LASSWELLT:h e first of our discussants is of the discipline that the rest of the social scientists examine with mixed feelings of respect and envy, namely, economics. Prof. Jan Tinbergen. TINBERGEIN p: ropose not only to give a very brief summary of my paper but to add a few remarks that are inspired by the discussions in these two and a half days. In my paper I trace how, during the last century and a half, both the aims and the means of social economic policies have changed. A number of social objectives have been added to the aims, especially care for the weak and income distribution generally, but other social objectives as well.
This commentary traces the genealogy of "theft of time," a newly discovered offence committed by employees against employers. A Foucauldian perspective is used to examine how truth claims from science, technology, and law constitute categories through which groups are sorted, classified, and censured: the processes of naming, blaming, and shaming. This commentary argues that to understand why some truth claims are heard and acted upon, while others are ignored or silenced, it is necessary to link the power/knowledge nexus to political economy, the structural dominance of capital, and the power relations thereby created and reinforced.
This article is premised on the relation of technology and applied sciences with law. The three subjects are not only interwoven but cannot be protected and regulated without the viable use of law. The unprecedented advancement ofscientific innovations has far-reaching implication in virtually all ramifications of human endeavour. Technology is an invention created using science, which needs to be sustained by prudent management and law. The research goal is to narrow down a middle ground where all these independent fields can meet and share a symbiotic relationship without stifling each other. The research seeks to ascertain the knowledge and perception of selected university students of Nigeria and India, about Science, Law and Technology. The authors adopted the doctrinal and empirical research methodology coupled with the use of cases and legislations as source of information. The research revealed that majority of the participants has knowledge about the co-existence and impact of Science, Technology and Law in the society. However, the attitude and perception of the participants constitute a fundamental influence on the degree to which technological orientations occur during learning process. Also, 85% of 200 participants agreed that there is need for frequent education and legislation as science and technology evolves in the society. Hence, this article recommends the implementation and frequent modifications of law to continually protect, encourage and ensure the societal sustainability of ethical standards.
As a result of intensive international debate and the adoption of a number of renowned international anticorruption conventions and initiatives in the 1990s and 2000s, the issue of corruption has become a convenient theme for different kinds of generalizations in social sciences. However, national legislation does not reflect these developments in its legal regulation due to conservatism inherent in jurisprudence. One of the most evident gaps in this respect is the sphere of political corruption. While political science and political economy for decades have been successful in explaining political processes in different countries as corrupt conspiracies of political elites, business structures, and other actors in the political process, legal science has kept itself separate from such problems and prefers to deal with individual acts of corruption. But if for criminal law such an approach seems logical due to the methodology of the criminal law, for other branches of law which set forth a systemic view on social processes – primarily administrative and constitutional – there seems to be an omission.Nowadays, there is a quite favourable environment for the development of a consistent legal understanding of anticorruption in Russia. This has become possible thanks to current Russian administrative reforms, when the need for a highly professional bureaucracy led to a greater demand for various anticorruption mechanisms. The next possible step in Russia may be an attempt to ensure the effectiveness of well-proven anti-corruption methods of the political system as a whole.In this article we propose a brief background to the evolution of the concept of political corruption in Western and Russian political and legal science, which entails the necessity of complex scientific legal synthesis on this issue, allows to discuss the existing methodological potential and creates new opportunities to build up appropriate systemic legislative models. ; As a result of intensive international debate and the adoption of a number of renowned international anticorruption conventions and initiatives in the 1990s and 2000s, the issue of corruption has become a convenient theme for different kinds of generalizations in social sciences. However, national legislation does not reflect these developments in its legal regulation due to conservatism inherent in jurisprudence. One of the most evident gaps in this respect is the sphere of political corruption. While political science and political economy for decades have been successful in explaining political processes in different countries as corrupt conspiracies of political elites, business structures, and other actors in the political process, legal science has kept itself separate from such problems and prefers to deal with individual acts of corruption. But if for criminal law such an approach seems logical due to the methodology of the criminal law, for other branches of law which set forth a systemic view on social processes – primarily administrative and constitutional – there seems to be an omission.Nowadays, there is a quite favourable environment for the development of a consistent legal understanding of anticorruption in Russia. This has become possible thanks to current Russian administrative reforms, when the need for a highly professional bureaucracy led to a greater demand for various anticorruption mechanisms. The next possible step in Russia may be an attempt to ensure the effectiveness of well-proven anti-corruption methods of the political system as a whole.In this article we propose a brief background to the evolution of the concept of political corruption in Western and Russian political and legal science, which entails the necessity of complex scientific legal synthesis on this issue, allows to discuss the existing methodological potential and creates new opportunities to build up appropriate systemic legislative models.
