首页 > 最新文献

Asia Pacific Law Review最新文献

英文 中文
Are you avoiding me? A reflection on voidness and voidability 你在躲着我吗?对空性和可空性的反思
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2141969
ABSTRACT Voidness is an extreme doctrine. Whether a contract or other transaction is or is not void depends upon rules which, although frequently founded in powerful logic or statutory dictat, operate in a rigid way which frequently have little to do with a just or fair outcome between all the persons affected, however hard the law of restitution then seeks to bind up the wounds. By contrast, the equitable principles which regulate the avoidance of a voidable contract by way of rescission are precisely concerned to deliver a just and fair result, particularly to third parties who have acquired rights under the voidable transaction in the meantime. The critical distinction between the two is that the question whether, at strict common law, a contract is or is not void is a mechanical, logical, perhaps philosophical one which has little immediate connection with fairness or proportionality. Restitutionary principles only come into play to clear up the mess once voidness has been recognized or, if in dispute, declared. By contrast, the equitable principles regulating rescission govern whether a merely voidable contract should actually be unwound in the first place, as well as the terms upon which rescission may be ordered. They have fairness and (now) proportionality at their heart.
摘要无效性是一种极端的学说。合同或其他交易是否无效取决于规则,这些规则虽然经常建立在强有力的逻辑或法定指令之上,但运作方式僵化,往往与所有受影响的人之间的公正或公平结果无关,无论恢复原状法多么难以弥合创伤。相比之下,规范以解除方式撤销可撤销合同的衡平法原则正是为了提供公正和公平的结果,特别是对在此期间根据可撤销交易获得权利的第三方。两者之间的关键区别在于,在严格的普通法中,合同是否无效是一个机械的、合乎逻辑的、也许是哲学的问题,与公平或相称性几乎没有直接联系。重述原则只有在无效性得到承认或在有争议的情况下被宣布后,才能起到清理混乱的作用。相比之下,规范撤销的衡平法原则首先规定了仅仅可撤销的合同是否应该真正解除,以及可以下令撤销的条款。他们的核心是公平和(现在)相称性。
{"title":"Are you avoiding me? A reflection on voidness and voidability","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2141969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2141969","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Voidness is an extreme doctrine. Whether a contract or other transaction is or is not void depends upon rules which, although frequently founded in powerful logic or statutory dictat, operate in a rigid way which frequently have little to do with a just or fair outcome between all the persons affected, however hard the law of restitution then seeks to bind up the wounds. By contrast, the equitable principles which regulate the avoidance of a voidable contract by way of rescission are precisely concerned to deliver a just and fair result, particularly to third parties who have acquired rights under the voidable transaction in the meantime. The critical distinction between the two is that the question whether, at strict common law, a contract is or is not void is a mechanical, logical, perhaps philosophical one which has little immediate connection with fairness or proportionality. Restitutionary principles only come into play to clear up the mess once voidness has been recognized or, if in dispute, declared. By contrast, the equitable principles regulating rescission govern whether a merely voidable contract should actually be unwound in the first place, as well as the terms upon which rescission may be ordered. They have fairness and (now) proportionality at their heart.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"1 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46211097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Comparative studies of available relief for defective aircraft and grounding losses under the legal regimes in China and the U.S.: product tort liability or contractual warranty liability? 中美两国法律制度下飞机缺陷和地面损失救济的比较研究:产品侵权责任还是合同保证责任?
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-10-27 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117489
S. Liu, Yun Zhao, Xinhui Wang
ABSTRACT Two crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2019 resulted in the total grounding of all 737 MAX aircraft worldwide. The issue of grounding losses and available relief has attracted widespread attention. From a legal perspective, such losses, which include aircraft devaluation, operating losses, and added costs, constitute pure economic loss. Both Chinese and U.S. law provide for remedies for defects in a sales contract’s subject matter. Under U.S. law, pure economic losses are claimable only by way of a contractual claim. In China, however, current tort law allows for relief for losses other than those arising from aircraft devaluation/losses. Under the Chinese Civil Code, any exemptions stipulated in an aircraft sales contract on grounding losses arising from an aircraft manufacturer’s intentional or grossly negligent acts are invalid. Given the differing regimes in China and the U.S., aviation product liability insurance is an alternative relief channel for grounding losses, for which airlines, under certain circumstances, can directly file a claim with insurance companies. Consequently, characterization of grounding losses as a product tort liability or a contractual warranty liability shall impact on the determination of court jurisdiction, disputing parties and applicable law in the litigation process.
