scholarly journals ALGORITHMIC LEGAL METRICS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Social Processes ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Predictive Algorithms ◽  
Default Rules ◽  
Algorithmic Bias

Predictive algorithms are increasingly being deployed in a variety of settings to determine legal status. Further applications have been proposed to determine civil and criminal liability or to “personalize” legal default rules. Deployment of such artificial intelligence systems has properly raised questions of algorithmic bias, fairness, transparency, and due process. But little attention has been paid to the known sociological costs of using predictive algorithms to determine legal status. Many of these interactions are socially detrimental, and such corrosive effects are greatly amplified by the increasing speed and ubiquity of digitally automated algorithmic systems. In this paper I link the sociological and legal analysis of AI, highlighting the reflexive social processes that are engaged by algorithmic metrics. Specifically, this paper shows how the problematic social effects of algorithmic legal metrics extend far beyond the concerns about accuracy that have thus far dominated critiques of such metrics. It additionally demonstrates that corrective governance mechanisms such as enhanced due process or transparency will be inadequate to remedy such corrosive effects, and that some such remedies, such as transparency, may actually exacerbate the worst effects of algorithmic governmentality. Third, the paper shows that the application of algorithmic metrics to legal decisions aggravates the latent tensions between equity and autonomy in liberal institutions, undermining democratic values in a manner and on a scale not previously experienced by human societies. Illuminating these effects casts new light on the inherent social costs of AI metrics, particularly the perverse effects of deploying algorithms in legal systems.

Principles of liability under the Polish Criminal Code for behavior relating to the termination of pregnancy undertaken in Poland and the Czech Republic

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 237-264
Author(s):  
Olga Sitarz ◽  
Anna Jaworska-Wieloch
Keyword(s):  
Czech Republic ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Termination Of Pregnancy ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Situation

Summary The article explores the problem of significance the termination of pregnancy in the context of criminal responsibility. In the first step, the legal analysis is focused on establishing the change of legal status connected with abortion and all the consequences for criminal responsibility. The second section refers to the current act, trying to find the answer how to recognized the termination of pregnancy. The third part refers to legal situation in Czech Republic at this area. Finally, some reflections on the criminal liability for the place of the offence have been presented. The possibility of conviction for abortion in a country where it is legal should be examined..

What’s So Special About General Verdicts? Questioning the Preferred Verdict Format in American Criminal Jury Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Avani Mehta Sood
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Constitutional Right

Abstract Criminal juries in the United States typically deliver their decisions through a “general verdict,” expressing only their ultimate conclusion of “guilty” or “not guilty,” rather than through a “special verdict” that identifies whether each element of the charged crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. American courts have broadly favored the use of general verdicts in criminal cases due to concerns that the special verdict will curtail the jury’s decision-making autonomy, including its power to nullify the law in favor of the defense, potentially undermining the criminal defendant’s constitutional right to trial by jury. This Article confronts the legal status quo on verdict format and its underlying, untested assumptions. Drawing upon prior psychology findings and legal professionals’ anecdotal observations, it questions whether the general verdict poses its own under-acknowledged threats to the rights of criminal defendants and the decision-making agency of jurors. While the more guided special verdict format is presumed to threaten nullifying acquittals, the unguided general verdict format might be enabling convictions that violate constitutional norms of due process, impartial adjudication, and equal protection. Given the high-stakes values potentially implicated in the choice of verdict format in criminal cases, it is time to put the conventional wisdom in favor of general verdicts to an empirical test. This Article therefore proposes a methodological framework for investigating whether the legal status quo accurately reflects (1) current stakeholders’ preferences and predictions, and (2) experimentally testable legal and cognitive effects of general versus special verdicts in lay determinations of criminal liability. A data-informed understanding is needed to assess whether the general verdict is optimizing the integrity, fairness, and constitutionality of criminal jury decision making.

theoretical and legal analysis of the position of the prosecutor’s office in the system of separation of powers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladislav Topilin ◽  
Roman Fedorov
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
State Structure ◽  
Independent State ◽  
State Apparatus

The article is devoted to the problems of the legal status of the prosecutor’s office in the system of separation of powers. In the study, the author uses grammatical (philological, linguistic) logical, systematic and other methods of scientific knowledge. The author proposes to separate the prosecutor’s office into a separate (supervisory) branch of government, which will not belong to either the executive branch or the judicial branch, as a result of which the state will receive an independent state structure that will be able to exercise its supervisory functions independently of anyone, which will allow for better and faster suppression of possible violations by any branch of government, as well as improve the work of the state apparatus as a whole.

