Thesis advisor: Hideo Konishi / Becker (1968) provides a formal framework for analyzing various policies in criminal law. Within this framework there are potential criminals, who have varying benefits from committing an illegal act. They are subject to sanctions when they are caught and are found guilty for committing such acts. Accordingly, increased expected sanctions lead to greater deterrence. There are also costs associated with achieving such deterrence. Hence, there are optimal policy variables which balance costs and gains associated with increased deterrence. In my dissertation, in five independent but closely related essays, I address various issues related to criminal law by making use of optimal crime and deterrence models, which are similar to Becker (1968). First, I analyze the standard of proof in criminal trials and extend a justification as to why there are higher standards of proof in criminal trials versus civil trials. Next, I introduce the concept of mixed warning strategies, and justify the use of mixed as well as pure warning strategies in law enforcement. In a related essay, I show that it is optimal to punish repeat offenders more severely than first time offenders, provided that offenders gain experience in evading detection by committing offenses. In my fourth essay, I identify reasons as to why it is welfare improving to allow individuals to self-report conduct crimes. Finally, I propose a simple framework to incorporate the concept of remorse in the economic analysis of criminal law, and show that the Beckerian maximal fine result need not hold when some individuals feel remorse. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Economics.

This thesis presents an investigation into the structure of proof in non-standard analysis using proof-planning. The theory of non-standard analysis, developed by Robinson in the 1960s, offers a more algebraic way of looking at proof in analysis. Proof-planning is a technique for reasoning about proof at the meta-level. In this thesis, we use it to encapsulate the patterns of reasoning that occur in non-standard analysis proofs. We first introduce in detail the mathematical theory and the proof-planning architecture. We then present our research methodology, describe the formal framework, which includes an axiomatisation, and develop suitable evaluation criteria. We then present our development of proof-plans for theorems involving limits, continuity and differentiation. We then explain how proof-planning applies to theorems which combine induction and non-standard analysis. Finally we give a detailed evaluation of the results obtained by combining the two attractive approaches of proof-planning and non-standard analysis, and draw conclusions from the work.

There is unanimity within the arbitration community that corruption is disrupting international trade and that arbitrators must not let arbitration be a safe forum for enforcement of contracts tainted by such illicit acts. Due to the hidden nature of corruption, often hiding behind an agency agreement, the most challenging question facing arbitrators has shown to be how to handle the rules of evidence. Awards show that there is an inconsistency in the treatment of the burden and standard of proof as well as the significance given to circumstantial evidence. Two trends can be spotted where the first approach is to argue that the seriousness of the accusations calls for a heightened standard of proof. The second trend is to argue that the seriousness to the contrary calls for a pragmatic approach to the rules of evidence, allowing a less rigid view on the standard of proof and use of circumstantial evidence or even a shift in the burden of proof. The focus of the thesis is on evidentiary aspects of corruption cases and how arbitrators have dealt with these challenges. The overall question is how arbitrators should handle the rules of evidence in corruption cases from a lege ferenda perspective. It is argued that the inconsistency in the handling of proof is sometimes misguided and that there are reasons to agree on a common starting point for applying the rules of evidence to corruption cases. Arbitrators should realise the frightening fact that it is their weighing of the evidence which is usually decisive for the outcome and accordingly there is a responsibility to conduct this operation carefully. The tools and procedural flexibility to reveal corruption exist even if there is no perfect solution on how to do it.

This paper analyses how IndecopI has prosecuted and sanctionedcartels within the country, taking into account whether economic agents have internalized the extent and impact of the ban of cartels and the type of reaction deployed by the authority over time. / En este trabajo se analiza cómo ha perseguido y sancionado el Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (IndecopI) las prácticas colusorias  de  competidores que han tenido lugar en el interior del país, considerando si los agentes económicos de esas zonas han internalizado el alcance y las consecuencias de la prohibición de tales prácticas, así como el tipo de respuesta que ha tenido la autoridad a lo largo del tiempo.