2019年,两架波音737 MAX飞机坠毁,导致全球所有737 MAX飞机全部停飞。接地损失和可用的救济问题引起了广泛关注。从法律角度来看,这些损失包括飞机贬值、经营损失和额外成本,构成纯粹的经济损失。中国和美国的法律都对买卖合同标的物的瑕疵作出了救济规定。根据美国法律,纯经济损失只能通过合同索赔的方式提出索赔。然而,在中国,目前的侵权法允许对飞机贬值/损失以外的损失进行救济。根据《中国民法典》,飞机销售合同中规定的因飞机制造商故意或重大过失行为造成的接地损失的豁免无效。鉴于中美两国不同的制度,航空产品责任险是另一种补偿停飞损失的渠道,在某些情况下,航空公司可以直接向保险公司提出索赔。因此,将接地损失定性为产品侵权责任或合同保证责任将影响到诉讼过程中法院管辖权、争议方和适用法律的确定。
{"title":"Comparative studies of available relief for defective aircraft and grounding losses under the legal regimes in China and the U.S.: product tort liability or contractual warranty liability?","authors":"S. Liu, Yun Zhao, Xinhui Wang","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117489","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Two crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in 2019 resulted in the total grounding of all 737 MAX aircraft worldwide. The issue of grounding losses and available relief has attracted widespread attention. From a legal perspective, such losses, which include aircraft devaluation, operating losses, and added costs, constitute pure economic loss. Both Chinese and U.S. law provide for remedies for defects in a sales contract’s subject matter. Under U.S. law, pure economic losses are claimable only by way of a contractual claim. In China, however, current tort law allows for relief for losses other than those arising from aircraft devaluation/losses. Under the Chinese Civil Code, any exemptions stipulated in an aircraft sales contract on grounding losses arising from an aircraft manufacturer’s intentional or grossly negligent acts are invalid. Given the differing regimes in China and the U.S., aviation product liability insurance is an alternative relief channel for grounding losses, for which airlines, under certain circumstances, can directly file a claim with insurance companies. Consequently, characterization of grounding losses as a product tort liability or a contractual warranty liability shall impact on the determination of court jurisdiction, disputing parties and applicable law in the litigation process.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"167 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42697519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The formulation and determination of expropriation clauses in BITs of Sri Lanka: gaps and prospects 斯里兰卡双边投资条约中征用条款的制定和确定:差距和前景
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-23 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117488
Niroshika Liyana Muhandiram
ABSTRACT The expropriation clause is the most frequently challenged provision in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Differences in the text of treaties and sometimes similar provisions have led the tribunals to offer varying views adopting different tests for determining expropriation. The consequences of such decisions ranged from the denunciation of investment treaty obligations to renewing the investment treaties. Against this backdrop, this article provides a detailed analysis of the expropriation clause in Sri Lanka’s BITs. This paper critically analyses the textual formation of the expropriation clause in all of Sri Lanka’s BITs by mapping each of them and argues that the present formulation of expropriation clause is inadequate for exercising the regulatory power of Sri Lanka to realize its public policy concerns. In light of growing trends in the BIT regime, the article concludes that the expropriation clauses of Sri Lanka’s BITs should be reformulated in a manner balancing investment protection with Sri Lanka’s regulatory power to pursue non-commercial policy concerns.
