The Indonesian constitutional reform, which occurred from 1999-2002, has enabled the adoption of judicial review of laws and regulations. Accordingly, the jurisdiction for the judicial review of statutes is granted to the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court, however, is conferred the authority to review subordinate regulations to determine their consistency with the statutes. Some scholars argue the split of jurisdictions leaves a problem unresolved: the absence of constitutional review of subordinate regulations. This paper attempts to consider whether it is desirable for the Constitutional Court to take up the authority to invalidate subordinate regulations on the grounds that they are incompatible with the constitution. It argues that although it is desirable to grant the Constitutional Court the power to constitutionally invalidate subordinate regulations, such authority should not be assumed without a constitutional amendment due to unintended consequences that may arise.
Although a lot has been written to refute the Separation of Powers (SOP) objections against judicial enforcement of social rights, the same kind of attention has not been paid to the effect the said jurisprudence has had on the construction of SOP doctrine. Colombia is an appropriate case-study on this question. The notion of “harmonious cooperation” between branches in the 1991 Constitution has been difficult to realize due to the dysfunction of the legislature. This is not surprising considering the Colombian context, where distrust seems to be the default starting point in the interaction of the branches. This led the court to link trust on substantive issues of social rights protection, to the quality of the deliberation in Congress. In light of the case-law, the paper aims to locate these developments under appropriate SOP doctrine and answer the question, what the appropriate judicial tools are to overcome the failure of the political system in the social rights context.
In this paper, I will argue that in the dialogue between the Legislature and the Judiciary as to the status of the latter, bills constitute an attractive strategic tool for the Legislature. In fact, it is argued that the bills’ initiators do not necessarily intend their bills to mature into laws, as this is not always worthwhile to them, and they may use bills as a strategic “threat” to the judiciary in order for it to align as closely as possible with their position. In order to substantiate this claim, the article includes a discussion of the inherent interests of lawmakers in the independence of the judiciary. A common explanation of the Judiciary’s ability to maintain its independence is the public’s trust in the Judiciary: When the public holds the Judiciary in high esteem, an attempt to reduce its independence might motivate the public to come up against politicians who wish to undermine it And vice versa.
Organized civil service systems are created to secure professionalism and political neutrality in the bureaucracy. In order to achieve these goals several countries adopt legal statutes that establish merit-based recruitment and protection against dismissals without cause. However, several factors besides positive norms influence the degree of neutrality and professionalism that public officials achieve in the complex reality of the administrative state. This paper analyzes three of these factors in the Brazilian context: (i) the institutional conventions actually followed by public entities, many of which beyond or even against statutory provisions; (ii) the presence of interest groups and agency problems, since bureaucrats have their own personal interests and form organized interest groups to defend them, every so often in misalignment with the Administration’s desires; and (iii) the behavioral incentives posed by the statutes that discipline the civil service legal regimen.
The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention was created as a tool to promote women’s substantial equality. By the beginning of 2020, all EU member states have signed, but seven of them have not ratified yet the convention. One of the seven states is (was) the UK, the others are post-socialist countries: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia. The paper focuses on the political discourse in the latter six countries, when attempting to find answer to the question: what have been the key elements of the argumentations against the ratification of the Convention? Similar discourses were present in some other CEE countries as well, notably in Poland and Croatia, where the Conventions have been ratified meanwhile. Moreover, the “anti-gender” political agenda, that perceives the Istanbul Convention as a threat to the social ordes, cannot be considered as specific to CEE-countries, as it has been widely promoted in many Western European countries from the mid-2010s.
The purpose of the research is to verify whether, in Chile in the period between August 2008 and August 2020, limitations or restrictions made to the right to personal data protection of persons deprived of liberty, based on the legitimate exercise of the freedom of information has been legal. Mainly in cases in which the ejerciese of freedom of information has been bases on the “public interest” of the information requested. In the affirmative case —that is, if the rights to personal data of said subjects have been limited— which is what the main hypothesis poses—, the research seeks to identify and systematize, the grounds that have been used as the basis for limiting such rights.
Since ancient times, human beings have demanded the right to a second chance. This need to start over seems to be a present-day debate, when it has existed much longer than the Internet.
Before the creation of the Web 2.0, traditional memory prevailed over digital memory, allowing certain information to be forgotten; such information was made irrelevant with the mere passage of time.
In contrast, past data now appears by simply typing the name of a person of interest into a search engine, preventing citizens from having a second chance. This way, digital memory has clouded traditional memory, therefore, the digital right to be forgotten is fundamental.
Therefore, the objective of this presentation is, first, to analyze the real origin of the right to be forgotten, which pre- dates the digital era.
Second, to do a comparative study between the US and Europe, to understand the differences concerning this right that exist nowadays on both sides of the Atlantic.
In view of the fact that the technological progress is in a constant state of change, current research efforts are directed towards blockchain technology. Starting from the description of the way blockchain technology operates, the notions of decentralisation, proof-of-work consensus, and practical immutability are explained. Next, the author researches the new tax regulations in force in Poland since 1 January 2019 and concentrates on revenues from cryptocurrency trading, which are classified as revenues from money capital and revenues from capital gains. The article presents a definition of the disposal for valuable consideration of a virtual currency, explains how high is the income tax on income earned from the disposal for valuable consideration of virtual currencies, and provides an overview of the legislation related to tax deductible expenses. Finally, some reflections on the cryptocurrency trading in the context of the pursuit of an economic activity are given.
This paper aims to analyse collective labour rights of both ‘classic’ self-employed persons and economically dependent self-employed workers under the Spanish Statute of Self-Employed Workers (Ley 20/2007 del Estatuto del Trabajo Autónomo). The author applies comparative analysis and critical reasoning with a view to answering the questions: is the scope of protection wide enough, and can Poland really draw a lesson from it? The paper presents evidence that demonstrates that among all self-employed workers, only economically dependent self-employed workers are granted the right to bargain collectively (but they do not enjoy the right to strike). However, findings suggest that in practice, collective bargaining is stymied mainly because it takes place only at the enterprise level, and because the number of economically dependent self-employed workers is minimal. The paper concludes that collective labour rights under the Statute of Self-Employed Workers could be better protected.
In the context of recent GSP changes, especially the Trump Administration’s steps relating to certain beneficiary countries, it is timely to assess the effectiveness of this unilateral mechanism. In particular, the academic question connected to the impact of the GSP on social development and human rights in the beneficiary countries is the key issue. It is also interesting to what extent the threat of blocking imports or the withdrawal from the scheme can give rise to policy change regarding labour standards. This article aims to analyse the legal basis, and compare the EU’s and the US’s GSP labour provisions. The author applies critical reasoning and comparative analysis with a view to showing the differences between both countries. She focuses her attention on advantages and disadvantages of the GSP schemes – not only those currently in effect in the US and the EU, but also from a historical perspective.