The security of a cryptosystem in most cases relies on the key being kept secret. Quantum key distribution (QKD) enables two authenticated parties without other prior information to share a perfectly secure key. However, repeatedly using the same key to encrypt many different messages is not perfectly secure. A trivial method to obtain a secret key is to use QKD to reestablish a new key for each message. In this thesis, we study an efficient method to update the keys. We call this method quantum key evolution (QKE). The QKE provides a new secret key in each round of the protocol. Therefore, a new secret key is established for next round of protocol execution. We study two problems to present secure schemes applying the QKE. First, we present a new quantum message transmission protocol, to transmit long secret message using less quantum bits than the methods of incorporating QKD with one-time pad, as well as some quantum secure direct communication protocols. Second, we present three-party authenticated quantum key distribution protocols which enable two communicating parties to authenticate the other's identity and establish a session key between them via a trusted center. For the security of our protocols, we give formal standard reduction proofs to the security of our protocols. We show that the security of our protocol is equivalent to the security of BB84 protocol which has been proved to be unconditionally secure. Therefore, our protocols are unconditionally secure.

Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2017-06-01T18:06:32Z No. of bitstreams: 1 mileneperesguersonmedeirosschuery.pdf: 1480531 bytes, checksum: 24cffd70f493aee44aa11c4efd0aed29 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2017-06-02T15:59:15Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 mileneperesguersonmedeirosschuery.pdf: 1480531 bytes, checksum: 24cffd70f493aee44aa11c4efd0aed29 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2017-06-02T16:00:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 mileneperesguersonmedeirosschuery.pdf: 1480531 bytes, checksum: 24cffd70f493aee44aa11c4efd0aed29 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-02T16:00:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 mileneperesguersonmedeirosschuery.pdf: 1480531 bytes, checksum: 24cffd70f493aee44aa11c4efd0aed29 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-07 / O desenvolvimento de novas tecnologias a partir do século XX acarretaram profundas modificações no processamento de informações na sociedade. Esse progresso tecnológico alcançou o Poder Judiciário com o uso cada vez mais crescente das mídias visuais como meio de prova e persuasão. Essa dissertação dá enfoque em especial para a prova em vídeo em razão de seu alto poder de persuasão, e discute se os operadores do Direito estariam capacitados para lidar com esse tipo de prova visual, quando tradicionalmente estão mais familiarizados com a prova escrita. A principal problemática, no entanto, diz respeito a aptidão da prova em vídeo para atingir o standard probatório utilizado nos casos criminais, qual seja, o standard da prova além da dúvida razoável. / The development of new technologies from the twentieth century led to profound changes in information processing in society. This technological progress reached Judiciary growing with the increased use of visual media as a form of evidence and persuasion. This dissertation specially focuses on video evidence due to its high power of persuasion, and discusses whether jurists would be qualified to handle this kind of visual evidence, when traditionally are more familiar with the written evidence. The main problem, however, concerns the ability of video evidence to meet the standard of proof used in criminal cases, that is, the standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att utreda hur rätten till liv har ett samband med tvångsförsvinnande enligt den Inter-Amerikanska Domstolen om Mänskliga Rättigheter. För att uppnå uppsatsens syfte genomförs en rättsutredning kring gällande rätt, där en rättsdogmatisk metod och fallstudie applicerats. Uppsatsen kommer vidare att analyseras mot bakgrund av en rättsvetenskaplig teori, där relevant rättspraxis som den Inter-Amerikanska Domstolen om Mänskliga Rättigheter bemött samt en kortfattad genomgång av kontexters påverkan. Under utredningen av de konventionella källorna finns vissa krav för att uppfylla om en stat kan hållas ansvarig. Utifrån det och med de grova mänskliga rättighets kränkningarna staten utfärdat i åtanke, är bevisbördan och statsansvar av stor relevans för att klargöra sambandet mellan rättigheten och handlingen. Uppsatsen avslutas med att konkludera att det råder brister i hur den Inter-Amerikanska Domstolen om Mänskliga Rättigheter arbetar mot att förvara och skydda Mänskliga Rättigheter i fall som berör tvångsförsvinnande. / The aim of this paper is to evaluate how the right to life has a connection with the forced disappearance of persons, according to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. In order to reach this purpose, a legal dogmatic approach and a case study is used, in the light of a legal theory. The research concerns relevant cases that the Inter-American Court on Human Rights has been confronted with, and, to clarify the contextual importance, a brief explanation on the surroundings is provided. With the grave human rights violations committed by State authorities in mind, the thesis shows that the standard of proof, and principle of state responsibility, becomes of importance, in order to be able to determine whether the right to life is violated in cases of forced disappearance. The essay will conclude that the issue prevails defectiveness in relation to preventing and protecting human rights in cases of forced disappearance of persons.