Enkev Beheer BV (of the Netherlands) v. Republic of Poland

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 630-648
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Waiting Period ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Default Rules ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Almost All

630Procedure — Addition of a party — Conditional application — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 22 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17 — Whether the UNCITRAL Rules or lex loci arbitri allowed for applications to be made conditional on a tribunal’s future decision — Whether the application was consistent with the State’s procedural rights — Whether the amendment to a claim under Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules allowed for the addition of a third party as claimantJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Whether an investor’s shares and rights derived from those shares were protected investments under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Assets of subsidiary — Whether profits, goodwill or know-how of a local subsidiary constituted investments of the investor protected by the BITJurisdiction — Consent — Cooling-off period — Premature claims — Whether the investor had communicated its own claims rather than those of its local subsidiary — Whether the investor’s failure to comply with a waiting period of six months under the BIT required a tribunal to deny jurisdiction or admissibility — Whether the negotiation of a local subsidiary’s dispute in good faith was relevant to jurisdiction over a foreign investor’s claimsInterpretation — Cooling-off period — VCLT, Article 31 — Object and purpose — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT required a tribunal not to adopt a strict or formalistic interpretation of the waiting period of six monthsRemedies — Declaratory award — Interpretation — Just compensation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to make a declaratory award on the interpretation and application of the term “just compensation”Jurisdiction — Dispute — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to advise the parties of an imminent disputeExpropriation — Direct deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the State directly deprived the investor of its rights as a shareholder in its local subsidiaryExpropriation — Indirect deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the shares had lost all or almost all significant commercial value — Whether the measures were adopted in the public interest — Whether due process had been followed — Whether there were any undertakings by the StateExpropriation — Interpretation — “Just compensation” — Whether there was any difference between the terms of the BIT and general international law — Whether the meaning of just compensation could be determined in the abstract631Fair and equitable treatment — Whether the impending expropriation constituted a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesFull protection and security — Whether the State failed to protect an investment from expropriation by local authorities — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesUmbrella clause — Whether there was any assurance directed at the investor that created any legal obligations — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesCosts — Arbitration costs — Variation by agreement — UNCITRAL Rules — Whether the terms of the BIT varied the default rules for the allocation of arbitration costs

Efektivitas Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Pelaku Usaha Yang Memproduksi dan Memperdagangkan Kosmetik Ilegal Berbahaya: Studi Polres Pelabuhan