摘要征用条款是双边投资条约中最常受到质疑的条款。条约文本的差异,有时还有类似的条款,导致法庭提出了不同的意见,采用了不同的标准来确定征用。这些决定的后果从退出投资条约义务到续签投资条约。在此背景下,本文对斯里兰卡双边投资条约中的征用条款进行了详细分析。本文通过对斯里兰卡所有双边投资条约中征收条款的文本构成进行了批判性分析,并认为目前制定的征收条款不足以行使斯里兰卡的监管权来实现其公共政策关切。鉴于双边投资条约制度的发展趋势,文章得出结论,斯里兰卡双边投资条约的征用条款应重新制定,以平衡投资保护与斯里兰卡追求非商业政策关切的监管权力。
{"title":"The formulation and determination of expropriation clauses in BITs of Sri Lanka: gaps and prospects","authors":"Niroshika Liyana Muhandiram","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117488","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The expropriation clause is the most frequently challenged provision in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Differences in the text of treaties and sometimes similar provisions have led the tribunals to offer varying views adopting different tests for determining expropriation. The consequences of such decisions ranged from the denunciation of investment treaty obligations to renewing the investment treaties. Against this backdrop, this article provides a detailed analysis of the expropriation clause in Sri Lanka’s BITs. This paper critically analyses the textual formation of the expropriation clause in all of Sri Lanka’s BITs by mapping each of them and argues that the present formulation of expropriation clause is inadequate for exercising the regulatory power of Sri Lanka to realize its public policy concerns. In light of growing trends in the BIT regime, the article concludes that the expropriation clauses of Sri Lanka’s BITs should be reformulated in a manner balancing investment protection with Sri Lanka’s regulatory power to pursue non-commercial policy concerns.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"146 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43227383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Jumping from mother monkey to bored ape: the value of NFTs from an artist’s and intellectual property perspective 从猴妈妈跳到无聊的猿:从艺术家和知识产权的角度看NFT的价值
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-16 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117485
Jun Chen, Danny Friedmann
ABSTRACT 2021 was a miraculous year for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which led to confusion among observers of the phenomenon from both the art industry and regulatory authorities. This article provides a dispassionate analysis of the value of NFTs from an artist’s and intellectual property (IP) perspective. In the longer term, NFTs could improve the fate of artists to authenticate their works, set their conditions and get a resale compensation per transaction. This could happen, once their underlying works can be minted too, so that an NFT entails more than just a self-referential certificate. The article focuses on the US jurisdiction where the NFT phenomenon originated and only touches upon the EU jurisdiction in regard to the droit de suite right and Chinese jurisdiction in regard to the transmutation of NFTs into the speculation-proof ‘digital collectibles’. The introduction provides a primer on the blockchain, NFTs, and the paradox of digital uniqueness and authenticity. Section II addresses the value game of art before and after the emergence of NFTs. Section III investigates the commercial side of NFT art and its new version of Maecenas. Section IV provides an analysis of the rights of the NFT holder versus the rights of the artist from an IP perspective; and focuses on unauthorized use of underlying works and regulation in the US and China. Section V provides the conclusions and contemplates whether NFTs will redefine the future of art and artists: from a showcase of bragging rights to an essential tool for artists to protect their IP rights.
摘要2021年对不可替代代币(NFT)来说是奇迹般的一年,这导致艺术行业和监管机构对这一现象的观察者感到困惑。本文从艺术家和知识产权的角度对NFT的价值进行了冷静的分析。从长远来看,NFT可以改善艺术家的命运,以验证他们的作品,设定他们的条件,并获得每笔交易的转售补偿。一旦他们的底层作品也能被铸造出来,这种情况就可能发生,因此NFT不仅仅需要一个自参考证书。本文关注的是NFT现象起源地美国的管辖权,仅涉及欧盟对所有权的管辖权和中国对NFT转变为防投机“数字收藏品”的管辖权。引言提供了一本关于区块链、NFT以及数字独特性和真实性悖论的入门读物。第二节论述了NFT出现前后艺术的价值游戏。第三节调查了NFT艺术的商业一面及其新版Maecenas。第四节从知识产权的角度分析了NFT持有者的权利与艺术家的权利;重点关注未经授权使用基础作品以及美国和中国的监管。第五节提供了结论,并思考了NFT是否会重新定义艺术和艺术家的未来:从炫耀权利的展示到艺术家保护知识产权的重要工具。
{"title":"Jumping from mother monkey to bored ape: the value of NFTs from an artist’s and intellectual property perspective","authors":"Jun Chen, Danny Friedmann","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117485","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT 2021 was a miraculous year for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which led to confusion among observers of the phenomenon from both the art industry and regulatory authorities. This article provides a dispassionate analysis of the value of NFTs from an artist’s and intellectual property (IP) perspective. In the longer term, NFTs could improve the fate of artists to authenticate their works, set their conditions and get a resale compensation per transaction. This could happen, once their underlying works can be minted too, so that an NFT entails more than just a self-referential certificate. The article focuses on the US jurisdiction where the NFT phenomenon originated and only touches upon the EU jurisdiction in regard to the droit de suite right and Chinese jurisdiction in regard to the transmutation of NFTs into the speculation-proof ‘digital collectibles’. The introduction provides a primer on the blockchain, NFTs, and the paradox of digital uniqueness and authenticity. Section II addresses the value game of art before and after the emergence of NFTs. Section III investigates the commercial side of NFT art and its new version of Maecenas. Section IV provides an analysis of the rights of the NFT holder versus the rights of the artist from an IP perspective; and focuses on unauthorized use of underlying works and regulation in the US and China. Section V provides the conclusions and contemplates whether NFTs will redefine the future of art and artists: from a showcase of bragging rights to an essential tool for artists to protect their IP rights.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"100 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49361107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Market access for investment and services under the EU–China comprehensive agreement on investment: an appraisal 中欧全面投资协定下的投资和服务市场准入:评估
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-16 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117487
Dilini Pathirana, Pascal Kerneis
ABSTRACT The EU–China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI or the Agreement) is a politically win-win deal for the EU, driven by the urgency of addressing asymmetries of its investment relationship with China, and China, which wants to safeguard the EU’s openness to its investors. Economically, however, the impact of its market and liberalization offers remains to be seen admit the increased geopolitical tension between the EU and China. Still, Section II of the principally agreed text of the CAI supports the case for rule-based investment liberalization, advocating a level playing field for investors, mainly EU investors in China. At the same time, given its predominant emphasis on market access for investment, the Agreement stands out amongst investment treaties that principally concentrate on investment protection. Similarly, it is unique among Chinese investment treaties that do not (firmly) provide for market access for investment, marking a further step in the EU’s emergent investment treaty-making practice that focuses beyond investment protection.
