Suchergebnisse

Digital technologies have taken individualized advertising to an unprecedented level. But the convenience and efficiency of such highly tailored content comes at a high price: unbridled access to our personal data. The rise of sophisticated data-driven practices, otherwise known as "Big Data," enables large datasets to be analyzed in ways that reveal useful patterns about human behavior. Thanks to these novel analytical techniques, businesses can cater to individual consumer needs better than ever before. Yet the opportunities presented by Big Data pose new ethical challenges. Significant scholarly research has examined algorithmic discrimination and consumer manipulation, as well as the ways that data-driven practices undermine our democratic system by dramatically altering the news ecosystem. Current scholarship has especially focused on the ways illegitimate foreign and domestic operatives exploit the advertising tools of digital platforms to spread fake and divisive messages to those most susceptible to influence. However, more scholarly attention should be devoted to how these digital technologies are exploited by legitimate political actors, such as politicians and campaigns, to win elections. By combining data-driven voter research with personalized advertising, political actors engage in political microtargeting, directing communications at niche audiences. Political microtargeting fits within a broader conversation about data-privacy regulation, as individuals lack sufficient control over how digital companies handle their personal data. The First Amendment currently limits data-privacy reform, so any meaningful changes must reconcile data privacy with the First Amendment. Professor Jack Balkin has argued that online service providers should be defined as "information fiduciaries," or businesses that, because of their relationship with another, have taken on special duties with respect to the information they obtain in the course of the relationship. Because online service providers receive sensitive ...

The term "sanctuary" has long expressed a sympathy for immigrants' rights and resistance to federal immigration enforcement. Recently, the word has become associated with another divisive political topic, as local governments have begun declaring themselves "Second Amendment Sanctuaries" in defiance of statewide gun-control measures they deem unconstitutional. This gun-rights resistance movement not only flips the political script on the nature of sanctuaries, but also presents important and challenging questions about local–state power sharing, the proper scope of "subfederal commandeering," and the role of coordinate branches in constitutional decision-making. This Article provides the first scholarly treatment of Second Amendment Sanctuaries. In doing so, it explores both the unique facets of this new localism and the broader implications for sanctuary movements generally. Most early commentary dismisses Second Amendment Sanctuaries as purely symbolic and presumptively invalid pursuant to state preemption principles and the judicial supremacy model of constitutional interpretation. This Article challenges that narrative and articulates a theory of limited viability for Second Amendment Sanctuaries and other local intrastate resistance movements more broadly. The theory this Article presents proceeds in three parts, with each part presenting a novel approach to local–state governmental conflict that contributes to the existing literature. First, localities can resist broad state preemption in limited circumstances via the state's "home rule" provisions when local regulation of a particular issue is rooted in history and has normative policy appeal. Second, localities may passively resist statewide regulation through a form of "subfederal anticommandeering" analogous to the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering principles protecting states from federal overreach, so long as the locality takes no affirmative steps to frustrate state enforcement. Third, local enforcement officers may defend their resistance on ...

Community law was established as a meta-legal order to provide a systematic solution to conflicts betweeen national legal orders. Integration, and in particular integration of law, was re-quired to tackle the functional and normative problems that ensued from the disorganised co-existence of State legal orders in Europe. Integration of law was made compatible with the preserva-tion of autonomy to define the national socio-economic model and structure because early European legislation organised the co-operation of national legal orders. The power to regulate and mould the economy was reinforced, at the same time that the sharpest corners of national power were clipped (by reference to the formal principle of non-discrimination). From the late seventies, the point and purpose of European integration was redefined. L'Europe par le marché resulted in integration through law, making of law the key means through which national regulatory and monetary policies were made to compete with each other. The result was the progressive definition of the content of law by the exercise of economic freedoms, a most peculiar process leading to turning law into a false commodity. Since the late 2000s, the role of law in the process of European integration has been in-creased to the detriment of governance arrangements, but this has only exacerbated the commodifi-cation of law and its submission to the imperative of ensuring the store value of money.

Welche Bedeutung haben die Rechts- und Geschichtswissenschaft füreinander? Diese Frage stellte sich Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, der Staatsrechtler und Historiker, in seinem juristischen, verfassungshistorischen und rechtsphilosophischen Werk. Böckenförde zielte darauf, zwei Disziplinen, die in der institutionellen Auffächerung seit dem 19. Jahrhundert auseinandergestrebt waren, in einem gemeinsamen Interesse an der Erklärung von Zusammenhängen in der "Geschichte politisch-sozialer Entwicklungen" zusammenzuführen. Er fügte dabei methodische Perspektiven und theoretische Ansätze zusammen, die viele Historiker trennten: die politische Geschichte und die Sozialgeschichte, die Geschichte des Rechts und die der Gesellschaft. Für ihn waren dies durch ein übergreifendes Erkenntnisinteresse an "Strukturen" und "Ordnungsproblemen" miteinander zu verbindende Gegenstandsbereiche. In Anlehnung an Otto Brunner stellte Böckenförde Juristen und Historikern die gemeinsame Aufgabe, die "politisch-soziale Bauform einer Zeit" zu begreifen. Diesen Anspruch löste er durch einen seiner Zeit vorausweisenden hermeneutisch-wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Zugang zum Staatsrecht wie zur Verfassungsgeschichte ein sowie in grundlegenden Beiträgen zu den "Geschichtlichen Grundbegriffen" und zur Geschichte der Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie. Ein wissenschaftliches Vermächtnis des im Februar 2019 verstorbenen Gelehrten liegt in der tiefen Einsicht in die Geschichtlichkeit und damit Zeitgebundenheit aller staatlich-rechtlichen Ordnung: Deshalb müssen Juristen die vermeintliche Überzeitlichkeit ihrer normativen Arbeitsgrundlagen in Frage stellen und Historiker das Recht als zentralen Gegenstand ihrer Wissenschaft begreifen. Ansonsten verstehen sie weder ihre Geschichte noch ihre Gegenwart.

