scholarly journals Internet (Un)Immunity: Where Does China Stand?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Huang
Keyword(s):  
Personal Information ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Policy Support ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Chinese Policy ◽  
Policy Priority ◽  
The Eu

This paper focuses on Internet intermediaries’ civil liabilities for contents produced by third parties. By comparing Chinese law with the laws of the US and EU, it argues that the US law grants broad civil immunity to Internet intermediaries, and the EU and China restrict civil immunity to intermediaries but in different ways. This is on account of how, in the US, Internet intermediaries enjoy civil immunity as long as they do not become content providers. In the EU, aside from mere conduit intermediaries, all other intermediaries are subject to the notice-and-take-down mechanism before enjoying civil immunity. In contrast, in China, even after an intermediary properly follows the notice-and-take-down mechanism, it may still be subject to civil liability under Chinese Consumer Law. Further, this paper argues that the policy priority for the law for Internet intermediaries varies fundamentally in the three jurisdictions. The US law for intermediaries’ liability focuses on protecting freedom of speech. The EU emphasises the protection of personal information as a fundamental human right. Contrastingly, Chinese policy priority is unclear. Consumer protection has boomed in public popularity and increasingly attracted the attentions of the legislature and judiciary in China. However, it is doubtable that the protection of consumers can provide a prevailing policy support for Chinese law in the same way that freedom of speech and the protection of personal information does under the laws of the US and EU, respectively.

scholarly journals Internet (Un)Immunity: Where Does China Stand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-368
Author(s):  
Jie (Jeanne) HUANG
Keyword(s):  
Personal Information ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Policy Support ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Chinese Policy ◽  
Policy Priority ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis paper focuses on Internet intermediaries’ civil liabilities for contents produced by third parties. By comparing Chinese law with the laws of the US and EU, it argues that the US law grants broad civil immunity to Internet intermediaries, and the EU and China restrict civil immunity to intermediaries but in different ways. This is on account of how, in the US, Internet intermediaries enjoy civil immunity as long as they do not become content providers. In the EU, aside from mere conduit intermediaries, all other intermediaries are subject to the notice-and-take-down mechanism before enjoying civil immunity. In contrast, in China, even after an intermediary properly follows the notice-and-take-down mechanism, it may still be subject to civil liability under the Chinese Consumer Law. Further, this paper argues that the policy priority for the law for Internet intermediaries varies fundamentally in the three jurisdictions. The US law for intermediaries’ liability focuses on protecting freedom of speech. The EU emphasizes the protection of personal information as a fundamental human right. Contrastingly, Chinese policy priority is unclear. Consumer protection has boomed in public popularity and increasingly attracted the attentions of the legislature and judiciary in China. However, it is doubtable that the protection of consumers can provide a prevailing policy support for Chinese law in the same way as freedom of speech and the protection of personal information do under the laws of the US and the EU, respectively.

Analysis of the US Privacy Model

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Francisco García Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Data Privacy ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Privacy Laws ◽  
The Us ◽  
General Data ◽  
The Eu

The creation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) constituted an enormous advance in data privacy, empowering the online consumers, who were doomed to the complete loss of control of their personal information. Although it may first seem that it only affects companies within the European Union, the regulation clearly states that every company who has businesses in the EU must be compliant with the GDPR. Other non-EU countries, like the United States, have seen the benefits of the GDPR and are already developing their own privacy laws. In this article, the most important updates introduced by the GDPR concerning US corporations will be discussed, as well as how American companies can become compliant with the regulation. Besides, a comparison between the GDPR and the state of art of privacy in the US will be presented, highlighting similarities and disparities at the national level and in states of particular interest.

scholarly journals Vėliava – Flag – Drapeau, arba Ir vėl apie žmogaus teises

Teisė ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 18-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gediminas Mesonis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Anglo American

