DOCSLIB.ORG

Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era FINAL REPORT ALRC Report 123 June 2014 This Final Report reflects the law as at 30 June 2014 The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 40 MLC Centre, 19 Martin Place, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia. Postal Address: GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001 Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International: +61 2 8238 6333 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International: +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.alrc.gov.au ALRC publications are available to view or download free of charge on the ALRC website: www.alrc.gov.au/publications. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. ISBN: 978-0-9924069-1-2 Commission Reference: ALRC Final Report 123, 2014 © Commonwealth of Australia 2014 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Requests for further authorisation should be directed to the ALRC. Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd The Hon George Brandis QC MP Attorney-General of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 30 June 2014 Dear Attorney-General ALRC Terms of Reference—Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era On 12 June 2013, the Australian Law Reform Commission received Terms of Reference to undertake a review into Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era. On behalf of the Members of the Commission involved in this Inquiry, and in accordance with the Auustralian Law Reform Commission Act 1996, I am pleased to present you with the Final Report on this reference, Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era. Yours sincerely, Professor Rosalind Croucher Professor Barbara McDonald President Commissioner in Charge Contents Terms of Reference 5 Participants 7 Recommendations 9 Part 1 15 1. Introduction 17 Context of the Inquiry 17 The design of a cause of action 18 Should a new tort be enacted? 20 Other reforms 26 The law reform process 27 2. Guiding Principles 29 Summary 29 Principle 1: Privacy is a fundamental value worthy of legal protection 30 Principle 2: There is a public interest in protecting privacy 32 Principle 3: Privacy should be balanced with other important interests 33 Principle 4: Australian privacy laws should meet international standards 35 Principle 5: Privacy laws should be adaptable to technological change 36 Principle 6: Privacy laws should be clear and certain 36 Principle 7: Privacy laws should be coherent and consistent 37 Principle 8: Justice to protect privacy should be accessible 38 Principle 9: Privacy protection is an issue of shared responsibility 39 3. Overview of Current Law 41 Summary 41 Existing legislative privacy protection 42 Existing common law causes of action 47 Filling the gaps in existing law 51 A common law action for breach of privacy in Australia? 53 Part 2 57 4. A New Tort in a New Commonwealth Act 59 Summary 59 A new stand-alone Commonwealth Act 59 Constitutional issues 62 An action in tort 67 Abolition of common law actions 72 2 Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era 5. Two Types of Invasion 73 Summary 73 A cause of action for two types of invasion of privacy 74 Intrusion upon seclusion 76 Misuse of private information 81 Examples 85 False light and appropriation 87 An open-ended action? 88 One cause of action, not two 89 6. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy 91 Summary 91 A test for what is private 92 Considerations 96 7. Fault 109 Summary 109 Intentional or reckless invasions of privacy 110 Negligence 118 Strict liability 124 Effect of apology on liability 128 8. Seriousness and Proof of Damage 131 Summary 131 Seriousness 132 Proof of damage not required 138 9. Balancing Privacy with Other Interests 143 Summary 143 The balancing exercise 144 Public interest matters 150 Onus of proof 158 A discrete exercise 161 10. Forums, Limitations and Other Matters 163 Summary 163 Forums 164 Alternative dispute resolution processes 168 Cause of action limited to natural persons 171 Non-survival of the cause of action 172 Limitation periods 177 Young plaintiffs 181 First publication rule 182 11. Defences and Exemptions 185 Summary 185 Lawful authority 186 Incidental to the exercise of a lawful right of defence of persons or property 191 Necessity 193 Contents 3 Consent 195 Absolute privilege 202 Publication of public documents 204 Fair report of proceedings of public concern 205 Safe harbour scheme for internet intermediaries 207 Exemption or defence for children and young persons 210 Defences unsuited to a privacy action 213 12. Remedies and Costs 219 Summary 219 Damages 220 Account of profits 238 No recommendation on notional licence fee 240 Injunctions 241 Delivery up, destruction or removal of material 251 Correction orders 252 Apology orders 254 Declarations 256 Costs 258 Part 3 261 13. Breach of Confidence Actions for Misuse of Private Information 263 Summary 263 The likely