在最近的技术进步案件中,法规如何“说话”?

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW Statute Law Review Pub Date : 2021-08-16 DOI:10.1093/slr/hmab020
Samuel Yee Ching Leung
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的重点是众所周知的成文法构建原则“成文法总是说话”。这一原则有着悠久的历史,并在许多案例中得到应用。人们总是说,社会变化迅速,法官可能需要对法规进行“更新”解读,因为立法起草者没有(也不可能)预见到一切。然而,随着时间的推移,法院应用这一原则的方式似乎并不完全相同。此外,正如判例法所显示的那样,法院将考虑的因素范围似乎正在扩大。特别是在21世纪,由于技术进步的速度前所未有,在技术进步的情况下,更需要使用这一原则。因此,需要说明性的例子来为该原则的应用提供确定性和可预测性。本文旨在完成这一任务。它将仔细研究三种类型的技术进步案例,以了解近年来该原则在技术背景下的应用情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
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.
期刊最新文献
Revisiting Criminal Law Bills: An In-Depth Critical Analysis of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Bill Four Years of Anti-COVID-19 Regulations in Greece: Overview of the Legislative and Regulatory Process and of an Exemplary Administrative Codification Two Uses of Purpose in Statutory Interpretation Climate Volatility, Foundational Freedoms, and the Environment Act 2021: The Transformative Potential of the Principle of Legality Protection of Athletes’ Rights in International Sports Organizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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