No description available.

The need to collect electronic communications for foreign intelligence purposes has increased in the past two decades, primarily due to the increase of international threats such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, digitalization and technical innovation have given rise to new possibilities for government surveillance and expanded the scope of the types of communications that may be collected. This gives rise to issues concerning the balance between effective foreign intelligence activities and the protection of personal integrity. This thesis performs a comparative analysis of the protection of personal integrity in signals intelligence in Sweden and the United States, by examining the protection of personal integrity under the Swedish Instrument of Government and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (European Convention) compared to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the requirements for signals intelligence under the Swedish Act (2008:717) on Signals Intelligence in Defense Intelligence Operations (the Surveillance Act) and § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, as amended). The analysis further includes a review of the safeguards adopted in each legal system to limit the collection of communications and to ensure that personal integrity is considered in signals intelligence operations. In regard to the protection of personal integrity, the analysis concludes that Swedish law, combined with the European Convention, offers a wider and more extensive protection for individuals when compared to the United States’ framework. However, all provisions include a requirement of proportionality or reasonableness intended to balance the need for effective law enforcement with the protection of personal integrity. The analysis further concludes that the Fourth Amendment has limited impact on signals intelligence carried out under § 702 FISA due to its limitations to the people of the United States, and that individuals' ability to exercise their rights is greater under the European Convention. The European Convention further offers protection beyond Sweden's borders, resulting in some protection for non-Swedish persons. As for the signals intelligence conducted under the Surveillance Act and § 702 FISA, several similarities and differences are identified. Both regulations limit the signals intelligence to be carried out for certain purposes. However, a notable difference is that, while signals intelligence under both the Surveillance Act and § 702 FISA are limited to foreign conditions, Swedish signals intelligence may be conducted on communications that cross Sweden’s borders. Meanwhile, collection under § 702 FISA may only target non-US persons outside of the United States. Despite this difference, signals intelligence under both regulations result in the collection of communications of the country’s own citizens. To limit the collection, both the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment (Sw. Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA) and the United States National Security Agency (NSA) apply certain safeguards. These include the use of search terms in Swedish signals intelligence and selectors in American signals intelligence. While they are both used to make relevant selections in the collection of communications, there are some notable difference between the two. For example, selectors consist of, inter alia, an email address or phone number, while search terms should not, as a general rule, target a specific individual. Further, there is no warrant requirement for collections under § 702 FISA compared to the Surveillance Act, which requires court approval. Lastly, in regard to the control and review of Swedish and American signals intelligence, the analysis concludes that such activities are conducted in different manners in both legal systems. This includes both internal and external controls. However, the Swedish control units appear to have greater opportunities to intervene by, for example, controlling the FRA's access to signal carriers and interrupting an ongoing collection if needed.

No description available.

L'administration coloniale a pris de nombreuses formes au fil des siècles, et l'Indirect rule est l'une des plus représentatives de la colonisation britannique. A ce titre, il convient de s'intéresser aux causes et aux conséquences de ce système de gouvernement, ainsi qu'aux spécificités qui y sont liées en pratique. Cette analyse portera donc essentiellement sur sa mise en application au Nigeria, ainsi que sa diffusion dans l'empire colonial britannique d'Afrique. Afin d'approfondir cette étude, l'Indirect rule sera également abordé d'un point de vue plus théorique, notamment concernant l'évolution de sa perception par les historiens du droit. De même, sa spécificité sera questionnée, notamment en la comparant à d'autres systèmes de gouvernement coloniaux européens. / Colonial administration evolved a lot through centuries, and Indirect rule is one of the most representative of the British one. As such, it is interesting to look at the reasons and the issues of the particular system of government, as well as the particularities linked to Indirect rule in the facts. This analysis will be more specifically about how Indirect rule worked in Nigeria, as well as its diffusion through the British colonial empire in Africa. In order to complete the study, Indirect rule will also broached from a theoretical point of view, in particular regarding the evolution of how historians of law considered it. Moreover, its specificities will be observed, in particular by comparing indirect rule with other Europeans colonial governments.

