{"title":"‘Hard AI Crime’: The Deterrence Turn","authors":"Elina Nerantzi, Giovanni Sartor","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae018","url":null,"abstract":"Machines powered by artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly taking over tasks previously performed by humans alone. In accomplishing such tasks, they may intentionally commit ‘AI crimes’, ie engage in behaviour which would be considered a crime if it were accomplished by humans. For instance, an advanced AI trading agent may—despite its designer’s best efforts—autonomously manipulate markets while lacking the properties for being held criminally responsible. In such cases (hard AI crimes) a criminal responsibility gap emerges since no agent (human or artificial) can be legitimately punished for this outcome. We aim to shift the ‘hard AI crime’ discussion from blame to deterrence and design an ‘AI deterrence paradigm’, separate from criminal law and inspired by the economic theory of crime. The homo economicus has come to life as a machina economica, which, even if cannot be meaningfully blamed, can nevertheless be effectively deterred since it internalises criminal sanctions as costs.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140932486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Data Crowd as a Legal Stakeholder","authors":"Shelly Kreiczer-Levy","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae017","url":null,"abstract":"This article identifies a new legal stakeholder in the data economy: the data crowd. A data crowd is a collective that: (i) is unorganised, non-deliberate and unable to form an agenda; (ii) relies on productive aggregation that creates an interdependency among participants; and (iii) is subjected to an external authority. Notable examples of crowds include users of a social network, users of a search engine and users of artificial intelligence-based applications. The law currently only protects users in the data economy as individuals, and in certain cases may address broad public concerns. However, it does not recognise the collective interests of the crowd of users and its unique vulnerability to platform power. The article presents and defends the crowd’s legal interests in a stable infrastructure for participation. It therefore reveals the need for a new approach to consumers’ rights in the data economy.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140887772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"'Everything is Obstetric Violence Now': Identifying the Violence in 'Obstetric Violence' to Strengthen Socio-legal Reform Efforts.","authors":"Camilla Pickles","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae016","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since its global uptake, 'obstetric violence' is increasingly used to capture any/all violations during reproductive healthcare, with few conceptual limits. Consequently, it runs the risk of becoming an overgeneralised concept, making it difficult to operationalise in socio-legal reform efforts. This article draws on the Latin American origins of the concept and aims to provide a theoretical framework to support a focused and coherent socio-legal reform agenda. It offers a universal definition of violence, being the violation of physical or psychological integrity, and localises this definition using the 'view from everywhere'. The article proposes that violence will qualify as 'obstetric violence' if the violation of integrity occurs in the context of antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care. Further, the subject of the violence is the birthing woman, trans or non-binary person. Thinking in terms of a 'continuum of violence' in reproductive healthcare ensures that different forms of obstetric violence are recognised and helps envisage overlaps with other violences.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"44 3","pages":"616-644"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11368831/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142134175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Case Against Human Rights Penality","authors":"Natasa Mavronicola","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae013","url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to make the human rights case against human rights penality—that is, against the reliance upon and foregrounding of penal mechanisms in the protection of (certain) human rights. The rationale for the alliance between human rights and state penality has at least three central dimensions: effectiveness, accountability and equal protection. In particular, the mobilisation of criminal law (enforcement) and punishment is often treated as the most effective means of preventing and/or redressing human rights violations. Moreover, the criminal process and sanction are often understood as the pinnacle of accountability for serious human rights violations. Finally, the egalitarian rationale for human rights penality views it as redistributing protection to under-protected persons. While remaining committed to human rights, I unpack (some of) the ways in which human rights penality ultimately fails to uphold and even undermines the principles that it has been promoted as fulfilling within the human rights frame.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"160 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140827812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Administrative Justice in the Modern Mixed Administrative State: Moving Beyond Taxonomies","authors":"Janina Boughey","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae015","url":null,"abstract":"The challenges that government outsourcing presents for administrative law were the topic of considerable scholarly discussion in the 1990s and early 2000s, with broad agreement amongst public lawyers that outsourcing should not result in a loss of the particular kind of accountability with which administrative justice is concerned. Yet, over the past two decades, while government outsourcing has continued and evolved, very little has been done to address these challenges. This article explores the question of when non-court-based administrative justice accountability mechanisms ought to extend to outsourced government functions. I argue that much of the focus of administrative lawyers to date has been on the approaches that courts should take, which has led governments and legislatures to adopt tests and taxonomies largely developed in or for the courts, which distinguish between ‘public’ and ‘private’ functions. I show that these taxonomies are not well adapted to administrative justice mechanisms outside of the courts, are not fit for purpose in many modern government outsourcing arrangements and have resulted in significant accountability gaps. I propose a different starting point for thinking about administrative justice in the modern mixed administrative state, based on normative principles as opposed to categories.