Corporations and the Presumption of Innocence

Corporate behaviour is often regulated through the criminal law by means of reverse onus offences. Such offences are alleged to involve violations of the Presumption of Innocence. Such allegations almost always assume natural persons as defendants. The arguments supporting reverse onus offences are typically instrumental, to do with the importance of the social goals promoted and the ease of proof. The Presumption of Innocence is taken to be an autonomy right of natural persons and so not subject to being sidelined for reasons of law enforcement expediency. Corporations, however, are not natural persons: they have no autonomy right not to be treated as means. It may well be, then, that reverse onus offences are justified in the case of corporate defendants. I argue that the Presumption is not violated by such offences in the case of corporate defendants. I develop a broad concept of the criminal justice system as an allocative system, and argue that reverse onus offences properly allocate the burden of proof for corporations. Specifically, I argue that the normative demand for legal innocence is sufficiently met by the availability of a due diligence defence; that the responsibility of corporations when prohibited harms occur is properly a form of outcome-responsibility; and that taking into account issues of reciprocity, legitimacy and power reverse onus offences justly allocate the burden of proof in the case of corporate defendants.     

European Data Protection Regulation and Online New Media: Mind the Enforcement Gap

Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) play a critical role in shaping and applying the regulation applicable to online media expression within the European Economic Area. Drawing on seven ubiquitous types of online new media actors, a comprehensive survey of these authorities was undertaken. It found that European DPAs generally adopt an expansive interpretation of data protection and a constrained understanding of freedom of expression in this space. In contrast, data protection enforcement is weak and lacking in harmonization. Except for street mapping services, each type of online media actor had only faced relevant enforcement action from a minority of these agencies. DPA financial resourcing is very limited. Notwithstanding the development of DPA ‘network governance’, only DPAs with a particularly extensive interpretative stance proved likely to have engaged in extensive enforcement activity. It remains unclear what difference the General Data Protection Regulation will make to resolving this enforcement gap and its related problems.     

Independence of data privacy authorities (Part II): Asia-Pacific experience

Part I of this article in [2012] 28 CLSR 3-13 analysed the views of learned commentators on what constitutes the ‘independence’ of data protection authorities (DPAs). It concluded that a more satisfactory answer needed to be found in the international instruments on data privacy and on human rights bodies, their implementation and judicial interpretation, and in the standards that have been proposed and implemented by DPAs themselves. It found that only the OECD and APEC privacy agreements did not require a DPA (and therefore had no standards for its independence). Thirteen factors were identified as elements of ‘independence’ across these instruments and standards, five of which were more commonly found than others.     

Independence of data privacy authorities (Part I): International standards

Part I of this article analyses the views of learned commentators on what constitutes the ‘independence’ of data protection authorities (DPAs). It concludes that a more satisfactory answer needs to be found in the international instruments on data privacy and on human rights bodies, their implementation and judicial interpretation, and in the standards that have been proposed and implemented by DPAs themselves. It finds that only the OECD and APEC privacy agreements did not require a DPA (and therefore have no standards for its independence). Thirteen factors were identified as elements of ‘independence’ across these instruments and standards, five of which were more commonly found than others. Part II of the article will consider how these criteria have been implemented in laws in the Asia-Pacific.     

Rethinking the one-stop-shop mechanism: Legal certainty and legitimate expectation

This paper aims to contribute to the discussion concerning the one-stop-shop mechanism proposed in the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter “GDPR”). The choice of regulation as the instrument to legislate on data protection is already an unmistakable indication that unification and simplification (together with respect of data subjects' interests) shall be the guide for every legal discussion on the matter. The one-stop-shop mechanism (hereinafter “OSS”) clearly reflects the unification and simplification which the reform aims for. We believe that OSS is logically connected with the idea of one Data Protection Authority (hereinafter “DPA”) with an exclusive jurisdiction and that this can only mean that, given one controller, no other DPA can be a competent authority.² In other words, OSS implies a single and comprehensive competent authority of a given controller. In our analysis we argue that such architecture: a) works well with the “consistency mechanism”; b) provides guarantees to data subjects for a clear allocation of powers (legal certainty); and c) is not at odds with the complaint lodging procedure. Our position on fundamental questions is as follows. What is the perimeter of competence of the DPA in charge? We believe that it should have enforcement power on every issue of the controller, including issuing the fines. How to reconcile such dominant role of one DPA with the principle of co-operation among DPAs? We do not consider co-operation at odds with the rule that decisions are taken by just one single authority. Finally, we share some suggestions on how to make the jurisdiction allocation mechanism (the main establishment criterion) more straightforward.     