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-81
Author(s):  
La Ode Muhammad Jefri Hamzah ◽  
Abdul Agis ◽  
Hamza Baharuddin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Empirical Approach ◽  
Marketing Authorization ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk: (1) Menganalisis efektivitas pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap pelaku usaha yang memproduksi dan memperdagangkan kosmetik ilegal berbahaya ditinjau dari Undang-Undang No. 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen; dan (2) Menganalisis faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi efektivitas pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap pelaku usaha yang memproduksi dan memperdagangkan kosmetik ilegal berbahaya ditinjau dari Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian deskriptif dengan pendekatan yuridis-empiris. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: Penegakan hukum terhadap pelaku usaha yang memproduksi dan memperdagangkan kosmetik ilegal yang berbahaya di Wilayah Polres Pelabuhan Makassar terlaksana kurang efektif. Meskipun demikian, proses penegakan hukum yang dilakukan tersebut sudah mengacu pada ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, seperti tersangka Sdr. ARFANDY alias ARFANDY BIN MUSTAFA yang terbukti melakukan tindak pidana mengedarkan sediaan farmasi/ kosmetika yang tidak memiliki izin edar, sehingga tersangka dijerat dengan Pasal 197 Jo pasal 106 ayat (1) UU R.I. No. 36 Tahun 2009 tentang Kesehatan, dan juga dijerat dengan Pasal 62 Ayat (1) Jo Pasal 8 ayat (1) UU R.I No. 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen. Faktor substansi hukum, struktur hukum, budaha hukum, sarana dan prasarana, dan pengetahuan hukum kurang berpengaruh terhadap penegakan hukum terhadap pelaku usaha kosmetik illegal yang berbahaya di Polres Pelabuhan Makassar. The purpose of this study is to: (1) Analyze the effectiveness of criminal liability against business actors who produce and trade dangerous illegal cosmetics in terms of Law No. 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection; and (2) Analyzing the factors that influence the effectiveness of criminal liability against business actors producing and trading dangerous illegal cosmetics in terms of Law No. 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. This research is a descriptive study with a juridical-empirical approach. The results of the study show that: Law enforcement against businesses that produce and trade dangerous cosmetics that are dangerous in the Makassar Port Police Area is ineffective. Nevertheless, the law enforcement process carried out has referred to the applicable laws and regulations, such as the suspect Br. ARFANDY alias ARFANDY BIN MUSTAFA who was proven to have committed a crime of distributing pharmaceutical / cosmetic preparations that did not have a marketing authorization, so that the suspect was charged with Article 197 Jo article 106 paragraph (1) of Law R.I. No. 36 of 2009 concerning Health, and also snared with Article 62 Paragraph (1) Jo Article 8 Paragraph (1) of Law R.I No. 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. The factors of legal substance, legal structure, legal status, facilities and infrastructure, and legal knowledge have less influence on law enforcement against dangerous cosmetics business operators in Makassar Port Police

Business and Human Rights – Recent Trends in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-72
Author(s):  
Marlen Vesper-Gräske
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Corporate Social

There is an undeniable, growing trend in the current Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) discussions: the responsibility of corporations to abide by and to protect human rights. This discussion includes potential criminal liability for corporations as well as their management for human rights violations. This article will survey the legal status quo of corporate responsibility in the context of human rights protection in Germany. It will then outline two drafts of legislation: a first draft leaked to the press in February 2019 that did not result in further legislative action, and a second draft recently leaked to the public that included key points for such a legislation to become the new German Human Rights Supply Chain Due Diligence Law.

scholarly journals Criminal Liability and Artificial Intelligence: Theoretical and Applied Aspects

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zarina Khisamova ◽  
Ildar Begishev
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Design Development ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Self Learning

The humanity is now at the threshold of a new era when a widening use of artificial intelligence (AI) will start a new industrial revolution. Its use inevitably leads to the problem of ethical choice, it gives rise to new legal issues that require urgent actions. The authors analyze the criminal law assessment of the actions of AI. Primarily, the still open issue of liability for the actions of AI that is capable of self-learning and makes a decision to act / not to act, which is qualified as a crime. As a result, there is a necessity to form a system of criminal law measures of counteracting crimes committed with the use of AI. It is shown that the application of AI could lead to four scenarios requiring criminal law regulation. It is stressed that there is a need for a clear, strict and effective definition of the ethical boundaries in the design, development, production, use and modification of AI. The authors argue that it should be recognized as a source of high risk. They specifically state that although the Criminal Code of the Russian Fe­deration contains norms that determine liability for cybercrimes, it does not eliminate the possibility of prosecution for infringements committed with the use of AI under the general norms of punishment for various crimes. The authors also consider it possible to establish a system to standardize and certify the activities of designing AI and putting it into operation. Meanwhile, an autonomous AI that is capable of self-learning is considerably different from other phenomena and objects, and the situation with the liability of AI which independently decides to undertake an action qualified as a crime is much more complicated. The authors analyze the resolution of the European Parliament on the possibility of granting AI legal status and discuss its key principles and meaning. They pay special attention to the issue of recognizing AI as a legal personality. It is suggested that a legal fiction should be used as a technique, when a special legal personality of AI can be perceived as an unusual legal situation that is different from reality. It is believed that such a solution can eliminate a number of existing legal limitations which prevent active involvement of AI into the legal space.

scholarly journals USE OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE SCENE OF A CRIME IN THE ORDER OF PART 3 ART. 214 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Andrіy Shulha ◽  
◽  
Tetyana Khailova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Law

