Search results

The purpose of this article is to analyse the concept of a fair balance between conflicting fundamental rights in the context of intermediary liability for third party copyright infringement.

European Legal Method.

Fair balance is the appropriate conflict resolution mechanism in cases of fundamental rights clashes. Balancing is in essence a call for rational judicial deliberation. In intermediary liability, balancing excludes the imposition of filtering obligations on intermediaries for the purpose of copyright enforcement, but allows blocking.

An in-depth look at a complicated, vague and underdeveloped area of law with significant practical effect.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the risk arising from technological devices, such as closed circuit television (CCTV) and nuclear power plants and the consequent effect on the rights to privacy and security of individuals.

The paper presents critical and conceptual analyses of CCTV, nuclear power plants and the rights of individuals. It also analyses how communitarianism and liberal individualism would respond to right‐infringements and risk‐imposition. It draws on W.D. Ross's prima facie and actual duties to explain the pre‐eminence of duty when certain duties conflict in a bid to improve technology.

The paper discovers the importance of rights to individuals, particularly the rights to privacy and security. It shows that, in some situations, government's duty to respect the right to the privacy of individuals conflicts with the duty to provide public goods, such as CCTV. The paper, therefore, stresses that one duty has greater moral force than the other. In essence, the more incumbent duty can be employed by government in justifying right‐infringement and risk‐imposition, though this does not disvalue the rights of individuals.

The paper offers insight into ways of addressing questions such as: when is it morally acceptable or justifiable to expose others to risk? When is infringement on people's rights permissible? Also, the paper is relevant to those in the areas of ethics and technology because it offers an ethical analysis of risk‐imposition and right‐infringement by examining how ethical theories, such as communitarianism and liberal individualism, would assess risks resulting from CCTV and nuclear energy. It argues that consent is not enough to justify risk‐imposition and right‐infringement. It concludes by drawing on W.D. Ross's prima facie and actual duties as a means of justifying risk‐imposition and right‐infringement by government.

This paper aims to demonstrate the specialty of the elderly issues and acknowledge the existence of their specific human rights that propose for a special treatment to be given or shown to them as priority as women or children, etc. Indubitably, the very issue is timely in all perspective. Because it is now axiomatic that the fastest growing elderly population becomes a challenge for the whole world for manifold reasons. They include, inter alia, the lack of a social security apparatus or if any, they are insufficient; the weakening of traditional family bonding; almost no explicit references to elderly people in existing international human right laws; and mere stand-by of soft law addressing the rights of the elderly over time. Consequently, these all have probably failed to meet the most urgent needs of this growing demographic.

This paper is an effort made to recognize the “particular vulnerability” of the older persons and with identification of “specific rights”, advocate for special treatment for them and, optimally, the realization of their rights with respect.

In addition, this treatise attempts to focus on the nature and constitutional importance of elderly rights with the aim of providing the elderly with social security and prioritization; and more particularly, scrutiny of the impending and timely imperative for formulation of new legal instrument so as to adequately address the issue globally.

New and converging technologies in administration and mapping have enabled property rights to become disconnected from the facts of occupation and possession of land. By the time native title was recognised in the Mabo decision (1992) the primary representation of land tenure was in digital cadastres¹ created and controlled by Federal and State bureaucracies. Native title was immediately cast as a spatial question. The location of native title rights was determined within the confines of a map of existing legal interests in the land. In this paper, I consider how the spatial orientation of property has affected the nature and expression of native title rights in Australia.

This paper argues that the revolution in intellectual property rights is not forward-looking, but backward looking, and that it is not consonant with the purposes of the patent and copyright clause. It is animated by the theory of common law copyright, which deliberately reconceptualizes social relations in order to recast them as property, and which has been with us for centuries. This paper investigates the “mythology of common law copyright,” showing how this reconceptualization has worked both historically and in the present day to push the law in a direction that is ostensibly author-centered, but is actually focused on the rights of intermediaries.

The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought about a panoply of institutional challenges both domestically and in the international arena. Classical constitutional theory thereby underwent a reinvention by the executive for the sake of speedy policy action and to the detriment of institutional control while favouring authoritarian forms of governance. This paper concerns itself with institutional responses to such developments, placing emphasis on the role of the judiciary and people*s in contesting emergency decrees and other executive orders, especially where fundamental rights are infringed upon. The paper aims to explore the difficulties arising with exerting absolute executive powers during the health crisis, the respective role assumed by constitutional courts and the impact of the new governance paradigm on forms of public contestation, also as a means of quasi institutional control.

Indeed, the right to health may be translated into political discourse and become foundational to security and public interest paradigms. This may result in a shrinking public space given the constraints to the freedom of movement. In the name of public safety, the (collective) right to assembly, expression and protest have been submitted to major limitations in that regard.

Ultimately, this re-opens debates on the meaning of absolute rights and contextualities of derogations, as well as the reconcilability of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. It also exposes social inequalities, social justice dimensions and vulnerabilities, often exacerbated by the health crisis; migrant rights demonstrably face particularly severe and intersectional forms of violations.

Particular values lie with the interdisciplinary approach embraced in this paper; the authors draw on a variety of social sciences disciplines to shed light on this very current issue. Both theoretical and empirical methods are used and combined here, making sense of the underlying logic of virus governance and its impacts on fundamental rights.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact that property rights can have on the implementation of circular waste economies, in which waste is reused, recycled or recovered, within the European Union’s Waste Framework Directive.

A theoretical lens is applied to the legal definition as well as production and treatment cycle of waste to understand the property rights that can exist in waste.

This paper argues that even though different property rights regimes can apply to waste during its creation, disposal and recovery, the waste management regulatory and legal system is currently predominantly set up to support waste within classic forms of private property ownership. This tends towards commodification and linear systems, which are at odds with an approach that treats waste as a primary wanted resource rather than an unwanted by-product. It is recommended that adopting state or communal property approaches instead could affect systemic transformative change by facilitating the reconceptualisation of waste as a resource for everyone to use.

The property rights issues are only one dimension of a bigger puzzle. The roles of social conceptualisation, norms, regulations and policies in pursuing circular strategies are only touched upon, but not fully explored in this paper. These provide other avenues that can be underpinned by certain property regimes to transition to circular economies.

The literature focused on property rights in waste has been very limited to date. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to consider this question in detail from a legal perspective.

Scheingold's The Politics of Rights and The Political Novel while having different objects of study at the center of their analyses, both concern themselves with the difficulties in producing meaningful social change on a late modern political terrain. His critiques of rights-claiming are echoed in debates over the practical and philosophical difficulties incorporating animals into contemporary legal regimes. This chapter considers insights from Scheingold's two texts arguing that his insights into the legal imaginary in the latter text anticipates the critique of animal rights while his emphasis on the fictional imaginary in the former text can also be found in contemporary texts that suggest animals can help us rethink political agency.

This chapter provides an overview of five modes of intellectual property (IP) protection – patents, designs, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets – available in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. After describing the purposes of and principal differences among the five types of IP protection and outlining the advantages of each form, the chapter provides country- and region-specific information. The authors highlight the aspects of IP law in which international harmonization has, or has not yet, occurred, and offer insights into the relative advantages of various national and regional IP protection systems.