Rumble in Paradise: The Caribbean Court of Justice Creating Waves in International Law after British Caribbean Bank v Belize

On 25 June 2013, the Caribbean Court of Justice denied a motion to halt the proceedings of an international arbitration between British Caribbean Bank (BCB) and the Government of Belize, and instead granted BCB the right to continue with the arbitration proceedings. The ruling is particularly important as it sheds light on the anti-arbitration principle – a feature known mostly to Common law – and the still troubled area of expropriation in relation to bilateral investment treaties. In this case comment, I will provide an overview of those main points and assess what implications there are under international law. Specifically, this comment also develops a notion of financial property, and asses under what circumstances financial property can be expropriated in light of bilateral investment treaties. The focus on financial property is to both generate a discussion and also raise more questions on problematic clauses in investment treaties.     

CLOUD act agreements from an EU perspective

For many years, transatlantic cooperation between the EU and the US in the area of personal data exchange has been a subject of special interest on the part of lawmakers, courts – including supranational ones – NGOs and the public. When implementing recent reform of data protection law, the European Union decided to further strengthen guarantees of the protection of privacy in cyberspace. At the same time, however, it faced the practical problem of how to ensure compliance with these principles in relation to third countries. The approach proposed in the GDPR, which is based on a newly-defined territorial scope of application, clearly indicates an attempt to apply EU rules extraterritorially in relation to data processors in third countries.Irrespective of EU activity, the United States has also introduced its own regulations addressing the same problem. An example is the federal law adopted in 2018, specifying how to execute national court orders for the transfer of electronic data. The CLOUD Act was established in response to legal doubts raised in the Microsoft v United States case regarding the transfer of electronic data stored in the cloud by US obliged entities to law enforcement authorities, as well as in cases where this data is physically located in another country and its transfer could result in violating the legal norms of a foreign jurisdiction. The CLOUD Act also facilitates bilateral international agreements that enable the cross-border transfer of e-evidence for the purposes of ongoing criminal proceedings. Both the content of the new regulations and the model proposed by the US legislature for future agreements concluded on the basis of the CLOUD Act can be seen as an alternative to regulations arising from EU law.The purpose of this paper is to analyse the CLOUD Act and CLOUD Act Agreements from the perspective of EU law and, in particular, attempt to answer the question as to whether this new legal mechanism brings the EU and the USA closer to finding common ground with regard to a coherent model of exchange and protection of personal data.     

Who owns our data?

The layman's answer to the question posted in the title to this paper lies in the question itself. The common understanding of people when they talk about information about themselves is that it is indeed “theirs”. Until relatively recently, the law has been content to remain agnostic on the subject. The Common Law in general and English Courts in particular have traditionally avoided philosophical debates about the nature of things, preferring to develop concepts and principles from the results of cases decided on specific facts and circumstances. This approach has been acceptable while we have been winding our way gently up the foothills of the Information Age, but now that we see the towering peak of Big Data standing before us, covered by the ubiquitous Cloud, it is necessary to make a critical examination of some of the basic assumptions which we have hitherto carried with us about the way in which the law should treat rights over personal information. This paper will argue that the correct approach which the law should adopt is a proprietary one. That is to say that the protection of the economic value inherent in personal information should be grounded in property rights acknowledged by the law.     

世行营商环境调查背景下的中国动产担保交易法

世界银行营商环境调查中的"获得信贷--合法权利保护力度指数",用于考察一国动产担保交易法是否有利于企业融资。本指标中国连续六年只得4分(满分12分)。世行鼓励的动产担保法代表着该领域的国际趋势。对照世行"获得信贷便利度"指标,中国在动产担保交易领域的法律状况存在很大的改进空间。中国动产担保交易法应顺应国际趋势,进行一系列的改革措施。在此领域,民法典草案虽然向功能主义迈进了一步,但还不充分,未来需要通过立法以及法律解释对此进一步完善。现行法下担保权益延伸的规则存在较大缺陷,应扩大担保标的物上代位的范围,完善担保物被转卖、被混合、附合和加工场合的担保权益延伸规则。中国应将动产担保登记机构统一化,并应准许动产担保权益的私人执行以及放开流担保。     

Marriage and Divorce in the Supreme Court and the Law Commission: for Love or Money?

The case note considers the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher v Granatino regarding pre‐nuptial and other classes of nuptial agreement, together with recent proposals of the Law Commission for reform of the law relating to marital property agreements generally. It explores in particular the question of what, if any, core obligations of marriage cannot – or should not – be excludable by agreement.     