Les accords de report d’entrée sont des accords conclus dans le secteur pharmaceutique. Conçus par les laboratoires princeps, ils ont pour objet ou pour effet de retarder l’entrée de concurrents génériques sur le marché. Nés aux États-Unis à la fin des années 1990, ces accords continuent jusqu’à ce jour de générer de nombreux problèmes juridiques. Malgré plus de deux décennies de contentieux, les accords « pay- for-delay » produisent toujours un grand scepticisme outre-Atlantique et ne bénéficient pas d’un régime juridique clair. La difficulté tient à ce que ces accords cristallisent à la fois des problèmes de droit de la concurrence et de droit des brevets. De son côté, l’Union européenne a été récemment touchée par cette pratique. La Commission européenne s’est jusqu’alors saisie de trois cas. À chaque reprise, cette dernière a conclu que les accords restreignaient la concurrence en raison de leur objet. L’institution bruxelloise a ainsi fait preuve d’une grande intransigeance et d’une étonnante sévérité eu égard à sa faible expérience sur le sujet. Ce travail de recherche se propose de répondre aux problèmes posés par les accords de report d’entrée en mobilisant une approche comparatiste. Par ce biais, l’objectif de cette étude est double. D’une part, il s’agira de mieux comprendre le mécanisme qui se cache derrière ces accords. D’autre part, il s’agira de formuler des recommandations afin d’améliorer le contrôle actuel des « pay-for-delay » dans l’Union européenne / Pay-for-delay agreements are agreements concluded in the pharmaceutical sector. Designed by brand laboratories, they have for object or for effect to delay generic entry on the market. Born in the United States in the late 1990s, these agreements continue to generate many legal problems. Despite more than two decades of litigation, the pay-for-delay agreements still produce great skepticism across the Atlantic and do not have a clear legal regime. The difficulty is that these agreements crystallize both competition law and patent law issues. The European Union has recently been affected by this practice. The European Commission has prononced three decisions. In each of them, the commission concluded that the agreements restricted competition by their object. Thus, the commission showed a great intransigence and an astonishing severity in view of its weak experience on the subject. This research aims to address the problems posed by pay-for-delay agreements by mobilizing a comparative approach. In this way, the objective of this study is twofold. On the one hand, the purpose is to better understand the mechanism behind these agreements. On the other hand, the goal is to formulate recommendations to improve the current pay-for-delay control in the European Union

Cette étude comparative entre les systèmes français et koweïtien, est d’une potentielle grande richesse, tant du point de vue de la recherche juridique, que de celui de la pratique professionnelle. D’autant plus qu’en France, la motivation des décisions judiciaires et en particulier, des arrêts de la Cour de cassation est une obligation essentielle et le contrôle de la motivation, une mission première pour garantir le droit à un procès équitable. Actuellement la motivation des arrêts de la Cour de cassation est l’objet d’un projet de réforme dans le cadre plus général de celui de la Cour de cassation. Ce projet est suivi avec intérêt au Koweït, pays très influencé par la procédure civile française sous le contrôle d’une juridiction supranationale. Il n’y a de douter que le Koweït inclura dans sa trajectoire juridictionnelle tout progrès issu de la réforme en cours. / This study that compares the French legal system and the Kuwaiti legal system is a valuable study with multiple aspects to its legal research and professional applications. For France, the rulings of its "Court" and overseers is necessary for a just trial. Now, they both are a study subject for a project to alter the role of the “Court” in a general way. This project is of utmost importance to the Kuwaiti judicial system as it affected by its history with the French civil law. In addition, it is important as well for the respected and known place as the highest court in the judicial system. (Compared with the European court for human rights). It is without a doubt that Kuwait will take it into consideration these positive changes for the role of the "Court".

