Search results

The coming use of autonomous vehicles has kindled an extensive debate over the choice of a desirable liability regime. This article contributes to that debate by explaining how rules for liability and damages ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases and then with consensual cases (like medical malpractice). It concludes that an output regime based on events as they unfold is applicable in the former but not in the latter. It then argues that this legal regime carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. It then further notes that in private disputes there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix rules for injunctions and liabilities for threatened harms, and further notes that the regulatory regime for IoT will face those same difficulties, which are best solved by trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, as in other cases.

Legal reasoning/analysis.

One salient point is that the rules of the road should change in response to technical innovation, but liability rules should not. The sound approach for dealing with damages for past incidents ought to be constructed to deal first with stranger (including highway) cases in which there is a dichotomous decision on compliance or not. That regime is based on events as they unfold, and carries over without a hitch to autonomous vehicles. For dealing with the prevention of future harms from violation of these rules, by contrast, there are no fixed rules for deciding how to mix damages with injunction, and the substitution of a system of direct state enforcement faces the same difficulties of implementation. In both settings, the rules of the road should be held constant, after which the ideal remedial mix follows the traditional approach of trying to minimize the sum of Type I and Type II errors, relating to over and underenforcement. The basic rules of tort liability stand in contrast to the different standards of liability that arise in consensual situations, and in all cases, they must necessarily be supplemented by rules of vicarious and product liability. Overall, the bottom line is this: autonomous vehicle innovations are relevant to designing regulations for future and uncertain harms, but irrelevant to liability for past harms.

This is an original legal analysis on the topic of Autonomous Vehicles.

Financial assurance rules, also known as financial responsibility or bonding requirements, foster cost internalization by requiring potential polluters to demonstrate the financial resources necessary to compensate for environmental damage that may arise in the future. Accordingly, assurance is an important complement to liability rules, restoration obligations, and other regulatory compliance requirements. The paper reviews the need for assurance, given the prevalence of abandoned environmental obligations, and assesses the implementation of assurance rules in the United States. From the standpoint of both legal effectiveness and economic efficiency, assurance rules can be improved. On the whole, however, cost recovery, deterrence, and enforcement are significantly improved by the presence of existing assurance regulations.

A balance between environmental protection and sustainable development of the energy industry is fostered in the majority of nations. China’s economic growth has been rapid in the past few decades, with the unfortunate side effect of environmental pollution and ecological deterioration in the country. In this chapter, we provide a study of Chinese legal rules about civil liability for environmental damages in the light of objectives of sustainable development of the energy industry.

The research approach is based on the Regulatory Impact Assessment.

International funds and private investors, especially those working in FDI, have to cope with the legal framework more or less favorable to investment and innovation deriving from experimentation and development of new energy products and processes. In each jurisdiction, the mechanism of civil liability is crucial in determining such a legal framework.

The real functioning of civil liability as applied by the doctrinal and judicial interpretation has to be taken into account for minimizing the mass damages for the environment and individuals.

Different from other assumptions based on administrative rules or policy issues, the balance between environmental protection and sustainable development is considered in this chapter under a view that emphasizes the role of legal rules from a civil law perspective.

The paper aims to outline the legal framework with regards to the civil liability of online intermediaries for users' misconduct in China, to analyze the problems in applying the rules related, and to introduce recent efforts from the State Council, the Supreme People's Court and legislature to combat online misconduct.

The paper intends to introduce these rules by studying the legislative history and several important case decisions. Comparisons with European and American approaches have also been made with regard to the self‐regulation issue.

Chinese courts have made many inconsistent decisions on the liabilities of online intermediaries in the past, but the legal framework is improving and the situation will become better given more clarifications from the Supreme People's Court. The State proactively promotes industry self‐regulation, together with public supervision in order to ensure the enforcement of rules.

This paper gives a systematical analysis and thorough introduction to online intermediaries' liability since the first case in 1990s to the latest report, law amendment and provisions before July 2012 in China.

Cyberspace is an international community, thus, the worldwide harmonisation of cyber law shall be approached. An introduction of the Chinese legal framework and any latest updates from the State would be valuable for foreign policy makers and foreign online service providers to learn the Chinese situation and evaluate the Chinese internet market.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. The concept of “lender liability” is one of the more critical issues which seems to be ready to upset the “apple cart” of environmental calm, which the English law enjoyed until recently. Why should banks be held liable for pollution and clean-up costs? The banks’ responsibility should end when it has granted the loan to the borrower to carry out its commercial activities. It is argued that a lender who becomes involved in the borrower’s financial management is unlikely to incur a clean-up liability, but it will become liable to clean it up if it forecloses or takes possession of the land. Can the bank be regarded as the “owner” of the land? In some English statutes, there is no definition of the word “owner”. Does a mortgagee in possession entitle him to ownership of the property to hold him responsible for liabilities for environmental harm?

