No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

For a long time, the legal framework of open involuntary mental treatment inSweden has been criticized as being contradictory and unpredictable. It iscrucial that the legislation concerning the restrictions of individual integrityand freedom should comply with the high standards of legal certainty (aSwedish term "rättssäkerhet"). It is of utmost importance that the involuntarymental treatment legislation is clear and predictable for both law practitionersand patients.In this thesis, the legal framework for open involuntary mental treatmentis investigated and critically assessed from a legal certainty perspective. Thisis done using the legal dogmatic method. The legal framework pertaining toopen involuntary mental treatment is given interpretation and systematisationwith the help of the traditional sources of law, such as legislation, case lawand preparatory works, as well as legal dogmatic literature.Open involuntary mental treatment may be provided to the patient outsideof the health care facility. This is possible if special conditions are met.Such conditions may require that the patient agree to receive medication orthat his or her whereabouts be restricted to a certain place. One of the legalprerequisites for open involuntary mental treatment is that the patient opposesthe treatment in question. At the same time, the medical providers are notallowed to use coercion to implement the treatment conditions, nor may theyimpose any sanctions if the patient does not comply with the prescribed conditionsof the care. Whilst the term open involuntary mental treatment (öppentvångsvård in Swedish, which can be translated literally as "open enforcedcare") signals the possibility of resorting to coercion, no coercive measuresare permitted within this form of care.However, it seems inconsistent to forbid the use of coercive measures ininvoluntary treatment, i.e. treatment which is given without a patient's consent.The way open involuntary mental treatment conditions are formally setforth in the Swedish legal system assumes that the patient opposes the treatment- whilst at the same time requiring that he or she must voluntarilycooperate during the aforesaid treatment. This appears to be contradictory.It can be argued that the patient's compliance with the special conditionsis based on the lack of knowledge of the rules that regulate open involuntarytreatment or on fear of being readmitted to inpatient care. It can also be discussedwhether such compliant behavior indicates the presence of an underlyingthreat or that the patient has been misguided or misinformed regardingthe regulation of open psychiatric care, which can be seen as manipulation. Thus, lack of consent on the one hand and lack of authority to resort tocoercion on the other hand appear to be two conflicting requirements preventingthe application of open involuntary care from complying with the legalrequirements. The study demonstrates that there are significant shortcomingsin the current regulation regarding open involuntary mental treatment, especiallyin terms of predictability. The analysis concludes that there is a need toreview the current legal framework for open involuntary mental treatment.4

No description available.

This research paper addresses the issue whether cryptocurrencies are protected investments under  bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Through BITs a host state has a responsibility to protect the investments of the nationals of the other contracting state to the treaty. This governing relationship however may introduce several requirements for an investment to comply with, such as territorial links, the use of language under BITs compliance requirements. With this, cryptocurrencies being a new of age asset class may find several future hurdles in qualifying as an investment under BITs. Especially with the on-going confusion on an international scale in regulating and defining cryptocurrencies.  In determining the afore-mentioned requirements, this research paper first identified a cryptocurrency and a comparison was first made in regards to money. Then, the research paper proceeded in comparing a cryptocurrency with the characteristics of digital assets. Followed by a general approach to the meaning of investment and an analysis to the definition of investment through past approaches taken by arbitral tribunals. Therefore, finally leading in deciding whether cryptocurrencies will qualify as an investment under BITs.

As more data is gathered, analysed and stored, private companies create new products and unlock new commercial frontiers. Simultaneously, governments are beginning to realise that the laws in place require a revamp for the good of commercial innovation and for execution of governmental prerogatives. Hence, in a bid to catch up with the data economy, governments have begun looking for new legal measures that allow them to legally access the data that is held by private companies. Amongst the existing solutions and sprouting suggestions, mandatory business-to-government data sharing often features as a measure through which obligations may be imposed upon private data holding companies to share their data with governments. Other governments have already put in place laws and adopted practices that impose mandatory business-to-government data sharing obligations on private companies.  Many of the countries where private enterprises carry out their businesses have entered into International Investment Agreements (IIAs) which invariably entitle investors to Fair and Equitable treatment and prohibit unlawful compensation. Against this background, this thesis discusses the subject of mandatory business-to-government data sharing by dwelling on three main issues, that is, (i) whether data is/are protected as investment, (2) whether mandatory business-to-government data sharing obligations may infringe the Fair and Equitable Treatment standard and (3) whether mandatory business-to-government data sharing obligations may amount to unlawful expropriation.

The growing digitalization of the world’s economy and the further integration of the EU:s internal market, combined with aggressive tax schemes becoming more and more sophisticated, has caused a growing need for unionwide effort to prevent aggressive tax-panning practises. The Council Directive (EU) 208/822 often referred to as DAC-6 is but the latest step in the European Union’s ongoing work to fulfil that need. The directive which to a large degree is built on the OECD:s BEPS project action 12, aims to provide early information to tax agencies within the union about potentially harmful tax-arrangements, at an early stage. The hope is that armed with that information can member states intervene in an early stage and protect the tax base. The directive is not uncontroversial and has faced criticism and ongoing legal action[1] for being vague, infringing on the rights guaranteed in the EU charter of fundamental rights and potentially the four freedoms. Whenever the union choses to use its competence to enact legislation, it must abide by the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, and questions have been made if the directive has gone unproportionally far to combat tax evasion. The vague implementation and use of the main benefit test have also been criticised for possibly being contra productive in combating aggressive tax practises and causing European enterprises to become less competitive due to mounting administrative costs.  [1] Se C-694/20.

No description available.