Notre projet vise à mesurer l’impact de l’interdiction du harcèlement psychologique au travail sur les droits de direction de l’entreprise au Québec (art.81.18 et s., L.n.t ), comme dans ce domaine d’autres pays se sont illustrés en tant que pionniers par l’instauration d’un cadre législatif interdisant le harcèlement moral au travail et par souci d’avoir une vision plus globale du phénomène, nous avons trouvé utile d’aborder le sujet sous une approche de droit comparé, analysant simultanément les droits français, belge et québécois. En effet, pour contrer la violence en milieu de travail, sur le plan légal, la Belgique et la France ont interdit les actes de harcèlement et leur répétition, en modifiant et en ajoutant des dispositions pénales dans leurs lois du travail respectives. Le Québec a agi dans le même sens en modifiant sa Loi sur les normes du travail . Toutes ces normes ont en commun d’instaurer un régime de protection en faveur du salarié victime de harcèlement psychologique ou moral. Le fondement de cette protection procède pour une grande part de la promotion des droits fondamentaux de la personne dans l’ordre juridique interne. À titre d’exemple, en droit européen, le harcèlement moral au travail est considéré comme une forme de discrimination portant atteinte au principe d’égalité de traitement en matière d’emploi et de travail . Or, on sait que « la raison d’être principale du droit du travail », ainsi que le soulignent Pierre Verge et Guylaine Vallée, « est de limiter le pouvoir que possède l’employeur sur le salarié » , lequel se manifeste à travers ses droits de direction . Ces droits concèdent à l’employeur une large marge de manœuvre dans la conduite de ses affaires. Il peut ainsi « effectuer des changements de structures de l’entreprise ou d’organisation de travail, modifier les procédés de production, implanter et utiliser des nouvelles technologies, réduire la production ainsi que la main-d’œuvre, etc.» . Il peut aussi prendre toute mesure disciplinaire, y compris congédier tout salarié qui ne se soumettra pas à ses ordres. Comme on le voit, dans plusieurs domaines liés à la gestion de son organisation, l’employeur a longtemps décidé librement . Ainsi, soulever la question de l’interdiction du harcèlement psychologique ou moral au travail sans tenir compte des droits de direction de l’employeur semble remettre en question sa liberté quant à la régulation de son entreprise . Notre objectif en abordant le sujet est de comprendre les justifications qui sous-tendent cette intervention de l’État dans un domaine qui jusqu’alors n’était pas spécifiquement ciblé par le droit et l’impact de cette interdiction sur les droits de direction, afin de confirmer ou infirmer notre hypothèse d’une dynamique de mutation normative interne de l’entreprise impulsée par cette interdiction. Pour y parvenir, nous ferons appel à la méthode d’analyse jurisprudentielle et doctrinale infléchie toutefois par une perspective sociojuridique. Celle-ci nous permettra de comprendre s’il y a eu une transformation de la nature des droits de direction eu égard à la nouvelle donne. Si oui, comment et dans quelle(s) mesure (s), sinon, pourquoi ? / Our project aims to measure the impact of the prohibition of psychological harassment at work on the company's management rights in Quebec (art.81.18 and seq., L.n.t). Moreover, as in this area other countries have distinguished themselves as pioneers by the introduction of a legislative framework prohibiting bullying at work and for the sake of having a more global vision of the phenomenon, we have found it useful to approach the subject under a comparative law approach, simultaneously analyzing French, Belgian and Quebec law. Indeed, to counter violence in the workplace, legally, Belgium and France have banned acts of harassment and their repetition, by amending and adding penal provisions in their respective labor laws. Quebec has moved in the same direction by amending its labor standards act. All these standards have in common the establishment of a protection regime for employees who are victims of psychological or moral harassment. The basis of this protection is to a large extent the promotion of fundamental human rights in the domestic legal order. For example, in European law, workplace bullying is considered to be a form of discrimination that undermines the principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation. However, we know that the main raison d'être of labor law as emphasized by Pierre Verge and Guylaine Vallée, is to limit the power that the employer has over the employee, which manifests itself through his rights of direction. These rights effectively grant the employer a wide margin of maneuver in the conduct of its business. He can thus «affect changes in company structures or work organization, modify production processes, implement and use new technologies, reduce production and labor force, etc. » He can also take any disciplinary measure, including dismissing any employee who does not comply with his orders. As we can see, in several areas related to the management of his organization, the employer has long decided freely. Thus, raising the question of psychological or moral harassment at work seems to question the power that the employer has to freely regulate his business. Our objective in approaching the subject is to understand the justifications underlying this intervention of the state in a field that until then was not specifically targeted by the law and the impact of this prohibition on the rights of direction so as to confirm or refute our hypothesis of a dynamics of internal normative change of the company impelled by this prohibition. To achieve this, we will use the method of jurisprudential and doctrinal analysis inflected by a socio-legal perspective. This will enable us to understand whether there has been a change in the nature of management rights in light of the new situation. If so, how, and in what measure (s)? If not why?

