THE LEGAL STRATEGY OF TREATING TELEMATICS CRIMES IN THE FIELD OF ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS IN GLOBAL TRADE

Economic globalization that is sweeping the world today began with the development of transportation facilities and cross-border trade. One of the facilities in the internet world to support economic activity is Electronic Transactions. In Indonesia, problems that arise due to the use of transaction media through telematics technology continue without being followed by the existence of laws that regulate it (cyber law). This study aims to determine legal policies against crime in electronic transaction activities in various sources of positive criminal law in Indonesia and to determine strategies for overcoming telematics crimes in the field of electronic transactions in global trade. This research is a normative legal research that is finding a rule of law, legal principles, and legal doctrines in order to answer the legal issues faced. The results of this study explain the legal policy against crime in electronic transaction activities in various sources of positive criminal law in Indonesia carried out in two stages, namely the Applicative Stage and the Formulation Stage and explain the Legal Strategy for Combating Telematics Crime in the Field of Electronic Transactions in Global Trade which is carried out through the Penalty Policy and non-penal policy.

Cold War Supreme Court: Analysing the Change in Constitutional Interpretation between Dennis v. U.S. (1951) and Yates v. U.S. (1957)

<p>During the early Cold War, America was gripped by an intense domestic Red Scare. This thesis explores how the United States Supreme Court dealt with the Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) and the issue of freedom of speech in the context of that Red Scare. In particular, this thesis focuses on the change in interpretation which occurred between the 1951 decision in Dennis v. United States, and the 1957 decision in Yates v United States. Dennis upheld the constitutionality of the Smith Act, and upheld the convictions of eleven Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) leaders. Yates overturned the convictions of a group of California CPUSA officials, and placed strict limitations on the use of the Smith Act in a drastic change in interpretation. This thesis aims to explore that change in interpretation by drawing on three different lines of reasoning: the impact of changes to the wider Cold War context, the impact of changes to the personnel making up the Supreme Court, and changes in legal strategy on behalf of the defendants in the two cases. To achieve this, the thesis draws on a wide range of sources, beginning with a discussion of existing literature, and moving to explore previously untapped sources from both a historic and a legal perspective. This includes looking at the records of law firms acting in both cases, analysing other Supreme Court opinions from the time, and drawing on more traditional historical sources like media coverage of various events. This thesis argues that, contrary to most existing scholarship, the change in interpretation is best explained by a multi-causal approach. The changes to the court’s makeup and changes to the context amongst which the cases occurred were only part of the reason for the change in interpretation. The impact of a change in legal strategy also played an important role in causing the Supreme Court’s change in interpretation.</p>

Cold War Supreme Court: Analysing the Change in Constitutional Interpretation between Dennis v. U.S. (1951) and Yates v. U.S. (1957)

<p>During the early Cold War, America was gripped by an intense domestic Red Scare. This thesis explores how the United States Supreme Court dealt with the Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) and the issue of freedom of speech in the context of that Red Scare. In particular, this thesis focuses on the change in interpretation which occurred between the 1951 decision in Dennis v. United States, and the 1957 decision in Yates v United States. Dennis upheld the constitutionality of the Smith Act, and upheld the convictions of eleven Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) leaders. Yates overturned the convictions of a group of California CPUSA officials, and placed strict limitations on the use of the Smith Act in a drastic change in interpretation. This thesis aims to explore that change in interpretation by drawing on three different lines of reasoning: the impact of changes to the wider Cold War context, the impact of changes to the personnel making up the Supreme Court, and changes in legal strategy on behalf of the defendants in the two cases. To achieve this, the thesis draws on a wide range of sources, beginning with a discussion of existing literature, and moving to explore previously untapped sources from both a historic and a legal perspective. This includes looking at the records of law firms acting in both cases, analysing other Supreme Court opinions from the time, and drawing on more traditional historical sources like media coverage of various events. This thesis argues that, contrary to most existing scholarship, the change in interpretation is best explained by a multi-causal approach. The changes to the court’s makeup and changes to the context amongst which the cases occurred were only part of the reason for the change in interpretation. The impact of a change in legal strategy also played an important role in causing the Supreme Court’s change in interpretation.</p>

Corporate tax culture and changes in the tax loyalty of the population: the pandemic effect

The problems of evasive tax behavior of large corporations are considered. It is shown that tax optimization, being a legal strategy, does not correspond to society’s ideas about honest tax behavior, since it is one of the factors of the growth of economic and social inequality. It is noted that during the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, this inequality deepened, causing a decrease in the loyalty of the population to the state’s distribution policy. The payment by economic entities of a «fair» (provided for by law) amount of tax by the public is considered as their action for the benefit of society, a manifestation of the moral position and social responsibility on the part of the company’s management. The directions for the formation of the corporate tax culture are proposed.

Pornography, Its Harms, and a New Legal Strategy: Research and Experience in Japan

In this article we describe pornography’s harms in Japan, which are known about from surveys and research, and from the outreach and consulting activities of Japanese feminist-abolitionist groups. Among these are the Anti-Pornography and Prostitution Research Group (APP) and People Against Pornography and Sexual Violence (PAPS). We then propose a renewed classification scheme for pornography’s harms that centrally considers the experiences of victims in Japan. Lastly, we consider various legal approaches to addressing the myriad harms we describe and suggest possibilities for a new legal strategy. The article’s research comes from Japanese-language materials produced by the above-mentioned activist groups, as well as media reports of pornography-related crimes and court cases. Our aim in this article is to isolate each category of pornography’s harms so that individually tailored legal and public policy solutions might be tactically proposed and campaigned for, so that gains against the pornography industry can be made to the point where its operating environment as a whole becomes threatened.

Legal “Locker Room Talk”: Essentialist Discourses of Masculinity in Law*

In this article, I examine how legal actors construct masculinity in law, even in cases that have seemingly little to do with gender. I analyze 118 recent cases in which lawyers, witnesses, and/or judges use gendered expressions, such as “locker room talk,” as a key element of their legal strategy, testimony, or decision-making. By identifying the specific behaviors to which these legal actors refer when they describe something as “locker room talk,” I develop a typology of the narrow, essentialist, and predominantly violent forms of masculinity that are deployed—and normalized—in contemporary U.S. law.