The right to be forgotten – a Dutch perspective

This paper will be investigate to what extent the right to be forgotten as proposed by the European Commission is already recognized in Dutch tort law. The focus of this paper will be on the existence and the desirability of such a right and not on questions of enforcement. It is submitted that although Dutch law does not recognize the right to be forgotten as such, several judicial decisions can be identified that afford protection to interests that are also protected by the proposed right to be forgotten. This indicates that in the Netherlands a right to be forgotten in some form or another might have developed over time but this would have been a lengthy affair. A more precise formulation of this right by the legislator is therefore welcomed. It has been remarked that the name ‘right to be forgotten’ may give rise to unrealistic expectations but the Dutch experience shows that people do not seem to be very aware of their rights. ‘A right to be forgotten’ – however imprecise from a legal viewpoint – might be catchy enough to remedy this.     

试论著作人身权的权利限制——一起委托作品著作人身权纠纷引发的法律思考

著作人身权,是发表、署名权、修改权和保护作品完整权的统称,而不是泛指作者作为自然人所享有的人身权.这些权利虽与作者的格利益和身份利益有着密切联系,但不同于传统民法中的人身权,因此,不能根据传统民法原理推导出著作人身权不能与作者的人身相分离的结论.在委托作品合同关系中,除署名权以外的著作人身权的归属是可以由合同约定的.此外,著作人身权还要受到相关法律和习惯,尤其是行业惯例的限制.     

民法理论在知识产权中的运用

知识产权属于私权性质的民事权利 ,与物权、债权、人身权既存在共性 ,也存在个性。从其共性入手 ,进而再探究其个性 ,以取得对知识产权问题的全面认识。研究知识产权 ,应当以民法原则、理论为基础 ;基于知识产权客体的无形性 ,传统民法理论和制度并不能完全适用于知识产权 ,因此 ,还要适用特殊的理论和制度体系 ,世界上大多数国家的知识产权法采取民事法律制度下制定知识产权单行法的立法模式就是最好的例证。     

论物的损坏与精神损害赔偿的关联--一种功能主义的诠释

在“物”具有情感寄托功能和人身象征功能的基础上 ,精神损害赔偿机制仅仅适用于人身权受侵害的情形显然不当 ,为了保持民法制度功能的协调 ,为了实现民法最大化保护人之利益的功能 ,民法应当在物的损坏与精神损害赔偿之间建立关联。不过 ,出于法律确定性的需要 ,此处的“物”应当是所有权的客体 ,而且其具备的上述两个功能应当得到生活世界公众的普遍认可     

对宪法修正案的若干私法解读

按照宪法作为最高效力的法规范 ,私法所规定的财产关系和人身关系都要遵守宪法的内容 ,尤其是充分体现基于主体自由和主体平等的宪法原理。私法主体平等和给与平等主体的财产权以对等的尊重是私法对宪法提出的基本要求。     

论人格物与一般人格权的内在契合

人格物是一种新型物质形态,因其凸显人格利益而明显区别于普通之物,司法解释和实践已为人格物的确立及规则完善提供了良好的基础,并确立了透过物之形态实现人格利益的特殊保护机制。但人格物所蕴含的人格利益并不为法定化的具体人格权所包容,经检视与探寻,若能在未来中国民法典中确立一般人格权这一开放性的人格权制度,则人格物救济的请求权基础当从一般人格权条款中得到合理支持,以补充传统民法理论于此规范之不足。相应地,人格物理论与制度体系的建构将为一般人格权的发展提供新的素材并促进一般人格权制度的现代发展。     

死者生前人格上财产利益之保护

人格权内含精神与财产双重利益。对人格上财产利益的保护是人性自主的必然结果,且不论人之生死,人格上之财产利益皆应受保护。生者人格上财产利益保护应采用德国法上一元论的人格权保护模式,而死者人格上财产利益保护则应参照美国法上的公开权模式。利用死者生前之人格特征获利的权利乃一种无形财产权,归属于死者之继承人。继承人行使此项权利需按照死者明知或可推知的意思进行,权利行使期限宜为50年。     

Legal Certainty and Correctness

What is the relation between legal certainty and correctness? This question poses one of the perpetual problems of the theory and practice of law—and for this reason: The answer turns on the main question in legal philosophy, the question of the concept and the nature of law. Thus, in an initial step, I will briefly look at the concept and the nature of law. In a second step, I will attempt to explain what the concept and the nature of law, thus understood, imply for the relation between legal certainty and correctness. Here three issues will be considered: first, the Radbruch formula as an answer to the problem of extreme injustice; second, the special case thesis, which claims that legal argumentation is a special case of general practical argumentation; and, third, the problem of the judicial development of the law.     