法律论证如何“融贯”?——基于“斯科特杀妻案”的语用分析与建构

没有直接证据是否可以定罪?没有直接证据的定罪是否违背"无罪推定"原则呢?我们常常看到法官在此类案件的判决书上写道:犯罪情节构成一个相互印证,且又完整的"证据链"。然而它们是怎样"相互印证"的,为什么能够构成一个完整的"证据链"?法官的判决书上却无下文。事实上,"证据链"的每一个链点,均是一个事实情节,这些事实情节的内在要素与要件构成,均相互印证或相互支持,整个"证据链"的"融贯"机制,实际上因为其使用了回溯性的语用推理,正是语用推理为证据链的融贯性论证提供了新路径和新方法。     

The principle of proportionality in biometrics:Case studies from Norway

The principle of proportionality is a decisive factor in the legal review of biometric systems by the Data Protection Authorities (DPA) in EU member states. However, in the working document on biometrics the Data Protection Working Party gives little guidance on how the purpose and proportionality principle must be applied to biometrics. There remain uncertainties as to the specific criteria and factors that are used for evaluating the proportionality of processing biometric information. This sometimes leads to contradictory decisions by different national DPAs on similar biometric related issues. This paper aims to discuss the legal factors and parameters that are generally adopted to address the proportionality issue in the biometric context. After a brief analysis of the legal notion of the principle of proportionality, the paper analyses and discusses the European organisations’ interpretation of the recent Norwegian cases on biometrics. The paper then concludes with a summary of the interpretation of the proportionality principle within the biometric context and gives specific recommendations of several important factors that need to be taken into account.     

略论国际刑事法院的量刑制度

量刑制度是国际刑事法院研究领域的一个重要的问题,国际刑事法院的量刑制度贯彻了罪刑法定原则、无罪推定原则及正当程序原则的精神,对量刑的基本情节、特别情节等作出了一般规定,而且还进一步对监禁刑、罚金和没收财产的量刑进行了规范.同时,国际刑事法院的量刑程序和法官也对量刑公正的实现发挥着作用.国际刑事法院的量刑制度体现出当代国际社会刑罚轻缓化的趋势,要求量刑公正与平衡,并兼顾刑法保护社会和保障人权的机能.     

Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law

States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so.     

一人公司“法人格滥用推定”制度的法理评析——兼论公司立法的价值抉择

我国《公司法》第64条规定的一人公司"法人格滥用推定"制度,与"公司法人格否认"制度有着质的差别。对一人公司实行"法人格滥用推定",实质上是自始就没把一人公司当"公司"。这不仅在逻辑上自相矛盾,而且在法律上有违平等原则,并有可能打击人们创设一人公司的热情,从而使"一人公司"仅仅停留于纸面而失去实际意义。为追求自由、效率、公平、安全等价值目标,我国《公司法》应当取消专门针对一人公司的"法人格滥用推定"制度,转而对包括一人公司在内的各种类型的公司统一适用"公司法人格否认"制度。     

背信损害上市公司利益罪的理解与适用

背信损害上市公司利益罪是我国《刑法修正案(六)》中设立的一个新罪名,作为一种危害较为严重,但实践中又很难认定的背信损害上市公司利益罪,其罪名的设立和司法实践中的适用引起了刑法理论界和司法实务部门的关注和争议。设立本罪的法理基础在于该行为具有严重的社会危害性,我们应该正确理解本罪的构成特征,在司法认定中注意区分本罪与其他相关犯罪的区别。     

Pennsylvania's New Limit On Asbestos Liability For Successor Corporations

Pennsylvania recently enacted a law that limits the damages a successor corporation can be required to pay for asbestos liabilities. Senate Bill 216, which the Pennsylvania legislature passed in December 2001, bars any recovery against a qualifying successor corporation in excess of the adjusted fair market value of its predecessor. The act applies to all successor corporations that were incorporated in Pennsylvania prior to May 1, 2001 and that consummated a merger or consolidation with their predecessor prior to that date. Under standard choice-of-law rules, the act should protect qualifying successor corporations in many jurisdictions outside of Pennsylvania. The act survived its first constitutional challenge at the trial court level, and should survive any future challenges in the appellate courts     

