Search

Copyright of Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of GALATASARAY UNIVERSITESI HUKUK FAKULTESI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The sustainability of the climate is a global problem that requires the involvement of all levels of public governance and the private sector. Energy issues play a crucial role in the Green Deal (GD), and many of these issues are being addressed at the local government (LG) level. The division of competences within the framework of the GD among the European Union (EU), national governments, LGs, and the private sector has not been sufficiently discussed. Existing studies often neglect the specific role of LGs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent to which the role of LGs aligns with the core principles of public governance, namely sustainability, solidarity, subsidiarity, and proportionality. The novelty of this study's methodology lies in the comprehensive and integrated application of all four principles to assess the distribution of competences necessary to achieve global goals. The conclusion of the study demonstrates that, although the functionality and competences of LGs generally comply with these principles, the role of LGs as consultants to and co-legislators with national and EU authorities should be further discussed and expanded. Overall, this study highlights the importance of strengthening the role of LGs as valuable contributors to the governance process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ethical value of intelligence lies in its crucial role in safeguarding individuals from harm by detecting, locating, and preventing threats. As part of this undertaking, intelligence can include protecting the economic well-being of the political community and its people. Intelligence, however, also entails causing people harm when it violates their vital interests through its operations. The challenge, therefore, is how to reconcile this tension, which Cécile Fabre's recent book Spying through a Glass Darkly does by arguing for the "ongoing and preemptive imposition of defensive harm." Fabre applies this underlying argument to the specifics of economic espionage to argue that while states, businesses, and individuals do have a general right over their information that prevents others from accessing it, such protections can be forfeited or overridden when there is a potential threat to the fundamental rights of third parties. This essay argues, however, that Fabre's discussion on economic espionage overlooks important additional proportionality and discrimination concerns that need to be accounted for. In addition to the privacy violations it causes, economic espionage can cause harms to people's other vital interests, including their physical and mental well-being and autonomy. Given the complex way in which the economy interlinks with people's lives and society, harms to one economic actor will have repercussions on those secondary economic entities dependent on them, such as workers, buyers, and investors. This, in turn, can produce further harms on other economic actors, causing damages to ripple outward across society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

More often than not, spatial objects are associated with some context, in the form of text, descriptive tags (e.g., points of interest, flickr photos), or linked entities in semantic graphs (e.g., Yago2, DBpedia). Hence, location-based retrieval should be extended to consider not only the locations but also the context of the objects, especially when the retrieved objects are too many and the query result is overwhelming. In this article, we study the problem of selecting a subset of the query result, which is the most representative. We argue that objects with similar context and nearby locations should proportionally be represented in the selection. Proportionality dictates the pairwise comparison of all retrieved objects and hence bears a high cost. We propose novel algorithms which greatly reduce the cost of proportional object selection in practice. In addition, we propose pre-processing, pruning, and approximate computation techniques that their combination reduces the computational cost of the algorithms even further. We theoretically analyze the approximation quality of our approaches. Extensive empirical studies on real datasets show that our algorithms are effective and efficient. A user evaluation verifies that proportional selection is more preferable than random selection and selection based on object diversification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public Assembly Offence: Does a Conviction Need to Be a Proportionate Interference With Convention Rights? (at [51]) It is evident from these remarks, therefore, that the s 14(5) offence falls into a category of offences where it is unnecessary to undertake a separate fact-sensitive "proportionality consideration", given that the matter is inherent in a finding that the ingredients of the offence have been made out. Rather than being of general application, it does not apply where 'a conviction would be proportionate if the offence is one where proportionality is satisfied by proof of the very ingredients of that offence' (per Lord Burnett CJ in I DPP v Cuciurean i [2022] EWHC 736 (Admin) at [69]). [Extracted from the article]