This thesis concerns the issue of injunctive relief and specific performance in arbitration. The availability of such relief varies significantly between different jurisdictions and the issue is further complicated when parties opt out of litigation in favor of arbitration, not the least in terms of enforcement. In light of this, the thesis aims to determine the consequences for parties opting for arbitration instead of litigation with regard to the availability and enforceability of specific performance and injunctive relief. This overall research question has been answered under the laws of Sweden and the United States of America. First, this thesis has concluded that there are considerable differences between the jurisdictions in the availability of specific performance and injunctive relief in litigation. In Sweden, remedies are issues of substantive law and for many kinds of contracts, the primary remedy for breach. Consequently, courts do not differentiate claims for specific performance or injunctive relief, and routinely grant such claims in no different way than granting monetary relief. Conversely, in the United States, remedies are viewed as procedural issues, not substantive. There, specific performance and injunctive relief are discretionary matters of equity and not rights at law. Hence, the availability of specific performance and injunctive relief is limited as compared to damages. Further, this thesis has concluded that the categorization of reliefs and remedies as substantive and procedural, respectively, is mirrored also in arbitration. While in Sweden, the choice of arbitration as proper contract forum does not affect the availability of the reliefs now in question, it does so in the United States. There, courts have held that the division of remedies into legal and equitable is not applicable in arbitration. Thus, parties have the freedom to by contract control which reliefs an arbitrator may grant. In absence of such agreements, courts have presumed arbitrators to have been given a broad grant of authority, allowing otherwise unavailable reliefs.Third, this thesis has concluded that, inter alia, because of the inherent contempt powers of courts in the United States, the means of enforcing arbitral awards providing specific performance and injunctive relief are more extensive in the United States than in Sweden, where comparable powers do not exist. Further, parties may by means of contract, grant arbitrators the authority to supervise such reliefs and enforce previously granted specific performance and injunctions by contractual fines and sanctions. Again, in absence of explicit contract language such authority is presumed in the United States, but not in Sweden. Overall, the choice of arbitration has consequences in both jurisdictions. In the United States, mostly for the availability of the reliefs in question and in Sweden, mostly for the enforcement.

Diese Arbeit setzt sich hauptsächlich mit der Frage auseinander, inwieweit das chinesische Gesetzesrecht einerseits und das deutsche Gesetzesrecht andererseits in der Lage sind, dem in beiden Rechtsordnungen verankerten Anspruch des Leiharbeitnehmers auf Equal Pay Geltung zu verschaffen. Die Entwicklung der chinesischen Gesetzgebung über die Arbeitnehmerüberlassung zeigt, dass der Gesetzgeber in der Praxis weitverbreiteten Diskriminierung von Leiharbeitnehmern im Vergleich zu Festangestellten entschieden entgegentreten will. In Deutschland ist das genaue Gegenteil zu beobachten. War der Schutz des Leiharbeitnehmers bei Erlass des Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetzes im Jahre 1972 noch das maßgebliche Motiv, wurde mit dem Reformgesetz vom 23.12.2002 damit begonnen, die Arbeitnehmerüberlassung mehr und mehr als Instrument der Beschäftigungspolitik zu sehen und die Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsvorschriften zu "liberalisieren". Anders als die chinesische Gesetzgebung zeigt die Rechtsprechung in China ein anderes Bild: Von den in der vorliegenden Arbeit untersuchten 25 Gerichtsfällen wurde nur in 4 Fällen zugunsten des Leiharbeitnehmers entschieden. Eine Analyse der ablehnenden Entscheidungen macht jedoch klar, dass die Gerichte für ihre Entscheidungen Begründungen heranzogen, die im Gesetz keine Stütze finden. Die Forschungsergebnisse zeigen: Das Problem eines unzureichenden Leiharbeitnehmerschutzes des chinesischen Rechts liegt darin, dass die Rechtsprechung das ihr zur Verfügung stehende gesetzliche Instrumentarium nicht hinreichend nutzt. In Deutschland ergibt sich dieses Problem vielmehr aus der bewussten und klaren Entscheidung des Gesetzgebers, der Vorgabe des Europäischen Gesetzgebers – tarifvertragliche Abweichung vom Equal Pay ausschließlich unter Berücksichtigung des Gesamtschutzes des Leiharbeitnehmers – nicht zu folgen. / This dissertation mainly deals with the question: To what extent the Chinese law and the German law can guarantee the validity of the right of temporary agency workers to equal pay, which is anchored in both legal systems. The development of Chinese legislation on temporary agency work shows that in practice, the legislator undoubtedly wants to decisively counteract widespread discrimination against temporary agency workers. In Germany, the exact opposite situation can be observed. While the protection of temporary agency worker remained the decisive motive when the Act on Temporary Agency Work was enacted in 1972, the reform law of December 23, 2002 began to view temporary agency work more and more as an instrument of employment policy and to "liberalize" the regulations on temporary agency work. In contrast to Chinese legislation, the judgement in China shows a different picture: Among the 25 cases researched in this dissertation, there are only 4 cases that were judged in favor of the temporary agency worker. This could lead to the assumption that in China, the law also attaches only secondary importance to the temporary agency worker's claim to equal pay. However, an analysis of the judgements clarifies that the courts used justifications for their decisions which could not find support in the law. According to the research of this dissertation, the problem of inadequate protection to temporary agency worker under Chinese law lies in the fact that the courts fail to make sufficient use of the legal instruments at their disposal. In Germany, this problem is resulted rather from the deliberate and clear decision of the legislator, namely failure to follow the specification of the European legislator - deviation from equal pay by collective agreement exclusively under consideration of the overall protection of the temporary agency worker.