《中欧投资全面协定》(简称《协定》)是一项政治上的双赢协议,一方面是欧盟迫切需要解决与中国投资关系不对称的问题,另一方面是中国希望维护欧盟对其投资者的开放。然而,在经济上,其市场和自由化带来的影响仍有待观察,因为欧盟和中国之间的地缘政治紧张局势加剧。尽管如此,CAI的主要商定文本的第二节支持基于规则的投资自由化的案例,主张为投资者,主要是在中国的欧盟投资者提供公平的竞争环境。同时,由于该协定主要强调投资的市场准入,因此在主要集中于投资保护的投资条约中显得突出。同样,在中国没有(坚定地)规定投资市场准入的投资条约中,它也是独一无二的,这标志着欧盟在新兴的投资条约制定实践中又迈出了一步,该实践不仅关注投资保护。
{"title":"Market access for investment and services under the EU–China comprehensive agreement on investment: an appraisal","authors":"Dilini Pathirana, Pascal Kerneis","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117487","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117487","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The EU–China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI or the Agreement) is a politically win-win deal for the EU, driven by the urgency of addressing asymmetries of its investment relationship with China, and China, which wants to safeguard the EU’s openness to its investors. Economically, however, the impact of its market and liberalization offers remains to be seen admit the increased geopolitical tension between the EU and China. Still, Section II of the principally agreed text of the CAI supports the case for rule-based investment liberalization, advocating a level playing field for investors, mainly EU investors in China. At the same time, given its predominant emphasis on market access for investment, the Agreement stands out amongst investment treaties that principally concentrate on investment protection. Similarly, it is unique among Chinese investment treaties that do not (firmly) provide for market access for investment, marking a further step in the EU’s emergent investment treaty-making practice that focuses beyond investment protection.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"123 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44373241","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The concept of proportionality in public law 公法中的比例概念
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-16 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2121994
P. Lo
Proportionality analysis is now well recognized in civil law and common law jurisdictions alike as the approach for determining contentious legal issues arising in the public law field. Two sets of such issues readily spring to mind: the legality of an executive decision and the legality of a restriction of a fundamental right. Franco Chung’s book on the concept of proportionality in public law takes the reader in a tour d’horizon of this topic. Adopted from Chung’s doctoral dissertation, it is a grand tour from the conceptual basis for adopting proportionality to the adaptation and application of proportionality by international, supra-national and national courts, particularly the European Court of Justice (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. At the conceptual level, Chung explores in Chapters 1 and 2 of the book the justification for the principle of proportionality in holding executive authorities accountable and the methodology of proportionality analysis, including the associated issues of the margin of appreciation that the CJEU and the ECtHR have developed for supra-national adjudication, and the margin of discretion for executive authorities that the CJEU has inspired into the domestic context. At the practical level, Chung uses the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR, discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively, to evaluate, in Chapters 7 and 8 respectively, the extent to which the courts of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong have integrated proportionality analysis into their judicial scrutiny of executive action. This represents a ‘functional comparative approach’ of the extent of such integration in the jurisprudence of two domestic jurisdictions. In between, Chung also tackles two related public law issues. In Chapter 3, Chung critiques the Wednesbury standard of review of an administrative decision. In Chapter 4, Chung challenges the bifurcation, in the enforcement of fundamental rights, between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, and contends that economic, social and cultural rights are both justiciable and ought to be enforceable on separation of powers grounds. These are important issues that need to be addressed, in line with Chung’s stated approach that executive power and its exercise must be subject to judicial scrutiny on a consistent standard, to conform with the rule of law. These two issues (Wednesbury unreasonableness and the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights) also impact upon his argument about the applicability of proportionality analysis. Proportionality analysis, according to Chung, offers the ‘more structured and intensive approach’ for the omnibus judicial scrutiny of executive action. Full adoption of proportionality analysis in judicial scrutiny of executive action, including over ‘polycentric socio-economic
