Algorithmic Governance by Online Intermediaries

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niva Elkin-Koren ◽  
Maayan Perel
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Online Content ◽  
Private Ordering ◽  
Algorithmic Accountability ◽  
Copyright Enforcement

In recent years, there is a growing use of algorithmic law enforcement by online intermediaries. Algorithmic enforcement by private intermediaries is located at the interface between public law and private ordering. It often reflects risk management and commercial interests of online intermediaries, effectively converging law enforcement and adjudication powers, at the hands of a small number of mega platforms. At the same time, algorithmic governance also plays a critical role in shaping access to online content and facilitating public discourse. Yet, online intermediaries are hardly held accountable for algorithmic enforcement, even though they may reach erroneous decisions. Developing proper accountability mechanisms is hence vital to create a check on algorithmic enforcement. Accordingly, relying on lessons drawn from algorithmic copyright enforcement by online intermediaries, this chapter demonstrates the accountability deficiencies in algorithmic copyright enforcement; maps the barriers for algorithmic accountability and discusses various strategies for enhancing accountability in algorithmic governance.

Private and Public Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 574-592
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Merrill
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
General Criterion ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Ordering ◽  
Public Rights ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Derivatives Of

This chapter explores the relationship between private and public law. In civil law countries, the public-private distinction serves as an organizing principle of the entire legal system. In common law jurisdictions, the distinction is at best an implicit design principle and is used primarily as an informal device for categorizing different fields of law. Even if not explicitly recognized as an organizing principle, however, it is plausible that private and public law perform distinct functions. Private law supplies the tools that make private ordering possible—the discretionary decisions that individuals make in structuring their lives. Public law is concerned with providing public goods—broadly defined—that cannot be adequately supplied by private ordering. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, various schools of thought derived from utilitarianism have assimilated both private and public rights to the same general criterion of aggregate welfare analysis. This has left judges with no clear conception of the distinction between private and public law. Another problematic feature of modern legal thought is a curious inversion in which scholars who focus on fields of private law have turned increasingly to law and economics, one of the derivatives of utilitarianism, whereas scholars who concern themselves with public law are increasingly drawn to new versions of natural rights thinking, in the form of universal human rights.

A Review on Oil and Gas Pipeline Safety

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rakesh Yarlagadda ◽  
M. Affan Badar ◽  
Boris Blyukher
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Shock Waves ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Manufacturing Defects ◽  
Material Defects ◽  
Oil And Natural Gas ◽  
Pipeline Safety ◽  
Day By Day

The safety of oil and gas pipelines has increasingly considered day by day to their vulnerability. Pipelines play a very critical role in the transportation of oil and natural-gas. As they have become the veins of oil industries, the productive design and analysis became more important. This made them more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Although it is impossible to design pipelines to withstand any conceivable damage due to external (terrorist attacks, seismic effects) and internal effects (design and manufacturing defects), it is possible to improve the performance of pipelines. By understanding the design criteria, it saves lots of money and more over human lives and also protects the product in pipelines, which cannot be recovered and which is more and more scares day by day. This research aims: 1) to understand the different types of pipeline damages, reasons for their occurrence and their effects on the pipelines, such as mechanical damages, material defects, cracks, manufacturing defects, 2) to understand the explosions in pipelines, internal or external explosions and seismic distress, 3) to do research and literature review in analytical and numerical methods which allow researching the influence of shock waves (explosions, seismic), 4) to develop description of experimental research of pipelines subjected to shock waves (explosions, seismic), 5) to establish an effective methodology (develop mathematical model) to study the risk management in pipeline exploitation which can be subjected to such conditions like shock waves (caused by explosions, seismic, as well as mining activities) on pipeline systems (buried, on surface, or underwater), and 6) to establish criteria for risk management. This paper includes a review of the related literature covering the first two goals.

Public Law Enforcement under Ambiguity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand Chopard ◽  
Marie Obidzinski
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Public Law

scholarly journals Takzir sebagai Hukuman dalam Hukum Pidana Islam

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-272
Author(s):  
Usammah Usammah
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
National Level ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Community Life ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Sharia Law ◽  
Interesting Part ◽  
Western Law