本論文論述公正程序請求權在民事證據法上各主要議題之作用，重點論之如下： 「公正程序請求權理念之建立」，係為探討公正程序請求權之內涵與意義，以鋪陳應用該概念於與民事證據法關係密切之證據調查、事實認定過程之基礎。藉由歐洲人權法院相關判決，以印證歐盟司法機關對公正程序請求權在基本人權脈絡下之意涵及其在實際個案之解釋適用。另亦探討法律安定性與公正程序請求權之關係。因以公正程序請求權為前導法理所指向之程序內涵之一為實質公平正義的追求。建基於此目標，為使程序法注入新理論概念而與憲法層次之價值觀相連接，因此在立法論指向積極擴大「不確定法律概念」的立法應用，使司法裁量(Ermesson)於民事證據法的解釋、適用判斷空間於焉擴張，若對不確定法律概念的規範特質、規範目的不予釐清，而汎用於事實認定與證據調查程序中，同時司法裁量的運作空間在解釋論上，其寬窄勢必增加法官就其裁量判斷對當事人發生「突襲性裁判」之機會。以此對照同為法治國原則所衍生之法律安定性、法律明確性原則等之內在限制要求，不確定法律概念之指涉範圍則與之形成對立緊張關係。不確定法律概念是否應予限定，又如何與審判實務相銜接，其如何在「法官恣意禁止原則」下踐行，實值評估。值注意者為德國法學者關於法治國原則之正當程序及不確定法律概念之討論，其解釋論取向實值深思。 關於舉證責任之分配，我國新修正民事訴訟法第二百七十七條規定：「當事人主張有利於己之事實，就其事實有舉證之責任。但法律別有規定，或依其情形顯失公平者，不在此限。」本條規定為德、日所無，而係我國所獨創。針對此舉證責任所設之通則規定，於審判實務上以公正程序保障之觀點以言，是否能臻至法律明確性之要求，而具體落實為操作性規則(Operations Regeln)，實不無疑義。如何於訴訟階段運用該條規定以合理分配敗訴之風險，以及建立一明確而穩固之舉證責任分配原則乃直接衝擊當事人訴訟勝敗，在「原則-例外」脈絡下，如何保障當事人公正程序請求權，防免法律突襲，實有賴舉證責任分配一般原則之確立。另蒐集美國判決以觀察common law之舉証責任分配其原則是否以衡平原則為依據。此外，闡明權行使在實質上賦予法官介入個案調整紛爭當事人訴訟程序相對地位之職權。惟由於程序安定性之要求既在保護人民對於訴訟程序之信賴，如何保護實體權利、實現正義，均應依正當程序解決兩造糾紛始有可能為當事人及利害關係人等所信服，則闡明權如何平衡兼顧兩造利益，以維法官之中立；對以法尋求說做為程序目的論者而言，又如何平衡兼顧實體利益與程序利益，實值探討。而藉由對於闡明權行使之分析，以理解其為何引起法律適用的困難，以致於在司法審查密度、心證公開的決定上會成為一個有意義的問題。為促進訴訟，更進一步是否應將事案解明義務一般化?又如何於訴訟階段以一般化事案解明義務為基礎，使當事人盡力於證據之提出及其可期待性? 於充分賦予當事人公正程序保障之前提下，如何使當事人之證據提出責任具體化，為所關心之課題。 舉證責任減輕之體系定位之釐清將有助於解析整個事實認定之過程，在「原則-例外」基本原理的體系脈絡下，為達公正程序請求權所保障之實質公平，構成舉證責任減輕之事件類型，正當性及所採取之種類方式，其法理基礎均為關切之重點。現代科技文明，非但對自然生活環境帶來一定衝擊，更直接影響現代型紛爭、訴訟之蓬勃發展。文獻上對以公害、醫療、交通、產品責任等現代型訴訟為例，已累積相當成果。對受害人因欠缺得與財團企業、專門職業從業者相抗衡之專業知識與經濟實力，若需就其行為與「損害」間之因果關係負擔客觀舉証責任，實近於緣木求魚。則於訴訟法上應如何透過舉證責任減輕以減輕訴訟中弱勢原告之証明負擔，調整雙方不對等之訴訟地位以落實訴訟法上之「武器平等原則」，及損害賠償數額確定之舉證責減輕，究是否等同於衡平裁判之問題，實極有討論價值。另論述美國學者John Rawls提出之正義論做為平等原則在證據法操作性規則之可能性，及德國學者Prütting對勞動法證明責任之見解，對於經濟上弱勢地位之勞工與資本家間勞資爭議事件之探討深具啟發性。 「證據蒐集與事實認定之公正程序保障」，探討關於證據資料蒐集及各種證據方法之提出，在證據調查程序上各有何特性，又應如何保障公正程序之審理過程。訴訟對立之兩造，其實體利益及程序利益之消長在事實認定、證據價值判斷上決定勝敗，依此觀點下兩造之利害關係成為零合賽局，而非相互協助合作。證據蒐集方法中文書提出義務、協力義務等主張亦處於類似之狀況，則其以公正程序觀點檢視其範圍、正當性與界限，實有必要。 違法取得證據資料之證據能力部份，討論因科技發展帶動新穎證據方法之出現，使證據資料之取得來源益趨多元，如何決定新穎科學證據所應採之正當調查程序，對於我國社會徵信公司、討債公司林立之現況，自有其實證研究價值。就民事程序中負舉證責任人或第三人之違法取得證據，例如以電話竊聽，私下錄音或其他文件之竊取、未經同意之照片拍攝錄影、潛入工廠生產線以取得證據資料證明製程專利侵權等，產生追求真實之訴訟目的觀與程序或實體法規範衝突之情形，尚且擴及憲法之價值確立與衝突之問題。依正當程序及其他憲法原則之審判應如何合宜審度裁酌方得認定證據資料之證據能力，又如何忠實反映該新種證據方法所表彰之證據價值等，甚值注目。申言之，取得證據資料與其他基本權，如隱私權、人性尊嚴、人格權、財產權、自由權等價值之相互間對抗與衡量。 對於證據蒐集，一般認為，大陸法系與英美法系在證據蒐集程序上相異處之一在於摸索證明之原則准否。而評估我國是否容許類似英美法系之事證開示制度(Discovery or Disclosure)，學者間爭議頗多。而在德國，學說及實務上有以辯論主義作為承認摸索證明禁止原則之理論依據者，而通說亦向來將摸索證明之許可性討論置於適用辯論主義之程序中為之。以程序制度之原則一貫性而言，是否應原則禁止，例外准許。而可能例外准許類型之範圍及考量因素為何，其程序態樣，及其法理基礎為觀察重點。摸索證明是否應與准許，對訴訟對立之兩造，影響至巨，而有與公正程序所要求之當事人具體化義務，證據聲明明確性等標準相衝突之虞。證據評價為另一論述重點，所蒐集之證據在自由心証下如何為證據評價本文襲承證據法學說對證明度等基礎概念之討論，說明關於何種證據方法、證據資料得成為法院事實認定之素材，即具證據能力及經嚴格證明，而對於解明事實而言又有多大助益（亦即證據價值）證據相關性(或關連性)問題與證明預斷之禁止原則等，凡此種種議題因均與法院認定事實之過程息息相關，誠有檢討實益與必要。 擬制自認與失權制度之公正程序保障部份，鑑於訴訟制度為一集團現象，司法資源有限，課紛爭當事人以訴訟促進義務，以達防止訴訟延滯、簡化爭點、審理集中化之目標，並賦予違反此義務者以失權之法律效果，對程序利益保護雖為一有效手段；然因其剝奪當事人進行攻擊防禦之機會，認定事實之基礎並非在於當事人積極而經自由意志判斷之訴訟行為，則在如何之法理支持下，乃能正當化此強制處分對擬制自認、遲延提出攻擊防禦方法之失權與其他程序上異議(責問)失權等所造成當事人程序及實體權利不利益之科處，實值深究。在審判實務上，對於擬制自認之運用，解釋適用之疑難。例如，對於所謂「不爭執」之定義、及擬制自認之效力等基本問題之疑義、沉默的證據力等為其著例。在證據調查或準備程序之爭點整理階段，公正程序權利如何保障以無悖於法治國之憲法原則，為著力關切點。

