发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Modern Law Review最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem 利用人工智能缓解员工分类不当问题
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-09-15 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12919
Guy Davidov
{"title":"Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem","authors":"Guy Davidov","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12919","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12919","url":null,"abstract":"Misclassification of employees as independent contractors is widespread. This article aims to make two contributions. My first goal is to sharpen the explanation of why misclassifications persist; I argue that three well‐known problems – the indeterminacy of employee status tests, the barriers to self‐enforcement, and the inequality of bargaining power – together combine to give employers <jats:italic>de facto</jats:italic> power to set the default legal status. Putting the burden on the worker to initiate legal proceedings and challenge their classification as an independent contractor is the ultimate reason for persistent misclassifications. The second and main contribution is to propose a solution that relies on new AI capabilities. Thanks to technological advancements it is now possible to require employers to seek pre‐authorisation before engaging with someone as an independent contractor. The authorisation would be granted (or refused) by a state‐run automated system, based on an AI prediction about the law. Both parties would still be able to bring the case before a court of law; but the power to set the default legal status would be taken away from employers. The article considers the difficulties with relying on AI predictions, and argues that those difficulties can be addressed, proposing a model that can be justified.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142259003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen 和 OleHammerslev（编），《欧洲福利国家和社会权利的变革》：监管、专业人士和公民》，Cham：帕尔格雷夫-麦克米伦，2024 年，x + 226，平装本 34.99 英镑，可开放获取。
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12920
Naomi Creutzfeldt
{"title":"StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access","authors":"Naomi Creutzfeldt","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12920","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142259001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Performative Environmental Law 表演性环境法
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12918
Emma Lees, Ole W. Pedersen
{"title":"Performative Environmental Law","authors":"Emma Lees, Ole W. Pedersen","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12918","url":null,"abstract":"Performative law is law ‘just for show’. Where the law expresses a commitment to targets, objectives and aspirations which are, in a strict sense, legally binding, but which are ultimately hard to formally enforce, it can take on a highly symbolic or gestural appearance. Environmental law is particularly vulnerable to performativity. This is because of the nature of the environment as an object of law and because of the features found in much modern environmental legislation. This article shows this by considering examples from the Environment Act 2021, one of the foundational legislative environmental instruments adopted in recent years. Despite its potential, this article argues that key parts of the Act display a highly performative nature. The article shows that whilst this performativity is a feature of design rather than accident in the Act itself, it is a characteristic which is often found in environmental law more generally even though performativity need not necessarily be a bad thing.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142222048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon 从法律角度思考司法审查中的补救措施：R（伊玛目的申请）诉伦敦克罗伊登区
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12917
Lia Lawton
{"title":"Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon","authors":"Lia Lawton","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12917","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12917","url":null,"abstract":"In <jats:italic>R (on the application of Imam)</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>London Borough of Croydon</jats:italic>, the Supreme Court considered the relevance of a local authority's resources on the curial discretion as to remedy in judicial review. This question was addressed in the context of a breach of the authority's duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure suitable accommodation for a person with priority need who is not intentionally homeless. Not only is the case a rare example of the Supreme Court examining remedial discretion and mandatory orders at length, but it also signals the importance of legal reasoning about remedy in judicial review. Remedies form the space where courts often determine what effect, if any, unlawfulness may have. This case note presents an analysis of the Supreme Court's reasoning, drawing attention to its implications for certain received views concerning the legal effect of mandatory and quashing orders, and the pragmatic character of its analysis of the relevance of resources.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142222051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex 合法养育子女、新的生育方式和生物性生育的中断
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12914
Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, Alan Brown
{"title":"Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex","authors":"Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, Alan Brown","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12914","url":null,"abstract":"There are reproductive technologies on the horizon that challenge the fundamentals of human reproduction – the need for sperm, eggs, and someone to gestate the pregnancy. We argue that such technologies collectively undermine our conception of reproductive biosex as we know it. In this article, we (re)examine the attribution and determination of legal parenthood in assisted reproduction in light of such developments. The literature on these emerging reproductive technologies and practices has focused on ethical questions around their permissibility, and regulatory questions regarding access to such technologies. Consequently, there has been limited consideration of how these technologies and practices will challenge the framework that determines legal parenthood in assisted reproduction. We argue that the current legal framework is premised on a number of cis‐heteronormative assumptions about the idealised nuclear family and reproductive biosex. We illustrate three conceptual challenges to the law from the shifting nature of human reproduction: (1) the potential for reproductive biosexed roles to be deconstructed; (2) the potential for relatedness to be reimagined; and (3) the possibilities of disembodied reproduction. These challenges illustrate that we must revisit the foundations of the legal framework attributing legal parenthood in assisted reproduction: its purpose, its functions, and its basis.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142222049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Thirty Years of Legal Research: An Empirical Analysis of Outputs Submitted to RAE and REF (1990‐2021) 法律研究三十年：对提交给 RAE 和 REF 的成果的实证分析（1990-2021 年）
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12913
Phillip Johnson, Johanna Gibson
{"title":"Thirty Years of Legal Research: An Empirical Analysis of Outputs Submitted to RAE and REF (1990‐2021)","authors":"Phillip Johnson, Johanna Gibson","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12913","url":null,"abstract":"The external assessment of the research activities of universities in the United Kingdom began in 1986. In 1992, for the first time, the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) required institutions to submit books, articles and other ‘outputs’ for peer assessment and ultimately ranking. This exercise was followed by others in 1996, 2001 and 2008, and then by a revised approach, the Research Evaluation Framework (REF), in 2014 and 2021. We have conducted a long‐term longitudinal study of the ‘outputs’ submitted across these exercises for review by the law panels. By analysing these 30,028 outputs, and by using various methods of ranking journals and publishers, we are able to provide insights into the beliefs and prejudices of institutions and individual researchers regarding the publication of legal research over a 30‐year period.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"287 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142222050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
MihneaTănăsescu, Understanding the Rights of Nature: A Critical Introduction, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2022, 165 pp, pb, €40.00. MihneaTănăsescu, Understanding the Rights of Nature：MihneaTănăsescu, Understanding the Rights of Nature: A Critical Introduction, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2022, 165 pp, pb, €40.00.
