Engaging the issues

From the editors: In 2005 Monthly Review Press (New York) published a book entitled China and Socialism: Market Reforms and Class Struggle, written by Martin Hart-Landsberg (a coeditor of Critical Asian Studies) and Paul Burkett. (The content of the book had appeared earlier, in the July-August 2004 issue of Monthly Review [vol. 56, no. 3].) We invited the editors of Critical Asian Studies to participate in a roundtable discussion of the issues that Hart-Landsberg and Burkett have raised. Responses from CAS editors Victor Lippit, Gene Cooper, Alvin So, Mobo C.F. Gao, and Tai-lok Lui appear in the September 2005 issue of the journal (vol. 37, no. 3). A rejoinder by Hart-Landsberg and Burkett is presented here.     

Assumption of Responsibility in Corporate Groups: Chandler v Cape plc

In Chandler v Cape plc, the Court of Appeal imposed for the first time liability on a company for a breach of its duty of care to an employee of its subsidiary. In doing so, the court laid out a new four‐part test for ascertaining a parent company's responsibility for the health and safety of individuals employed by group companies. Although liability of parent companies may be justified under the right circumstances, the court's approach in Chandler is problematic in a number of ways and raises more questions than it answers.     

Slaves as criminal informers in ancient Rome

The Romans expected slaves to inform on their fellow slaves, particularly in regard to the master's safety. If a slave killed his master, a terrible retribution on the entire household of slaves would have to be paid to atone for the offense. In the final analysis, the slave‐informer system, with all of its drawbacks, supported the Roman criminal justice system nearly 1,000 years and the Byzantines employed it in a modified form. This paper is a case study of how a culture, with its values, musters its resources, in the case of slavery, to cope with the problems of internal security.

With most of the crime problems that confront us today, the ancient Romans were hard put to protect the public peace. They had neither the modern technology nor the forensic science that we do, so they utilized the limited resources they had to prevent crimes and catch criminals. They devised a policy of enticing slaves to act as criminal informants with the offer of freedom. Considering the sizeable adult slave population, this policy greatly deterred crime and the saying “Every slave, an enemy” became current among the citizenry.

The Romans, however, did not intend to open a door by which slaves could accuse citizens of false charges out of vindictiveness. The legal‐minded Romans adopted the safeguard of having the slave informant interrogated under torture.

Slaves also served the criminal justice system in other ways besides volunteering information. When the police were stymied in an investigation, they “rounded up the usual suspects” in the form of slaves who might have knowledge of the crime, but for some reason had not stepped forward. The police would use their powers to interrogate slaves in this case, too. This ancient practice reflects the procedure of modern police investigators checking surveillance cameras in the vicinity of the crime scene in the hopes of discovering a clue.     

The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the ‘right to be forgotten’

The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation has caused a wide debate between lawyers and legal scholars and many opinions have been voiced on the issue of the right to be forgotten. In order to analyse the relevance of the new rule provided by Article 17 of the Proposal, this paper considers the original idea of the right to be forgotten, pre-existing in both European and U.S. legal frameworks. This article focuses on the new provisions of Article 17 of the EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and evaluates its effects on court decisions. The author assumes that the new provisions do not seem to represent a revolutionary change to the existing rules with regard to the right granted to the individual, but instead have an impact on the extension of the protection of the information disseminated on-line.     

An analysis of traditional rules applied by Australian courts to establish personal jurisdiction and their application in e-commerce

This article analyses the jurisdictional principles employed by Australian courts in establishing personal jurisdiction in traditional settings and its extension to e-commerce cases. The Australian courts apply the court rules to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants. The article discusses these rules relating to serving process within and outside Australia and jurisdiction based on the submission of the parties. The adequacies of principles like forum-non-conveniens, forum selection clauses which are vital in the personal jurisdiction inquiry are analysed. The unique High Court decision in Dow Jones v. Gutnick is discussed and the approach followed by the court critically analysed to highlight the excessive exercise of personal jurisdiction. Other cases concerning the internet are also discussed to highlight the approaches followed to establish personal jurisdiction in internet and e-commerce cases. It is argued that the drawbacks highlight the need for legislation to regulate personal jurisdiction in e-commerce cases.