刑事推定与被告人的抗辩责任

在刑事诉讼中 ,刑事推定是认定案件事实的一种重要方法 ,在某种程度上减轻了控方证明的难度。对案件适用推定不是有罪推定 ,而恰恰与无罪推定原则具有相容性。推定具有可反驳性 ,被告要推翻控方的推定必须要提出证据证明 ,承担抗辩责任。此种抗辩责任与控方承担的证明责任不是一个概念。     

浮动抵押刍议

浮动抵押的融资功能是不容忽视的,尤其是在担保公司债券的发行方面,已为发达国家的立法或判例所承认.但在浮动抵押中,由于抵押物的不确定性,所以与大陆法系的抵押权制度存在重大差别,从而增加了在大陆法系适用相关规定的难度.为正确理解和适用我国《物权法》中有关浮动抵押的规定,应在结合国情的基础上与国际接轨,规定相应的配套制度,明确浮动抵押的适用范围,以及与固定抵押的关系.     

论审判管理科学化

当前创新和加强审判管理已成为人民法院的一项重要工作，亟需系统的理论研究来统一认识和指导实践。审判管理如要克服自身缺陷、实现可持续发展，就必须实现科学化，即应做到：既要突出针对性，又要注重系统性；既要强调规范化，又要强调类型化；既要强化审判管理，又要尊重审判规律；既要注意量化评价，又要注意评价体系及其运用的客观性与合理性；既要实行高标准的严格管理，又要实行人性化的管理；既要把法官当成被管理者，又要使法官成为管理者；既要管理被管理者，又要管理管理者。同时，应把审判管理放在恰当的位置上，更应注意寻求确保司法公正高效廉洁的根本治理之策。     

论董事问责的诚信路径

董事经营决策的尊重审查模式契合了适应性效率的要求,有利于鼓励董事进行尝试性试验。但是,在商事判断规则作用下,董事问责需原告负担严苛的举证责任,董事决策审查形式化以及注意标准的不确定性,使得注意义务几乎被掏空,介于重大过失与恶意之间的董事失信情形往往逃脱法律责任。诚信路径不仅是问责空隙的填补机制,也是克服股东与董事之间信息不对称问题的重要机制。20世纪90年代以来董事问责的司法实践催生了诚信路径,诚信概念亦因创造性转化而获得新生,其行为标准日益明晰,司法审查可操作性增强。我国可通过《公司法》的司法解释界定诚信的行为标准,将故意让公司违法、不坦诚告知、滥用职权和严重失职纳入其涵摄范围,从而引入诚信问责路径。     

Tort Law for Cynics

Tort scholars have in recent years defended a ‘traditional’ or ‘idealist’ view of tort law. In the context of negligence this implies that the holder of a duty of care must make an effort not to violate that duty. Idealists contrast this with a ‘cynical’ view that having a duty of care implies a legal requirement to pay damages for breach of that duty. This article defends the cynical view, arguing that it easily explains doctrines supposedly only explicable from an idealist perspective, and that many aspects of tort law are hard to reconcile with idealism. Empirical constraints often make idealism, even if it were desirable, unattainable, and cynicism is therefore the more honest view. The article argues that idealism is often undesirable, having costs, both pecuniary and non‐pecuniary, which are often ignored, and that therefore it is sometimes better if certain torts take place (and are compensated) than if they do not happen.     

Migrants,State Responsibilities,and Human Dignity

This article addresses two questions: First, how does the value of human dignity distinctively bear on a state’s responsibilities in relation to migrants; and, secondly, how serious a wrong is it when a state fails to respect the dignity of migrants? In response to these questions, a view is presented about the distinction between wrongs that violate cosmopolitan standards and wrongs that violate the standards that are distinctive to a particular community; about when and how the contested concept of human dignity might be engaged; and, elaborating a three-tiered and lexically ordered scheme of state responsibilities, about how we should assess the seriousness of a state’s failure to respect the dignity of migrants.     

Citizenship and the Corporation

This article investigates the contribution made by the concept of citizenship to contemporary understandings of the widely held business corporation. Because the conventional economic understanding of corporations and corporate law cannot fully explain the nature of the business corporation and the purposes of corporate law, the framework within which teachers and students of corporate law approach the corporation must be enlarged. By looking at the corporation exclusively through the lens of economics we are unable to account for all features of the corporation and corporate law, and we risk mistaking the purpose of these features, or wrongly supposing that they serve no purpose. The article proposes that through resort to a distinct set of conceptual tools—the concept of citizenship, borrowed from political theory—we can attain a fuller comprehension of the meaning of the corporation.