Privacy and the precautionary principle

The precautionary principle – which implies that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing protective measures – has been adopted as a standard of environmental and health protection in international and European legislation. This article offers an overview of the precautionary principle as a legal standard applicable to European privacy and data protection legislation. For this reason, it takes particularly into account the guidelines of this legislation as well as the privacy impact assessment framework, raised by the European Commission through the Recommendation on Radio-Frequency Identification applications. In brief, the article stresses the role of the precautionary principle in improving privacy protection through liability, prudence and transparency.     

Will the European Commission be able to standardise legal technology design without a legal method?

Privacy by Design (PbD) is a kind of precautionary legal technology design. It takes opportunities for fundamental rights without creating risks for them. Now the EU Commission “promised” to implement PbD with Art. 23(4) of its proposal of a General Data Protection Regulation. It suggests setting up a committee that can define technical standards for PbD. However the Commission did not keep its promise. Should it be left to the IT security experts who sit in the committee but do not have the legal expertise, to decide on our privacy or, by using overly detailed specifications, to prevent businesses from marketing innovative products? This paper asserts that the Commission's implementation of PbD is not acceptable as it stands and makes positive contributions for the work of a future PbD committee so that the Commission can keep its promise to introduce precautionary legal technology design.     

Continuity,change, and priorities: The quality and use of regulatory analysis across US administrations

This paper compares the quality and use of regulatory analysis accompanying economically significant regulations proposed by US executive branch agencies in 2008, 2009, and 2010. We find that the quality of regulatory analysis is generally low, but varies widely. Budget regulations, which define how the federal government will spend money or collect revenues, have much lower‐quality analysis than other regulations. The Bush administration's “midnight” regulations finalized between Election Day and Inauguration Day, along with other regulations left for the Obama administration to finalize, tended to have lower‐quality analysis. Most differences between the Bush and Obama administrations depend on agencies' policy preferences. More conservative agencies tended to produce better analysis in the Obama administration, and more liberal agencies tended to do so in the Bush administration. This suggests that agencies more central to an administration's policy priorities do not have to produce as good an analysis to get their regulations promulgated.     

《律师法》修订对检察机关的影响和对策

《律师法》修订对检察工作特别是职务侦查和公诉工作产生重大影响。检察机关应当通过积极转变执法理念、转变侦查模式、提高查案能力、加强证据收集等途径来应对变化，提升法律监督能力。     

刑罚结构调整对我国监狱行刑的影响及应对

《刑法修正案（八）》对刑罚结构的调整引起了学者的关注，同时对我国刑罚执行机关监狱的工作也产生了巨大影响。因此，明确本次刑罚结构的调整对监狱工作产生的影响，并在分析成因的基础上，有针对性地提出可操作性解决方案，不仅有利于贯彻《监狱法》的基本精神，提高监狱部门监管工作的实效，还有利于实现“惩罚与改造相结合、以改造人为宗旨”的监狱工作方针，使罪犯顺利的回归社会。     

军人价值观建设若干问题刍议

军队思想政治建设内在地包含着军人价值观建设,而价值观建设又必须从一系列基本的问题入手对价值观在"三观"中地位作用的认识,是研究军人价值观建设的起点;价值冲突是军人价值观建设面临的最大困难和问题;价值教育是价值观建设的基本手段和途径;正确科学的价值导向是加强军人价值观建设的重要环节和方面;而军人价值观念体系建设,则是解决军人价值观建设诸多问题的关键.     

Bringing Political Science to Bear on Tropical Conservation

With the renewed international emphasis on governance for sustainable development, political scientists wishing to have an impact on global environmental problems will find significant opportunities to collaborate with practitioners. These collaborations can be very rewarding, but academics should enter them with their eyes open to the associated challenges. Bridging the worlds of research and practice entails tensions between what is true according to the research, and what is possible given the constraints of specific organizations; between the problems that practitioners need solved and the puzzles that researchers find appealing; and, importantly, between the divergent cultures that shape the expectations and incentives of academics and their counterparts.     

Best Practice Environmental Impact Assessment: A Model Framework for Australia

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process that involves the identification, prediction, evaluation and mitigation of the environmental and other impacts associated with development proposals and policies, plans and programs. Australian governments were amongst the first in the world to introduce EIA in the 1970s. Since then, the federal, state and territory EIA regimes have undergone multiple changes. In recent times, the push for EIA reform has intensified as governments have sought ways to improve the cost‐effectiveness of regulatory processes. In light of the impetus for change, this article outlines principles and a framework for best practice EIA in Australia. The intention is to inform the policy development processes at the federal, state and local levels.     

Explaining the content of impact assessment in the United Kingdom: Learning across time,sectors, and departments

While several studies have documented how evidence‐based policy instruments affect public policy, less research has focused on what causes changes over time in the analyses mandated by the instruments, especially in Britain. Thus, we take the analytical content of a pivotal regulatory reform instrument (impact assessment) as a dependent variable, draw on learning as a conceptual framework, and explain the dynamics of learning processes across departments, policy sectors, and time. Empirically, our study draws on a sample of 517 impact assessments produced in Britain (2005–2011). Experience and capacity in different departments matter in learning processes. Guidelines also matter, but moderately so. Departments specialize in their core policy sectors when performing regulatory analysis, but some have greater analytical capacity overall. Peripheral departments invest more in impact assessment than core executive departments. The presence of a regulatory oversight body enhances the learning process. Elections have different effects, depending on the context in which they are contested. These findings contribute to the literature on regulation, policy learning, and policy instruments.     

What's wrong with the back of the envelope? A call for simple (and timely) benefit–cost analysis

Observers across the ideological spectrum have criticized benefit–cost analysis for as long as it has been part of the rulemaking process. Still, proponents and detractors agree that analysis has morphed into a mechanism often used by agencies to justify regulatory decisions already made. We argue that a simpler analysis of more alternatives conducted earlier in the regulatory process can resuscitate it as a tool to inform policy. Recognizing that requiring a procedure does not ensure that regulators will follow it, we offer possible remedies, including strengthening or relaxing subsequent review of proposed rules, which raise the cost of circumventing the reform or lower the cost of following it.