Abstract  This thesis is concerned with examining the intersection between the areas of international commercial arbitration and money laundering. There are various points of connectivity between the two and the aim of this thesis is to discern how an arbitrator should conduct arbitral proceedings involving money laundering. For this purpose, a few selected topics have been examined. The practical challenges arising out of these topics, as well as the tools available to arbitrators to face them have been analysed in turn. After a brief inquiry into the nature of international commercial arbitration, money laundering and the ways that they come together, the topics of jurisdiction, the norms applicable to the substance of the dispute, and matters of evidence are subject to discussion. In studying these topics, a recurring theme, which goes to the very heart of the intersection between the seemingly odd areas of international commercial arbitration and money laundering, is discernible. In practically all of the challenges that an arbitrator will face when adjudicating a dispute involving money laundering a conflict of interest between the pivotal principle of party autonomy and other interests will arise. These interests originate from the public policy concerns vested in countering money laundering and the criminal law nature of this phenomenon. The tools which the arbitrator deem to be applicable as well as the conduct that he might choose in regards to the topics discussed, very much depend on his perception of the role that international arbitrators ought to assume in this conflict. Keeping these conceptual building blocks in mind the author, whilst examining the relevant legal instrument, case law and legal commentary, reaches the conclusion that arbitral tribunals ought to claim jurisdiction over disputes arising out of contracts tainted by money laundering in the majority of cases. The author also reaches the conclusion that there are other norms than the lex contractus that can be applied to the substance of the dispute and that the willingness to apply them will depend on the attitude of the arbitrator. Similarly, the arbitrator could, and arguably should, investigate the issue of money laundering of his own accord, albeit with a few important reservations. The rules of evidence, especially those of the burden of proof and standard of proof, should be tailored to reflect the nature of the complex offence of money laundering. Finally, the eventual possibility for an international arbitrator to report suspicions of money laundering is touched upon.

