A comparison of proposed legislative data privacy protections in the United States

The use of online consumer tracking methods has raised significant privacy concerns for consumers and policymakers for decades. Advertisers using these methods analyze web-viewing habits to predict consumer preferences and actions. The advertising industry in the United States has promoted self-regulatory principles to respond to these concerns. However, in December 2010, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reported that these efforts “have been too slow and up to now have failed to provide adequate and meaningful protection.” President Barack Obama's administration has supported broader legislation for comprehensive protection of individuals' private data. The leading model for data privacy protection is the 1980 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. This article examines two leading legislative privacy proposals in the context of the OECD principles. This examination concludes that, although the proposals do not provide sufficient comprehensive privacy protections, they do fill significant gaps in current U.S. privacy laws.     

Arbitration in financial dispute resolution: the final step to reconstructing the default(s) and exception(s)?

In this article, I argue for caution in embracing family arbitration as a new form of private ordering for resolving parties' financial disputes. I explain that family arbitration may be more successful than other forms of private ordering and final court hearings in enabling certain types of parties to resolve certain types of disputes. I consider why family arbitration may not become numerically significant despite its potential benefits, but may be much more important in normative terms. Lawyer-led negotiations remain the most common form of out-of-court resolution and constitute the de facto default form of bargaining in the shadow of the normative regime framed by ss 23–25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Together with the transformation in approach to nuptial agreements, family arbitration may mark a normative shift towards autonomy and private ordering. I question whether this is a desirable step for family law, at least before we have resolved the underlying policy debate.     

新加坡宗教事务的法律治理

新加坡是东西方文明的交汇之地,妥善处理不同种族、宗教之间的关系至关重要。在对本国多元宗教、多元民族的基本国情充分认知的基础上,新加坡政府采取了务实的宗教政策。通过宪法和宗教自由法确立了政教分离、宗教自由和平等保护原则,制定了维护宗教和谐法,实现了宗教间的和谐与容忍,为世界各国宗教事务的法律治理树立了典范。     

论《精神卫生法》的自愿原则

为了防止正常人"被精神病",更好地保护精神障碍患者的合法权益,《精神卫生法》确立了自愿原则。该原则渊源于私法领域的自愿原则而又与其不同,是在知情的条件下对精神卫生服务的单方接受自愿。它回应了要像人一样保护精神障碍患者,彰显了精神卫生法的福利法本质。它包涵自愿诊断、自愿治疗和自愿出院三个既相互区别又相互联系子原则。非自愿诊断、非自愿治疗、非自愿继续住院治疗只是自愿原则的补充,此种例外旨在寻求患者精神健康权与社会公众安全保护的平衡。     

What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges

Abstract

We surveyed 157 Norwegian judges about their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, and compared their answers to a prior survey of 160 US judges. Although the Norwegian judges were somewhat more knowledgeable than the US judges, both groups had limited knowledge of eyewitness testimony. The Norwegian judges, like the US judges, frequently differed from eyewitness experts in their responses to such important issues as whether eyewitness confidence is related to identification accuracy at trial and what is the best method for conducting identification procedures. As was true for the US judges, more knowledgeable Norwegian judges had many of the beliefs that may be necessary for reducing and mitigating the effects of eyewitness error. The results suggest that increasing judges’ knowledge of eyewitness testimony may be an important component of the solution to eyewitness error.     

过失犯中被害人的作为义务与自我负责的边界

被害人自我答责理论强调自我决定,从而保障个人自由。法所关注的领域,是交往性的契约领域。非契约领域,属于个体的自治空间。刑法并不关注发生在"自我管辖领域"内的"侵害行为和侵害结果"。在自治领域,被害人应当确保"结果的不发生"。对参与被害人"自我管辖领域"内的行为,立足于限制的正犯概念和共犯的二元参与体系的概念,能够在教义学上得到准确解读。义务人在事实上有防止结果发生的可能性、义务履行与利益损害不能显著失衡、不能以生命为代价履行义务、人身保护与财产保护义务的"强制力"应当有别,是考量作为义务边界的因素。超出财产保护义务履行范围的,义务人完全进入到了自我管辖的空间。对于造成的损害结果,由被害人答责。超越人身保护义务的,应区分职业义务人与非职业义务人,分别对待。行为人创设的风险与职业义务人伤亡之间存在紧密关联之时,属于急迫性风险,由行为人答责。职业义务人正常履行职业义务的,属于职业性管辖。职业义务人发生误判之时,不能由职业义务人自我答责。无义务者实施保护行为造成损害的,应该对侵害结果自我答责。     

犯罪着手的教义学重述:学说对决、命题重证与具体解答

形式客观说并未丢弃实质,故其本为形式与实质相结合说。是否立足于构成要件行为是法益侵害紧迫危险性的刑法定型,决定了形式客观说和实质客观说各自是否为犯罪着手认定提供了明确标准,且是否导致犯罪着手认定的过于提前或推迟,进而决定了是否背离罪刑法定原则。犯罪着手的认定标准,应抛弃脱离形式限制的实质客观说而仍坚持形式客观说,但其“开始命题”应通过“基于大数法则的类型化危险形成说”而将犯罪着手的认定标准予以实质性落实。通过“基于大数法则的类型化危险形成说”,形式客观说对结合犯、隔离犯、徐行犯和原因自由行为型犯罪的着手能够做出妥当解答。     

英国涉恐资产冻结法律制度介述及其对我国的借鉴

冻结涉恐资产可以有力地斩断恐怖组织及其人员实施恐怖活动的经济基础,因而冻结措施成为金融反恐的重要手段。英国《2010年涉恐资产冻结法》对涉恐资产冻结的相关措施作了专门的系统规定,该法令规定的冻结措施具有期限性、非终局性、冻结对象的广泛性等特征。我国的涉恐资产的冻结措施应当借鉴英国涉恐资产冻结的相关法律制度,注意不同法律制度间的相互配合,注重涉恐资产冻结中的权利保障,加强国际法和国内法的衔接,以便更好地实现打击恐怖活动犯罪的目的。     

美国对外国国家的送达制度

美国《外国主权豁免法》明确规定了对外国国家的送达程序,以区别于《联邦民事诉讼法》中的送达程序。这些特殊的送达规则以及送达实践强调被送达的外国国家实际接收和接受送达的效果,更加注重程序公正,在某种程度上给予外国国家更多的正当程序保障,增强审判程序和判决的可接受性,减少或避免国家豁免诉讼可能带来的政治风险。中国应对在美国法院被诉时,应当充分利用美国《外国主权豁免法》中的送达规则和实践,更好地维护我国的尊严和主权。     

医学会从事医疗损害鉴定之合法性研究

本文回顾了我国医疗纠纷鉴定体制发展历程,分析了医学会鉴定与司法鉴定的优缺点。在此基础上,认为在现阶段,医学会参与医疗损害鉴定具有一定的、但并不充分的法律依据,具有相对的合法性,医学会应属准法定鉴定部门。可以通过最高人民法院制定司法解释或卫生部制定规章的方式使其尽快转正。尽管如此,医学会作出的鉴定结论并不具有必然的证明力,其鉴定程序和鉴定书形式等亦应符合法律规定,而鉴定人署名并出庭接受质证是其鉴定结论被法院采信的前提条件。