Abstract Despite being a crucially important domain for states, businesses, and individuals, cyberspace still suffers from a regulation deficit. This article takes up one such dangerously underregulated area: cyber warfare and regulation of cyber weapons. For that purpose, the authors first analyse the threats posed by weaponised malicious code, including some examples of its use and potential considerations that could sway states towards engaging in a multilateral cyber weapons regulation regime. These considerations are then converted into some major principles and points to be regarded should a potential cyber weapons convention be contemplated. These are subsequently further elaborated in light of the Chemical Weapons Convention, particularly with regard to specific provisions and possibility of adoption. The article concludes with the assertion that an international agreement is feasible in principle, but its focus should be on regulating the ways of employing cyber weapons rather than on the specific weapons themselves.
{"title":"Contemplating a Cyber Weapons Convention: An Exploration of Good Practice and Necessary Preconditions","authors":"Julija Kalpokienė, Ignas Kalpokas","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2020-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2020-0003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite being a crucially important domain for states, businesses, and individuals, cyberspace still suffers from a regulation deficit. This article takes up one such dangerously underregulated area: cyber warfare and regulation of cyber weapons. For that purpose, the authors first analyse the threats posed by weaponised malicious code, including some examples of its use and potential considerations that could sway states towards engaging in a multilateral cyber weapons regulation regime. These considerations are then converted into some major principles and points to be regarded should a potential cyber weapons convention be contemplated. These are subsequently further elaborated in light of the Chemical Weapons Convention, particularly with regard to specific provisions and possibility of adoption. The article concludes with the assertion that an international agreement is feasible in principle, but its focus should be on regulating the ways of employing cyber weapons rather than on the specific weapons themselves.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"51 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45677953","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}
Abstract Since decentralized organizations such as blockchain are not recognized as legal persons, questions arise regarding the ability to detect anti-competitive practices and their perpetrators. Under certain circumstances, if a competitor is unreasonably refused in access to technology, it may well be interpreted as creating an obstacle to his/her entry into the market, which may constitute a violation of the legislation of a country on the protection of economic competition. The exchange of information between players of the same market can present antitrust risks if it helps to fix prices for their products/services or to establish other forms of coordination between such players. The purpose of this study is to provide a description of current EU anticompetitive practices in the field of blockchain-technologies application, as well as to identify challenges in the EU antitrust law related to the emergence of blockchain. This article highlights the challenges blockchain poses for analyzing unilateral anti-competitive practices. This study suggests that EU competition law has a lack of operational and measurement tools to map competitive interactions taking place outside the relevant market, which could lead to rather short-sighted competition law enforcement focusing only on horizontal competition restrictions on relevant markets. The relevance of the topic is associated with the fact that the increased popularity of the use of blockchain technology requires an answer to the question of its legal nature and inclusion in the legal field in order to balance the interests of all parties to economic and legal relations.
{"title":"Potential Legal Challenges for Blockchain Technology in Competition Law","authors":"C. Hutchinson, M. Egorova","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2020-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2020-0004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since decentralized organizations such as blockchain are not recognized as legal persons, questions arise regarding the ability to detect anti-competitive practices and their perpetrators. Under certain circumstances, if a competitor is unreasonably refused in access to technology, it may well be interpreted as creating an obstacle to his/her entry into the market, which may constitute a violation of the legislation of a country on the protection of economic competition. The exchange of information between players of the same market can present antitrust risks if it helps to fix prices for their products/services or to establish other forms of coordination between such players. The purpose of this study is to provide a description of current EU anticompetitive practices in the field of blockchain-technologies application, as well as to identify challenges in the EU antitrust law related to the emergence of blockchain. This article highlights the challenges blockchain poses for analyzing unilateral anti-competitive practices. This study suggests that EU competition law has a lack of operational and measurement tools to map competitive interactions taking place outside the relevant market, which could lead to rather short-sighted competition law enforcement focusing only on horizontal competition restrictions on relevant markets. The relevance of the topic is associated with the fact that the increased popularity of the use of blockchain technology requires an answer to the question of its legal nature and inclusion in the legal field in order to balance the interests of all parties to economic and legal relations.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"81 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42063994","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}
Abstract The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an imperfect expert opinion, incorrect advice, or information. The comparative method will be used in conjunction with analyzing the Czech, Austrian, and German arrangements – their continuities and differences. Criteria for assessing whether this is a protective purpose of the contract and how these criteria vary in different legal frameworks are discussed in detail. The conceptual features of the expert as well as the assumptions of their responsibility for providing advice or information regulated in the individual jurisdictions are argued as well. The article concludes that the protective purpose of the contract is demonstrated accurately in the case of the liability of the expert for damage which has been established on the basis of a contract. These are in particular cases where an expert draws up an opinion on behalf of the parties on the basis of a contract which is, however, concluded with merely one party. In the event of a breach of the contract, the expert is also responsible for the damage caused to a party that has not concluded the contract with an expert.