Die Erkenntnis, dass der Staat nicht die einzige Quelle von Recht ist, verbreitet sich zusehends auch in der Rechtswissenschaft. Die Vielfalt normativer Ordnungen wird gewöhnlich mit dem Begriff "Rechtspluralismus" beschrieben. In der Rechtspluralismusforschung besteht weitgehend Einigkeit darüber, dass normative Ordnungen nicht parallel nebeneinander und unabhängig voneinander koexistieren, sondern dass diese sich wechselseitig beeinflussen. Dieses Miteinander kann konfliktreich wie auch kooperativ sein, es kann zum Transfer von Normen und Vorstellungen, aber auch zu Widerstand und Abgrenzung kommen. Diese Arbeit leistet einen Beitrag zur interdisziplinären Rechtsforschung, indem sie Austauschprozesse zwischen verschiedenen normativen Ordnungen analysiert. Hierbei wird "Übersetzen" als maßgebliche Praxis des Rechtspluralismus verstanden und ein methodischer Zugang angeboten, um Austauschprozesse machtsensibel zu analysieren. Am Beispiel Ghanas wird untersucht, wie die Anerkennung von Recht nicht-staatlichen Ursprungs in der Rechtsprechung staatlicher Gerichte praktiziert wird. Ghana ist nicht nur durch eine Vielzahl verschiedener Gesellschaften, sondern auch durch die Koexistenz unterschiedlicher normativer Ordnungen geprägt. Neben dem zur Zeit des britischen Kolonialismus eingeführten Common Law werden zahlreiche lokale Gewohnheitsrechte vom Staat als Rechtsquelle anerkannt. Über den ghanaischen Kontext hinaus ergeben sich auch allgemeine Fragen zum Umgang mit gesellschaftlicher Vielfalt und den damit einhergehenden Konflikten. / Jurisprudence acknowledges more and more that the state is not the only source for legal norms. The diversity of normative orders is usually described with the term "legal pluralism". Scholarship on legal pluralism emphasizes that normative orders do not exist parallel and independently from each other, but that they influence each other mutually. The relationship can be conflictual but also cooperative, there can be transfers of norms and ideas, but also resistance and dissociation. This study contributes to inter-disciplinary jurisprudence by analysing transfer processes between normative orders. It understands "translation" as essential practice of legal pluralism and offers a methodological approach to analyse transfer processes sensitively to power. Using the example of Ghana the study explores how state courts practice the recognition of non-state law. Ghana is characterised not only by the coexistence not only of different cultures, but of different normative orders as well. Next to the common law which had been introduced by British colonialism there is a plurality of local customary laws that are officially recognised as law by the state. This situation raises questions beyond the Ghanaian context on how to deal with social diversity and the conflicts the come along with it.