个人职业信誉的婚姻财产归属论

商誉作为财产类型的一种,无论在学术界,还是在司法实践界都已基本达成一致意见。但是与之类似的个人职业信誉是否应该单独地予以界定为财产,从而在婚姻关系破裂时,将其作为夫妻共同财产进行分割,这应该说是一个富有争议的课题。婚姻应为夫妻双方分工合作,互惠共享的一个共同体,婚姻的这种性质决定了个人职业信誉界定为夫妻共同财产的必要性和可能性。     

盗窃罪犯罪客体及对象研究

盗窃罪的犯罪客体是他人对公私财产的占有权利而非所有权,因为所有权资格在法律上不可能被非法改变,盗窃行为所(欲)影响或者改变的,只是他人对财物的占有状态,不管他人对于财物的占有是什么性质的占有,盗窃犯罪都是对他人行使占有权的妨害。占有权能够直观反映出盗窃犯罪侵害的社会关系。     

登记物与非登记物之区分的法律意义

不动产、动产之划分的基础性地位,因登记动产的出现而发生动摇。登记物、非登记物之划分,可以作为最基本的物的分类,成为物权体系展开的新基础。立法论上,可采取嫁接模式,规定登记动产适用不动产规则,以实现登记物内部规则的基本统一。登记动产之外的普通动产作为非登记物,仍适用原有的动产规则。     

Location privacy: The challenges of mobile service devices

Adding to the current debate, this article focuses on the personal data and privacy challenges posed by private industry's use of smart mobile devices that provide location-based services to users and consumers. Directly relevant to personal data protection are valid concerns about the collection, retention, use and accessibility of this kind of personal data, in relation to which a key issue is whether valid consent is ever obtained from users. While it is indisputable that geo-location technologies serve important functions, their potential use for surveillance and invasion of privacy should not be overlooked. Thus, in this study we address the question of how a legal regime can ensure the proper functionality of geo-location technologies while preventing their misuse. In doing so, we examine whether information gathered from geo-location technologies is a form of personal data, how it is related to privacy and whether current legal protection mechanisms are adequate. We argue that geo-location data are indeed a type of personal data. Not only is this kind of data related to an identified or identifiable person, it can reveal also core biographical personal data. What is needed is the strengthening of the existing law that protects personal data (including location data), and a flexible legal response that can incorporate the ever-evolving and unknown advances in technology.     

论纠纷的可诉性

纠纷的可诉性是实现当事人的裁判请求权的逻辑前提 ,纠纷可诉性的广度反映了裁判请求权的实现程度。目前我国民事诉讼法理论和实务界关于纠纷可诉性的标准或依据及范围的理解限制了裁判请求权实现的空间范围。纠纷可诉性的标准应当为纠纷是平等主体之间的财产关系争议和人身关系争议 ,而并非限于民事法律关系争议。纠纷可诉性的范围包括民法所调整的民事法律关系发生的争议、应受民事法律保护的应有权利受到侵害引发的争议、宪法权利受到私法主体侵害所引发的争议。     

道德性:法律的人性之维——兼论法与道德的关系

法是人类社会特有的一种社会现象,所以对法的研究最终不可能不追寻到人的本性.但能作为法律基础的人的本性只是道德性,道德的最高境界是正义,它是一种理想的人际关系和社会制度,在其中人人受到尊重和关爱,人人各尽其能,各得其所.人的行为它必须借助于法律这样的公共权力使一个社会人们的行为保持道德性的一种制度安排.因此,道德性是法律的人性基础,是制定和实施法律的出发点和归宿点.     

权利穷竭原则探究--兼论平行进口问题

权利穷竭原则 ,是知识产权法上的一个重要原则。这一原则是基于私人利益与社会利益的平衡而产生的 ,其直接理论依据就是经济利益回报。它在传统知识产权领域得到广泛认可 ,并被用来分析国际贸易中的平行进口问题。它与知识产权的地域性特征相结合 ,产生了权利国内穷竭和国际穷竭两种学说 ,国际穷竭说是用来支持平行进口的。尽管权利穷竭说与平行进口关系密切 ,但它并不能完全用来评判平行进口是否侵权