future development of the action for breach of confidence 264 Compensation for emotional distress 265 Public interest and injunction applications 273 14. Surveillance Devices 275 Summary 275 Existing surveillance device laws 276 A Commonwealth Act 278 Technology neutral surveillance legislation 282 Telecommunications surveillance 285 Participant monitoring 286 Responsible journalism and the public interest 289 Workplace surveillance 293 Remedial relief and compensation 295 Alternative forums for complaints about surveillance 296 15. Harassment 299 Summary 299 Statutory tort of harassment 300 Criminal offences for harassment 304 Harassment laws in other countries 307 4 Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era 16. New Regulatory Mechanisms 309 Summary 309 Privacy Commissioner investigations for serious invasions of privacy 310 Amicus curiae and intervener functions 317 Deletion of personal information 319 Review of the small business exemption 321 Consultations 323 Abbreviations 327 Terms of Reference SERIOUS INVASIONS OF PRIVACY IN THE DIGITAL ERA I, Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Attorney-General of Australia, having regard to: • the extent and application of existing privacy statutes • the rapid growth in capabilities and use of information, surveillance and communication technologies • community perceptions of privacy • relevant international standards and the desirability of consistency in laws affecting national and transnational dataflows. REFER to the Australian Law Reform Commission for inquiry and report, pursuant to s 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth), the issue of prevention of and remedies for serious invasions of privacy in the digital era. Scope of the reference The ALRC should make recommendations regarding: 1. Innovative ways in which law may reduce serious invasions of privacy in the digital era. 2. The necessity of balancing the value of privacy with other fundamental values including freedom of expression and open justice. 3. The detailed legal design of a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy, including not limited to: a. legal thresholds b. the effect of the implied freedom of political communication c. jurisdiction d. fault elements e. proof of damages f. defences g. exemptions h. whether there should be a maximum award of damages i. whether there should be a limitation period 6 Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era j. whether the cause of action should be restricted to natural and living persons k. whether any common law causes of action should be abolished l. access to justice m. the availability of other court ordered remedies. 4. The nature and appropriateness of any other legal remedies for redress for serious invasions of privacy. The Commission should take into account the For Your Information ALRC Report (2008), relevant New South Wales and Victorian Law Reform Commission privacy reports, the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012 and relevant Commonwealth, State, Territory legislation, international law and case law. Consultation In undertaking this reference, the Commission will identify and consult relevant stakeholders including the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, and relevant State and Territory bodies. Timeframe The ALRC will provide its final report to the Attorney-General by June 2014. 12 June 2013 Mark Dreyfus Attorney-General Participants Australian Law Reform Commission President Professor Rosalind Croucher Commissioner in Charge Professor Barbara McDonald Part-time Commissioner The Hon Justice John Middleton, Federal Court of Australia Executive Director Sabina Wynn Senior Legal Officer Jared Boorer Legal Officers Dr Julie Mackenzie Brigit Morris Dr Steven Robertson Legal Interns Claire Bready Ravi Gosal Georgie Leahy Alisha Mathew Timothy Maybury Michelle Meares Jack Murray Hagen Sporleder Jackson Wherrett Bradley Woods 8 Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era Advisory Committee Members The Hon Justice Peter D Applegarth, Supreme Court of Queensland Richard Coleman, Fairfax Media Limited Professor Graham Greenleaf, Professor of Law & Information Systems, University of New South Wales Anna Johnston, Director, Salinger Privacy Peter Leonard, Partner, Gilbert & Tobin The Hon W H Nicholas QC Tara McNeilly, Senior General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor Timothy Pilgrim, Privacy Commissioner, Office
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE TAKE-OFF of DRONES Developing the New Zealand Torts