Les normes procédurales sont susceptibles d'affecter les stratégies mises en place par les parties à un litige. Nous étudions leur impact sur le volume des contentieux et sur le montant des dépenses engagées par les parties afin de gagner le procès. Ces deux composantes du coût social des litiges sont au coeur des défis que les pays développés doivent relever pour garantir l'effectivité des règles de droit substantiel. Nos travaux portent en particulier sur les règles de preuve, et nous mettons l'accent sur l'opposition entre les règles civilistes et celles de common law.Après avoir défini les contours et les enjeux de notre sujet dans l'introduction générale, nous développons un plan en deux parties. La première partie porte sur le comportement des parties lorsque celles-ci ont la possibilité de parvenir à un accord. Des modèles stratégiques et optimistes sont développés pour appréhender les décisions d'aller en justice et de négocier. La seconde partie est centrée sur le processus de production de preuves qui précède l'audience finale. Nous utilisons des modèles de recherche de rente pour analyser les incitations des parties à engager des dépenses.Les résultats suggèrent que les règles de preuve ont un impact considérable sur le coût social des contentieux. Nous montrons que le volume des litiges en France et aux Etats-Unis peut s'expliquer par les différentes règles de preuve s'appliquant dans ces deux pays. Notre analyse révèle également que les règles de preuves constituent un déterminant majeur du coût privé des litiges et des stratégies de défense des défendeurs. / Procedural rules are likely to affect the strategies of the parties in a dispute. We study their impact on the volume of litigation and on the amount of legal expenses incurred by parties to win the trial. These two components of the social cost of litigation are at the heart of the challenges that must be addressed by developed countries to guarantee the effective enforcement of the substantive law. Our works relate more specifically to rules of proof, and the emphasis is given on the opposition between civilian and common law rules. After defining the scope and the stakes of the thesis in the general introduction, we develop a plan in two parts. Part I studies parties' behavior when they have the possibility to negotiate to avoid a trial. Strategic and divergent expectations models are developed to apprehend parties' decisions to sue and to settle. The second Part is oriented toward the evidence production process preceding the final hearing. We use rent-seeking models to analyze parties' incentives to engage legal expenditures.The results suggest that rules of proof have a substantial effect on the social cost of litigation. We show that the volume of litigation in the US and in France can be explained by the various rules of proof prevailing in these two countries. Moreover, our analysis reveals that the rules of proof constitute a major determinant of the private cost of litigation and of defendant's defense strategies.