Suchergebnisse

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications and machine learning models have extended beyond merely solving computer-related problems to tackle environmental sustainability issues. One such case is countermanding the demand and supply of illegal forest and wildlife products. In Nigeria, the challenges of improving its ability to combat the high rate of wildlife and forest crimes within its borders remain daunting. Despite existing laws, Nigeria remains both a source and a key intermediary for wildlife smuggling and crimes involving protected species. This paper analyses the potential of AI as a tool for strengthening the existing legal framework on wildlife crimes in Nigeria. The findings of this paper demonstrate that the current framework for preventing forest and wildlife crime is being breached due to a lack of resources available to enforcement authorities. Thus, leveraging AI's potential presents innovative solutions to strengthen compliance with these laws.

Under the two broad concepts of net neutrality and IP interconnection, it is not easy to distinguish the paid prioritization and paid peering. The prioritized service may be prohibited under a strict net neutrality rule while the paid peering may be a normal arrangement of commercial interconnection. For better service quality, the paid peering replaces the 'best efforts' with 'better than best efforts' which fits customers' desire. In fact, prioritized delivery options for content providers may satisfy specialized requirements in much the same ways as CDNs offer higher QoS and delivery guarantees. In many cases, large content providers build their own CDNs that may also act themselves as normal ISPs by offering terms and conditions that seem equivalent to peering arrangements. The paper also discusses the case of Taiwan authority amending rules to 'regulate' the IP interconnection in order to balance the market power of existing monopolistic operator. Though the measures of reform stop in the consideration whether the rulemaking is adequate or not, the government should carefully review every step it takes to deal with problems of the entire fixed-network market. In conclusion, the paper argues that governments should defer to commercially driven interconnection arrangements and should still be ready to resolve the disputes that become harmful to consumers.

The Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia Number 68/PMK.03/2022 as the legal basis for cryptocurrency income tax does not reflect the principle of fairness because the consideration is based on the principle of ease of administration. This paper aims to provide an alternative income tax legal framework on cryptocurrency based on the principle of justice. It is expected to be a step to increase state revenue through the sector of cryptocurrency tax. This paper employs a conceptual and comparative approach to normative research. Furthermore, the researcher compares income tax regulations and policies on cryptocurrency in Indonesia and Canada with the theory of justice to obtain answers to legal problems. The Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia Number 68/PMK.03/2022 does not reflect the principle of justice because the final tax rate does not reflect the tax burden. In addition, there are limitations on the tax collector's authority, so tax collection is not comprehensive. Therefore, this paper compares and analyses income tax regulations and policies in Indonesia and Canada to obtain several alternative forms of fair tax legal framework on cryptocurrency. Alternative cryptocurrency income tax regulation that can be accommodated by the government is to change to a progressive rate to fulfill tax fairness, change the collection system to a self-assessment and do not differentiate the source of income and also cooperate with various exchanges to exchange transaction data to prevent criminal acts.

For over thirty years, the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology ("Coordinated Framework" or "Framework") has guided federal regulation of biotechnology products. The Framework relies on a patchwork of laws to allocate oversight of biotechnology products among federal regulatory agencies. The Obama Administration's 2017 update to the Framework offered the potential to account for new technological developments and to respond to criticisms of the Framework. However, as illustrated by the government's response to the proposed experimental release of a genetically modified mosquito in the Florida Keys, this potential remains largely unrealized. Oxitec, a British biotechnology company, has genetically modified a mosquito so that male mosquitoes pass on a lethal genetic trait to any offspring. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") evaluated Oxitec's mosquito as an investigational new animal drug, determined that the proposed field trial would not significantly impact the environment, and turned the matter over to local authorities to decide whether to proceed with the release. While the federal government took these actions before finalizing the Framework update, the update did not significantly change the Framework's basic approach. As new techniques for manipulating and editing genes offer the prospect of additional genetically modified organisms ("GMOs"), the federal government's handling of the Oxitec mosquito offers a useful case study regarding the inadequacy of current legal frameworks for new biotechnologies. Ideally, the decision-making process for such technologies would assess and manage relevant risks, acknowledge and address sources of uncertainty and ignorance, engage stakeholders and the public and attempt to reflect their values, and build public confidence that the process is effective and legitimate.

For over thirty years, the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology ("Coordinated Framework" or "Framework") has guided federal regulation of biotechnology products. The Framework relies on a patchwork of laws to allocate oversight of biotechnology products among federal regulatory agencies. The Obama Administration's 2017 update to the Framework offered the potential to account for new technological developments and to respond to criticisms of the Framework. However, as illustrated by the government's response to the proposed experimental release of a genetically modified mosquito in the Florida Keys, this potential remains largely unrealized. Oxitec, a British biotechnology company, has genetically modified a mosquito so that male mosquitoes pass on a lethal genetic trait to any offspring. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") evaluated Oxitec's mosquito as an investigational new animal drug, determined that the proposed field trial would not significantly impact the environment, and turned the matter over to local authorities to decide whether to proceed with the release. While the federal government took these actions before finalizing the Framework update, the update did not significantly change the Framework's basic approach. As new techniques for manipulating and editing genes offer the prospect of additional genetically modified organisms ("GMOs"), the federal government's handling of the Oxitec mosquito offers a useful case study regarding the inadequacy of current legal frameworks for new biotechnologies. Ideally, the decision-making process for such technologies would assess and manage relevant risks, acknowledge and address sources of uncertainty and ignorance, engage stakeholders and the public and attempt to reflect their values, and build public confidence that the process is effective and legitimate.

The debate on the viability of self-regulation as a mode of regulation is split and is conducted at two different levels. The insights from sophisticated regulation theory do not transpose easily to the practical concerns of those considering self-regulation as an alternative to legislation. And yet in this era of 'Better Regulation', self-regulation is increasingly called for by stakeholders and sometimes also by public authorities. This article aims to bring theory and practice one step closer together by analysing how in one concrete European legal system, that of the Netherlands, self-regulatory mechanisms are received. From an investigation into topics such as the relevance of fundamental rights, the public/private nature of self-regulatory bodies and the scope of liability for self-regulation, the persisting formal division between public law regulation (unilateral and therefore bound by constitutional norms) and self-regulation (assumed to be bilateral and therefore positioned in the realm of private law) emerges. Furthermore, the growing popularity of public law mechanisms at the expense of (pure) self-regulatory mechanisms can be observed. This is partly because in the current legal structure the voluntary nature of many self-regulatory arrangements is not always protected or acknowledged.

The debate on the viability of self-regulation as a mode of regulation is split and is conducted at two different levels. The insights from sophisticated regulation theory do not transpose easily to the practical concerns of those considering self-regulation as an alternative to legislation. And yet in this era of 'Better Regulation', self-regulation is increasingly called for by stakeholders and sometimes also by public authorities. This article aims to bring theory and practice one step closer together by analysing how in one concrete European legal system, that of the Netherlands, self-regulatory mechanisms are received. From an investigation into topics such as the relevance of fundamental rights, the public/private nature of self-regulatory bodies and the scope of liability for self-regulation, the persisting formal division between public law regulation (unilateral and therefore bound by constitutional norms) and self-regulation (assumed to be bilateral and therefore positioned in the realm of private law) emerges. Furthermore, the growing popularity of public law mechanisms at the expense of (pure) self-regulatory mechanisms can be observed. This is partly because in the current legal structure the voluntary nature of many self-regulatory arrangements is not always protected or acknowledged.