Straipsnyje analizuojama, kokią reikšmę turi skirtingos koncepcijos atskleidžiant konkrečios žmogaus teisės turinį. Konstatuojama, kad net „Vakarų“ demokratinėse valstybėse sprendžiant dėl žmogaus teisių turinio nuolat konkuruoja individualistinis ir traibalistinis požiūris į žmogaus teises. Esama koncepcijų dichotomija šiame straipsnyje iliustruojama žodžio laisvės turinio raidos kontekste. Straipsnyje į šios teisės turinio raidą žvelgiama per valstybės vėliavos teisinį statusą, analizuojant Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų Aukščiausiojo Teismo jurisprudencijos ir kitų šalių teisinio reguliavimo patirtį. Konstatuojama, kad anglų–amerikiečių (liberalioji) žmogaus teisių ir laisvių koncepcija, spręsdama žmogaus teisės turinio problemą, prioritetą linkusi atiduoti konkretaus asmens, o ne grupės interesui.The article analyses the significance of different conceptions in disclosing the content of a concrete human right. It is stated that even in “western” democratic states, when one decides regarding the content of human rights, there is continuous competition between the individualistic and tribalistic approach to human rights. The existing dichotomy of these conceptions is illustrated in the context of the development of the content of freedom of speech. In the article the development of the content of this right is considered through the legal status of the flag, while analysing the experience of the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and that of legal regulation of other countries. It is stated that the Anglo-American (liberal) conception of human rights, while deciding the issue of the content of a human right, tends to give priority to the interest of a concrete person, but not that of a group.

scholarly journals Learning about Digital Trade: Privacy and E-Commerce in CETA and TPP

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S63-S84 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT WOLFE
Keyword(s):  
Personal Information ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
First Century ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Us ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
Transfer Of Information ◽  
The Eu

AbstractIt is a truth universally acknowledged that every ambitious twenty-first century trade agreement is in want of a chapter on electronic commerce. One of the most politically sensitive and technically challenging issues is personal privacy, including cross-border transfer of information by electronic means, use and location of computing facilities, and personal information protection. States are learning to solve the problem of state responsibility for something that does not respect their borders while still allowing twenty-first century commerce to develop. A comparison of the Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) allows us to see the evolution of the issues thought necessary for an e-commerce chapter, since both include Canada, and to see the differing priorities of the US and the EU, since they are each signatory to one of the agreements, but not of the other. I conclude by seeking generalizations about why we see a mix of aspirational and obligatory provisions in free trade agreements. I suggest that the reasons are that governments are learning how to work with each other in a new domain, and learning about the trade implications of these issues.

Sanctions of the USA and the Policy of Bank of Russia:double Blow to the National Economy

2014 ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Glazyev
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Capital Flight ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Monetary Authorities ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Simultaneous Adoption ◽  
The Eu

This article examines fundamental questions of monetary policy in the context of challenges to the national security of Russia in connection with the imposition of economic sanctions by the US and the EU. It is proved that the policy of the Russian monetary authorities, particularly the Central Bank, artificially limiting the money supply in the domestic market and pandering to the export of capital, compounds the effects of economic sanctions and plunges the economy into depression. The article presents practical advice on the transition from external to domestic sources of long-term credit with the simultaneous adoption of measures to prevent capital flight.

Russian Policy of Agriculture Support and the Necessity of Its Modification after WTO Accession

2012 ◽  
pp. 132-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Uzun
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
World Trade Organization ◽  
Agricultural Production ◽  
World Trade ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
Wto Accession ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Agriculture Support

The article deals with the features of the Russian policy of agriculture support in comparison with the EU and the US policies. Comparative analysis is held considering the scales and levels of collective agriculture support, sources of supporting means, levels and mechanisms of support of agricultural production manufacturers, its consumers, agrarian infrastructure establishments, manufacturers and consumers of each of the principal types of agriculture production. The author makes an attempt to estimate the consequences of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization based on a hypothesis that this will result in unification of the manufacturers and consumers’ protection levels in Russia with the countries that have long been WTO members.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document