Search

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel Report inAustralia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper(Australia – A4 Copy Paper) marks a significant development of the multilateral rules on anti-dumping. Under certain circumstances, WTO agreements permit members to impose anti-dumping measures to counteract the injurious effect of dumping on domestic industries, typically through import duties. The Report is the first to examine in detail when an anti-dumping authority may determine that a “particular market situation” exists in the country of exportation under Article 2.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, potentially justifying the imposition of elevated remedial duties. The Report also develops the jurisprudence on how such remedies may be calculated, expounding the use of benchmark costs for the calculation of a constructed normal value (CNV) under Article 2.2.1.1. These doctrinal questions are central to the longstanding debate over how far the Anti-Dumping Agreement allows anti-dumping measures against state intervention and market distortions. On both fronts, theAustralia – A4 Copy Paperpanel created flexibilities for WTO members to respond to government-induced distortions. In doing so, the Report deviates considerably from the course set by the Appellate Body in the landmarkEU – Biodieseldecision, which seemed to confine anti-dumping measures to responding to private action. At the same time, the panel left open several important issues relating to the adoption of CNVs and the use of benchmarks for their calculation, leaving wide latitude for investigating authorities to inflate dumping margins in practice.

Artificial intelligence (AI) software that analyzes medical images is becoming increasingly prevalent. Unlike earlier generations of AI software, which relied on expert knowledge to identify imaging features, machine learning approaches automatically learn to recognize these features. However, the promise of accurate personalized medicine can only be fulfilled with access to large quantities of medical data from patients. This data could be used for purposes such as predicting disease, diagnosis, treatment optimization, and prognostication. Radiology is positioned to lead development and implementation of AI algorithms and to manage the associated ethical and legal challenges. This white paper from the Canadian Association of Radiologists provides a framework for study of the legal and ethical issues related to AI in medical imaging, related to patient data (privacy, confidentiality, ownership, and sharing); algorithms (levels of autonomy, liability, and jurisprudence); practice (best practices and current legal framework); and finally, opportunities in AI from the perspective of a universal health care system.

Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) marks a striking shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of EU citizens’ rights. The Court’s turnaround is not only highly relevant for practical debates about ‘Social Europe’ or ‘welfare migration’, but also enlightening from a more general, theoretical viewpoint. Several recent studies on the ECJ have argued that the Court is largely constrained by member state governments’ threats of legislative override and non-compliance. We show that an additional mechanism is necessary to explain the Court’s turnaround on citizenship. While the ECJ extended EU citizens’ rights even against strong opposition by member state governments, its recent shift reflects changes in the broader political context, i.e. the politicisation of free movement in the European Union (EU). The article theorizes Court responsiveness to politicisation and demonstrates empirically, how the Court’s jurisprudence corresponds with changing public debates about EU citizenship. Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) marks a striking shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of EU citizens’ rights. The Court's turnaround is not only highly relevant for practical debates about ‘Social Europe’ or ‘welfare migration’, but also enlightening from a more general, theoretical viewpoint. Several recent studies on the ECJ have argued that the Court is largely constrained by member state governments’ threats of legislative override and non-compliance. We show that an additional mechanism is necessary to explain the Court's turnaround on citizenship. While the ECJ extended EU citizens’ rights even against strong opposition by member state governments, its recent shift reflects changes in the broader political context, i.e., the politicization of free movement in the European Union (EU). The article theorises Court responsiveness to politicization and demonstrates empirically, how the Court's jurisprudence corresponds with changing public debates about EU citizenship.

The European Social Charter has recently received increased attention due to the evolution of its monitoring mechanism and the need to address a multitude of contemporary challenges to socio-economic rights. Although the treaty’s preamble has played a crucial role in the interpretation of substantive provisions and in shaping state obligations, little attention has been paid to the way in which the preamble has defined the fundamental lines of the ‘jurisprudence’ of the Charter’s monitoring body. The European Committee of Social Rights has deduced from the Charter’s preamble several important general principles for the protection of socio-economic rights, on which it grounds its interpretation. This article analyses these principles and evaluates their effects in the relevant practice. The findings suggest that the Charter’s preamble serves different purposes and performs multiple functions in international law, thus challenging the common assumption that human rights treaty preambles are empty phrases of a merely ceremonial nature.