{"title":"The Protective Purpose of the Contract and the Liability of an Expert Towards a Third Party in Czech, Austrian, and German Private Law","authors":"Jitka Matějková, Ondřej Pavelek","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The aim of the paper is to describe the so-called protective purpose of the contract, by demonstrating the liability of experts for damage caused by an imperfect expert opinion, incorrect advice, or information. The comparative method will be used in conjunction with analyzing the Czech, Austrian, and German arrangements – their continuities and differences. Criteria for assessing whether this is a protective purpose of the contract and how these criteria vary in different legal frameworks are discussed in detail. The conceptual features of the expert as well as the assumptions of their responsibility for providing advice or information regulated in the individual jurisdictions are argued as well. The article concludes that the protective purpose of the contract is demonstrated accurately in the case of the liability of the expert for damage which has been established on the basis of a contract. These are in particular cases where an expert draws up an opinion on behalf of the parties on the basis of a contract which is, however, concluded with merely one party. In the event of a breach of the contract, the expert is also responsible for the damage caused to a party that has not concluded the contract with an expert.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"163 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48609216","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}
Abstract The European arrest warrant system is one of the greatest achievements in the development of cooperation in judicial matters among EU Member States. However, its implementation has raised many questions, resulting in referrals by national courts to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for preliminary rulings. This article analyses the impact of the CJEU’s preliminary rulings on Lithuanian law concerning European arrest warrants. Specifically, the focus of the paper is institutional configuration and corresponding regulation in this field because/after the CJEU decided that (1) the Ministry of Justice cannot be considered a judicial authority because as part of the executive branch it cannot guarantee the protection of the parties’ fundamental rights; (2) however, the Prosecutor General of Lithuania can be considered a judicial authority because it participates in the administration of criminal justice and is independent of executive governance, and because its decisions to issue European arrest warrants are subject to judicial review.
{"title":"The Influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Issuance of European Arrest Warrants in Lithuania","authors":"S. Milčiuvienė, Edita Gruodytė","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The European arrest warrant system is one of the greatest achievements in the development of cooperation in judicial matters among EU Member States. However, its implementation has raised many questions, resulting in referrals by national courts to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for preliminary rulings. This article analyses the impact of the CJEU’s preliminary rulings on Lithuanian law concerning European arrest warrants. Specifically, the focus of the paper is institutional configuration and corresponding regulation in this field because/after the CJEU decided that (1) the Ministry of Justice cannot be considered a judicial authority because as part of the executive branch it cannot guarantee the protection of the parties’ fundamental rights; (2) however, the Prosecutor General of Lithuania can be considered a judicial authority because it participates in the administration of criminal justice and is independent of executive governance, and because its decisions to issue European arrest warrants are subject to judicial review.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"114 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46183621","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}
Abstract Annual leave is granted to employees in order for them to rest and to regain efficiency at work. In accordance with Article 31 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 of the Directive 2003/88/EB of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding certain aspects of work time organization (Working Time Directive), employers must guarantee employees at least 4 [work] weeks of paid annual leave. Furthermore, Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania maintains that every employed individual has the right to paid annual leave. The question arises whether this type of constitutional right can be absolute and if, as a result, employees are able to exercise their discretion to decide for themselves how to use this right. Can employers decide to grant or refuse to grant leave based on their own discretion? This article aims to address the content of the right to paid annual leave and its implementation details. In particular, it seeks to verify the extent to which an employee or an employer can affect the implementation of such a right.
