|
Home
|
The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
is the flagship law journal of the Faculty of Law,
National University of Singapore and one of the oldest law
journals in the Commonwealth. As the first and leading legal
journal in Singapore, it contains a rich store of legal
literature analysing the legal, political and social development
of Singapore in its progression from a developing to a First
World nation. The journal continues to advance the boundaries
of global and local developments in law, policy and legal
practice by publishing cogent and timely articles, legislation
comments and case notes on a biannual basis.
The highlights of this issue include...
A special feature comprising a series of a commentary and 5 articles from the 8th Asian Privacy Scholars Network Conference organised by the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business and the Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law and convened by David Tan.
In Privacy, Confidence & Data Protection in the 21st Century, David Tan explores
how the featured articles address pressing and increasingly relevant issues with
regard to the theme of “Privacy, Confidence & Data Protection in the 21st
Century”. These include the discussion of conceptual frameworks and practical
analysis of personal data protection legislation; such as the EU GDPR and other
national regulatory regimes; health data management, privacy issues at the Tokyo
Olympics, privacy and the Hong Kong protests, and the surveillance economy.
In A Common Law of Privacy?, Megan Richardson explores in her keynote
address whether there is, or can be, an existence of a common law of privacy.
Following that, she explores five disruptive moments that have altered the
course of history across the common law world, and produced, albeit within a
limited scope, some common new or renewed privacy traditions. Finally, she
provides some speculations about what she might hope to see in the digital
century with regard to a common law of privacy.
In
Enforcement Design
for Data Privacy: A Comparative Study, Gehan Gunasekara explores whether the
design of enforcement mechanisms in data privacy laws influences the types of
privacy harms addressed by them. Employing three of Ann Cavoukian’s seven
foundational design principles, he examines if data privacy should be addressed
through enforcement tools suited to their characteristics. He also evaluates the
data privacy regulatory frameworks of four jurisdictions from the standpoint of
how they enforce data privacy rights.
In The Charter of Fundamental
Rights, the Aims of EU Competition Law and Data Protection: Time to Level the
Playing Field, Divin De Buffalo Irakiza examines the question whether the status
of data protection as a human right under the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights requires consideration of data protection issues in EU competition law.
He concludes that the charter imposes a duty on the EU by to respect fundamental
rights, including data protection.
In Whose Health Record? A Comparison
of Patient Rights Under National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) Regulations in
Europe and Asia-Pacific Jurisdictions, James Scheibner, Marcello Ienca and Effy
Vayena compare the implementation strategies of NEHR regulations in nine
jurisdictions from Europe and the Asia-Pacific to determine whether there is an
international convergence of norms concerning the rights of patients. They argue
that NEHR implementations should be neither considered patient property nor a
means of outsourcing liability to patients, rather, NEHRs should be conceived as
a public good.
Last but not least, in Three Shades of Data: Australia,
Philippines, Thailand, Robert Brian Smith, Mark Perry and Nucharee Nuchkoom
analyse the the privacy legislation of Australia, the Philippines and Thailand.
Their article focuses on the different types of data protected by privacy
provisions, methods for investigating breaches and imposing penalties, and
whether breaches result in administrative action, civil liability or criminal
offences.
There are 4 separate articles apart from the special feature.
In The State of the Doctrine of Unconscionability in Singapore, Nelson
Enonchong assesses the state of the doctrine of unconscionability in Singapore
in the light of recent jurisprudence. His article examines the current state of
the doctrine in Singapore. Following that, his article argues that the doctrine
is not made redundant by the doctrine undue influence and that the doctrine of
unconscionability in earlier English cases is a broad doctrine. Finally, his
article analyses the reshaped doctrine in BOM v BOK, highlights difficulties in
the doctrine and concludes with suggestions of reconsideration of the doctrine.
In Mobile Intellectual Property and the Shift in International Tax
Policy From Determining the Source of Income to Taxing Location-Specific Rents:
Part Two, Daniel Shaviro continues his two part series on the assessment of the
challenges that the rise of mobile intellectual property has posed for
countries’ international tax systems, viz. the traditional income tax concept of
source and the OECD’s proposed focus on the site of “value creation”. His
article focuses on proposals to shift taxing rights towards market jurisdictions
that may enjoy location-specific rents, viz. digital service taxes.
In
Revisiting the Double Actionability Rule in Singapore, Tan Ming Ren argues for
the Singapore Courts to depart from the double actionability rule. His article
first provides a brief overview of the historical development of choice of law
in tort. His article then discusses the reforms in Canada regarding the choice
of law in tort before examining the jurisprudence and reluctance of the
Singapore Courts over the past two decades towards reform. Following this, his
article argues that the Singapore Courts should change with the times and depart
from the double actionability rule, following the Canadian courts.
In
A
Case for Proportionality Review in Singaporean Constitutional Adjudication,
Marcus Teo argues for the adoption of proportionality review in Singapore’s
constitutional adjudication. First, his article argues that proportionality’s
four enquires are already latent in Singapore’s constitutional jurisprudence.
Second, his article argues that Singapore’s courts have the constitutional
authority to adopt proportionality as a ground of constitutional review and are
not institutionally incompetent to answer its enquiries. Third, his article
argues that proportionality is desirable from a public policy perspective to
ensure the cogency and rationality of legislative or executive acts within
Singapore’s political culture of justification.
|
|
SJLS accepts submissions on a rolling
basis and publishes 2 issues a year in March and September.
|
