2018

The assessment of legislative frameworks in this report is based on principles which are most likely to enable regulatory initiatives to be accepted by the general public as legitimate. These principles require that the regulatory framework must be proportionate to the perceived harms or risks posed to justify the imposition of regulatory limits. Regulators should have clear lines of accountability, in particular, their decisions must be justified and be subject to public scrutiny. There should be accessible, fair and effective complaints and appeals processes. Consistency in administering the regulation and in the regulation itself, and transparency in terms of what the regulatory objective is, and the legal obligations of those being regulated are essential. Finally, regulation must be precisely targeted to achieve its objective. In comparison to other regimes with similar regulatory structures, New Zealand is unique in that the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act (HART Act...

Journal of Financial Stability, 2010

The chemical sector is confronted with risks pertaining to accidents involving dangerous substances. At the European level, a set of regulations " the Seveso regime " aims at controlling such risks. This paper explores how this regime is put into practice, by analyzing the local practices of enforcement by Dutch inspectors and compliance by Dutch chemical companies. These empirical insights demonstrate that the classical 'positivistic risk paradigm' " which presents risks as calculable, controllable and reducible " seems to dominate in the Seveso regime. The analysis in this paper shows that this can lead to 'uncertainty blindness' " a regulatory regime where only yesterday's accidents are managed and salient future risks are potentially overlooked. We suggest that both regulators and regulatees should start accepting the possibility of uncertain risks, which implies a cultural change in the current regulatory regime.

The paper deals with the actual and possible role of legal liability in controlling technology. The historical development of the relevant aspects of the legal system are described and discussed. The claim is developed that, for ethical reasons and in order to adequately control technology, the legal system should evolve towards strict and unlimited liability for all technological activities. Some implications for organisations and engineers are briefly stated.

This essay explores the regulation of emerging technologies (definitions set out in introduction). It sets out by explaining the need for regulation in the first place. It then identifies the various challenges and difficulties of regulating emerging technologies. An analysis is carried out on the current regulation mechanisms and techniques. The essay then analyses the proposed methods of regulations and their merits. Finally, the scope for regulatory mechanisms being built into technology, for a form of techno-regulation, will be explored, and the moral consequences that arise from this.

2021

Technology and Regulation (TechReg) is an international journal of law, technology and society, with an interdisciplinary identity. TechReg provides an online platform for disseminating original research on the legal and regulatory challenges posed by existing and emerging technologies (and their applications) including, but by no means limited to, the Internet and digital technology, artificial intelligence and machine learning, robotics, neurotechnology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, energy and climate change technology, and health and food technology. We conceive of regulation broadly to encompass ways of dealing with, ordering and understanding technologies and their consequences, such as through legal regulation, competition, social norms and standards, and technology design (or in Lessig's terms: law, market, norms and architecture). We aim to address critical and sometimes controversial questions such as: How do new technologies shape society both positively and negatively? Should technology development be steered towards societal goals, and if so, which goals and how? What are the benefits and dangers of regulating human behaviour through technology? What is the most appropriate response to technological innovation, in general or in particular cases? It is in this sense that TechReg is intrinsically interdisciplinary: we believe that legal and regulatory debates on technology are inextricable from societal, political and economic concerns, and that therefore technology regulation requires a multidisciplinary, integrated approach. Through a combination of monodisciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary articles, the journal aims to contribute to an integrated vision of law, technology and society. We invite original, well-researched and methodologically rigorous submissions from academics and practitioners, including policy makers, on a wide range of research areas such as privacy and data protection, security, surveillance, cybercrime, intellectual property, innovation, competition, governance, risk, ethics, media and data studies, and others. TechReg is double-blind peer-reviewed and completely open access for both authors and readers. TechReg does not charge article processing fees.

2013

Comunicacao apresentada a 18a Conferencia Internacional - SPT 2013, realizada no ISEG de 4-6 de julho de 2013

European Journal of Risk Regulation

The primary concern of the present paper is the cost of acquiring information by judges and legislators in the process of regulating new technologies. The paper distinguishes between risky and uncertain applications of technology. A risky technology poses an obvious risk, and the problem before the regulator is one of comparing cost and benefit. We argue that the judiciary, which acquires information gratis from litigants, is better suited to the regulation of risky technologies. Uncertain technologies, on the other hand, can be harmful in ways which cannot be foreseen at the time of the technological innovation. Cost and benefit are incalculable; regulation must instead be based on subjective preferences about the degree of uncertainty that society should tolerate. Legislative law-making is designed with a view to aggregating subjective preferences. Accordingly, uncertain technologies should be regulated through statute.

Nanotechnology, 1807

NanoEthics, 2015

Scientific knowledge and technological expertise continue to evolve rapidly. Such innovation gives rise to new benefits as well as risks, at an everincreasing pace. Within this context, regulatory regimes must function in order to address policymakers' objectives. Innovation, though, can challenge the functioning and effectiveness of regulatory regimes. Questions over fit, effectiveness, and capacity of these regimes to ensure the safe entry of such technologies, and their products, onto the market will be asked in parallel to their development. With this in mind, this article examines the strengths and weaknesses of current regulatory frameworks, including those designed for biotechnology, cosmetics, novel organisms, and foods, in order to inform and help shape Australia's regulatory landscape around innovation. By focusing on Australia, the article illustrates the need to assess future changes to regulatory frameworks using a careful balancing of key factors. These include, for example, horizon scanning and monitoring, availability of appropriate data, existing health, safety, environmental, ethical, and social risks and impacts, and regulatory capacity. The article argues that rather than using one of these factors in isolation, a careful assessment of where each factor stands can lead regulators to an approach that properly manages the potential risks of emerging technologies.