Search results

Private persons and entities are increasingly adopting aggressive “active defense” measures (i.e., “hack back”) against Internet‐based attacks that can infringe the rights of innocent persons. In this paper, I argue that aggressive active defense cannot be justified by the Necessity Principle, which defines a moral liberty to infringe the right of an innocent person if necessary to achieve a significantly greater moral good. It is a necessary condition for justifiably acting under an ethical principle that we have adequate reason to believe its application‐conditions are satisfied. Since, absent special knowledge, the victim of a hacker attack will not be able to reliably predict the direct or indirect consequences of aggressive countermeasures, she lacks adequate reason to think that those measures will achieve a good that significantly outweighs the evil that is done to innocent parties.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether altruism justifies ad hoc legislation with reference to three different contexts. One is defined by the libertarian notion of liberty; a second framework corresponds to the egalitarian vision; and a third one originates from social-contract theory.

The authors review two stylized visions of liberty, and consider to what extent the current legal systems comply with one of these visions. Moreover, the authors analyse the implications of the contractarian approach.

It is shown that current legislation is rather ambiguous and sometimes even contradictory. By and large, the common-law view tends to favour the libertarian approach, while the civil-law visions are closer to what one might expect from social-contract theory. In these cases, however, it seems that the letter of the law is often questioned by the academic community as well as by the judiciary, and decisions eventually follow the judges’ discretionary power.

This analysis of altruism combines the economic and legal perspectives. Although altruism is always considered an important part of social capital and worthy of privileged treatment, it is shown that policymaking is frequently inconsistent and sometimes contradictory.

The objective of the paper is to describe how criminal prosecutors in the USA have expanded the reach of federal statutes punishing fraud and extortion to combat the influence of organized criminal groups in certain American labor unions and employee benefit plans from 1980 to 2006.

The paper reviews newspaper accounts and published judicial decisions to explain how prosecutors have used fraud and extortion offenses in novel ways on a case‐by‐case basis to prosecute labor‐management corruption in the USA.

Although the American federal prosecutor's arsenal is limited to statutory crimes, prosecutors are continually evolving new means of addressing corruption on a case‐specific basis in the best tradition of Anglo‐American common law. By diligently persuading trial judges, appellate courts, and the US Congress of the merit of looking at fraud and extortion in new ways, federal prosecutors have carried out the intent of the statutory laws which Congress enacted to deal with corruption in government, business, and labor unions.

The federal criminal offense of “honest service fraud,” which was codified by Congress only following successful criminal prosecutions of public and private corruption, will continue to be used to address corruption on the part of persons holding fiduciary duties toward union members and employee pension and health benefit plan participants as the American retired population increases and the national government assumes greater oversight of employee health care.

The paper encourages the reader, especially those in law enforcement, to think creatively about the scope of existing criminal statutes while reviewing or enforcing their application to all forms of organizational corruption.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

The purpose of this monograph is to examine the main elements of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 which received the Royal Assent on the 15th November 1988. The Act provided for a major overhaul of the law on copyright and on registered designs, as well as certain adjustments to patent and trademark law and two major new regimes on performers' rights and design rights. While this is a major domestic reform the law is unlikely to remain unaltered for long because of the move towards a single market within the E.E.C. by 1992. This will lead to the introduction of harmonised regimes on the various elements of intellectual property law such as copyright and industrial design which will no doubt require some readjustment to U.K. domestic law. Recently the E.E.C. Commission published a Green Paper on “Copyright and the Challenge of Technology” which suggests solutions to some questions such as the vexed problem of illegal home taping which are different to those adopted by the U.K. in the new Act. [On 21/12/88 a draft directive on Copyright & Computer Software which proposes a harmonised regime for the protection of computer programs and related matters was published]. It also has to be borne in mind that while Article 222 of the Treaty of Rome states that the treaty does not affect the existence of national intellectual property right regimes the “exercise” of these national rights may be found to infringe the provisions of the Treaty on free movement of goods (Arts. 30–36) or on competition law (Arts. 85–86).

The purpose of this monograph is to touch on some of the difficulties encountered in the passing of title to goods or the taking of a security interest in goods. The law is in a hopelessly complicated and technical mess which serves neither the interests of consumers or businessmen. It is particularly appropriate to look at this area at this time, as Professor Aubery Diamond, at the request of the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Michael Howard M.P.), is examining the need for alteration of the law relating to security over property other than land. To this end Professor Diamond has issued a Consultation Document in which he poses a number of questions for the legal and business community to consider, it is to be hoped that the Government will act on any proposals produced instead of consigning them to a limbo as was done with the Law Reform Committee's Twelfth Report on ‘Transfer of Title to Chattels’ and with the proposed ‘Lending and Security Act’ suggested by the Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit in 1971.