There is a growing interest in developing artificial intelligence (AI) weapon guidance systems in the military domain. Current guidance systems employ various methods to guide a weapon to its target. This target accuracy is a critical factor for its effectiveness. Artificial intelligence capabilities could enable these systems to perform tasks that usually require human intelligence, such as identifying potential threats or targets on the battlefield while continually improving the system's performance at its assigned task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Paradigma is the property of Universidad Pedagogica Experimental Libertador and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Banking crises inevitably bring forth more and different regulation of banks, and the global crisis from mid-2007 to early 2009 was no exception as the aftermath of the crisis witnessed one of the biggest-ever upheavals in international banking regulation. The regulatory pendulum has had a long history, as bank regulation has varied in ambition and complexity over many decades. This article is intended to question whether the new regulatory regime for banks implies disproportionate and excessively complex regulation, with attendant and unnecessary private and social costs. We identify several pressures tending towards over-regulation. In particular, as regulation has a cost, but no price, it may falsely be viewed as a "free good" with a consequent tendency for it to be both over-demanded and over-supplied by risk-averse regulators. Whilst each addition to regulation taken alone might seem to satisfy cost–benefit criteria, a large number of apparently desirable regulations may mean that the totality of regulation becomes disproportionate for the key regulatory objectives. Cost–benefit analysis should, therefore, also be applied to the totality of regulation. Historically, the focus of regulatory regimes has been on reducing the probability of bank failures (with a tendency for rules escalation) rather than minimising the costs of those failures that do occur. There can be a trade-off between the two in that the lower are the costs of bank failure (via, for instance, strong resolution arrangements) the less need there could be for regulation to lower the probability of bank failures. The debate needs to be about the appropriate weight to be given to these two important dimensions of the regulatory regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Starting from Rawls's concept of civil disobedience, the author argues that it is carried out on justified moral grounds and must be distinguished from all other tortious actions. It is a communicative act that non-violently and publicly points out problems within a system, thereby guaranteeing itself a position of loyalty to the law, not the opposite. The paper first analyzes the concept of civil disobedience, along with the question of its justification, as well as Dworkin's point of view on the interpretation of disputed legal norms by citizens who refuse to obey them. It then examines the purposes of punishment as stated in the theory of sanctions - applied to civil disobedience, along with the potential treatment of civil disobedience by judges. The author believes that in each specific case, according to the judgment of the court, such disobedient individuals could either be given reduced sanctions or be completely exempted from punishment.

ABSTRACTWhich harms and benefits should be viewed as relevant when considering whether to launch cyber-measures? In this article, we consider this question, which matters because it is central to determining whether cyber-measures should be launched. Several just war theorists hold a version of what we call the ‘Restrictive View’, according to which there are restrictions on the sorts of harms and benefits that should be included in proportionality assessments about the justifiability of going to war (whether cyber or kinetic). We discuss two such views – the Just Cause Restrictive View and Rights-based Restrictive View – and find both wanting. By contrast, we defend what we call the ‘Permissive View’. This holds that all potential goods and bads should be included in proportionality decisions about cyber-measures, even those that appear to be trivial, and where the various harms and benefits are given different weights, according to their agent-relative and agent-neutral features. We argue further that accepting the Permissive View has broader implications for the ethical frameworks governing cyberwar, both in terms of whether cyberattack provide just cause for coercive responses, including kinetic warfare and cyber-responses, and whether cyber-measures should be governed by just war theory or a new theory for cyber-operations.

The subject. This article examines the dialogue between the EAEU Court and national courts, on the one hand, as the application by national courts of the court of the integration organization, on the other hand, – as a recourse by the supranational court to the legal constructions that have been developed in the case law of the Member States’ courts.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that judicial dialogue between the court of the integration association and the courts of its Member States is the key to the effective application of supranational law.The methodological basis of the research is the doctrine of EU law, as well as the practice of Court of Justice of the European Union. The formal legal interpretation of the EAEU Court decisions and decisions of national Supreme Courts is also used.The main results, scope of application. One of the characteristics that differentiates the law of an integration organization from universal international law is its active application not only by the judicial body of such an organization, but also by the national courts. The plurality of actors in charge of the application of the law raises the question which of them have the authority of interpreting the integration law and the modalities of such an interpretation. One of the instruments that could help overcome the lack of uniformity of approaches regarding the interpretation and application of supranational law by the courts of several member states is the preliminary reference procedure. In the absence of such a procedure the burden of interpretation of supranational law rests on the national courts. Such a situation has arisen in the Eurasian Economic Union where the EAEU Court is empowered to interpret the law of the Union while settling disputes regarding the respect of EAEU law by its Member States, the challenge of the Eurasian Economic Commission's actions (failure to act) and decisions as well as delivering advisory opinions. The courts of the Member States, in turn, interpret the law of the EAEU in various fields of relations, including the ones where regulatory powers have been transferred to the supranational level. The analysis of national case law shows that in their application of EAEU law they premise their judgments on the principle of its primacy over national legislation.Conclusions. Judicial dialogue allows to prevent the non-uniform interpretation of the Union law by the court of the 5 Member States. It is a form of exchange of legal positions and concepts between the judicial bodies which, as a result, leads to a mutual enrichment of the legal orders by borrowing legal constructions and approaches.

