses extensive standardisation to ensure interoperability between the devices of competing manufacturers. SEPs, or patents incorporated in related technical standards, are of extraordinary importance in the industry. Hence seeking legal remedies for SEP infringements may compromise effective competition in the internal market and may thus fall within the scope of Article 102 TFEU on abuse of dominant position. In this paper I review, on which conditions the SEP holder is allowed to seek legal remedies for SEP infringement without being restrained by Article 102 TFEU. I conclude that a dominant position is established nearly always through mere SEP ownership, and this dominant position is abused by bringing an SEP infringement suit if the sought remedy has a direct effect on the market access of the SEP implementer and the SEP holder does not have an objective justification to seek such remedies.
{"title":"Enforcing Telecoms SEPs as Abuse of Dominant Position","authors":"Miko Mustonen","doi":"10.33344/vol11ypp48-73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol11ypp48-73","url":null,"abstract":"Telecommunications industry uses extensive standardisation to ensure interoperability between the devices of competing manufacturers. SEPs, or patents incorporated in related technical standards, are of extraordinary importance in the industry. Hence seeking legal remedies for SEP infringements may compromise effective competition in the internal market and may thus fall within the scope of Article 102 TFEU on abuse of dominant position. In this paper I review, on which conditions the SEP holder is allowed to seek legal remedies for SEP infringement without being restrained by Article 102 TFEU. I conclude that a dominant position is established nearly always through mere SEP ownership, and this dominant position is abused by bringing an SEP infringement suit if the sought remedy has a direct effect on the market access of the SEP implementer and the SEP holder does not have an objective justification to seek such remedies.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124143706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Section 23 of the Constitution of Finland allows temporary derogations from fundamental rights during a state of emergency. This article examines whether the restrictions of movement between Uusimaa region and the rest of Finland during the spring 2020 Covid-19 crisis can be considered derogations under Section 23 of the Constitution, as the Constitutional Law Committee did. The question is twofold: did the restrictions exceed the boundaries of ordinary limitations to fundamental rights, namely the inviolability of the core content and the prohibition of exceptional and nonspecific measures, and, if the answer is positive, did they fulfil the conditions for derogations? It is argued that the restrictions did exceed the limits for ordinary limitations to fundamental rights at least due to their exceptional and nonspecific nature. The restrictions also seem to fulfil the constitutional requirements for derogations, even though the application of the proportionality principle by the Committee was somewhat superficial.
{"title":"Uudenmaan liikkumisrajoitukset perustuslain 23 §:n mukaisena tilapäisenä poikkeuksena perusoikeuksista","authors":"Jenni Aer","doi":"10.33344/vol11ypp12-33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol11ypp12-33","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000\u0000\u0000Section 23 of the Constitution of Finland allows temporary derogations from fundamental rights during a state of emergency. This article examines whether the restrictions of movement between Uusimaa region and the rest of Finland during the spring 2020 Covid-19 crisis can be considered derogations under Section 23 of the Constitution, as the Constitutional Law Committee did. The question is twofold: did the restrictions exceed the boundaries of ordinary limitations to fundamental rights, namely the inviolability of the core content and the prohibition of exceptional and nonspecific measures, and, if the answer is positive, did they fulfil the conditions for derogations? It is argued that the restrictions did exceed the limits for ordinary limitations to fundamental rights at least due to their exceptional and nonspecific nature. The restrictions also seem to fulfil the constitutional requirements for derogations, even though the application of the proportionality principle by the Committee was somewhat superficial.\u0000\u0000\u0000","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116042361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：