Memformalisasikan syariat Islam baik dalam ranah kehidupan bermasyarakat dan sosial, dalam bernegara dan berbangsa tidak jarang terjadi perdebatan, baik perdebatan sosial-politik maupun keagamaan. Perdebatan itu di samping menyangkut memahami ajaran agama dan hubungannya dengan negara-bangsa, juga dalam memahami sistem hukum yang ada dalam negera, lebih-lebih bahwa negera menganut sistem hukum positif yang lebih banyak dipengaruhi oleh hukum barat. Gagasan pemberlakuan hukum pidana Islam tidak serta merta dapat dijalankan dengan baik tanpa adanya legislasi dan pembentukan hukum pidana Islam materil sebagai hukum positif yang berlaku. Juga bahwa hukum pidana Islam adalah hukum publik yang membutuhkan kekuasaan negara baik dalam pembentukannya maupun dalam penegakannya. Dalam hubungannya dengan legislasi dan pembentukan hukum (qanun syariat Islam), maka hal yang sangat menarik adalah bagaimana menentukan bentuk jarimah dan uqubatnya baik yang termasuk dalam kategori hudud, qisas, dan takzir sebagai bagian dari sistem penegakan hukum syariat Islam. Takzir as a Punishment in Islamic Criminal Law The formalizing of Islamic Sharia Law both in the realm of social and community life and also in the state and national level. This issue is frequently debatable, both in socio-political as well as in religious matter. The debate is not only about understanding religious teachings and their relationship with the nation, but also about understanding the legal system applicable in the country, especially the country which apply a positive legal system that influenced by western law. The idea of enforcing Islamic Criminal Law cannot be carried out properly without the existence of legislation and the establishment of Islamic Criminal Law as a positive law that enforced. In addition, Islamic Criminal Law is a public law that requires state power both in its formation and in its enforcement. In relation to legislation and the formation of law (Qanun Sharia), the very interesting part is how to determine the form of rahmah and uqubat both are included in the hudud, qisas and takzir categories as part of the Islamic Sharia law enforcement system.

scholarly journals What is Left of User Rights? – Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement and Free Speech in the Light of the Article 17 Regime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Felix Schwemer ◽  
Jens Schovsbo
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Online Content ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Clear View ◽  
Content Sharing ◽  
Limitations And Exceptions ◽  
Copyright Enforcement ◽  
Primary Channel

Article 17 of the Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the DSM Directive) has strengthened the protection of copyright holders. Moving forward, online content-sharing providers will be responsible for copyright infringement unless the use of works on their platforms is authorized or if they have made ‘best efforts’ to obtain an authorization and prevent the availability of unlicensed works. At the same time, the Directive has made it clear that users of protected works shall be able to rely on the existing limitations and exceptions regarding quotation, criticism and review and caricature, parody or pastiche. The Directive even casts these limitations and exceptions as user rights. This paper points out that copyright’s limitations and exceptions have traditionally consti- tuted a corner stone in the internal balancing of the interests of users against rights holders and with a clear view of safeguarding the interests of free expression and information protected by the Charter. Given the overall purpose of the DSM Directive in strengthening the position of rights holders, there is a dire risk that the benefits of the limitations and exceptions evaporate in the attempts of platform operators to escape liability by use of algorithmic enforcement. The article uses the recent decisions of the CJEU in Pelham, Funke Medien and Spiegel Online to draw attention to the central importance of the limitations and exception as the primary channel for fundamental rights analyses in copyright. It is finally pointed out how the DSM Directive –despite of its on-the-paper recognition of users’ rights– is most likely going to lead to a devaluation of those same rights.

scholarly journals CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC TERMINOLOGY AND THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE LEGISLATION ON THE DEFINITION OF SUBJECTS AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

2019 ◽  
pp. 70-73
Author(s):  
I. L. Zheltobriukh
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
Scientific Terminology ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Enforcement Activity

This paper explores the existing contradictions between the scientific terminology and the terminology of legislation regarding the definition of subjects and participants in the administrative process. It is noted that acquaintance with the scientific and educational- methodological literature shows that even today there is no clear justification of the relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant of administrative process”. The main reason for this state of affairs is due to differences in the laws of development of national administrative procedural legislation and the laws of development of science of administrative procedural law. It is concluded that there is a long-standing need to offer the scientific community and practitioners such a concept of relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant in administrative process”, which would reconcile the contradictions of the otological and epistemological terminology used in the CAS. The necessity to use in the science of administrative law and process justifies the concept according to which the administrative process should be considered as law enforcement activity of administrative courts related to the consideration and resolution of public law disputes. In such a case, the administrative court will always be the subject of the administrative court, whereas the parties, third parties, representatives, assistant judge, court secretary, court administrator, witness, expert, law expert, translator, specialist are only participants in the administrative process that is, persons involved in the enforcement of administrative law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document