{"title":"在最近的技术进步案件中,法规如何“说话”?","authors":"Samuel Yee Ching Leung","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmab020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The focus of this article is the well-known statutory construction principle ‘a statute is always speaking’. This principle has a long history and has been applied in numerous cases. It has always been said that social changes are rapid, and the judges may need to give an ‘updated’ reading to a statute because legislative drafters just did not (and could not) foresee everything. However, as time goes by, the ways in which the courts apply this principle do not seem to be exactly the same. Also, the range of factors that the courts will consider seems to be expanding as the case law shows. In particular, in the 21st century, the need to use this principle is reinforced in technology advancement cases due to the unprecedented speed of technological improvements. Illustrative examples are therefore needed to provide certainty and predictability to the application of the principle. This article aims to accomplish this task. It will scrutinize three types of technology advancement cases to understand how the principle has been applied in recent years in technology context.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Statutes ‘Speak’ in Recent Technology Advancement Cases?\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Yee Ching Leung\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/slr/hmab020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The focus of this article is the well-known statutory construction principle ‘a statute is always speaking’. This principle has a long history and has been applied in numerous cases. It has always been said that social changes are rapid, and the judges may need to give an ‘updated’ reading to a statute because legislative drafters just did not (and could not) foresee everything. However, as time goes by, the ways in which the courts apply this principle do not seem to be exactly the same. Also, the range of factors that the courts will consider seems to be expanding as the case law shows. In particular, in the 21st century, the need to use this principle is reinforced in technology advancement cases due to the unprecedented speed of technological improvements. Illustrative examples are therefore needed to provide certainty and predictability to the application of the principle. This article aims to accomplish this task. It will scrutinize three types of technology advancement cases to understand how the principle has been applied in recent years in technology context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statute Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmab020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
How Do Statutes ‘Speak’ in Recent Technology Advancement Cases?
The focus of this article is the well-known statutory construction principle ‘a statute is always speaking’. This principle has a long history and has been applied in numerous cases. It has always been said that social changes are rapid, and the judges may need to give an ‘updated’ reading to a statute because legislative drafters just did not (and could not) foresee everything. However, as time goes by, the ways in which the courts apply this principle do not seem to be exactly the same. Also, the range of factors that the courts will consider seems to be expanding as the case law shows. In particular, in the 21st century, the need to use this principle is reinforced in technology advancement cases due to the unprecedented speed of technological improvements. Illustrative examples are therefore needed to provide certainty and predictability to the application of the principle. This article aims to accomplish this task. It will scrutinize three types of technology advancement cases to understand how the principle has been applied in recent years in technology context.
期刊介绍:
The principal objectives of the Review are to provide a vehicle for the consideration of the legislative process, the use of legislation as an instrument of public policy and of the drafting and interpretation of legislation. The Review, which was first established in 1980, is the only journal of its kind within the Commonwealth. It is of particular value to lawyers in both private practice and in public service, and to academics, both lawyers and political scientists, who write and teach within the field of legislation.