    ASHLEY M VARNEY THE TAKE-OFF OF DRONES Developing the New Zealand torts of privacy to meet the rise in civilian drone technology Submitted for the LLB (Honours) Degree Faculty of Law Victoria University of Wellington 2016 Abstract This paper assesses the privacy ramifications associated with the rise in the use of civilian drone technology. It discusses the capabilities of drones to take photographs, record videos and undertake ongoing surveillance, and distinguishes these capabilities from previous similar technologies such as CCTV and standard cameras. It is argued that the current approach to the New Zealand privacy torts is not adequate to allow for effective claims when breaches of privacy occur by drone operators. It is advocated that the theoretical premise of the torts, and the overall protection of privacy, is best served by emphasis on both a normative and multifaceted approach to the test of a reasonable expectation of privacy where drones are concerned. Moreover, privacy breaches by drones may be undermined by the highly offensive requirement found within both torts, as well as the mental element of intention found within the C v Holland tort. Keywords: "Drones", "Privacy", "Tort", "Wrongful Publication of Private Facts", "Intrusion into Seclusion". 2 Contents I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4 II UNDERSTANDING PRIVACY ...................................................................... 5 A What is ‘Privacy’? .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy in the 21St Century Studies in Intercultural Human Rights
    Privacy in the 21st Century Studies in Intercultural Human Rights Editor-in-Chief Siegfried Wiessner St. Thomas University Board of Editors W. Michael Reisman, Yale University • Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, United Nations • Nora Demleitner, Hofstra University • Christof Heyns, University of Pretoria • Eckart Klein, University of Potsdam • Kalliopi Koufa, University of Thessaloniki • Makau Mutua, State University of New York at Buff alo • Martin Nettesheim, University of Tübingen; University of California at Berkeley • Thomas Oppermann, University 0f Tübingen • Roza Pati, St. Thomas University • Herbert Petzold, Former Registrar, European Court of Human Rights • Martin Scheinin, European University Institute, Florence VOLUME 5 This series off ers pathbreaking studies in the dynamic fi eld of intercultural hu- man rights. Its primary aim is to publish volumes which off er interdisciplinary analysis of global societal problems, review past legal responses, and develop solutions which maximize access by all to the realization of universal human as- pirations. Other original studies in the fi eld of human rights are also considered for inclusion. The titles published in this series are listed at Brill.com/sihr Privacy in the 21st Century By Alexandra Rengel LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rengel, Alexandra, author. Privacy in the 21st century / By Alexandra Rengel. p. cm. -- (Studies in intercultural human rights) Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-19112-9 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-19219-5 (e-book) 1. Privacy, Right of. 2. International law. I. Title. II. Title: Privacy in the twenty-first century. K3263.R46 2013 342.08’58--dc23 2013037396 issn 1876-9861 isbn 978-90-04-19112-9 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-19219-5 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Privacy in a Mixed Jurisdiction
    Searching for Privacy in a Mixed Jurisdiction Hector L. MacQueen* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 73 II. PROTECTING PRIVACY IN SCOTS LAW TO 2000 .................................. 74 III. THE IMPACT OF DOMESTICATED HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ..................... 77 IV. SCOTS LAW: MAKING CHOICES......................................................... 83 A. Breach of Confidence............................................................... 84 B. The Actio Iniuriarum ................................................................ 88 V. ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS................................................................. 94 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 97 I. INTRODUCTION Reviewing A History of Private Law in Scotland in the Tulane Law Review in 2004, Shael Herman explained how the collection (published in 2000) left him with an impression of the “eclectic, open-textured character of Scots legal evolution”, even if sometimes he had a “a sense of having toured a juridical Australia or Galapagos Islands inhabited by exotic flora and fauna not found elsewhere”.1 He noted the complexity of the relationship between Scots and English law, and observed: To be sure, between Scotland and England there are striking political and cultural commonalities too numerous to detail. It could hardly be otherwise for two island nations that share a language, a currency, and a border. Yet, as the collection under review shows,
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton County General Sessions Court - Criminal Division 9/23/2021 Page No: 1 Trial Docket