比例分析现在在大陆法系和英美法系都被公认为确定公法领域中出现的有争议的法律问题的方法。这类问题很容易浮现在脑海中:行政决定的合法性和限制一项基本权利的合法性。弗兰科·钟(Franco Chung)关于公法中比例概念的书将读者带入了这个主题的视野。从采用比例原则的概念基础到国际、超国家和国家法院,特别是欧洲法院(CJEU)、欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)、英国和香港对比例原则的适应和应用,这本书是一个宏大的旅程。在概念层面,Chung在本书的第1章和第2章中探讨了追究行政机关责任的相称性原则的正当性和相称性分析的方法,包括欧洲法院和欧洲人权法院为超国家裁决制定的赞赏幅度的相关问题,以及欧洲法院在国内背景下启发的行政机关自由裁量权的幅度。在实践层面,Chung使用了分别在第5章和第6章中讨论的欧洲高等法院和欧洲人权法院的判例,分别在第7章和第8章中评估了英国和香港法院在多大程度上将比例分析纳入其对行政行为的司法审查。这代表了在两个国内司法管辖区的法理学中这种整合程度的“功能比较方法”。在此期间,郑还处理了两个相关的公法问题。在第三章中,郑议员对行政决定的审查标准进行了批判。在第4章中,郑义宣对基本权利的执行分为公民权利、政治权利和经济、社会、文化权利的情况提出了质疑,主张经济、社会、文化权利都是根据三权分立的原则进行审判和执行的。这些都是需要解决的重要问题,正如郑候选人所说的,行政权力及其行使必须以一致的标准接受司法审查,以符合法治。这两个问题(威斯特伯里的不合理性和经济、社会和文化权利的可诉性)也影响了他关于比例分析的适用性的论证。Chung说,比例分析为行政行为的综合司法审查提供了“更有条理、更深入的方法”。在行政行为的司法审查中充分采用比例分析,包括对“多中心社会经济”的审查
{"title":"The concept of proportionality in public law","authors":"P. Lo","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2121994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2121994","url":null,"abstract":"Proportionality analysis is now well recognized in civil law and common law jurisdictions alike as the approach for determining contentious legal issues arising in the public law field. Two sets of such issues readily spring to mind: the legality of an executive decision and the legality of a restriction of a fundamental right. Franco Chung’s book on the concept of proportionality in public law takes the reader in a tour d’horizon of this topic. Adopted from Chung’s doctoral dissertation, it is a grand tour from the conceptual basis for adopting proportionality to the adaptation and application of proportionality by international, supra-national and national courts, particularly the European Court of Justice (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. At the conceptual level, Chung explores in Chapters 1 and 2 of the book the justification for the principle of proportionality in holding executive authorities accountable and the methodology of proportionality analysis, including the associated issues of the margin of appreciation that the CJEU and the ECtHR have developed for supra-national adjudication, and the margin of discretion for executive authorities that the CJEU has inspired into the domestic context. At the practical level, Chung uses the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR, discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively, to evaluate, in Chapters 7 and 8 respectively, the extent to which the courts of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong have integrated proportionality analysis into their judicial scrutiny of executive action. This represents a ‘functional comparative approach’ of the extent of such integration in the jurisprudence of two domestic jurisdictions. In between, Chung also tackles two related public law issues. In Chapter 3, Chung critiques the Wednesbury standard of review of an administrative decision. In Chapter 4, Chung challenges the bifurcation, in the enforcement of fundamental rights, between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, and contends that economic, social and cultural rights are both justiciable and ought to be enforceable on separation of powers grounds. These are important issues that need to be addressed, in line with Chung’s stated approach that executive power and its exercise must be subject to judicial scrutiny on a consistent standard, to conform with the rule of law. These two issues (Wednesbury unreasonableness and the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights) also impact upon his argument about the applicability of proportionality analysis. Proportionality analysis, according to Chung, offers the ‘more structured and intensive approach’ for the omnibus judicial scrutiny of executive action. Full adoption of proportionality analysis in judicial scrutiny of executive action, including over ‘polycentric socio-economic","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"284 - 287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44934062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Comparative analysis of the impact of piracy on International Trade in Korea, Indonesia and Nigeria 海盗行为对韩国、印度尼西亚和尼日利亚国际贸易影响的比较分析
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-12 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117476
K. Anele
ABSTRACT International trade is crucial to the economic development of states and shipping is pivotal in this transaction. The efficiency of international trade requires secured sea lanes for vessels conveying cargo to traverse from one country to another. These activities are particularly significant to the economies of riparian states. However, piracy adversely implicates these activities. This paper uses a comparative methodology to analyse international trade and piracy in Korea, Indonesia and Nigeria, and argues that though these countries have criminalized piracy, Korea has effectively implemented its antipiracy legislation in the prosecution of pirates in Korean courts. Moreover, unlike Indonesia and Nigeria, Korea has, inter alia, regularly strengthened its piracy institutional regime and entrenched democracy in its governance. Thus, unlike Indonesia and Nigeria, piracy affects Korea through attacks on Korea vessels on international sea lanes, Korean seafarers in foreign-owned vessels and Korean-bound vessels. The paper, therefore, suggests that Indonesia and Nigeria should adopt Korea’s counterpiracy initiatives to curb the spate of piratical attacks off the Indonesian and Nigerian waters.
