Canada’s international obligations under Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea impose domestic responsibilities to determine which party is to absorb the royalty payments owed to the International Seabed Authority. Currently, uncertainty exists in the royalty regime for projects within Canada’s 200 nautical mile limit waters, with multiple disputes arising between parties to sophisticated contracts. Given the comparatively ambiguous Article 82 language, it is important for Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, and project proponents to come to a clear conclusion as to who will pay the international royalties. This raises the normative questions of which party should ultimately be paying these royalties, and whether Canada should be shifting its obligations to another party.
{"title":"International Royalties on the Extended Continental Shelf: Implications for Canada, Newfoundland, and Equinor","authors":"A. Terrell","doi":"10.29173/alr2594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2594","url":null,"abstract":"Canada’s international obligations under Article 82 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea impose domestic responsibilities to determine which party is to absorb the royalty payments owed to the International Seabed Authority. Currently, uncertainty exists in the royalty regime for projects within Canada’s 200 nautical mile limit waters, with multiple disputes arising between parties to sophisticated contracts. Given the comparatively ambiguous Article 82 language, it is important for Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, and project proponents to come to a clear conclusion as to who will pay the international royalties. This raises the normative questions of which party should ultimately be paying these royalties, and whether Canada should be shifting its obligations to another party.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2020-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44609885","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}
S. Baines, Shaun Wrubell, J. Kennedy, Courtney Bohn, Cassie Richards
In recent years, private companies in the United States have increasingly entered into power purchase agreements (PPAs) to procure renewable power from project developers. However, despite favourable market and regulatory regimes for the use of PPAs in Alberta, renewable energy procurement has largely remained the purview of government. To facilitate the increased use of private PPAs in Canada, this article seeks to provide potential renewable energy project developers and customers with a better understanding of how these agreements operate. The authors “demystify” PPAs by reviewing the regulatory structures for PPAs in Alberta, analyzing the factors that might motivate parties to enter into a PPA, and discussing the key contractual terms common to most PPAs.
{"title":"#HowToPPA: An Examination of the Regulatory and Commercial Challenges and Opportunities Arising in the Context of Private Power Purchase Agreements for Renewable Energy","authors":"S. Baines, Shaun Wrubell, J. Kennedy, Courtney Bohn, Cassie Richards","doi":"10.29173/alr2580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2580","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, private companies in the United States have increasingly entered into power purchase agreements (PPAs) to procure renewable power from project developers. However, despite favourable market and regulatory regimes for the use of PPAs in Alberta, renewable energy procurement has largely remained the purview of government. \u0000To facilitate the increased use of private PPAs in Canada, this article seeks to provide potential renewable energy project developers and customers with a better understanding of how these agreements operate. The authors “demystify” PPAs by reviewing the regulatory structures for PPAs in Alberta, analyzing the factors that might motivate parties to enter into a PPA, and discussing the key contractual terms common to most PPAs.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41765327","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}
This article surveys recent construction-related case law pertaining to the oil and gas sector, and examines how these decisions impact the law of bonding, tendering, liens, and arbitration. The authors review jurisprudence, legislation, and contractual language in these areas, and provide a critical analysis of the law in order to suggest improvements and anticipate future innovations. The authors also provide practical advice regarding mechanisms that owners, contractors, and subcontractors can employ to protect themselves from risks and uncertainties in contemporary construction law, with a view to avoiding disputes and if necessary, resolving them. This article serves both as an illustration of the structure of contemporary construction law as-built, and as a blueprint for those aspects of the law that are still under construction.
{"title":"Under Construction: A Close Examination of Recent Construction Law Developments and Their Impact on the Oil and Gas Industry","authors":"Kevin Barr, T. W. Davis","doi":"10.29173/alr2581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2581","url":null,"abstract":"This article surveys recent construction-related case law pertaining to the oil and gas sector, and examines how these decisions impact the law of bonding, tendering, liens, and arbitration. The authors review jurisprudence, legislation, and contractual language in these areas, and provide a critical analysis of the law in order to suggest improvements and anticipate future innovations. The authors also provide practical advice regarding mechanisms that owners, contractors, and subcontractors can employ to protect themselves from risks and uncertainties in contemporary construction law, with a view to avoiding disputes and if necessary, resolving them. This article serves both as an illustration of the structure of contemporary construction law as-built, and as a blueprint for those aspects of the law that are still under construction.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42389351","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}
This article summarizes a number of recent judicial decisions of interest to energy lawyers. The authors review and comment on the past year’s case law in several areas including alternative dispute resolution, bankruptcy and insolvency, contractual interpretation (including operator agreements), competition law, corporate separateness, damages and limitations of liability, Indigenous law, torts, and selected developments relating to summary dismissal. Specific topics addressed include the interpretation of exclusion clauses; the reaffirmation of the principle of corporate separateness; confirmation that environmental cleanup costs take priority over creditors in bankruptcy proceedings; confirmation that the development, passage, or enactment of legislation does not trigger the duty to consult; and apportionment of liability and Pierringer agreements. For each case, some background information is provided, followed by a brief explanation of the facts, a summary of the decision, and commentary on the outcome.