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140629347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Pluralities of Property","authors":"Luke Rostill","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae012","url":null,"abstract":"In Property Rights: A Re-Examination, James Penner returns to and develops a project that he has been engaged in for nearly three decades: to replace the influential ‘bundle of rights’ picture of property, which he regards as irredeemably flawed, with an alternative account—one that regards property as a unified entitlement. In this review article, I expound and analyse the central features of Penner’s theory. I defend the view that, in its original iteration, Penner’s account was trebly monistic: it regarded property as a single entitlement justified by a single human interest and protected by a single duty of non-interference. I go on to critically examine one of Penner’s central ideas—that to understand property it is necessary to understand its justification. Along the way, I trace how Penner’s account has evolved and explain how certain alterations have put some problems to bed while generating others.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140629228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Discrimination as a Public Wrong","authors":"Adi Goldiner","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae011","url":null,"abstract":"The enforcement mechanisms of anti-discrimination law manifest a puzzle: while the dominant view is that discrimination is a wrongdoing against individuals, which suggests that discriminatees should have the power to vindicate their rights, legal provisions sometimes authorise public officials to file claims against alleged discriminators, regardless of discriminatees’ preferences. Seeking to make sense of this puzzle, this article draws on theories of state enforcement under criminal law to explore the justification of public enforcement under anti-discrimination law and reflect on the nature of discrimination more broadly. It claims that an instrumental justification of public enforcement of anti-discrimination law is left wanting. Instead, it argues that public enforcement in this domain is warranted because discrimination is not only a private wrong against individuals, but is also a public wrong, namely a wrong against the community as a whole.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140580281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Convicting Peaceful Protesters: Proportionality’s Proper Place at Criminal Trial","authors":"Richard Martin","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae009","url":null,"abstract":"Suppose that a defendant’s conviction would amount to an interference with their right to peaceful protest, protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Is a court then obliged to make a conviction turn on a fact-sensitive proportionality assessment justifying the interference? Drawing on the jurisprudence of the domestic and Strasbourg courts, this article argues that the case law has crystallised into two paradigms that provide distinct answers: the ‘justificatory paradigm’ in European human rights law and the ‘offence-centric’ paradigm in domestic law. The article exposes how and why this divergence has developed, what is at stake at the level of constitutional values and how this conflict might be resolved. It is argued that compliance with Strasbourg now depends on the integration of the justificatory paradigm into domestic law. The article imagines how this might be done in a manner sensitive to domestic constitutional values, using the mechanics on offer in the Human Rights Act 1998.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140580274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Resurgence of Standing in Judicial Review.","authors":"Joanna Bell","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae005","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is now commonplace for courts to remark that standing to seek judicial review is 'context-sensitive'. The questions of how the courts adapt standing to context, and whether they do so appropriately, have, however, received remarkably little scholarly and judicial attention. This is perhaps because, until recently, there has been relatively little in the case law to spark scholarly interest. Standing, however, is in the midst of a resurgence. This article makes use of a distinction between three types of judicial review case-challenges to (i) favourable targeted, (ii) unfavourable targeted and (iii) non-targeted decisions-as a mode through which to explore the growing body of standing case law. In doing so, it both seeks to further understanding of how courts determine what constitutes a 'sufficient interest' and to highlight areas of the law in need of clarification or reconsideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"44 2","pages":"313-341"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157286/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141296925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Tangled Webs of Trust: A Study of Public Trust in Risk Regulation","authors":"Joanne Hawkins","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqae006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae006","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an empirically grounded understanding of public trust in the context of risk regulation, specifically through a case study of shale gas exploration and fracking. It offers insight into the factors underpinning public trust and explores the empirical reality of the socially embedded and relational nature of trust. The article engages with the often-neglected dynamics of trust and how relationships between different levels of trust (eg institutional, interpersonal, wider system) operate. It shows how trust, far from complying with many existing linear conceptualisations, is complex and messy, involving a web of ongoing and interactive relationships within and between these levels. By mapping empirical data against our theoretical understandings, this article offers an alternative insight into the trust relationship, better positioning us to understand trust as an ongoing process, rather than an end product.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140107464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}