The development of domestic environmental liability and the Trans-Atlantic position with the USA will be examined. The “owner” concept will also be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be examined. This will all be analysed and criticised in this paper.

This paper aims to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. It will also discuss “owner” concept to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property.

In this paper, the “owner” concept will be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be critically analysed and compared with different legal systems.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

This paper aims to study an advanced third/fourth party logistics (3/4PL) relationship in which the logistics service provider extended normal services by taking ownership of the goods during global distribution. It also aims to describe and analyze the approach to the legal rules a 3/4PL provider and its client company took in their contract, and present some remarks on the extent to which these contract solutions are legally sound.

A cross‐functional (business law and logistics) approach is applied to a single case study. The main data source is a written contract, complemented by in‐depth interviews with the 3/4PL's managing director. A legal analysis is made from four perspectives of non‐mandatory and mandatory commercial legal rules.

Issues between the offered service, the legal function and reaction in contracts are pointed out, e.g. doubts regarding the legal risk of sales uncertainty, the ownership of goods, the product liability, and the roles as commercial agent and as freight forwarding agent. These kinds of advanced logistics services are not clearly handled, e.g. in the standard‐form contracts for freight forwarding.

The research is limited to one case and to some aspects of Swedish commercial law, but put in an international perspective. It adds a legal perspective to previous studies on 3/4PL contracts, and it contributes to legal research by its analysis of how firms in real life react to law in their contracts.

Practitioners can get inspiration from an innovative logistics service setup, but also realize what legal challenges to consider when they make their contracts. A tentative approach to aligning logistics' and lawyers' work is suggested.

The paper combines legal and logistics research, and description/analysis of a 3/4PL case where ownership of the goods is transferred to the service provider.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss incentive mechanisms and procedures for cost internalization by both potential defendants and plaintiffs.

The approach taken is to rely on the concepts of liability, negligence, precaution and methodologies for estimation of compensatory damages in conjunction with the Coase theorem.

The paper finds that the decision to internalize and minimize cost depends upon marginal precautionary costs and marginal expected harms.

Research needs to be conducted from a law and economic perspective on developing procedures for estimating precautionary costs and expected harms.

This paper calls upon business firms and their stakeholders (primarily employees and customers) to use and pro‐actively manage their precautionary responsibilities and further refine the existing formulas. More specifically, it aims to help law and economics students as well as practitioners in law and regulation to better understand the implications of marginal precautionary costs and marginal expected harms in the process of cost internalization.

In exploring the precautionary responsibilities of firms and their stakeholders, this paper contributes to a better understanding of liability and negligence issues and, as a result, to the important intersection of law and microeconomics.

The purpose of this paper is to present an economic analysis of environmental law.

The paper focuses on pollution control and nuisance law.

Regarding the efficiency analysis of nuisance remedies, the paper summarizes the various situations which may be covered by environmental law and their consequences.

The paper offers insights into pollution control and nuisance law.

The purpose of this paper is to give an outline of existing laws that regulate each area of the Commons. With specific reference to the growing international concern for the protection of the global commons, this paper aims to re-examine to what extent present legal regime for global commons is successful. Finally, it proceeds with some way outs and suggestions that may, if adopted, play significant role to protect common areas from environmental damage.

This paper is purely analytical. Analytical approach has been applied to proceed with the write-up which is basically based on the review of primary and secondary literature studies including books, scholarly articles and laws. Internet-browsing is being used for collection of most recent literature on the subject. Relevant case studies in this regard are evaluated.

Transboundary damage is a practical and contextual matter requiring concrete rules and principles, both procedural and substantive. Here, priority is to establish minimum standards of conduct for such activities that affect the environment of global commons, at the national and international level. An expertly designed treaty with balanced contents, which are strong enough to hold the state parties liable for their activities and, at the same time, motivating enough to be bound by obligation by ratification, is to be adopted.

This paper is original in calling for the full participation of all states, rich and poor, to address damage to global commons effectively and efficiently.