Impediments besetting the negotiations for a comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and East and Southern Africa (2007–2014)

Several African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are currently negotiating World Trade Organization (WTO)-compatible reciprocal economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with the European Union (EU), agreements intended to supersede the one-sided trade preferences of the Lomé Convention. This study focuses on impediments which have bedevilled the EU–East and Southern Africa (ESA) negotiations for a transition from an interim EPA to a comprehensive EPA. These talks, which ran from 2007 to 2014, followed the expiry of a WTO waiver and the ESA's successful resistance to elements of the EU's agenda considered offensive, despite envisaged benefits provided for by the Cotonou Partnership Agreement of 2000 calling for EPAs. The study is based on qualitative primary research in which data from interviews was augmented by a synthesis of secondary sources and analysed through a thematic coding system. Findings reveal asymmetrical power relations, a marked heterogeneity in the ESA and outstanding issues in the interim EPA and WTO regulations as major impediments to the transition to a comprehensive EPA.     

iCLIC Data Mining and Data Sharing workshop: The present and future of data mining and data sharing in the EU

Held at Southampton University's Highfield campus and hosted by iCLIC, an interdisciplinary core on Law, the Internet and Culture, the Data Mining and Data Sharing workshop brought together attendees and speakers from industry, government, academia and a range of disciplines alike. The workshop comprised two sessions, each with a keynote and an associated panel. The first session was chaired by Eleonora Rosati and dealt with copyright and database rights, data mining and data sharing. The second session, chaired by Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon, focussed on data protection, data mining and data sharing. The following report covers both sessions, associated panel discussions and the subsequent question and answer sessions.     

制定《商事通则》论纲--以总体思路、体系结构为研究内容

制定《商事通则》的总体思路是 :《商事通则》只应调整那些传统民法难以或不便调整的以营利为目的的社会关系 ;应以企业作为主要规范对象 ;只应将总纲性的法律规范 ,以及不宜以商事单行法的形式规范或以商事单行形式规范成本过高的内容包含进去 ;其法律属性应为具有较多公法规范的私法。《商事通则》的体系结构应根据我国现实的理论、立法和实践确定 ,应在《商事通则》的篇首置“基本原则”章。     

大治安及其学说之边际

大治安,既是个含超公安管理的话题,又是个含超社会治安的话题,还是个含超安邦定国的话题。天时、地利、人和集一身,大治安及其学说必须厘清边际。大治安及其学说边际之长,指大治安是全过程的治安,涉及治安之前、中、后全过程。大治安及其学说边际之宽,指大治安是全方位的治安,涉及治安之官、民、匪全方位。大治安及其学说边际之高,指大治安是全层次的治安,涉及治安之社（社会）、人（人文）、物（自然）全层次。     

中国公物立法初探

公物法可以归入行政组织法、给付行政法、经济行政法、环境法、行政行为法或者公共设施法。不得违背公物命名目的、平等对待、利益衡量以及保障利用人合法权益是其不可缺少的基本原则。基于我国国情,我国有必要制定《公物管理法通则》。其内容应当围绕公物公共用途的保护,结合公物管理行为的特点,重点规范公物管理行为。     

当代侵权法比较研究

侵权法在两大法系中所采路径截然不同、风格各异,这一特点与具体规则模式和一般原则模式之间的现代法律理论的区别是相伴而生的。比较侵权法的焦点主要不是实体问题,而是侵权法的基本结构和模式问题。在侵权法的诸多具体制度上,两大法系远比普遍认为的那样更为相近,二者之间并没有不可逾越的障碍和差别。     

论《服务贸易总协定》的投资协定性质

《服务贸易总协定》在性质上是各国签订的国际投资协定,并非贸易协定,这是由服务本身的性质造成的。从《服务贸易总协定》的性质和宗旨看,发达国家有意搭多边贸易体制的便车,以服务贸易之名行对外投资之实;从《服务贸易总协定》对服务的分类看,商业存在和自然人流动无疑要伴随着跨国投资;从《服务贸易总协定》对最惠国待遇和国民待遇的规定看,这里的待遇实际上是给予服务的提供者而不仅仅是给予作为商品的服务;从《服务贸易总协定》对市场准入的规定看,市场准入允许服务提供者在他国进行投资设业,这涉及东道国对外资的审批。《服务贸易总协定》的签订,不仅丰富了世界贸易组织的议题,也为世界贸易组织的运行带来了新的挑战。     

Are ‘pseudonymised’ data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK

There has naturally been a good deal of discussion of the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. One issue of interest to all data controllers, and of particular concern for researchers, is whether the GDPR expands the scope of personal data through the introduction of the term ‘pseudonymisation’ in Article 4(5). If all data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of the word (e.g. key-coded) are to be treated as personal data, this would have serious implications for research. Administrative data research, which is carried out on data routinely collected and held by public authorities, would be particularly affected as the sharing of de-identified data could constitute the unconsented disclosure of identifiable information.Instead, however, we argue that the definition of pseudonymisation in Article 4(5) GDPR will not expand the category of personal data, and that there is no intention that it should do so. The definition of pseudonymisation under the GDPR is not intended to determine whether data are personal data; indeed it is clear that all data falling within this definition are personal data. Rather, it is Recital 26 and its requirement of a ‘means reasonably likely to be used’ which remains the relevant test as to whether data are personal. This leaves open the possibility that data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of key-coding can still be rendered anonymous. There may also be circumstances in which data which have undergone pseudonymisation within one organisation could be anonymous for a third party. We explain how, with reference to the data environment factors as set out in the UK Anonymisation Network's Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework.     

Clarity,surprises, and further questions in the Article 29 Working Party draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party's recent draft guidance on automated decision-making and profiling seeks to clarify European data protection (DP) law's little-used right to prevent automated decision-making, as well as the provisions around profiling more broadly, in the run-up to the General Data Protection Regulation. In this paper, we analyse these new guidelines in the context of recent scholarly debates and technological concerns. They foray into the less-trodden areas of bias and non-discrimination, the significance of advertising, the nature of “solely” automated decisions, impacts upon groups and the inference of special categories of data—at times, appearing more to be making or extending rules than to be interpreting them. At the same time, they provide only partial clarity – and perhaps even some extra confusion – around both the much discussed “right to an explanation” and the apparent prohibition on significant automated decisions concerning children. The Working Party appears to feel less mandated to adjudicate in these conflicts between the recitals and the enacting articles than to explore altogether new avenues. Nevertheless, the directions they choose to explore are particularly important ones for the future governance of machine learning and artificial intelligence in Europe and beyond.