Proportionality in mathematics occupies an important place not only in teaching but also in everyday life. Roblin (2015) tells us that it is not an easy thing to teach. This article aims to understand teachers' teaching methods in proportionality. To achieve this, a questionnaire distributed to primary and secondary school teachers will allow us to analyze their conceptions and their declared practices when teaching proportionality and this, according to their level of teaching: primary or secondary. Our results show that the level of difficulty of teaching proportionality perceived by the teachers is high. Our analyses will be followed by a discussion and recommendations for the training and teaching of proportionality.

Most Schengen Member States reintroduced internal border controls in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These controls, which in some instances lasted for several months, jeopardised the principle of an area without borders and had to comply with the principle of proportionality. This article examines four aspects of these controls related to proportionality: the type of threat invoked, the adequacy of the measures, the duration of the controls, and the scrutiny over proportionality. First, it demonstrates that the current Schengen Borders Code contains appropriate safeguards for each aspect. However, some Schengen Member States disregarded them during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Commission did not use its scrutiny powers. In December 2021, the Commission proposed to amend the Schengen Borders Code. This 2021 proposal adapts the rules to the Schengen Member States’ practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, this article argues that this proposal improves the aspects of legal certainty and scrutiny but does not satisfactorily address the aspects of adequacy and duration of internal border controls. In addition, the article presents some recommendations to increase the proportionality of the controls that the Schengen Member States would reintroduce following the 2021 proposal.

The death penalty was long practised in South Africa as one of the sentence options for capital crimes such as murder, rape, treason, terrorism, and robbery with aggravating circumstances. Its practice has a matching effort for its abolishment or restricted application. Reflecting on some specific historical periods of the practice of the death penalty in South Africa, the author sought to contextualise the article, namely to understand the socio-political experience and perception of the death penalty in order to gauge its current relevance. The goal of the study on which this article reports was to determine whether the death penalty had a deterrent effect on capital crimes in South Africa during the pre-1996 constitutional period. In order to achieve the goal of the deterrence of serious crimes by the death sentence in South Africa, the author discusses legislation, case law, execution patterns and deterrence literature in its context.

