Law & Society: Legislation eJournal最新文献

{"title":"К вопросу об определении электронного голосования в системе электронной демократии (On the Issue of Determining E-Voting in the E-Democracy System)","authors":"Antonov Jaroslav Valerievich","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3293799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3293799","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Russian Abstract:</b> Рассмотрены некоторые подходы к определению электронного голосования в системе электронной демократии. Особое внимание уделено конституционному реформированию в условиях внедрения новых технологий.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> It considers some approaches to the definition of e-voting in the system of e-democracy. Particular attention is paid to constitutional reform in the context of the introduction of new technologies.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126774541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What Do Donors Want? Heterogeneity by Party and Policy Domain (Research Note)","authors":"David E. Broockman, Neil Malhotra","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3288862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3288862","url":null,"abstract":"Influential theories indicate concern that campaign donors exert outsized political influence. However, little data documents what donors actually want from government; and existing research largely neglects donors’ views on individual issues. We argue there should be significant heterogeneity by party and policy domain in how donors’ views diverge from citizens. We support this argument with the largest survey of U.S. partisan donors to date, including an oversample of the largest donors. We find that Republican donors are much more conservative than Republican citizens on economic issues, whereas their views are similar on social issues. By contrast, Democratic donors are much more liberal than Democratic citizens on social issues, whereas their views are more similar on economic issues. Both parties’ donors are more pro-globalism than their citizen counterparts. We replicate these patterns in an independent dataset. These patterns can help inform significant debates about representation, inequality, and populism in American politics.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124198583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"К Вопросу о Концепциях Электронной Демократии в России (On the Issue of E-democracy Concepts in Russia)","authors":"Antonov Jaroslav Valerievich","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3293168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3293168","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Russian Abstract:</b> Рассмотрены основные концепции электронной демократии в России и дана общая оценка их применимости в текущих условиях.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> It considers the basic concepts of e-democracy in Russia and a general assessment of their applicability in the current conditions is given.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114952500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"О перспективах применения электронного голосования на выборах в России (On the Prospects for the Use of Electronic Voting in Elections in Russia)","authors":"Antonov Jaroslav Valerievich","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3293125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3293125","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Russian Abstract:</b> В данной статье рассматриваются особенности применения электронного голосования в России. Исследованы основные закономерности и тенденции совершенствования нормативно-правовой базы электронного голосования, в том числе в связи с технологическими новациями.<br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> This article describes the features of the use of electronic voting in Russia. The authors describes basic regularities and tendencies in improving the legal framework of e-voting, including in connection with technological innovations.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"1957 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129331915","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evidence-Based Regulation and the Translation from Empirical Data to Normative Choices: A Proportionality Test","authors":"Peter van Lochem, R. van Gestel","doi":"10.5553/elr.000103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/elr.000103","url":null,"abstract":"Studies have shown that the effects of scientific research on law and policy making are often fairly limited. Different reasons can be given for this: scientists are better at falsifying hypothesis than at predicting the future, the outcomes of academic research and empirical evidence can be inconclusive or even contradictory, the timing of the legislative cycle and the production of research show mismatches, there can be clashes between the political rationality and the economic or scientific rationality in the law making process et cetera. There is one ‘wicked’ methodological problem, though, that affects all regulatory policy making, namely: the ‘jump’ from empirical facts (e.g. there are too few organ donors in the Netherlands and the voluntary registration system is not working) to normative recommendations of what the law should regulate (e.g. we need to change the default rule so that everybody in principle becomes an organ donor unless one opts out). We are interested in how this translation process takes place and whether it could make a difference if the empirical research on which legislative drafts are build is more quantitative type of research or more qualitative. That is why we have selected two cases in which either type of research played a role during the drafting phase. We use the lens of the proportionality principle in order to see how empirical data and scientific evidence are used by legislative drafters to justify normative choices in the design of new laws.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126226462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Constrained Regulatory Exit in Energy Law","authors":"Jim Rossi, H. Wiseman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3191158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3191158","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the federal government’s efforts to open up competitive electricity markets have transformed how we think about the regulation of energy. In many respects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) broad “deregulatory” efforts, which commenced in the 1990s, might appear to be a case of paradigmatic regulatory exit as defined by J.B. Ruhl and Jim Salzman. But our case study of FERC’s restructuring of wholesale electricity markets reveals some important institutional features that make exit in federalism contexts, and under federal statutory duties, a rich and difficult problem. In the context of energy, exit from one regulatory sphere can create regulatory gaps. This has led FERC, which largely exited the regulation of wholesale electricity rates, to increase regulation in other spheres. It has also invited forms of intergovernmental exchange, as states have emulated or otherwise responded to FERC’s regulatory modifications in the areas in which states have jurisdiction. In this sense, the transition to competitive energy supply markets has involved constrained exit characterized by a hydraulic back-and-forth between regulators and institutions in an effort to ensure that statutory duties are fulfilled and other public needs are met. \u0000This assessment of regulatory exchange has a prescriptive implication: a federal regulator seeking to exit specific forms of conventional regulation needs to proactively develop strategies to facilitate regulatory exchange, while simultaneously preserving its authority over important substantive values related to its regulatory mission. Attention to “offsetting” regulations is often necessary to ensure that problematic regulatory gaps will not arise. In the energy context, these strategies might also include the use of mechanisms that give other institutions a voice in implementing exit strategies, as well as better ex ante regulatory planning for market enforcement that will continue after partial exit. We argue that it is not only a good strategy for federal regulators to recognize this hydraulic feature of exit, but that cooperative federalism statutes such as the Federal Power Act often require them to do so.