{"title":"Content and Implementation of the Right to Annual Leave: Analysis Based on the Case Study of Lithuania","authors":"Ingrinda Mačernytė-Panomariovienė, Vilius Mačiulaitis","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Annual leave is granted to employees in order for them to rest and to regain efficiency at work. In accordance with Article 31 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 of the Directive 2003/88/EB of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding certain aspects of work time organization (Working Time Directive), employers must guarantee employees at least 4 [work] weeks of paid annual leave. Furthermore, Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania maintains that every employed individual has the right to paid annual leave. The question arises whether this type of constitutional right can be absolute and if, as a result, employees are able to exercise their discretion to decide for themselves how to use this right. Can employers decide to grant or refuse to grant leave based on their own discretion? This article aims to address the content of the right to paid annual leave and its implementation details. In particular, it seeks to verify the extent to which an employee or an employer can affect the implementation of such a right.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"78 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47519844","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}
Abstract Since the emergence of cyberspace there have been different legal principles evolving, such as functional equivalence and technology-neutrality, with the aim to ease the regulator´s challenge of coping with the new paradigm of virtual, digital and electronic. Currently our societies have reached the doorstep of another similar disruption: infrastructures decentralized on the basis of blockchain and distributed ledger technology, or so-called cryptoeconomics. It is time to turn to cyberspace-related principles for inspiration on how to solve similar concerns, such as applying existing regulation(s) to new technological disruption. This article looks at different understandings of the functional equivalence principle, its shortcomings and the guidance it provides to regulators and courts in dealing with the challenges related to technological innovation including that of cryptoeconomics.
{"title":"Functional Equivalence: An Exploration Through Shortcomings to Solutions","authors":"Anne Veerpalu","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since the emergence of cyberspace there have been different legal principles evolving, such as functional equivalence and technology-neutrality, with the aim to ease the regulator´s challenge of coping with the new paradigm of virtual, digital and electronic. Currently our societies have reached the doorstep of another similar disruption: infrastructures decentralized on the basis of blockchain and distributed ledger technology, or so-called cryptoeconomics. It is time to turn to cyberspace-related principles for inspiration on how to solve similar concerns, such as applying existing regulation(s) to new technological disruption. This article looks at different understandings of the functional equivalence principle, its shortcomings and the guidance it provides to regulators and courts in dealing with the challenges related to technological innovation including that of cryptoeconomics.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"134 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48923915","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}
Abstract Judicial cooperation between EU Member-States and Ukraine is still at a basic level. The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement does not prove an appropriate approach, and their relations are regulated mostly with the bilateral agreements. The Baltic states and Ukraine, which are the focus of this research, are deeply engaged by their close geographical location, common historical issues and friendly relations, and seek further development of their relations. This should be accompanied by mutual judiciary trust and therefore by the corresponding evolution of bilateral relations proper to this trust. The following types of judicial cooperation in civil matters were chosen as objects of this research: recognition of Baltic States’ courts’ judgments in Ukraine, as well as service of documents and taking of evidence in Ukraine. The conclusions consist of several proposals related to deeper judicial cooperation between Member-States and third countries, illustrated by the example of the Baltic States and Ukraine, in light of the right to fair trial and mutual trust in the judiciary.