The authority and the leading role of law in the social and political life of any country cause the constant attention of scholars both of lawyers and linguists to the legal language, to the methodology and the philosophy of law. The purpose of this study is to analyze the papers of the modern German researchers, as a rule, representatives (associate professors, professors) of universities regarding the interconnection of language and law, and emphasize the importance of these studies for the realization of law and its values. Just in Germany, legal linguistics (in German Rechtslinguistik) has its origins in jurisprudence. This term was introduced in 1976 by a German lawyer, philosopher, and historian Adalbert Podlech (Adalbert Podlech 1929- 2017). The modern studies are oriented towards the study of the interconnections of law and language in connection with the digitization of the legal base, the possibilities and boundaries of computer interpretation of legal texts, peculiarities and consequences of transnational and multilingual legal space for professional communication of lawyers etc. The legal language is considered as a separate type of language. The emphasis is placed on the fact that the legal language is more than other specialized languages is closer to everyday spoken language and it is due to the fact that law establishes rules of conduct of social reality. The importance of the legal language lies in the fact that it "forms" our daily lives. It is noted that in the German-speaking countries the correlation between law and language is considered primarily as the issue of methodology and philosophy of law.

The WTO Panel Report in Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper marks a significant development of the multilateral rules on anti-dumping. The Report is the first to examine in detail when an anti-dumping authority may determine that a “particular market situation” exists in the country of exportation under Article 2.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, potentially justifying the imposition of elevated remedial duties. The Report also develops the jurisprudence on how such remedies may be calculated, expounding the use of benchmark costs for the calculation of a constructed normal value (‘CNV’) under Article 2.2.1.1. These doctrinal questions are central to the longstanding debate over how far the Anti-Dumping Agreement allows anti-dumping measures against state intervention and market distortions. On both fronts, the Australia – A4 Copy Paper panel created flexibilities for WTO members to respond to government-induced distortions. In doing so, the Report deviates considerably from the course set by the Appellate Body in the landmark EU – Biodiesel decision – which seemed to confine anti-dumping measures to responding to private action. At the same time, the panel left open several important issues relating to the adoption of CNVs and the use of benchmarks for their calculation, leaving wide latitude for investigating authorities to inflate dumping margins in practice.

The Handbook on Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century is the fourth in a series of publications by the American Society of Criminology’s Division on Corrections and Sentencing. The book is a compendium of research on related issues with both direct and subtle nexuses. A major contribution of the book is its interdisciplinary approach analyzing sentencing and plea bargaining from both a focal-concerns perspective and legal perspectives — including in capital cases. Although this review provides an overview of the entire informative treatise, it primarily focuses on Chapters 6, 11, and 12 because these three chapters, all of which focus on juveniles either facing life sentences or the death penalty, deeply explore the problems attendant to sentencing disparities. These chapters illustrate how the punishment pendulum swung from rehabilitation to retribution and back, as illustrated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence concerning juvenile offenders. Another insight is the parallel themes of the “liberation hypothesis” discussed in the book’s analysis of sentencing guidelines and the death penalty: jurors and judges consider extra-legal factors as the opportunity for subjective discretion increases. The book illustrates that sentencing is a collaborative process involving legislators, prosecutors, corrections officials, judges and juries, and that plea bargaining plays a central role in the process.

European Union law has curtailed the traditional discretion Member States have in ordering non-nationals to leave their territory. Although Directive 2004/28 (the Citizenship Directive) has enhanced the system of protection afforded to offending European Union citizens, it still contains a number of cracks that lead to policy incoherence and gaps in rights protection. This is evident in the first rulings on Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38 concerning the deportation of offending EU citizens. These issues also threaten to transform European Union citizenship from a fundamental status into a thin overlay that, under pressure from national executive power, loses its effect and significance. To be sure, EU citizenship has demonstrated that community belonging does not have to be based on organic-national qualities, cultural commonalities, or individuals' conformity to national values, but the continued deportation of long-term resident Union citizens makes nationality the ultimate determinant of belonging. The subsequent discussion suggests possible remedies and makes recommendations for institutional reform.

It is trite to say that the adjudication of socio-economic rights is a new enterprise in South African jurisprudence, as it is to the jurisprudence of many other jurisdictions. Professor van Rensburg’s paper seeks to analyse the influence of political, socio-economic and cultural considerations on the interpretation and application of socio-economic rights in the Bill of Rights. The pivots for discussion are the decisions of the Constitutional Court in the Soobramoney,1 Grootboom2 and Treatment Action Campaign3 cases which, thus far, are the only cases in which the Constitutional Court has substantively determined the nature and parameters of socio-economic rights and obligations under the South African Constitution. My response is somewhat deferential in that I largely concur with many of the observations that Professor van Rensburg makes. In some respects, however, I have attempted to bring into the analysis of Soobramoney, Grootboom and Treatment Action Campaign not so much new insights, but rather different emphases. Likewise, my response is constructed around the three cases. I begin with Soobramoney.

The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies holds copies of case papers of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). Steven Whittle describes the recent open access initiative at the IALS, working with BAILII to provide online access to historic case papers of appeals from over 35 countries from the period 1935 to 1985. These are cases of the highest importance in the legal development of each of the countries and to the development of common law shared by many countries worldwide.