    CJUS8023 Hamilton County General Sessions Court - Criminal Division 9/23/2021 Page No: 1 Trial Docket Thursday Trial Date: 9/23/2021 8:30:00 AM Docket #: 1825414 Defendant: ANDERSON , QUINTON LAMAR Charge: DOMESTIC ASSAULT Presiding Judge: STARNES, GARY Division: 5 Court Room: 4 Arresting Officer: SMITH, BRIAN #996, Complaint #: A 132063 2021 Arrest Date: 5/14/2021 Docket #: 1793448 Defendant: APPLEBERRY , BRANDON JAMAL Charge: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT Presiding Judge: WEBB, GERALD Division: 3 Court Room: 3 Arresting Officer: GOULET, JOSEPH #385, Complaint #: A 62533 2021 Arrest Date: 5/26/2021 Docket #: 1852403 Defendant: ATCHLEY , GEORGE FRANKLIN Charge: CRIMINAL TRESPASSING Presiding Judge: STARNES, GARY Division: 5 Court Room: 4 Arresting Officer: SIMON, LUKE #971, Complaint #: A 100031 2021 Arrest Date: 9/17/2021 Docket #: 1814264 Defendant: AVERY , ROBERT CAMERON Charge: THEFT OF PROPERTY Presiding Judge: WEBB, GERALD Division: 3 Court Room: 3 Arresting Officer: SERRET, ANDREW #845, Complaint #: A 091474 2020 Arrest Date: 9/9/2020 Docket #: 1820785 Defendant: BALDWIN , AUNDREA RENEE Charge: CRIMINAL TRESPASSING Presiding Judge: SELL, CHRISTINE MAHN Division: 1 Court Room: 1 Arresting Officer: FRANTOM, MATTHEW #641, Complaint #: M 115725 2020 Arrest Date: 11/14/2020 Docket #: 1815168 Defendant: BARBER , JUSTIN ASHLEY Charge: OBSTRUCTING HIGHWAY OR OTHER PASSAGEWAY Presiding Judge: STARNES, GARY Division: 5 Court Room: 4 Arresting Officer: LONG, SKYLER #659, Complaint #: A 094778 2020 Arrest Date: 9/18/2020 Docket #: 1812424 Defendant: BARNES
    [Show full text]
  • The Crucial Development of Heavy Cavalry Under Herakleios and His Usage of Steppe Nomad Tactics Mark-Anthony Karantabias
    The Crucial Development of Heavy Cavalry under Herakleios and His Usage of Steppe Nomad Tactics Mark-Anthony Karantabias The last war between the Eastern Romans and the Sassanids was likely the most important of Late Antiquity, exhausting both sides economically and militarily, decimating the population, and lay- ing waste the land. In Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium, Walter Kaegi, concludes that the Romaioi1 under Herakleios (575-641) defeated the Sassanian forces with techniques from the section “Dealing with the Persians”2 in the Strategikon, a hand book for field commanders authored by the emperor Maurice (reigned 582-602). Although no direct challenge has been made to this claim, Trombley and Greatrex,3 while inclided to agree with Kaegi’s main thesis, find fault in Kaegi’s interpretation of the source material. The development of the katafraktos stands out as a determining factor in the course of the battles during Herakleios’ colossal counter-attack. Its reforms led to its superiority over its Persian counterpart, the clibonarios. Adoptions of steppe nomad equipment crystallized the Romaioi unit. Stratos4 and Bivar5 make this point, but do not expand their argument in order to explain the victory of the emperor over the Sassanian Empire. The turning point in its improvement seems to have taken 1 The Eastern Romans called themselves by this name. It is the Hellenized version of Romans, the Byzantine label attributed to the surviving East Roman Empire is artificial and is a creation of modern historians. Thus, it is more appropriate to label them by the original version or the Anglicized version of it.
    [Show full text]
  • MOSLEY V UNITED KINGDOM
    [2012] E.M.L.R. 1 1 MOSLEY v UNITED KINGDOM European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) Application No.48009/08 Lech Garlicki (President), Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, David Thór Björgvinsson, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Nebojša Vučinić, Judges: April 12, 2011 [2012] E.M.L.R. 1 Freedom of expression; Misuse of private information; Newspapers; Notification; Positive obligations; Publication; Right to respect for private and family life H1 Human rights—misuse of private information—freedom of expression—art.8 and art.10—interim injunction—failure of newspaper to give advance warning of intended publication of private information—whether government obliged by art.8 to require press to notify person affected of intention to publish private information—no violation of art.8. H2 The applicant was the subject of an article published on March 30, 2008 on the front page and several inside pages of the erstwhile tabloid newspaper, the News of the World. The article was headlined “F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers” and began with the sentence “Formula 1 motor racing chief Max Mosley is today exposed as a secret sadomasochistic sex pervert”. The article was illustrated with still photographs taken from video footage secretly recorded by one of the participants. Edited extracts from the video, together with still images, were published on the newspaper’s website and became available elsewhere on the internet. H3 On March 31, 2008, in response to a complaint from the applicant’s solicitors, the News of the World took down the edited video footage from its websites and gave an undertaking not to put it up again without 24 hours’ notice.