{"title":"Recent Judicial Decisions of Interest to Energy Lawyers","authors":"B. Walker, Lucy L'Hirondelle","doi":"10.29173/alr2583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2583","url":null,"abstract":"This article summarizes a number of recent judicial decisions of interest to energy lawyers. The authors review and comment on the past year’s case law in several areas including alternative dispute resolution, bankruptcy and insolvency, contractual interpretation (including operator agreements), competition law, corporate separateness, damages and limitations of liability, Indigenous law, torts, and selected developments relating to summary dismissal. Specific topics addressed include the interpretation of exclusion clauses; the reaffirmation of the principle of corporate separateness; confirmation that environmental cleanup costs take priority over creditors in bankruptcy proceedings; confirmation that the development, passage, or enactment of legislation does not trigger the duty to consult; and apportionment of liability and Pierringer agreements. \u0000For each case, some background information is provided, followed by a brief explanation of the facts, a summary of the decision, and commentary on the outcome.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41409272","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}
The oil and gas and mining industries developed the practice of creating royalties that would run with the land. This led to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum Ltd. Despite the decision in Dynex recognizing a new property right and changing the common law, the law remained unsettled until the Third Eye Capital Corporation v. Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc. and Manitok Energy Inc (Re) decisions apparently simplified the concept of royalties as property interests. In this article, the authors explore the overriding royalty, its common law evolution, the uncertainties surrounding its proper legal characterization, the implications of such legal uncertainty, and the shift the Dianor and Manitok decisions represent, while considering the nature of the interests that royalties represent, the manner in which industry has attempted to protect those interests, and the efficacy of such attempts.
石油、天然气和采矿业发展了创造与土地一起使用的特许权使用费的做法。这导致加拿大最高法院在蒙特利尔银行诉Dynex石油有限公司案中作出裁决。尽管Dynex案中的裁决承认了一项新的财产权并改变了普通法，但直到第三眼资本公司诉。Ressources Dianor股份有限公司/Dianor Resources股份有限公司和Manitok Energy Inc（Re）的决定显然简化了特许权使用费作为财产权益的概念。在这篇文章中，作者探讨了压倒一切的特许权使用费、其普通法的演变、围绕其适当法律特征的不确定性、这种法律不确定性的影响以及Dianor和Manitok决定所代表的转变，同时考虑到特许权使用权所代表的利益的性质、行业试图保护这些利益的方式，以及这种尝试的效果。
{"title":"Let's Talk About Royalties: The Continued Uncertainty Surrounding the Creation and Legal Status of the Overriding Royalty","authors":"David LeGeyt, Ashley Weldon, N. Wood, B. Downey","doi":"10.29173/alr2578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2578","url":null,"abstract":"The oil and gas and mining industries developed the practice of creating royalties that would run with the land. This led to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum Ltd. Despite the decision in Dynex recognizing a new property right and changing the common law, the law remained unsettled until the Third Eye Capital Corporation v. Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc. and Manitok Energy Inc (Re) decisions apparently simplified the concept of royalties as property interests. In this article, the authors explore the overriding royalty, its common law evolution, the uncertainties surrounding its proper legal characterization, the implications of such legal uncertainty, and the shift the Dianor and Manitok decisions represent, while considering the nature of the interests that royalties represent, the manner in which industry has attempted to protect those interests, and the efficacy of such attempts.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46436466","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}
D. Harper, Terri-Lee Oleniuk, Lars Olthafer, Katie Slipp
This article provides a high-level overview of regulatory and legislative developments in Canada between May 2018 and early May 2019. The authors reviewed regulatory initiatives, decisions, case law, and legislation from provincial, territorial, and federal authorities. Topics of note include climate change regulation, renewable energy initiatives, federal project approvals and pipeline issues, abandonment liability, and developments related to Indigenous law.