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125353349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CPR Pt 36—Enhanced Interest Should Not Function as Punitive Damages for Malicious Defence","authors":"V. Janeček","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/p2ewt","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/p2ewt","url":null,"abstract":"This note critically comments on the Court of Appeal’s decision in OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG. By introducing a penal element to the enhanced interest rate pursuant to CPR Pt 36, the Court of Appeal has extended the justificatory reasons for those awards beyond compensation. This note argues that Petrom-like awards should not be ordered in the future and that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee should amend the CPR accordingly. One issue is that the Petrom award was based on analogical application of the CPR, which implies that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning was in fact not governed by CPR Pt 36. Another issue is that the existing common law principles—as the next best source of law for the Court of Appeal’s decision—do not support the ruling either. This is because, first, the Petrom award was made in respect of the defendant’s malicious defence even though malicious defence does not constitute a common law tort. Secondly, the penal element in Petrom functioned as punitive damages even though the existing common law principles regarding punitive damages prevent courts from making such awards in similar cases.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121547018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Legislated Interpretation and Tax Avoidance in Canadian Income Tax Law","authors":"D. Duff, B. Alarie","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3170711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3170711","url":null,"abstract":"Predictable statutory interpretation helps ensure the reliable operation of contemporary systems of taxation. Tax liabilities that are not clearly expressed and articulated by legislatures lead to over-reliance on litigation as a means to enforce and clarify legislative intent. For this reason, modern legislatures continually amend and draft new tax provisions, reformulating existing rules and introducing new ones to address ever-changing social and economic environments. Moreover, legislatures also respond with amendments directed at judicial decisions with which they disagree, as well as the transactions and arrangements at issue in these cases. As these amended and new rules are then subject to application and interpretation by revenue departments, taxpayers, tax advisors, and the courts, all of which legislatures may respond to through further subsequent amendments, tax legislation at any given time can be regarded as the recursive product of an ongoing dialogue. \u0000At the same time, the proliferation of ever-more detailed provisions in tax legislation greatly increases the complexity of these statutes. The consequent tendency toward textual interpretation of tax legislation can facilitate tax avoidance that undermines the capacity of a tax system to raise revenue in a manner that is fair or equitable. For this reason, tax statutes like the Canadian Income Tax Act (ITA) typically combine detailed statutory provisions with more broadly-worded anti-avoidance rules that deny unintended tax advantages that might otherwise result from other statutory provisions. At the apex of these anti-avoidance rules stand general anti-avoidance rules (GAARs) like section 245 of the ITA. Section 245 denies tax benefits resulting from tax-motivated transactions that result in a misuse of other provisions of the ITA or other relevant enactments, or an abuse having regard to these provisions read as a whole. \u0000In order to “legislate” statutory interpretation, therefore, legislatures generally employ two different approaches: enacting detailed rules in response to changing circumstances and judicial decisions, while simultaneously directing courts to prevent abusive tax avoidance by applying more generalized standards that require them to go beyond or behind the text of the tax legislation in order to deny tax benefits claimed by taxpayers that conflict with the object, spirit or purpose of these provisions. As this paper explains, judicial experience in Canada demonstrates a tension between these two approaches, since the existence of detailed statutory rules can make courts reluctant to apply a general anti-avoidance rule that requires them to depart from the statutory text. \u0000This paper considers the GAAR in section 245 of the ITA as an example of legislated statutory interpretation, explaining the origins and structure of this provision and the extent to which it has shaped the interpretation of Canadian income tax law. Part II provides a background to the GAAR, co","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127287836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"El Juez Constitucional Y La Reelección Presidencial En América Latina (Constitutional Judge and Presidential Reelection in Latin America)","authors":"Ernesto Cardenas, F. Corredor","doi":"10.18601/01245996.V20N38.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18601/01245996.V20N38.03","url":null,"abstract":"Las disposiciones constitucionales sobre reeleccion presidencial se modificaron en varios paises latinoamericanos durante los ultimos anos. En algunos paises esos cambios pusieron en riesgo la existencia de la democracia. Este articulo utiliza el enfoque de principal-agente para analizar el papel del juez constitucional en la reeleccion presidencial como mecanismo de rendicion de cuentas. Encuentra que la reeleccion inmediata en democracias de fuerte presidencialismo, puede ser un mecanismo perverso que agudiza la concentracion del poder y deteriora el bienestar de los ciudadanos en vez de someter a los politicos a rendicion de cuentas.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128512640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Repair: FEC Reform and Deadlock Deference","authors":"Daniel P. Tokaji","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3151788","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3151788","url":null,"abstract":"Composed of six commissioners, three aligned with each major party, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) consistently stalemates on critical questions of campaign finance law. Party-line deadlocks have become increasingly common over the past decade, reflecting the larger phenomenon of partisan polarization that infects the American political system. FEC critics have thus proposed replacing it with an odd-numbered body. The problem with this proposal is that it would allow the dominant political party to enforce campaign finance laws in a way that systematically disadvantages its chief competitor. There is a better solution: give tie breaking authority to the federal courts, which now defer to FEC non-enforcement decisions even when they result from a party-line split. This chapter argues that this practice of “deadlock deference” should be abandoned because it is wrong as a matter of law and harmful as a matter of policy. Abandoning deadlock deference would not only conform to recent Supreme Court precedent regarding Chevron deference, but also help remedy the worsening problem of party-line stalemates on the FEC. Because Article III judges rather than partisan commissioners would break the tie, ending deadlock deference would prevent one party from manipulating campaign finance law to the disadvantage of the other.","PeriodicalId":280037,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Legislation eJournal","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113953833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}