Adopted on July 11, 2014 at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois at the conclusion of the 2014 International Elder Law and Policy Conference organized by The John Marshall Law School, Roosevelt University of Chicago, College of Arts and Sciences, and the East China University of Political Science and Law (Shanghai, China)
Adopted on July 11, 2014 at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois at the conclusion of the 2014 International Elder Law and Policy Conference organized by The John Marshall Law School, Roosevelt University of Chicago, College of Arts and Sciences, and the East China University of Political Science and Law (Shanghai, China)
The paper offers a contribution to the interdisciplinary constructs of analyzing fairness issues in automatic algorithmic decisions. Section 1 shows that technical choices in supervised learning have social implications that need to be considered. Section 2 proposes a contextual approach to the issue of unintended group discrimination, i.e. decision rules that are facially neutral but generate disproportionate impacts across social groups (e.g., gender, race or ethnicity). The contextualization will focus on the legal systems of the United States on the one hand and Europe on the other. In particular, legislation and case law tend to promote different standards of fairness on both sides of the Atlantic. Section 3 is devoted to the explainability of algorithmic decisions; it will confront and attempt to cross-reference legal concepts (in European and French law) with technical concepts and will highlight the plurality, even polysemy, of European and French legal texts relating to the explicability of algorithmic decisions. The conclusion proposes directions for further research ; Version 1.0-6 mai 2022 RESUME L'article propose une contribution aux constructions interdisciplinaires de l'analyse des enjeux d'équité dans les décisions algorithmiques automatiques. La section 1 montre que les choix techniques en apprentissage supervisé ont des implications sociales dont il faut prendre la mesure. La section 2 propose une approche contextuelle de la question de la discrimination de groupe non intentionnelle, c'est-à-dire de règles de décision facialement neutres mais qui génèrent des impacts disproportionnés selon les groupes sociaux (selon les cas : genrés, raciaux ou ethniques). La contextualisation portera sur les systèmes juridiques des États-Unis d'un côté, de l'Europe d'un autre côté. En particulier, la législation et la jurisprudence tendent à promouvoir des critères d'équité différents de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique. La section 3 est consacrée à l'explicabilité des décisions algorithmiques ; elle ...
The paper offers a contribution to the interdisciplinary constructs of analyzing fairness issues in automatic algorithmic decisions. Section 1 shows that technical choices in supervised learning have social implications that need to be considered. Section 2 proposes a contextual approach to the issue of unintended group discrimination, i.e. decision rules that are facially neutral but generate disproportionate impacts across social groups (e.g., gender, race or ethnicity). The contextualization will focus on the legal systems of the United States on the one hand and Europe on the other. In particular, legislation and case law tend to promote different standards of fairness on both sides of the Atlantic. Section 3 is devoted to the explainability of algorithmic decisions; it will confront and attempt to cross-reference legal concepts (in European and French law) with technical concepts and will highlight the plurality, even polysemy, of European and French legal texts relating to the explicability of algorithmic decisions. The conclusion proposes directions for further research ; Version 1.0-6 mai 2022 RESUME L'article propose une contribution aux constructions interdisciplinaires de l'analyse des enjeux d'équité dans les décisions algorithmiques automatiques. La section 1 montre que les choix techniques en apprentissage supervisé ont des implications sociales dont il faut prendre la mesure. La section 2 propose une approche contextuelle de la question de la discrimination de groupe non intentionnelle, c'est-à-dire de règles de décision facialement neutres mais qui génèrent des impacts disproportionnés selon les groupes sociaux (selon les cas : genrés, raciaux ou ethniques). La contextualisation portera sur les systèmes juridiques des États-Unis d'un côté, de l'Europe d'un autre côté. En particulier, la législation et la jurisprudence tendent à promouvoir des critères d'équité différents de part et d'autre de l'Atlantique. La section 3 est consacrée à l'explicabilité des décisions algorithmiques ; elle ...
The question this contribution sets out to address is whether or not law can be regarded as a science. This notion is readily accepted by many, yet it is submitted that a proper theoretical justification for such an assumption is usually missing. The traditional primary sources of law, South African case law and legislation, distinguish between legal practice and legal science, but the basis of the distinction is not clear. However, an entire body of literature in the philosophy of science has developed around the question of when a discipline will amount to science. Various demarcation criteria proposed in the philosophy of science are considered. These include that science uses the scientific method, is susceptible to falsification, is puzzle-solving within a paradigm or renders beneficial results. None of these criteria offers a satisfactory solution to the problem. The proposition by a group of philosophers including Herman Dooyeweerd, Marinus Stafleu and DFM Strauss, that the answer to the demarcation question is to be found in modal abstraction, is then considered. Modal abstraction amounts to a consideration of reality (persons, things, theories and rules) from one or more defined point(s) of entry. It is an artificial and learnt manner of thinking as it approaches reality from the perspective of one of the modalities of being. For example, juridical abstraction would mean that a cow is considered as the object of someone's proprietary rights. An abstract idea of the cow's characteristics, from a juridical point of view, is formed and the rules of property law are applied. A number of South African legal philosophers, amongst others Van Zyl, Van der Vyver and LM du Plessis, have followed this approach. The South African legislature has also attempted to define the terms "science" and "research", mainly for funding purposes. These definitions are considered and the conclusion is that they do not provide the clear-cut answers one would expect. It will be argued that the nature of activities will determine whether an endeavour is scientific or not. The conclusion is that an alignment of the demarcation criterion developed by Strauss and others and the statutory definitions can provide a workable demarcation criterion. This "test" is then applied to the activities of law students, academics, practitioners and judicial officers to determine when they will be practising "science".