    [Show full text]
  • PICKETT's CHARGE Gettysburg National Military Park STUDENT
    PICKETT’S CHARGE I Gettysburg National Military Park STUDENT PROGRAM U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Pickett's Charge A Student Education Program at Gettysburg National Military Park TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 How To Use This Booklet ••••..••.••...• 3 Section 2 Program Overview . • . • . • . • . 4 Section 3 Field Trip Day Procedures • • • . • • • . 5 Section 4 Essential Background and Activities . 6 A Causes ofthe American Civil War ••..•...... 7 ft The Battle ofGettysburg . • • • . • . 10 A Pi.ckett's Charge Vocabulary •............... 14 A Name Tags ••.. ... ...........• . •......... 15 A Election ofOfficers and Insignia ......•..•.. 15 A Assignm~t ofSoldier Identity •..••......... 17 A Flag-Making ............................. 22 ft Drill of the Company (Your Class) ........... 23 Section 5 Additional Background and Activities .••.. 24 Structure ofthe Confederate Army .......... 25 Confederate Leaders at Gettysburg ••.•••.••• 27 History of the 28th Virginia Regiment ....... 30 History of the 57th Virginia Regiment . .. .... 32 Infantry Soldier Equipment ................ 34 Civil War Weaponry . · · · · · · 35 Pre-Vtsit Discussion Questions . • . 37 11:me Line . 38 ... Section 6 B us A ct1vities ........................• 39 Soldier Pastimes . 39 Pickett's Charge Matching . ••.......•....... 43 Pickett's Charge Matching - Answer Key . 44 •• A .•. Section 7 P ost-V 1s1t ctivities .................... 45 Post-Visit Activity Ideas . • . • . • . • . 45 After Pickett's Charge . • • • • . • . 46 Key: ft = Essential Preparation for Trip 2 Section 1 How to Use This Booklet Your students will gain the most benefit from this program if they are prepared for their visit. The preparatory information and activities in this booklet are necessary because .. • students retain the most information when they are pre­ pared for the field trip, knowing what to expect, what is expected of them, and with some base of knowledge upon which the program ranger can build.
    [Show full text]
  • “This Is Our House!” a Preliminary Assessment of the Capitol Hill
    MARCH 2021 “This is Our House!” A Preliminary Assessment of the Capitol Hill Siege Participants Program on Extremism THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY MARCH 2021 “This is Our House!” A Preliminary Assessment of the Capitol Hill Siege Participants Program on Extremism THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2021 by Program on Extremism Program on Extremism 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 www.extremism.gwu.edu Cover: ©REUTERS/Leah Millis TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 6 Executive Summary 8 Introduction 10 Findings 12 Categorizing the Capitol Hill Siege Participants 17 Recommendations 44 Conclusion 48 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was researched and written jointly by the research team at the Program on Extremism, including Lorenzo Vidino, Seamus Hughes, Alexander Meleagrou- Hitchens, Devorah Margolin, Bennett Clifford, Jon Lewis, Andrew Mines and Haroro Ingram. The authors wish to thank JJ MacNab for her invaluable feedback and edits on this report. This report was made possible by the Program’s team of Research Assistants—Ilana Krill, Angelina Maleska, Mia Pearsall, Daniel Stoffel, Diana Wallens, and Ye Bin Won—who provided crucial support with data collection, data verification, and final edits on the report. Finally, the authors thank Nicolò Scremin for designing this report, and Brendan Hurley and the George Washington University Department of Geography for creating the maps used in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • “Never Have I Seen Such a Charge”
    The Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign “Never Have I Seen Such a Charge” Pender’s Light Division at Gettysburg, July 1 D. Scott Hartwig It was July 1 at Gettysburg and the battle west of town had been raging furiously since 1:30 p.m. By dint of only the hardest fighting troops of Major General Henry Heth’s and Major General Robert E. Rodes’s divisions had driven elements of the Union 1st Corps from their positions along McPherson’s Ridge, back to Seminary Ridge. Here, the bloodied Union regiments and batteries hastily organized a defense to meet the storm they all knew would soon break upon them. This was the last possible line of defense beyond the town and the high ground south of it. It had to be held as long as possible. To break this last line of Union resistance, Confederate Third Corps commander, Lieutenant General Ambrose P. Hill, committed his last reserve, the division of Major General Dorsey Pender. They were the famed Light Division of the Army of Northern Virginia, boasting a battle record from the Seven Days battles to Chancellorsville unsurpassed by any other division in the army. Arguably, it may have been the best division in Lee’s army. Certainly no organization of the army could claim more combat experience. Now, Hill would call upon his old division once more to make a desperate assault to secure victory. In many ways their charge upon Seminary Ridge would be symbolic of why the Army of Northern Virginia had enjoyed an unbroken string of victories through 1862 and 1863, and why they would meet defeat at Gettysburg.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Role in the Chemical and Biological Disarmament Regimes
    ERIC CRODDY China’s Role in the Chemical and Biological Disarmament Regimes ERIC CRODDY Eric Croddy is a Senior Research Associate at the Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies. He is the author of Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Comprehensive Survey for the Concerned Citizen (New York: Copernicus Books, 2001). odern China has been linked with the prolif- least—and with considerable diplomatic effort—China eration of nuclear, chemical, and missile weap- broadcasts its commitment to both the CWC and the Mons technology to states of proliferation con- BWC. cern, and its compliance with arms control and disarma- Few unclassified publications analyze the role that CBW ment is seen as key to the effectiveness of weapons of have played in Chinese military strategy, nor is much in- 1 mass destruction (WMD) nonproliferation efforts. In this formation available on Beijing’s approach to negotiating context, the answer to Gerald Segal’s question, “Does CBW disarmament treaties. This is not surprising: China 2 China really matter?” is most definitely, “Yes.” In the is an extremely difficult subject for study where sensitive realm of chemical and biological weapons (CBW), military matters are concerned. A 1998 report by Dr. Bates Beijing’s role is closely linked to its view of the multilat- Gill, Case Study 6: People’s Republic of China, published eral disarmament regimes for CBW, namely the Chemi- by the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, cal Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and was the first to seriously address the issue of China and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), and of related mul- CBW proliferation.