{"title":"Recent Legislative and Regulatory Developments of Interest to Energy Practitioners","authors":"D. Harper, Terri-Lee Oleniuk, Lars Olthafer, Katie Slipp","doi":"10.29173/alr2584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2584","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides a high-level overview of regulatory and legislative developments in Canada between May 2018 and early May 2019. The authors reviewed regulatory initiatives, decisions, case law, and legislation from provincial, territorial, and federal authorities. Topics of note include climate change regulation, renewable energy initiatives, federal project approvals and pipeline issues, abandonment liability, and developments related to Indigenous law.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41611036","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}
Petroleum projects offshore Newfoundland and Labrador continue to hold promise. The 20-year history of these projects developed within a legal and regulatory context that is currently being overhauled. This article outlines key similarities among Newfoundland and Labrador’s original offshore petroleum projects, describing them as projects of a legal era that is drawing to a close. The article then proceeds to recount the key features of a new legal and regulatory landscape that the up-and-coming offshore petroleum projects will face. Major elements of this new legal era include: changes in supporting legal structure, shortened lead time between discovery and development, new entrants (including increased interest from major international companies), new locations, and changes to the environmental assessment regime.
{"title":"Overview of the New Legal Era for Development Projects in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore","authors":"Q. C. T. Stanley","doi":"10.29173/alr2579","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2579","url":null,"abstract":"Petroleum projects offshore Newfoundland and Labrador continue to hold promise. The 20-year history of these projects developed within a legal and regulatory context that is currently being overhauled. This article outlines key similarities among Newfoundland and Labrador’s original offshore petroleum projects, describing them as projects of a legal era that is drawing to a close. The article then proceeds to recount the key features of a new legal and regulatory landscape that the up-and-coming offshore petroleum projects will face. Major elements of this new legal era include: changes in supporting legal structure, shortened lead time between discovery and development, new entrants (including increased interest from major international companies), new locations, and changes to the environmental assessment regime.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41288513","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}
Third-party funding is an arrangement where an entity with no prior interest in the merits of a dispute provides funding to a party involved in the dispute. Traditionally, this funding was specifically to assist the party to the dispute by financing its legal fees and costs and could be obtained in a number of ways, such as through insurance or loans from financial institutions. Third-party funding has seen significant growth and an increase in sophistication in recent years, resulting in a departure from this traditional model concurrent with the rise of commercial litigation funders whose entire business is providing non-recourse investment in disputes. This article explores both the changes in models of third-party funding — which can include some or all of: (1) paying for legal fees and disbursements, (2) indemnifying against the risk of an adverse costs order, (3) stepping in to provide security for costs, (4) providing working capital or portfolio funding for bundles of claims, and (5) the rise of institutional third-party financing in Canada. In particular, this article will explore some of the specific applications of third-party funding to the energy industry, including “David and Goliath” claims, claims involving state asset expropriation, and the use of funding as a tool for risk allocation in asset sales. This article will also discuss the development and current state of the legal framework and case law in Canada with respect to third-party funding, along with third-party funding across different contexts and types of disputes. This includes the evolution of the law of maintenance and champerty and a discussion of key legal and ethical issues engaged by third-party funding arrangements including confidentiality, privilege, disclosure, conflicts of interest, and control of the dispute.
{"title":"Financing Disputes: Third-Party Funding in Litigation and Arbitration","authors":"Rachel A Howie, G. Moysa","doi":"10.29173/alr2582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2582","url":null,"abstract":"Third-party funding is an arrangement where an entity with no prior interest in the merits of a dispute provides funding to a party involved in the dispute. Traditionally, this funding was specifically to assist the party to the dispute by financing its legal fees and costs and could be obtained in a number of ways, such as through insurance or loans from financial institutions. Third-party funding has seen significant growth and an increase in sophistication in recent years, resulting in a departure from this traditional model concurrent with the rise of commercial litigation funders whose entire business is providing non-recourse investment in disputes. This article explores both the changes in models of third-party funding — which can include some or all of: (1) paying for legal fees and disbursements, (2) indemnifying against the risk of an adverse costs order, (3) stepping in to provide security for costs, (4) providing working capital or portfolio funding for bundles of claims, and (5) the rise of institutional third-party financing in Canada. In particular, this article will explore some of the specific applications of third-party funding to the energy industry, including “David and Goliath” claims, claims involving state asset expropriation, and the use of funding as a tool for risk allocation in asset sales. \u0000This article will also discuss the development and current state of the legal framework and case law in Canada with respect to third-party funding, along with third-party funding across different contexts and types of disputes. This includes the evolution of the law of maintenance and champerty and a discussion of key legal and ethical issues engaged by third-party funding arrangements including confidentiality, privilege, disclosure, conflicts of interest, and control of the dispute.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43381066","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}
Diana Audino, S. Axmann, Bryn Gray, K. Howard, Ljiljana Stanic
Project reviews have become the primary forum to discuss cumulative impacts of energy and resource development on Aboriginal and treaty rights. After thoroughly reviewing the case law and legislation, the authors assert that these impacts cannot be resolved through piecemeal measures like individual permitting decisions. Governments need to use broader actions such as effective land-use planning, regional assessments, and separate forums to address specific concerns with at-risk species. Further, clear policy and regulatory guidelines must be created with careful attention to promoting responsible development and avoiding stifling investment in Canada. By doing so, governments will be in a better position to consider environmental, Aboriginal rights, and treaty rights issues while establishing certainty for project proponents.