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12910
Roger Cotterrell
{"title":"MihneaTănăsescu, Understanding the Rights of Nature: A Critical Introduction, Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2022, 165 pp, pb, €40.00.","authors":"Roger Cotterrell","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12910","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141573948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
‘AI is not an Inventor’: Thaler v Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and the Patentability of AI Inventions 人工智能不是发明者"：Thaler诉专利、外观设计和商标审计长案与人工智能发明的专利性
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-07-05 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12907
Rita Matulionyte
{"title":"‘AI is not an Inventor’: Thaler v Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and the Patentability of AI Inventions","authors":"Rita Matulionyte","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12907","url":null,"abstract":"The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in inventive processes raises numerous patent law issues, including whether AI can be an inventor under law and who owns the AI‐generated inventions. The UK Supreme Court decision in <jats:italic>Thaler</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks</jats:italic> has provided an ultimate answer to this question: AI cannot be an inventor for the purposes of patent law. This note argues, first, that while such a human‐centric approach to inventorship might discourage the use and development of AI technologies with autonomous invention capabilities, it will help retain an active human involvement in technologically supported inventive processes and continuously foster human ingenuity. Second, despite the Court focusing on what patent law <jats:italic>is</jats:italic> and not on what the law <jats:italic>should be</jats:italic>, the decision will be influential in the ongoing discussions on the future of patent law and will make it more difficult to expand patent law to incorporate non‐human inventors. Third, the decision has opened, or revealed, the gaps in patent law that the emergence of AI technologies have created and for which new legal solutions will be needed, especially with relation to the ownership of AI‐assisted inventions and the validation of inventorship claims.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141573949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
SuzanneLenon and DanielMonk (eds), Inheritance Matters: Kinship, Property, Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2023, 326 pp, hb, £90.00 SuzanneLenon 和 DanielMonk（编），《继承问题》：Kinship, Property, Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2023, 326 pp, hb, £90.00
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12906
Alan Brown
{"title":"SuzanneLenon and DanielMonk (eds), Inheritance Matters: Kinship, Property, Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2023, 326 pp, hb, £90.00","authors":"Alan Brown","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12906","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141548200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Still No(,) More Bolam Please: McCulloch and others v Forth Valley Health Board 仍然没有（，）更多的博勒姆请：麦库洛克等人诉福斯河谷卫生局
IF 0.9 4区 社会学
Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12909
Clark Hobson
{"title":"Still No(,) More Bolam Please: McCulloch and others v Forth Valley Health Board","authors":"Clark Hobson","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12909","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12909","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:italic>McCulloch</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Forth Valley Health Board</jats:italic> concerned an allegation of negligence, in failing to consider treating pericarditis with non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs as a reasonable alternative treatment and not discussing this option with the patient. <jats:italic>Montgomery</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Lanarkshire Health Board</jats:italic> held that a medical professional must disclose to a patient material risks and any reasonable alternative treatments. The materiality of a risk is to be decided by reference to a reasonable person in the patient's position, or where the medical professional should be reasonably aware that the particular patient is likely to attach significance to that risk. However, <jats:italic>Montgomery</jats:italic> did not define the legal standard relating to the assessment of whether an alternative treatment is reasonable. <jats:italic>McCulloch</jats:italic> held the correct legal test to be applied as to whether an alternative treatment is reasonable is the professional‐practice test in <jats:italic>Bolam</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Friern Hospital Management Committee</jats:italic>. There are practical, doctrinal and normative reasons to question whether <jats:italic>Bolam</jats:italic> is the correct legal test in respect of the assessment of reasonable alternative treatments. Additionally, the conceptualisation of <jats:italic>Bolam</jats:italic> in <jats:italic>McCulloch</jats:italic> is overly deferential. <jats:italic>McCulloch</jats:italic> fails to fully consider <jats:italic>Montgomery</jats:italic>’s emphasis that autonomy‐respecting principles are the values that risk disclosure practices are sensitive to.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141548199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
下一页 尾页
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整，为了账户安全，请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
联系我们：info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务，方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：481959085
Book学术官方微信