Yoga and restorative justice in prison: An experience of “response‐ability to harms”

Divisions within the contemporary restorative justice movement in the US often manifest in one state‐supported model: balanced and restorative justice (BARJ). Paul McCold, in this symposium frames the problem with BARJ as one of a corruption of restorative justice principles by its foundation in community justice. This article suggests that BARJ and McCold’s critique share a neglect of the transformative potential of restorative justice for realizing social and economic justice. Moreover, recent experience indicates that BARJ policy planning can take place in a way supportive of Social Equity Restorative Justice (SERJ). The time appears opportune for some peacemaking within the movement.     

美国宪政精神下的表达自由--以焚烧国旗案为例

表达自由作为一种基本人权形式、公民宪法权利和政治自由,对于一国的宪政建设具有重要的意义。本文以美国司法史上发生的国旗焚烧案为例,通过对著名法官相关判决的研究,从司法实践的视角对表达自由的概念内涵和理论辩争作了初步的探讨。进而从宪政理念的维度对宪政精神与表达自由的关系进行了剖析,希图为表达自由的研究提供一种新的视角和进路。     

Insurance Fraud and the Role of the Civil Law

Two UK Supreme Court decisions have considered insurance fraud. The first, Versloot Dredging BV v HDI‐Gerling Industries Versicherung (The DC Merwestone), concerned the use of a fraudulent device being harnessed to support a legitimate claim which, in the view of the majority, was an area of insurance law in need of re‐evaluation. The second, Haywood v Zurich Insurance Co, concerned the use of fraud to increase the settlement paid by the insurer and whether an insurer, which suspects fraud but has nevertheless chosen to settle a claim, is entitled to set aside the settlement under the tort of deceit where it subsequently discovers proof that it was in fact fraudulent. This case note examines not only the legal implications of the decisions and their likely impact on industry practice, it also focuses on the broader issue of the proper province of the civil law and whether general deterrence can be justified as a proper objective where the criminal law is deficient in punishing fraud because of its higher standard of proof.     

Opinion 1/15 of the Grand Chamber dated 26 July 2017 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada

On 26 July 2017, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice rendered its seminal Opinion 1/15 about the agreement on Passenger Name Record data between the EU and Canada. The Grand Chamber considered that the decision of the Council about the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the agreement between the EU and Canada about the transfer and processing of PNR data must be based jointly on Article 16(2) about the protection of personal data and Article 87(2)(a) about police co-operation among member states in criminal matters, but not on Article 82(1)(d) about judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the EU of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The Grand Chamber also considered that the agreement is incompatible with Article 7 on the right to respect for private life, Article 8 on the right to the protection of personal data, Article 21 on non-discrimination and Article 52(1) on the principle of proportionality of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU since it does not preclude the transfer, use and retention of sensitive data. In addition to the requirement to exclude such data, the Grand Chamber listed seven requirements that the agreement must include, specify, limit or guarantee to be compatible with the Charter.The opinion of the Grand Chamber has far-reaching implications for the agreement on PNR data between the EU and Canada. It has also far-reaching implications for international agreements on PNR data between the EU and other third states. Last, it has far-reaching implications for Directive 681 of 27 April 2016 on PNR data.