The automation and the artificial intelligence are reducing the demand for human labor, just as happened in each of the industrial revolution. Despite the global projects to get equaility and to cut poverty: the places left free by the machines and robots will be occupied just by the more qualified people.
The paper begins with this prior reflection about the current conceptions of “progress” and “development” from the economic and legal approaches, and if they have identical or opposed goals. Then, in front of the characteristic of the new wave of the industrial revolution: the “globalization 4.0”, which are the legal instruments that we can use to make a bet in favor of human capital? Is the “lifelong learning” principle one of them? In the same way, how can we use the main economic constitution postulates like the social function of the property and enterprise, the economic sustainability and the State as the director of the national economy?
The purpose of this paper is to outline the rationale for consumer policy-making from a public law outlook. While regulation of consumer markets is usually seen as a matter of civil law, consumer policy-making is part of public law, and its regulatory objectives and instruments are mainly based on public law remedies, and not private law principles. The paradigm shift from civil law to public law allows the regulatory authorities to have a greater diversity of intervention options, without the usual constraints and objections based on private law.
In this scenario, regulatory objectives in consumer law can be accomplished using ex ante and ex post intervention strategies. This paper proposes a framework of standards and policy tools for regulation on consumer markets, based on supply and demand-side remedies – that is, interventions affecting suppliers’ behavior or consumption through consumer decision-making – reviewed from a public law perspective.
The exercise of fundamental rights by people with psychosocial and intellectual disability has increased in the last decades by reaching new scenarios where it was unthinkable before that they could be assumed as capable fundamental rights holders on an equal basis with others. This shift began with the civil rights movement by the 60´s in the Global North, but just recently has started in other countries like Perú, that until a few months ago maintained a legal restriction that denied a person with disability the full exercise of his or her owns rights.
In September of 2018, this shift took a leap with the substitution of the interdiction, a legal provision contained in the Civil Code that limited the full recognition of impaired people legal capacity. We will try to discuss in this article, how a paternalistic system justified this measure that is still affecting today their rights exercise due to social resistance, and which are the bases of this change.
Article 15(1)(b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights protects the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). While this provision’s interpretation has not been a focus of attention in the past, this is changing. A danger lies in construing this provision as entitling states to comprehensively regulate the field of science, at the expense of scientific and academic freedom. Scientific or academic freedom rather than state regulation guarantees creativity and innovation in the field of science for the benefit of society at large. This paper seeks to guide all those tasked with interpreting Article 15(1)(b) – specifically, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Relying on the notion that a science system must be ‘adequate for science’, the paper concludes with a set of twenty-two recommendations on how the REBSPA should be construed so as to duly respect scientific and academic freedom.
The idea that the innovations of the so-called sharing economy should not be regulated seems to have been overcome.
The real issue, however, is who should discipline these new phenomena and under what conditions.
Until now, the adoption of local regulations has prevailed over supranational or national ones.
Can this be the best solution, or will a global approach be indispensable on the horizon?
In Thailand, disability is believed among some sectors of society as an outcome of past ‘Karma’. Feeling ashamed that disability is a consequence of bad karma, a great number of parents refuse to register their children with special needs to the registrar, making the latter unable to obtain
several benefits enshrined in the Persons with Disabilities Empowerment Act (PDEA). A belief in bad karma, in consequence, spurs the incompatibility between the PDEA and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to which Thailand is a state party. This incompatibility exacerbated by the belief in bad Karma, in turn, precipitates economic loss directly and indirectly. This paper examines the extent to which the concept of Karma exacerbates the tension between religious belief, law, and economics with respect to the matter of people with disabilities in Thailand. Its data is collected through interview method.