No description available.

This investigation addresses the regulation of access to child pornography available on the Internet to evaluate the implications of hybrid regulation for free speech, privacy and democracy in the online environment. It aims to investigate these implications in relation to current regulatory measures designed to limit access to child pornography available on the Internet. As such, it establishes evaluative criteria divided into three broad categories: (1) free speech - involving the issues of unchecked private censorship and scope creep; (2) privacy protection - involving the issues of increased unchecked and more invasive surveillance powers given to law enforcement authorities; and (3) general principles of good regulation and democratic values - involving issues around the lack of transparency, accountability, legitimacy, proper oversight, and citizen involvement as well as inefficiency and ineffectiveness of regulatory intervention. Australia, Brazil and the United Kingdom were chosen as case studies because they had generally similar anti-child-pornography laws, both domestically and in terms of their commitments under international treaties, they were considered democratic countries subject to democratic controls of content, and access to data was relatively unproblematic in these jurisdictions. This provided a common ground for comparison. More importantly, they were chosen as case studies because despite so different constitutional frameworks and varied regulatory scope and mechanics, they all settled on similar approaches to child pornography. regulation. This provided an opportunity to explore different aspects and variations of hybrid regulation, and also to address its broader implications for free speech, privacy and democracy on the Internet. There are a number of contributions made here. First, this research proposes evaluative criteria for anti-online child pornography regulations. Second, it suggests a scheme of safeguards to minimise negative regulatory consequences in relation to free speech, privacy and democracy in the online environment. It discusses the broad lessons and the economics of online child pornography regulation, the use of decentred and polycentric theories of regulation, and explores the adjudication of apparent illegality of online material by private actors, showing what regulatory and governance theorists as well as criminologist may learn from this research.

This study examines the protective principle of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in international law and its use for combatting the threat of international terrorism. The study is, generally speaking, one of two parts. The first part explores the rationale of protective jurisdiction and the interests that it serves, and assesses the importance of the rationale of this jurisdiction for combatting transnational crimes, including the problem of international terrorism. It also sheds important light on the modern historical development of protective jurisdiction and the various public and private efforts made to codify this ground of jurisdiction during the first half of the twentieth century. The second part of the study provides original, empirical research into contemporary State practice, in an effort to examine whether, and, if so, to what extent, States have used protective jurisdiction for combatting the threat of international terrorism. It also enumerates, based on this practice, as well as the use of a range of other primary sources, including relevant treaty and U.N. Security Council practice, a list of vital interests that have been included under the ambit of protective jurisdiction lex lata and around which a basic level of agreement appears to have clustered. The study proposes that it may be possible to define protective jurisdiction in contemporary customary international law based on a ‘shared vital State interests' approach. That is, the protection of certain vital interests is in conformity with the practice of the international community of States. The study concludes that, in the light of the findings of State practice inter alia and the recent decision of the International Law Commission to include the topic of extraterritorial jurisdiction in its long-term programme of work, the codification of protective jurisdiction is necessary and desirable more than ever before. The most important advantages of the adoption of such an instrument are that it could be used as a persuasive source to guide States and courts in the adoption and interpretation of domestic laws; provide for the more effective protection of shared vital State interests by the international community; and complement the existing legal framework and ‘fill in' gaps left by ad hoc sectoral treaties for combatting the increasingly complex, diffuse and evolving threat of international terrorism.

The aim of this thesis is to assess the justifications for various extensions of the criminal law introduced to combat terrorism, in particular those extensions that go beyond the existing remit of inchoate offences and extend liability to earlier acts and intentions. Its method is to begin by exploring the principles of criminal law theory that ought to apply to such extensions; to interrogate the definition of terrorism; and then to examine four recent classes of offence in counter-terrorism legislation that extend the criminal law beyond its legitimate boundaries. These offences are collectively referred to in this thesis as 'preventive terrorism offences' to reflect the fact that the primary rationale for their enactment is to prevent terrorism. The thesis concludes by assessing the place of these offences within the government's overall counter-terrorism strategy, focusing in particular on the Prevent leg of the strategy, which aims to reduce extremism and tackle the root causes of terrorism. The preventive terrorism offences display several very troubling features, most notably that they have the potential to criminalise non-wrongful conduct. It is argued that by virtue of their ability to criminalise non-wrongful conduct the offences under examination diminish the legitimacy and moral force of the criminal law. Furthermore, by extending inchoate liability to very remote acts of preparation, possession, encouragement, and association, the criminal law occupies the same operational space as measures under the Prevent strategy that are intended to be reintegrative. This overlap has the potential to render the offences counterproductive to the larger counter-terrorism endeavour by creating the perception that the Prevent strategy is in fact a covert surveillance mechanism to gather intelligence for future prosecutions. This perception leads to further mistrust and alienation of individuals and communities who feel disproportionately targeted by these measures. Thus, the offences not only offend criminal law principles and values, but also have the potential to offend the very preventive justification that is given for their enactment.

La question de la sécurité privée est un sujet d'actualité. Ce secteur en pleine expansion a fait l'objet de réglementations ces dernières décennies. Sa particularité tient en la privatisation d'un domaine régalien de l'intervention étatique. La sécurité privée pose ainsi la problématique du traitement de la mission de sécurité. Si le secteur privé investit de plus en plus le domaine de la sécurité, il se différencie du secteur public. La participation du secteur privé s'effectue par voie contractuelle qui obéit pour partie de ses aspects au droit commun, malgré l'objectif de maintien de l’ordre public. / The issue of private security is a hot topic. This rapidly expanding sector has been the subject of regulations in recent decades. Its peculiarity lies in the privatization of a sovereign domain reserved for state intervention. Private security then poses the problem of processing the security mission. We note that the private sector is investing more and more in the field of security while differentiating itself from the public sector. The participation of the private sector is done by contract which obeys most of its aspects in common law.