The question this contribution sets out to address is whether or not law can be regarded as a science. This notion is readily accepted by many, yet it is submitted that a proper theoretical justification for such an assumption is usually missing. The traditional primary sources of law, South African case law and legislation, distinguish between legal practice and legal science, but the basis of the distinction is not clear. However, an entire body of literature in the philosophy of science has developed around the question of when a discipline will amount to science. Various demarcation criteria proposed in the philosophy of science are considered. These include that science uses the scientific method, is susceptible to falsification, is puzzle-solving within a paradigm or renders beneficial results. None of these criteria offers a satisfactory solution to the problem. The proposition by a group of philosophers including Herman Dooyeweerd, Marinus Stafleu and DFM Strauss, that the answer to the demarcation question is to be found in modal abstraction, is then considered. Modal abstraction amounts to a consideration of reality (persons, things, theories and rules) from one or more defined point(s) of entry. It is an artificial and learnt manner of thinking as it approaches reality from the perspective of one of the modalities of being. For example, juridical abstraction would mean that a cow is considered as the object of someone's proprietary rights. An abstract idea of the cow's characteristics, from a juridical point of view, is formed and the rules of property law are applied. A number of South African legal philosophers, amongst others Van Zyl, Van der Vyver and LM du Plessis, have followed this approach. The South African legislature has also attempted to define the terms "science" and "research", mainly for funding purposes. These definitions are considered and the conclusion is that they do not provide the clear-cut answers one would expect. It will be argued that the nature of activities will determine whether an endeavour is scientific or not. The conclusion is that an alignment of the demarcation criterion developed by Strauss and others and the statutory definitions can provide a workable demarcation criterion. This "test" is then applied to the activities of law students, academics, practitioners and judicial officers to determine when they will be practising "science".
Law and political science are related to each other. State, a subject of political science, is considered as a legal association. State is considered as protector of law. Law studies the principles of the state, organisation and citizens. The relationship of law and political science has been established by political thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, John Austin, Duguit and Maciver.
These lines constitute a reflection on the possibilities of scientific knowledge of law within contemporary society. Undoubtedly, it is about suggesting some unfinished but controversial hypotheses about the meaning, social and political function of research in the field of legal science. For this purpose, it is necessary to discern in the first place about the nature and character of the normative world, that is, about the broad and controversial object of law. Second, it is necessary to investigate what role does knowledge of law play in the production process of the legal field. Third, it is necessary to contextualize the characteristics of the legal research process within the contemporary social organization, understanding that the law-society relationship has been reconsidered by the dynamics of productive social relations to which we are all attending. ; Estas líneas constituyen una reflexión sobre las posibilidades del conocimiento científico del derecho dentro de la sociedad contemporánea. Sin duda, se trata de sugerir algunas hipótesis inacabadas pero polémicas alrededor del sentido, la función social y política de la investigación en el campo de la ciencia jurídica. Para tal efecto es necesario discernir en primer lugar sobre la naturaleza y carácter del mundo normativo, es decir, sobre el amplio y controvertible objeto del derecho. En segundo lugar, se requiere investigar qué papel juegael conocimiento del derecho en el proceso de producción del campo jurídico. En tercer lugar, es necesario contextualizar las características del proceso de la investigación jurídica dentro de la organización social contemporánea, entendiendo que la relación derecho sociedad viene siendo replanteada por la dinámica de las relaciones sociales productivas a las cuales estamos todos asistiendo. ; Estas linhas constituem uma reflexão sobre as possibilidades do conhecimento científico do direito na sociedade contemporânea. É sem dúvida uma questão de sugerir algumas hipóteses inacabadas mas controversas sobre o significado, a função social e política da investigação no campo da ciência jurídica. Para o fazer, é necessário primeiro discernir a natureza e o carácter do mundo normativo, ou seja, o objecto amplo e controverso do direito. Em segundo lugar, é necessário investigar que papel desempenha o conhecimento do direito no processo de produção do campo jurídico. Em terceiro lugar, é necessário contextualizar as características do processo de investigação jurídica dentro da organização social contemporânea, entendendo que a relação entre o direito e a sociedade está a ser redefinida pela dinâmica das relações sociais produtivas a que todos estamos a assistir.que todos estamos a testemunhar.
In 2014, the government's attempts to reform the science sector came to naught. The funding of science from the national budget and extra-budgetary resources decreased considerably. Technological innovation costs passed from the national budget on to enterprises, which are supposed to use their own funds and loans to cover the expenditure. The cut in funding of science has inevitably resulted in a degradation of the key performance indicators of the innovation-driven growth, as well as the continuous brain-drain. The number of 'innovation-active' industrial enterprises goes down, while the proportion of 'innovation-lazy' enterprises is increasing, which particularly concerns the oil industry. Against the background of the economic slowdown, the government places its stake on a mobilization model of industrial development, which is also close to resource exhaustion.