    [Show full text]
  • Bombard Bombard Cavalry Charge Cavalry Charge
    BOMBARD BOMBARD CAVALRY CHARGE CAVALRY CHARGE Issue an order to 4 or fewer Issue an order to 4 or fewer Issue an order to 4 or fewer Issue an order to 4 or fewer CAVALRY units. Ordered cavalry CAVALRY units. Ordered cavalry units battle with 1 additional die units battle with 1 additional die ARTILLERY units. An order unit ARTILLERY units. An order unit may move up to 3 hexes, but may may move up to 3 hexes, but may the entire turn. Heavy cavalry units the entire turn. Heavy cavalry units not battle or may battle with 2 not battle or may battle with 2 may move 3 hexes and still battle. may move 3 hexes and still battle. additional dice. Guard artillery, additional dice. Guard artillery, Guard cavalry, when ordered, battle Guard cavalry, when ordered, battle when ordered, battle with 3 when ordered, battle with 3 with 2 additional dice. Horse with 2 additional dice. Horse additional dice. If you do not have additional dice. If you do not have artillery units may also be ordered. artillery units may also be ordered. If you do not have any cavalry or If you do not have any cavalry or any artillery units, issue an order to any artillery units, issue an order to 1 unit of your choice. 1 unit of your choice. horse artillery units, issue an order horse artillery units, issue an order to 1 unit of your choice. to 1 unit of your choice. COUNTER-ATTACK COUNTER-ATTACK ELAN CAVALRY CHARGE Issue an order to 4 or fewer Issue the same order card that your Issue the same order card that your Roll 1 battle die for each CAVALRY units.
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Privacy and Rights of the Personality
    AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Gomparativae VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY Working paper prepared for the Nordic Conferen.ee on privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm M ay 1967 BY STIG STRÜMHOLM STOCKHOLM P. A. NORSTEDT & SÜNERS FÜRLAG ACTA Institut! Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Oomparativae AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Comjmrativae Edidit ÂKE MALMSTROM VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY (Working Paper prepared for the Nordic Conférence on Privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm May 1967) By STIG STRÜMHOLM S T O C K H O L M P. A. N O RSTEDT & S ONE R S FÜRLAG © P. A. Norstedt & Sôners fôrlag 1967 Boktryckeri AB Thule, Stockholm 1967 PREFACE One of the author’s most eminent teachers in private law in the Uppsala Faculty of Law once claimed that an action in tort ought to lie against those légal writers who take up a subject to treat it broadly enough to deter others from writing about it but not deeply enough to give any final answers to the questions discussed. Were the law so severe, the present author would undoubtedly have to face a lawsuit for venturing to publish this short study on a topic which demands lengthy and careful considération on almost every point and which has already given rise to an extensive body of case law and of légal writing. This préfacé can be considered as the au­ thor’s plaidoyer in that action, fortunately imaginary. The present study was prepared at the request, and with the most active personal and material support, of the International Commis­ sion of Jurists as a working paper for the Nordic Conférence of Jurists, organized by the Commission in Stockholm in May, 1967.
    [Show full text]