Si la jurisprudence n’a pas définitivement condamné l’ordre public de proximité, son champ d’application ne cesse de se restreindre, à tel point qu’il est devenu possible de s’interroger sur l’existence d’une condamnation implicite de ce mécanisme. Cette situation impose d’envisager son avenir dans la théorie générale du droit international privé. En dépit de la récurrence de sa critique en doctrine, l’ordre public de proximité n’est pas dépourvu d’utilité et il apparaît possible, par une réinterprétation de son fonctionnement d’ensemble, de dépasser la crainte qu’il opère une mutation du rôle dévolu à l’exception d’ordre public et favorise le développement du relativisme culturel. Cette possible réhabilitation de l’ordre public de proximité ne doit pas, cependant, conduire à penser que le mécanisme serait sans défaut. Sa confrontation aux évolutions du droit international privé et à la possible mutation de l’exception d’ordre public rend ainsi compte d’une certaine inadaptation. Surtout, le passage vers une logique hiérarchique, nécessaire afin de dépasser la critique relativiste, fait craindre un désintérêt total pour la norme étrangère. Dès lors, le mécanisme semble se construire en marge de la théorie de l’ordre public et il devient nécessaire d’envisager son dépassement. La reformulation de la théorie de l’effet atténué pourrait se présenter comme une solution efficace. Il conviendra, cependant, de veiller à ce que le raisonnement à l’œuvre soit fondé sur une mise en balance des différents intérêts en cause. Par conséquent, si l’ordre public de proximité ne peut plus exister comme mécanisme autonome, la condition de proximité doit demeurer et contribuer au développement de la proportionnalité comme technique de mise en œuvre de l’effet atténué. / Although case law has not entirely ruled out the theory of the “ordre public de proximité”, it’s scope has constantly been decreased to the point that it is now impossible to question it’s fall from grace. Hence pushing for a study of it’s future existence in the general theory of privateinternational law. In spite of recurrent criticism from Doctrine sources, the “ordre public de proximité” has not become useless. A renewed interpretation of its overall functioning is needed to overcome the fear of taking over the role of the public policy exception and therefore encouraging cultural relativism.However, considering the rehabilitation of the “ordre public de proximité” should not misguide us into thinking it is flawless. When confronted to the evolution of private interational law and a possible mutation of the public policy exception, the inadaptability of this principle becomesobvious. More specifically when transiting toward a logical ranking of values as necessairy for it’s effective functioning, one may fear a lack of consideration for the foreign norm. As a consequence, the “ordre public de proximité” seems to build itself outside of the public policytheory highlighting the need to consider it’s overcoming. Redefining the theory of the so-called “effet atténué” (limited effect) could represente an effective solution on condition that this system is founded on the balance of interest. In conclusion, if the “ordre public de proximité” cannot exist as an independent mechanism, the proximity condition must remain and support the development of proportionality as the reasoning method for the application of the so-called “effet atténué”.

Notion centrale des rapports entre l’État et les individus, l'ordre public mis en œuvre par la police administrative est traditionnellement identifié comme étant matériel. Essentiel à l'équilibre entre maintien de la paix sociale et garantie des droits et libertés individuels, il y est particulièrement fait recours lorsqu'est en cause la sécurité. La législation (lato sensu) récente en matière d'état d'urgence le rappelle. Mais l'ordre public n'est pas uniquement matériel, limité à la sécurité, à la tranquillité et à la salubrité publiques. Notion classique du droit public, l'ordre public ne cesse d'évoluer. Il est en effet possible de tirer de divers phénomènes épars l'existence d'un ordre public immatériel dont l'émergence et l'utilisation visent à répondre à des déséquilibres apparus dans l'État de droit. Permettant notamment la protection de valeurs objectives à partir desquelles la société est ordonnée, l'ordre public immatériel vise à rééquilibrer les rapports entre le collectif et l'individuel. Il est en ce sens une notion fonctionnelle. Il est ainsi possible de définir l'ordre public immatériel et de construire un régime juridique qui lui soit adapté. Impuissant à restreindre les libertés dans la vie privée, il s'exprime dans le cadre de l'espace public auquel il est cantonné, ce qui limite d'autant les risques d'intrusion de l'État. Il peut être vu comme une notion autonome. Cette formalisation permet d'identifier plus facilement l'ordre public immatériel. Surtout, elle laisse entendre qu'il pourrait s'imposer durablement dans l'ordre juridique français. / A key notion in the relationship between the State and individuals, public order implemented by the administrative authorities is normally considered as material. Essential to the balance between maintaining social peace and ensuring respect for individual rights and freedoms, public order is implemented especially where security is involved. Recent legislation (in the broad sense) introducing the state of emergency is a case in point. However, public order is not merely material or restricted to matters of public security, peace or health. Public order, a traditional notion in public law, continues to evolve. From the various different phenomena, it is indeed possible to deduce the existence of an immaterial public order, the emergence and implementation of which are intended to offset the disequilibrium arising from the rule of law. The purpose of immaterial public order, which ensures the protection of objective values around which society is organised, is to restore the balance between the public and the individual. In that sense, it is a functional notion. It is therefore possible to define immaterial public order and build a legal system adapted to it. Immaterial public order, which is powerless to restrict freedoms in private life, expresses itself in the public domain to which it is confined, thereby limiting the risks of State intervention. lt can be seen as a notion in its own right. As a result of this formalisation, immaterial public order can be more readily identified. Above all, formalisation suggests that it could become a permanent feature of the French legal system.