Purpose: The paper attempts to identify the constitutional and legal forms of the regionalization process on the example of individual European countries. Design / Methodology / Approach: The authors put forward a hypothesis according to which each type of regionalization of the state-territorial structure ends with the adoption of the relevant normative legal act of constitutional significance. Findings: As a result of the study, the authors concluded that each type of regionalization process is accompanied by the adoption of an appropriate regulatory legal act. Given the fact that regionalization is inextricably linked with the state structure, it as an internal process of changing the constitutional and legal status of territorial units. Practical implications: Authors' development could be applied to improve the legal framework of Russia and European countries. Originality/Value: The contribution of the article is the authors' comprehensive approach in studying the regionalization concept, applying the historical, legislative and territorial background. ; peer-reviewed

This work aims to study main insecurities and uncertainties regarding to IoT, verifying its impact to the exercise of the fundamental rights to healthcare and to privacy. Its specific objectives are: i) to present promises of IoT to healthcare and treatments; ii) to expose risks and uncertainties identified with IoT until the present moment; iii) to analyze ethical and legal principles (mainly in Brazil) concerning to IoT uses. Its main hypothesis is that healthcare can be revolutionarily improved with IoT, but despite of all of that revolution in good practices, good technologies of security, securitized by public policies and legal practices, have also to be implemented and improved by scholars, jurists and politicians. Methodology: hypothetical-deductive method of research, with a qualitative and transdisciplinar method of approach, and a bibliographical research technique. Results: IoT/IoMT presents a great potential of actualization of the fundamental right to health, but the security of the collection and storage of sensitive data should be the first concern in the development of systems involving such technologies, since there is an immense potential of disrespect to the fundamental right to the privacy of individuals from their use, not only by private third parties, but also, by the State.

This work aims to study main insecurities and uncertainties regarding to IoT, verifying its impact to the exercise of the fundamental rights to healthcare and to privacy. Its specific objectives are: i) to present promises of IoT to healthcare and treatments; ii) to expose risks and uncertainties identified with IoT until the present moment; iii) to analyze ethical and legal principles (mainly in Brazil) concerning to IoT uses. Its main hypothesis is that healthcare can be revolutionarily improved with IoT, but despite of all of that revolution in good practices, good technologies of security, securitized by public policies and legal practices, have also to be implemented and improved by scholars, jurists and politicians. Methodology: hypothetical-deductive method of research, with a qualitative and transdisciplinar method of approach, and a bibliographical research technique. Results: IoT/IoMT presents a great potential of actualization of the fundamental right to health, but the security of the collection and storage of sensitive data should be the first concern in the development of systems involving such technologies, since there is an immense potential of disrespect to the fundamental right to the privacy of individuals from their use, not only by private third parties, but also, by the State.

This work aims to study main insecurities and uncertainties regarding to IoT, verifying its impact to the exercise of the fundamental rights to healthcare and to privacy. Its specific objectives are: i) to present promises of IoT to healthcare and treatments; ii) to expose risks and uncertainties identified with IoT until the present moment; iii) to analyze ethical and legal principles (mainly in Brazil) concerning to IoT uses. Its main hypothesis is that healthcare can be revolutionarily improved with IoT, but despite of all of that revolution in good practices, good technologies of security, securitized by public policies and legal practices, have also to be implemented and improved by scholars, jurists and politicians. Methodology: hypothetical-deductive method of research, with a qualitative and transdisciplinar method of approach, and a bibliographical research technique. Results: IoT/IoMT presents a great potential of actualization of the fundamental right to health, but the security of the collection and storage of sensitive data should be the first concern in the development of systems involving such technologies, since there is an immense potential of disrespect to the fundamental right to the privacy of individuals from their use, not only by private third parties, but also, by the State.

The Drug Enforcement Administration wields tremendous power at scheduling a new drug or substance on an emergency basis under the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA newly leveled this power at a plant—kratom—with the potential to curb the menacing opioid epidemic in North America. This unprecedented effort has generated considerable controversy. Many individuals remonstrated the agency's action, especially those facing life-threatening hardships because of the opioid crisis. Members of Congress also took a stand against the DEA's unrivalled move to schedule kratom, suggesting that the agency had abused the emergency scheduling authority delegated by the legislative branch. This Comment explores the interplay between the DEA's rulemaking authority, the public's democratic participation in the DEA's rulemaking process, and the legislative branch's delegation of authority and oversight of the DEA's rulemaking in the specific case of kratom.