{"title":"Forging a Clearer Path Forward for Assessing Cumulative Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights","authors":"Diana Audino, S. Axmann, Bryn Gray, K. Howard, Ljiljana Stanic","doi":"10.29173/alr2577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2577","url":null,"abstract":"Project reviews have become the primary forum to discuss cumulative impacts of energy and resource development on Aboriginal and treaty rights. After thoroughly reviewing the case law and legislation, the authors assert that these impacts cannot be resolved through piecemeal measures like individual permitting decisions. Governments need to use broader actions such as effective land-use planning, regional assessments, and separate forums to address specific concerns with at-risk species. Further, clear policy and regulatory guidelines must be created with careful attention to promoting responsible development and avoiding stifling investment in Canada. By doing so, governments will be in a better position to consider environmental, Aboriginal rights, and treaty rights issues while establishing certainty for project proponents.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42666733","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}
In the fall of 2016, Canada’s Liberal government published a Green Paper canvassing public opinion on changes to national security law. The Paper explored the possibility of new powers to compel third parties to assist with decryption, framing the discussion around a terrorism plot analogous to a ticking bomb hypothetical. The public did not support new decryption powers, and Bill C-59, now before Parliament, does not include them. This article revisits the Green Paper to shed light on deeper fault lines in debates about whether police should have a power to compel decryption. The Green Paper points to illuminating parallels between arguments for compelled decryption and for torture. The strongest arguments for each make use of ticking bomb scenarios. While the arguments have attracted much criticism, they remain plausible and undermine key assumptions of those opposed to compelled decryption. Part II of this article traces two common arguments for why state agents seek powers to compel a third party to decrypt: for justice (to secure convictions) and public safety (to prevent terrorism and other serious offences). Opponents cast doubt on the first claim by pointing to many alternative sources of evidence. They tend to dismiss the second claim, that police need decryption powers for public safety, as merely theoretical, but fail to engage its merits. Part III takes a closer look at the public safety claim in light of the torture debate and the ticking bomb scenario. Despite criticism, arguments in favour of compelled decryption based on the scenario remain theoretically plausible on consequentialist grounds, and rhetorically persuasive by aligning the need for compelled decryption with the value of life (over dignity or privacy). The public safety claim also challenges a common view among opponents of compelled decryption that such powers do not involve a trade-off between privacy and security but between two forms of security. The article concludes by considering the possible impact on the debate of a terrorist act implicating encryption.
{"title":"The Road Not Taken: Missing Powers to Compel Decryption in Bill C-59, Ticking Bombs, and the Future of the Encryption Debate","authors":"R. Diab","doi":"10.29173/alr2576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2576","url":null,"abstract":"In the fall of 2016, Canada’s Liberal government published a Green Paper canvassing public opinion on changes to national security law. The Paper explored the possibility of new powers to compel third parties to assist with decryption, framing the discussion around a terrorism plot analogous to a ticking bomb hypothetical. The public did not support new decryption powers, and Bill C-59, now before Parliament, does not include them. This article revisits the Green Paper to shed light on deeper fault lines in debates about whether police should have a power to compel decryption. The Green Paper points to illuminating parallels between arguments for compelled decryption and for torture. The strongest arguments for each make use of ticking bomb scenarios. While the arguments have attracted much criticism, they remain plausible and undermine key assumptions of those opposed to compelled decryption. \u0000Part II of this article traces two common arguments for why state agents seek powers to compel a third party to decrypt: for justice (to secure convictions) and public safety (to prevent terrorism and other serious offences). Opponents cast doubt on the first claim by pointing to many alternative sources of evidence. They tend to dismiss the second claim, that police need decryption powers for public safety, as merely theoretical, but fail to engage its merits. Part III takes a closer look at the public safety claim in light of the torture debate and the ticking bomb scenario. Despite criticism, arguments in favour of compelled decryption based on the scenario remain theoretically plausible on consequentialist grounds, and rhetorically persuasive by aligning the need for compelled decryption with the value of life (over dignity or privacy). The public safety claim also challenges a common view among opponents of compelled decryption that such powers do not involve a trade-off between privacy and security but between two forms of security. The article concludes by considering the possible impact on the debate of a terrorist act implicating encryption.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44825929","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：