摘要国际贸易对各国经济发展至关重要,航运在这一交易中起着关键作用。为了提高国际贸易的效率,运输货物的船只需要有安全的海上通道才能从一个国家穿越到另一个国家。这些活动对沿岸国家的经济尤其重要。然而,海盗活动对这些活动产生了不利影响。本文采用比较方法分析了韩国、印度尼西亚和尼日利亚的国际贸易和海盗行为,并认为尽管这些国家已将海盗行为定为刑事犯罪,但韩国在韩国法院起诉海盗时有效地实施了反海盗立法。此外,与印度尼西亚和尼日利亚不同,韩国定期加强其海盗制度,并在治理中巩固民主。因此,与印度尼西亚和尼日利亚不同,海盗行为通过袭击国际海上航线上的韩国船只、外国船只上的韩国海员和前往韩国的船只来影响韩国。因此,该文件建议印尼和尼日利亚采取韩国的反海盗举措,以遏制印尼和尼日利亚海域发生的一连串海盗袭击。
{"title":"Comparative analysis of the impact of piracy on International Trade in Korea, Indonesia and Nigeria","authors":"K. Anele","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117476","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 International trade is crucial to the economic development of states and shipping is pivotal in this transaction. The efficiency of international trade requires secured sea lanes for vessels conveying cargo to traverse from one country to another. These activities are particularly significant to the economies of riparian states. However, piracy adversely implicates these activities. This paper uses a comparative methodology to analyse international trade and piracy in Korea, Indonesia and Nigeria, and argues that though these countries have criminalized piracy, Korea has effectively implemented its antipiracy legislation in the prosecution of pirates in Korean courts. Moreover, unlike Indonesia and Nigeria, Korea has, inter alia, regularly strengthened its piracy institutional regime and entrenched democracy in its governance. Thus, unlike Indonesia and Nigeria, piracy affects Korea through attacks on Korea vessels on international sea lanes, Korean seafarers in foreign-owned vessels and Korean-bound vessels. The paper, therefore, suggests that Indonesia and Nigeria should adopt Korea’s counterpiracy initiatives to curb the spate of piratical attacks off the Indonesian and Nigerian waters.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"12 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43039735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Use of personal information for artificial intelligence learning data under the Personal Information Protection Act: the case of Lee-Luda, an artificial-intelligence chatbot in South Korea 根据《个人信息保护法》将个人信息用于人工智能学习数据:韩国人工智能聊天机器人Lee Luda的案例
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-12 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117483
S. Jeon, Myung Seok Go, Ju-hyun Namgung
ABSTRACT The data from 10 billion sentences, originally collected for a dating counselling service, were used to develop and operate an AI chatbot, Lee-Luda. However, the chatbot company was fined by the South Korean government for violating the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The case of Lee-Luda is the first case in South Korea that raised the question as to whether the use of personal information for AI learning data falls outside the scope of the original purpose of collection. Although the Lee-Luda is a South Korean case, since the prohibition on using personal information for purposes other than the original purpose of collection is a globally accepted principle, it is expected that the Lee-Luda case will provide meaningful implications not only for South Korea but also for law enforcement in other countries. Similar ethical and legal issues will likely arise in other countries in the foreseeable future because using personal information as learning data for an AI program may conflict with the existing legal principle that requires using personal information only for the original purpose of collection. In this paper, we analyse why the Lee-Luda program’s use of personal information for AI learning data was ruled to violate the Personal Information Protection Act. In addition, we suggest alternative ways for AI services that use personal information as learning data to comply with the law. Therefore, we believe that this paper provides a useful case study for AI operators in other countries about AI programs and personal information protection.