{"title":"Strengthening Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters Between the EU and Neighboring Countries: The Example of Ukraine and the Baltic States","authors":"I. Izarova","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0014","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Judicial cooperation between EU Member-States and Ukraine is still at a basic level. The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement does not prove an appropriate approach, and their relations are regulated mostly with the bilateral agreements. The Baltic states and Ukraine, which are the focus of this research, are deeply engaged by their close geographical location, common historical issues and friendly relations, and seek further development of their relations. This should be accompanied by mutual judiciary trust and therefore by the corresponding evolution of bilateral relations proper to this trust. The following types of judicial cooperation in civil matters were chosen as objects of this research: recognition of Baltic States’ courts’ judgments in Ukraine, as well as service of documents and taking of evidence in Ukraine. The conclusions consist of several proposals related to deeper judicial cooperation between Member-States and third countries, illustrated by the example of the Baltic States and Ukraine, in light of the right to fair trial and mutual trust in the judiciary.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"115 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42628865","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}
Abstract An e-petition (online petition or internet petition) is one of the most popular ways for civil society to interact with public authorities. It is no accident that the number of countries implementing this e-democracy tool is increasing. The institution of electronic petition has its own peculiarities in each country where it has been introduced: different forms, subjects, filing procedures and legal consequences. The common feature is that the e-petition is an independent form of direct democracy through which citizens participate in the management of public affairs. The article investigates the place of e-petitions in the system of direct democracy forms, analyzes practices of using the institution of electronic petitions, shows the establishment of the institution of e-petitions in Ukraine, reveals the concepts and features of online petitions, and highlights the problems of implementing the right to electronic petition in Ukraine.
{"title":"The Legal Nature of E-Petitions","authors":"I. Babin, L. Vakariuk","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An e-petition (online petition or internet petition) is one of the most popular ways for civil society to interact with public authorities. It is no accident that the number of countries implementing this e-democracy tool is increasing. The institution of electronic petition has its own peculiarities in each country where it has been introduced: different forms, subjects, filing procedures and legal consequences. The common feature is that the e-petition is an independent form of direct democracy through which citizens participate in the management of public affairs. The article investigates the place of e-petitions in the system of direct democracy forms, analyzes practices of using the institution of electronic petitions, shows the establishment of the institution of e-petitions in Ukraine, reveals the concepts and features of online petitions, and highlights the problems of implementing the right to electronic petition in Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"19 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45673703","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}
{"title":"Retraction Request","authors":"T. Berkmanas","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0017","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"186 - 186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48008119","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}
Julija Kirsiene, Christopher Kelley, Deividas Kiršys, Juras Žymančius
Abstract This article participates in mapping existing legal implications stemming from contemporary innovation. The article relies on a case analysis of artificial intelligence, drones and blockchain, to reflect a majority of the underlying legal issues to which many emerging innovations might contribute, and it attempts to map them into different categories of challenges – liability, privacy, and property. It concludes by pinpointing three main reasons behind the identified legal implications: the growing “consciousness” and autonomy of emerging technologies, the growing availability of transformative innovations to the broad public and the development of participatory models in economy and other social spheres, including law, and the tendency for transformative innovations to function in regulatory uncertainty. As a means to cope with challenges generated by technological progress, the article leans towards a process-focused approach that promotes embedding values in the early stages of technological development.
{"title":"Rethinking the Implications of Transformative Economic Innovations: Mapping Challenges of Private Law","authors":"Julija Kirsiene, Christopher Kelley, Deividas Kiršys, Juras Žymančius","doi":"10.2478/bjlp-2019-0011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2019-0011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article participates in mapping existing legal implications stemming from contemporary innovation. The article relies on a case analysis of artificial intelligence, drones and blockchain, to reflect a majority of the underlying legal issues to which many emerging innovations might contribute, and it attempts to map them into different categories of challenges – liability, privacy, and property. It concludes by pinpointing three main reasons behind the identified legal implications: the growing “consciousness” and autonomy of emerging technologies, the growing availability of transformative innovations to the broad public and the development of participatory models in economy and other social spheres, including law, and the tendency for transformative innovations to function in regulatory uncertainty. As a means to cope with challenges generated by technological progress, the article leans towards a process-focused approach that promotes embedding values in the early stages of technological development.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":"12 1","pages":"47 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44507825","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：