香港大律师公会主席林孟达致辞

今天各级司法人员，两大法律专业的成员，跟法律界在本地和海外的各方好友，在此齐首共聚一堂，我们正好趁着这个特别的场合，思考过去一年发生的事情和前瞻来年法律界、司法界将面对的挑战。去年，公会执行委员会比往常繁忙。公会就政府关於填补立法会因议员辞职的出缺安排的建议，五次发出声明，也对政府的谘询文件，提交了陈述书回应。     

India and the ICC

The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute)would have been more acceptable to India if it had containedan opt-in provision whereby a state could accept the jurisdictionof the ICC by declaration (possibly for a specified period),and this might be limited to particular conduct or to conductcommitted during a particular period of time. The lack of sucha provision, and the inherent jurisdiction which replaced it,are perceived as representing a violation of the consent ofstates, and thus a threat to sovereignty. India's resistanceto accepting the inherent jurisdiction of the ICC is explained,in part, by anxieties about how investigation, prosecution andcriminal proceedings in the Indian system may be judged by aninternational court. The inclusion of ‘armed conflictnot of an international character’ in defining ‘warcrimes’ in Article 8 ICCSt. constitutes another reasonfor India's concern (that the conflicts that persist in Kashmir,the North-East and as was experienced in Punjab, as well asthe violence of more recent vintage in Gujarat, could be referredto the ICC). Further elements giving rise to India's misgivingsare the fear that the Court might be used with political motives,the power conferred on the Prosecutor to initiate investigationsproprio motu and the role allotted to the Security Council.     

Cross border data transfer: Complexity of adequate protection and its exceptions

The majority of the fear that exists about the cloud arises due to the lack of transparency in the cloud. Fears have persisted in relation to how the data are frequently transferred in a cloud for various purposes which includes storing and processing. This is because the level of protection differs between countries and cloud users who belong to countries which provide a high level of protection will be less in favour of transfers that reduce the protection that was originally accorded to their data. Hence, to avoid client dissatisfaction, the Data Protection Directive has stated that such transfers are generally prohibited unless the country that data is being transferred to is able to provide ‘appropriate safeguards’. This article will discuss the position of the Data Protection Directive and how the new General Data Protection Regulation differs from this Directive. This involves the discussion of the similarity as well as the differences of the Directive and Regulation. In summary, it appears that the major principles of the cross border transfer are retained in the new regulation. Furthermore, the article discusses the exceptions that are provided in the standard contractual clause and the reason behind the transition from Safe Harbor to the new US-EU Privacy Shield. This article subsequently embarks on the concept of Binding Corporate Rule which was introduced by the working party and how the new regulation has viewed this internal rule in terms of assisting cross border data transfer. All the issues that will be discussed in this article are relevant in the understanding of cross border data transfer.