最初为约会咨询服务收集的100亿个句子数据被用于开发和运行人工智能聊天机器人Lee-Luda。然而,这家聊天机器人公司因违反《个人信息保护法》(PIPA)而被韩国政府罚款。李路达事件是韩国国内首次提出将个人信息用于人工智能学习数据是否超出最初收集目的范围的问题。虽然李芦达事件是韩国的案例,但禁止将个人信息用于收集目的以外的其他目的是全球公认的原则,因此预计李芦达事件不仅对韩国,而且对其他国家的执法也将产生重大影响。在可预见的未来,类似的伦理和法律问题可能会在其他国家出现,因为使用个人信息作为人工智能程序的学习数据可能与现有的法律原则相冲突,该原则要求仅将个人信息用于原始收集目的。在本文中,我们分析了为什么Lee-Luda计划将个人信息用于人工智能学习数据被裁定违反了《个人信息保护法》。此外,我们建议使用个人信息作为学习数据的人工智能服务遵守法律的替代方法。因此,我们认为本文为其他国家的人工智能运营商在人工智能项目和个人信息保护方面提供了一个有用的案例研究。
{"title":"Use of personal information for artificial intelligence learning data under the Personal Information Protection Act: the case of Lee-Luda, an artificial-intelligence chatbot in South Korea","authors":"S. Jeon, Myung Seok Go, Ju-hyun Namgung","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117483","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The data from 10 billion sentences, originally collected for a dating counselling service, were used to develop and operate an AI chatbot, Lee-Luda. However, the chatbot company was fined by the South Korean government for violating the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). The case of Lee-Luda is the first case in South Korea that raised the question as to whether the use of personal information for AI learning data falls outside the scope of the original purpose of collection. Although the Lee-Luda is a South Korean case, since the prohibition on using personal information for purposes other than the original purpose of collection is a globally accepted principle, it is expected that the Lee-Luda case will provide meaningful implications not only for South Korea but also for law enforcement in other countries. Similar ethical and legal issues will likely arise in other countries in the foreseeable future because using personal information as learning data for an AI program may conflict with the existing legal principle that requires using personal information only for the original purpose of collection. In this paper, we analyse why the Lee-Luda program’s use of personal information for AI learning data was ruled to violate the Personal Information Protection Act. In addition, we suggest alternative ways for AI services that use personal information as learning data to comply with the law. Therefore, we believe that this paper provides a useful case study for AI operators in other countries about AI programs and personal information protection.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"55 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42712558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Whose data is it anyway? An empirical analysis of online contracting for personal information in China 这到底是谁的数据?中国网络个人信息承包的实证分析
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-12 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117484
Qin Zhou
ABSTRACT China’s data governance has garnered global attention. An important part of data governance is the protection of personal data. Many believe that the newly issued Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) can improve the protection of personal information in China. However, the merits of this specialized law rest in part on empirical exams. This paper explores whether the PIPL can solve the issues existing in online contracting for personal information in China. It firstly introduces provisions related to contracting for personal information before the promulgation of the PIPL. It then identifies three critical issues regarding online contracting for personal information in China after reviewing 202 online peer-to-peer lending platforms’ terms of service and privacy policies. These issues include privacy policies that are not readily accessible, the substantial variation between terms of service and privacy policies pertaining to personal information collection, processing, sharing, and protection, and the bias of contractual terms. The paper further discusses whether the PIPL can help address three issues considered in the survey results. It argues that, even though the new law looks promising and may help address some of the issues in online contracting for personal information, its effectiveness ultimately depends on its enforcement and consumers’ reaction to changes in the way firms contract for personal information. Therefore, this paper also calls for more empirical studies on China’s personal information protection.
