Oppgrader til nyeste versjon av Internet eksplorer for best mulig visning av siden. Klikk her for for å skjule denne meldingen
Ikke pålogget
{{session.user.firstName}} {{session.user.lastName}}
Du har tilgang til Idunn gjennom , & {{sessionPartyGroup.name}}
Article
Open access
Vitenskapelig publikasjon
(side 63-81)
av Eva Friis og Karsten Åström
Sammendrag

This paper presents the results of a study that is aimed at identifying differences between general and administrative courts in Sweden regarding the use of party- and court-appointed experts and the judges’ attitudes towards them. The subject matter of the study is important as courts grow increasingly dependent on expert knowledge. As part of the study, 144 judges have answered electronic surveys showing clear differences between the two types of courts and also between criminal, civil and administrative cases. Party-appointed experts are usually more frequently used in general courts than in administrative courts and court-appointed experts are more frequently used in administrative courts than in general courts. Administrative judges consider court-appointed experts more useful and impartial than judges do in general courts, but in terms of trustworthiness there are no differences. Judges in general state that expert knowledge is easy or fairly easy to understand, but administrative judges consider expert knowledge more relevant in relation to the courts’ needs and also regard it as being more influential for the judgments. The results point to differences between general and administrative courts regarding the use of, and attitudes toward, experts, which can be explained by separate rules of procedure and traditions. The more frequent use of party-appointed experts in general courts reflects an adversarial process, while the use of court-appointed experts in administrative courts indicates a more inquisitorial process.

Open access
Vitenskapelig publikasjon
(side 82-104)
av Charlotta Holmström og May-Len Skilbrei
Sammendrag

In this article, we present and discuss the intended and unintended effects of the Swedish Sex Purchase Act, which criminalises the purchase of sex within a context where the sale of sex is legal. Whether or not this means of regulating prostitution is successful, and whether it has negative consequences for people who sell sex, are important questions in international policy and academic debates. This article builds on a scoping study aimed at identifying relevant sources of information as to the consequences of the Swedish Sex Purchase Act, then summarising and discussing these findings. The article offers policy makers and scholars a comprehensive presentation of the evidence and a discussion of the methodological, political and theoretical challenges arising from this.

Open access
Vitenskapelig publikasjon
(side 105-120)
av Lee A. Bygrave
Sammendrag

In this paper, a critical examination is conducted of Article 25 of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation 2016/679). Bearing the title ʻdata protection by design and by default’, Article 25 requires that core data protection principles be integrated into the design and development of systems for processing personal data. The paper outlines the rationale and legal heritage of Article 25, and shows how its provisions proffer considerably stronger support for data protection by design and by default than is the case under the 1995 Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC). The paper further shows that this strengthening of support is in keeping with jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Nonetheless, it is herein argued that Article 25 suffers from multiple flaws, in particular a lack of clarity over the parameters and methodologies for achieving its goals, a failure to communicate clearly and directly with those engaged in the engineering of information systems, and a failure to provide the necessary incentives to spur the ʻhardwiring’ of privacy-related interests. Taken together, these flaws will likely hinder the traction of Article 25 requirements on information systems development.

Idunn bruker informasjonskapsler (cookies). Ved å fortsette å bruke nettsiden godtar du dette. Klikk her for mer informasjon