The admission of people suffering from psychiatric and neurocognitive disorders to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS) in some European and non-European countries represents a controversial issue. In some countries, the initial limitation of E/PAS to cases of severe physical illness with poor prognosis in the short term has been overcome, as it was considered discriminatory; thus, E/PAS has also been made available to subjects suffering from mental disorders. This decision has raised significant ethical questions regarding the capacity and freedom of self-determination; the family, social, and economic contexts; the social consideration of the sense of dignity and the pressure on the judgment of one's personal value; the contextual therapeutic possibilities; the identification of figures involved in the validation and application; as well as the epistemological definitions of the clinical conditions in question. To these issues must be added the situation of legislative vacuum peculiar to different countries and the widespread lack of effective evaluation and control systems. Nonetheless, pessimistic indicators on global health status, availability of care and assistance, aging demographics, and socioeconomic levels suggest that there may be further pressure toward the expansion of such requests. The present paper aims to trace an international overview with the aim of providing ethical support to the debate on the matter. Precisely, the goal is the delimitation of foundations for clinical practice in the complex field of psychiatry between the recognition of the irreversibility of the disease, assessment of the state of physical and mental suffering, as well as the possibility of adopting free and informed choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While artificial intelligence technologies (AI), such as machine learning (ML), hold significant potential for the economy and social wellbeing, it is unclear to what extent copyright laws stimulate or impede the development of these promising technologies. The unauthorised use of copyright-protected works in the ML process and its possible implications on economic rights of authors have been previously explored, however, the implications of such use on the moral rights of authors – the rights of attribution and integrity – have not been examined. This paper, by focusing on Australia as a case study, explores whether the use of works as training data in the ML process could amount to the infringement of moral rights of authors and, if so, whether law reform in the area is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Acta Scientiae (1517-4492) is the property of Acta Scientiae and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revus: Journal for Constitutional Theory & Philosophy of Law is the property of Revus - European Constitutionality Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Administración Pública is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Despite progress in recent years, including UN Security Council Resolution 2475 of 2019, there remains a significant gap in our awareness of the disability dynamics of armed conflict and the barriers that persons with disabilities experience in accessing the protections of international humanitarian law (IHL). This brief article will consider the protective purpose of IHL and the diversity of civilian populations, and, focussing on the principle of proportionality as an example, demonstrate how IHL must be interpreted, implemented and monitored in a manner that is inclusive and reflects the reality that civilian populations are diverse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Covid-19 pandemic truly has been called a global crisis. To fight the spread of the virus, many States have introduced measures that seriously restrict or affect fundamental rights, ranging from procedural rights to the freedom of movement and the right to personal autonomy. In Europe, it is to be expected that many cases concerning such rights infringements eventually will come before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This contribution aims to give an insight into how the Court will likely give shape to its proportionality test in such cases. It thereby predicts that open balancing review – for which the ECtHR is famous – will play a much less important role than methods of reasoning by analogy and procedural review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper applies the rule of law test to emergency regulations adopted to combat a national disaster in South Africa. A declaration of a national state of disaster, such as a pandemic, triggers emergency powers which enable the executive to mitigate the disaster, assist and protect the public, provide relief, and protect property. However, emergency powers provide a pretext for the executive to limit constitutional rights and to curtail the enjoyment of freedoms. These unprecedented powers also pose a risk of arbitrary exercise of public power, which can only be prevented if the promulgation, administration and enforcement of emergency regulations conform to the principles of legality, rationality and proportionality. These principles are understood as tenets of the rule of law in South Africa. They require a strong commitment to respect, protect and promote human rights at a time when they are most vulnerable to violation by the State. Given the role of the judiciary in the maintenance of the rule of law, and the litigation against the emergency regulations adopted in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper also discusses the ensuing case law to illustrate the practical application of the rule of law test to a national disaster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Cesare Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments has had a profound impact on, and made significant contributions to, among others, the study of law, justice, crime, and punishment. Unsurprisingly, there is a voluminous literature on this text. This article subjects Beccaria's treatise to an exegetical reading and focuses on the aesthetic inquiry at heart of the text. Beccaria professes to undertake a rigorous scientific inquiry into crime and punishment. He repeatedly invokes language from modernity and the enlightenment—e.g., probability, correlation, and other mathematical tools (e.g., geometry)—to ground the scientific nature of his treatise. Yet, what Beccaria engages with is aesthetic and what is produced is not scientific knowledge but aesthetic knowledge. Rather than read this as a criticism, the article highlights how the concept of justice—like beauty or virtue—is, and can only or largely be, a matter of aesthetic inquiry, and explicates why Beccaria's text ought to be read as an aesthetic inquiry into justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an unanimous judgment given by Lord Reed on 7 December 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) held that clause 5(2)(a) of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill is a proportionate interference with the rights of those who wish to express opposition to abortion services in Northern Ireland. This clause would make it an offence to do an act within the safe access zone with the intention of or being reckless as to the possibility of directly or indirectly influencing a protected person. In this comment, I analyse the reasoning of the UKSC. I consider, first, the clarifications offered by the UKSC on issues related to the proportionality assessment itself. I then turn my attention to the application of the proportionality test by the UKSC to the facts of the reference. I conclude that the reasoning of the UKSC in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill is sound. The UKSC's decision is relevant to plans to introduce similar legislation in Scotland and to any future human rights based challenges to the English and Welsh Public Order Bill, which will create a similar offence to the one in clause 5(2)(a) of the Northern Ireland Bill when it becomes law later this year. Moreover, the decision is significant because the UKSC had not previously considered the proportionality of safe access zone legislation. The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill has now received Royal Assent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This short introduction to the symposium on Christodoulidis's The Redress of Law highlights the reasons why the book will be relevant to readers interested in EU law. First, EU law is the main body of positive law by reference to which the author develops his argument. In the process, he offers a critical assessment of the state of EU law, which has played a key role as the main vehicle of the neoliberalisation of the legal systems of the Member States of the EU. Second, some of the key concepts elaborated and sharpened by the author can be used to build up a critical theory of EU law. This is illustrated by considering how a critical theory of the history of EU law could be written, and by showing that Christodoulidis offers us the elements with which to reconstruct how EU got transformed from the 1970s through the reverse engineering of some of the key institutions and substantive norms of democratic political constitutionalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Which harms and benefits should be viewed as relevant when considering whether to launch cyber-measures? In this article, we consider this question, which matters because it is central to determining whether cyber-measures should be launched. Several just war theorists hold a version of what we call the 'Restrictive View', according to which there are restrictions on the sorts of harms and benefits that should be included in proportionality assessments about the justifiability of going to war (whether cyber or kinetic). We discuss two such views – the Just Cause Restrictive View and Rights-based Restrictive View – and find both wanting. By contrast, we defend what we call the 'Permissive View'. This holds that all potential goods and bads should be included in proportionality decisions about cyber-measures, even those that appear to be trivial, and where the various harms and benefits are given different weights, according to their agent-relative and agent-neutral features. We argue further that accepting the Permissive View has broader implications for the ethical frameworks governing cyberwar, both in terms of whether cyberattack provide just cause for coercive responses, including kinetic warfare and cyber-responses, and whether cyber-measures should be governed by just war theory or a new theory for cyber-operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]