The article deals with the problem of specialist’s participation in the scene examination, which is carried out before entering information into the Unified Register of the pre-trial investigations. The essence of the problem is that the current criminal procedural law of Ukraine recognizes the specialist’s participation only in the pre-trial investigation, the litigation and the proceedings in the case of the commission of an unlawful act under the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine states that a specialist in criminal proceedings is a person who has special knowledge and skills and can provide advice and conclusions during the pre-trial investigation and trial on issues that require appropriate special knowledge and skills. In other cases, the specialist has no procedural status. In addition, Part 1 of Article 237 of the CPC of Ukraine «Examination» states that the examination is conducted to identify and record information on the circumstances of the offense commitment. It is an act provided by the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. However, there are the cases in the investigation, when a report is received, for example, about a person's death, other events with formal signs of the offense, which must first be checked for signs of a crime, and only then the act can be considered as offense. In this case, a specialist takes part in the scene examination. However, the current criminal procedure law in accordance with Part 1, Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine determines the legal status of a specialist only as the participant in criminal proceedings. The paragraph 10, part 1 of Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defines the criminal proceedings as pre-trial investigation and court proceedings or procedural actions in the case of the commission of an unlawful act. Therefore, when the inspection of the scene is based on the uncertain status of the event (there is no clear information that the event contains signs of an offense), the specialist’s participation is not regulated by law. The authors propose to consider the specialists as «experienced persons» in cases mentioned above and to include their advices to the protocol of the scene examination, as the advices of other scene examination participants.

scholarly journals THE “CRIMINAL LAW OF VICTIM” AS A CRIMINAL LAW MODEL

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Irina Aleksandrovna Tretyak
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Basic Model ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

The subject. The article is devoted to analysis of the basic models of criminal law and the impact of victim’s legal status on the criminal legal theory.The purpose of the paper is to substantiate the existence and the importance of “criminal law of victim” as basic model of criminal legal theory.The methodological basis of the research includes general-scientific methods (analysis and synthesis, system-structural approach) as well as academic methods (formal-legal method, method of interpretation of legal texts).Results and scope of application. The definition of the role of the victim, the importance of his legitimate interests in the implementation of criminal liability is complicated by the fact that the basic models of criminal law developed by science – “criminal law of the offender” and “criminal law of the crime” – do not consider the victim as a subject of criminal legal relations.The theoretical models of criminal law are embodied in the criminal law, specific legal rela-tions, law enforcement acts, etc., in connection with which there are specific indicators – the parameters by which it is possible to determine which model of criminal law is implemented.If the question of the criminal legal personality of the victim is controversial, in my opinion, there is no doubt that the victim is a party to the criminal law conflict, which often begins to unfold long before the crime.Conclusions. Recognizing the victim as a subject of criminal legal relations, as well as a par-ticipant in the criminal law conflict, it is possible to talk about the formation of a new model of criminal law – “the criminal law of victim”.

scholarly journals Topical issues of digitalization in corporate law

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 04012
Author(s):  
Elena Viktorovna Oleynik ◽  
Olga Mikhailovna Shevchenko
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Joint Stock Company ◽  
Financial Assets ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Stock Company ◽  
Digital Currency ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations ◽  
Russian Law ◽  
A Company

The purpose of the study is to analyze the provisions of the novelties of the Russian legislation on digital financial assets and digital currency. The methodological basis was the method of comparative legal analysis, using which the authors identify general patterns and features of the legal status of Russian digital joint-stock companies and decentralized autonomous organizations widely discussed in foreign literature. The results of the study were conclusions about the significant differences between the above organizations. A company issuing digital shares, under Russian law, differs from an ordinary non-public joint stock company by limiting the circulation of digital shares within the framework of a digital platform. Unlike the decentralized autonomous organization, it has legal entity and governing bodies. It was also concluded that there is a significantly greater variety of rights of holders of foreign token-shares in comparison with the rights of shareholders of Russian digital joint stock companies. The novelty of the research is contained in the results of the analysis and doctrinal interpretation of the norms of Russian federal laws concerning digital shares. So, in particular, it was established that such are recognized at the same time as securities and digital rights. Such a legal structure appears to be unnecessarily complex. According to Russian law, digital shares differ from ordinary shares in the form of certification of shareholders “rights, while no differences have been revealed in the scope of shareholders” rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document