中国的数据治理受到了全球的关注。数据治理的一个重要部分是保护个人数据。许多人认为,新颁布的《个人信息保护法》(PIPL)可以改善中国对个人信息的保护。然而,这一专门法律的优点部分取决于实证检验。本文探讨了PIPL是否能够解决中国个人信息网络承包存在的问题。首先介绍了《个人信息保护法》颁布前有关个人信息承包的规定。在审查了202个在线p2p借贷平台的服务条款和隐私政策后,报告指出了中国在线个人信息合同的三个关键问题。这些问题包括不易获取的隐私政策,与个人信息收集、处理、共享和保护有关的服务条款和隐私政策之间的实质性差异,以及合同条款的偏见。本文进一步讨论了PIPL是否有助于解决调查结果中考虑的三个问题。它认为,尽管新法看起来很有希望,可能有助于解决个人信息在线合同中的一些问题,但它的有效性最终取决于它的执行和消费者对公司个人信息合同方式变化的反应。因此,本文也呼吁对中国的个人信息保护进行更多的实证研究。
{"title":"Whose data is it anyway? An empirical analysis of online contracting for personal information in China","authors":"Qin Zhou","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117484","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT China’s data governance has garnered global attention. An important part of data governance is the protection of personal data. Many believe that the newly issued Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) can improve the protection of personal information in China. However, the merits of this specialized law rest in part on empirical exams. This paper explores whether the PIPL can solve the issues existing in online contracting for personal information in China. It firstly introduces provisions related to contracting for personal information before the promulgation of the PIPL. It then identifies three critical issues regarding online contracting for personal information in China after reviewing 202 online peer-to-peer lending platforms’ terms of service and privacy policies. These issues include privacy policies that are not readily accessible, the substantial variation between terms of service and privacy policies pertaining to personal information collection, processing, sharing, and protection, and the bias of contractual terms. The paper further discusses whether the PIPL can help address three issues considered in the survey results. It argues that, even though the new law looks promising and may help address some of the issues in online contracting for personal information, its effectiveness ultimately depends on its enforcement and consumers’ reaction to changes in the way firms contract for personal information. Therefore, this paper also calls for more empirical studies on China’s personal information protection.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"73 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47246481","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Copyright reformed: the narrative of flexibility and its pitfalls in policy and legislative initiatives (2011–2021) 版权改革:灵活性的叙述及其在政策和立法举措中的陷阱(2011-2021)
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Pub Date : 2022-09-12 DOI: 10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482
Eleonora Rosati
ABSTRACT This article reviews selected copyright policy and legislation at the international, regional and national levels during the period 2011–2021. It identifies a common and consistent narrative that supported reform initiatives in the surveyed jurisdictions: the modernization of copyright requires greater flexibility so that the undertaking of certain acts without authorization is not unduly restricted and a fairer balance of rights and interests may be, as a result, achieved. Through the analysis of reform initiatives in different areas of copyright and across several different jurisdictions, it is shown how the flexibility narrative has on occasion had the effect of unduly altering the preventive nature of copyright’s exclusive rights, inappropriately referring to exceptions and limitations as rights of users, overlooking relevant legal obligations and introducing undue rigidity within the system of private autonomy. It is ultimately submitted that flexibility should not be conflated with fairness. As such, policy- and law-makers should be wary of superficially framing ongoing and future reform discourse around such a narrative without considering the shortcomings that it has led and might unduly lead to.
摘要本文回顾了2011-2021年期间国际、地区和国家层面的版权政策和立法。它确定了一个共同和一致的叙述,支持被调查管辖区的改革举措:版权的现代化需要更大的灵活性,以便在未经授权的情况下进行某些行为不会受到不适当的限制,从而可以实现更公平的权利和利益平衡。通过对不同版权领域和几个不同司法管辖区的改革举措的分析,可以看出灵活性叙事有时会不适当地改变版权排他性权利的预防性质,不适当地将例外和限制称为用户的权利,忽视了相关的法律义务,并在私人自治制度中引入了过度僵化。最终认为,灵活性不应与公平混为一谈。因此,政策制定者和法律制定者应该警惕表面上围绕这样一种叙事来构建正在进行和未来的改革话语,而不考虑它已经导致和可能过度导致的缺点。
{"title":"Copyright reformed: the narrative of flexibility and its pitfalls in policy and legislative initiatives (2011–2021)","authors":"Eleonora Rosati","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reviews selected copyright policy and legislation at the international, regional and national levels during the period 2011–2021. It identifies a common and consistent narrative that supported reform initiatives in the surveyed jurisdictions: the modernization of copyright requires greater flexibility so that the undertaking of certain acts without authorization is not unduly restricted and a fairer balance of rights and interests may be, as a result, achieved. Through the analysis of reform initiatives in different areas of copyright and across several different jurisdictions, it is shown how the flexibility narrative has on occasion had the effect of unduly altering the preventive nature of copyright’s exclusive rights, inappropriately referring to exceptions and limitations as rights of users, overlooking relevant legal obligations and introducing undue rigidity within the system of private autonomy. It is ultimately submitted that flexibility should not be conflated with fairness. As such, policy- and law-makers should be wary of superficially framing ongoing and future reform discourse around such a narrative without considering the shortcomings that it has led and might unduly lead to.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"33 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47434477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
期刊
Asia Pacific Law Review
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1