scholarly journals ECONOMIC CRIMINAL LAW - COMPARATIVE OUTLOOK

2017 ◽  
pp. 025
Author(s):  
Vanja Serjević
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Illegal Behavior ◽  
Legal Entities

The criminal liability of legal entities has been in the focus of the criminal law reforms over the last century, especially in the modern globalization era. The theoretical debate and the creative judicial practice in cases of serious illegal behavior of corporations have provided the necessary vehicle for change from the traditional conception that legal persons cannot be liable under criminal law (‘societas delinquere non potest’) to the newly embraced doctrine of ‘respondeat superior’ (with some modification). The article presents an overview of the major concepts and theories of the criminal liability of legal entities. After providing a comprative overview of relevant legislation in the prominent criminal law systems of the United States of America, Germany and the European Union, the author provides a general overview of the Serbian legislation on this matter.

scholarly journals A Fight Against the Dissemination of Deepfakes in Other Countries: Criminal and Criminological Aspects

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-379
Author(s):  
Roman Dremliuga ◽  
Alexander Korobeev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Legislation

The authors analyze a relatively new phenomenon of spreading realistic audiovisual fake materials (deepfakes). This socially dangerous phenomenon is not reflected in the Russian criminal legislation as a separate offence. At the same time, some countries have started developing a criminal policy in this sphere. The methodology of the study presupposes a comparative law analysis of current legislations of the USA, China and the European union regarding the liability for the dissemination of realistic audiovisual fakes. The analysis of criminal legislation is aimed at the identification and systematization of key approaches to criminalizing the dissemination of realistic audiovisual fakes in the countries that are the leaders in digitizing their social and economic life. It showed that there are radically different approaches to regulating criminal liability for the actions under consideration. The authors analyzed criminal policy of the United States at the federal and state levels on the criminal law protection against infringements through deepfakes. They found that the first action to be recognized as criminal is the use of realistic audiovisual fakes for electoral intervention. The legislations of some states strictly regulate the procedure of posting such content before elections, the most serious violations leading to criminal liability. Besides, the United States recognizes as criminally punishable the use of deepfakes for creating materials of intimate nature and for identity theft. The People’s Republic of China establishes liability, including criminal liability, for posting any fake realistic-looking audiovisual materials without mentioning that they are fake. Currently there are no special criminal law norms regulating liability for the dissemination of deepfakes in the law of the European Union. This action should be viewed as infringement of the lawful use of personal data. The authors give their assessment of some criminological characteristics of the analyzed publicly dangerous phenomenon in Russia and in the world. In spite of the relative novelty of the deepfake technology, realistic fake videos are quite common. The society supports the necessity of criminalizing this publicly dangerous action.

Russian Federation and the United States of America: geostrategic directions to manage the Ukrainian crisis

2019 ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Zero Sum

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.

scholarly journals Two Grand Old Ladies Face to Face: The United Kingdom and the United States of America Constitutions Compared

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Patrono ◽  
Justin O Frosini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty

This article discusses the Constitution of the United Kingdom and then draws some comparisons between it and the Constitution of the United States of America. It touches on issues such as how the United Kingdom's commitment to parliamentary sovereignty has been affected by the country's relationship with the European Union.

scholarly journals State Responsibility for “Targeted Sanctions”

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 135-139
Author(s):  
Antonios Tzanakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Legal Entities

The United States and other actors such as the European Union impose “targeted sanctions” against foreign officials for acts carried out in their official capacity, or against legal entities of targeted states. This mirrors the practice and experience of the United Nations. The Security Council's practice of imposing comprehensive sanctions in the early 1990s quickly evolved into a practice of “targeted” or “smart” sanctions, to both improve effectiveness and to alleviate the significant effects of sanctions on the population of targeted states. However, the legal regime for resorting to sanctions is different when it comes to states acting unilaterally than it is for collective action within the framework of the UN Charter. This essay first clarifies some terminological issues. It then delves into the legality of the practice of unilateral “targeted sanctions,” and concludes that the most legally difficult aspect of these measures is their purported extraterritoriality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document