Earth’s life-support system is facing megaproblems of sustainability. One important way of how these problems can be addressed is through innovation. This paper argues that responsible innovation that contributes to sustainable development (SD) consists of three dimensions: (1) innovations avoid harming people and the planet, (2) innovations ‘do good’ by offering new products, services, or technologies that foster SD, and (3) global governance schemes are in place that facilitate innovations that avoid harm and ‘do good.’ The paper discusses global governance schemes based on deliberation as a means to foster such responsible innovation. These schemes can provide voluntary soft-law regulations that complement and extend national and international hard-law regulations and facilitate collective innovation that contributes to SD goals. The article addresses the facilitative role of governments and international organizations in overcoming problems of deliberation and offers illustrative examples of such governance schemes.

/pdf/responsible-innovation-and-the-innovation-of-responsibility-1w78xsjoij.pdf

Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/287040/1/Crilly_et_al_%282008%29_Design_as_communication_%5bDesign_Studies%5d.pdf

Design as communication: exploring the validity and utility of relating intention to interpretation

....................................................................................................................... III TABLE DES MATIÈRES .................................................................................................... V LISTE DES SIGLES ......................................................................................................... VII REMERCIEMENTS .......................................................................................................... IX INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPITRE I : REVUE DE LITTÉRATURE ET CADRE THEORIQUE ..................... 11 1. 1. REVUE DE LITTÉRATURE ............................................................................................. 14 1.1. 1. La lutte contre l’impunité : un impératif moral discuté ........................................ 14 1. 1. 2. Téléologique et utilitariste .............................................................................. 15 1. 1. 3. Fonctionnaliste et instrumentaliste ................................................................. 17 1. 1. 4. Culturaliste et historique ................................................................................ 23 1. 2. CADRE THÉORIQUE ..................................................................................................... 31 1. 2. 1. Dignité humaine et principe de dignité ............................................................... 31 1. 2. 2. Impératif moral hypothétique, impératif moral catégorique ................................ 38 1. 2. 3. Morale et éthique, déontologisme et conséquentialisme...................................... 42 1. 2. 4. Lutter contre l’impunité : une définition ............................................................. 49 1. 2. 5. La sanction et la morale ..................................................................................... 68 1. 2. 6. Lutter contre l’impunité : une idée consubstantielle du système international ..... 75 1. 2. 7. Lutter contre l’impunité : lutte morale et contractualisation socio-politique du principe de dignité ......................................................................................................... 81 1. 2. 8. Droit et morale, éthique, kantisme : une relation étroite ...................................... 95 1. 2. 9. Droit(s) : questions et enjeux théoriques ............................................................. 98 1. 2. 10. Le droit : du discours commun aux questions et enjeux théoriques ................. 100 1. 2. 11. Le droit : une question (de) politique et de domination ................................... 106 1. 2. 12. Le droit : une question d’attribution de signification objective et d’interprétation authentique .................................................................................................................. 109

Justice pénale internationale : la lutte contre l’impunité en tant qu’impératif moral

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems from Autonomous to Cooperative Approach

This wide-ranging comparative account of the legal regimes for controlling administrative power in England, the USA and Australia argues that differences and similarities between control regimes may be partly explained by the constitutional structures of the systems of government in which they are embedded. It applies social-scientific and historical methods to the comparative study of law and legal systems in a novel and innovative way, and combines accounts of long-term and large-scale patterns of power distribution with detailed analysis of features of administrative law and the administrative justice systems of three jurisdictions. It also proposes a new method of analysing systems of government based on two different models of the distribution of public power (diffusion and concentration), a model which proves more illuminating than traditional separation-of-powers analysis.

Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison

Collective redress mechanisms for consumer claims seek both to allow legal systems to accommodate mass litigation without being overwhelmed and to enable litigation to be viable where individual claims would not be economic. The article maps a number of recent reforms and reform proposals relating to consumer collective redress at national level and comments on EU developments. It notes that there is insufficient recognition of the differences between schemes geared at managing mass litigation as opposed to those aimed at facilitating otherwise non-viable claims. There are however signs that a European style of collective redress procedure is developing, which emphasize the role of public authorities and consumer organizations as gatekeepers to collective redress. The EU is unlikely to be able to impose collective redress procedures on national civil procedures, but the EU could prompt Member States to reflect on the need for national reforms. There may be limited scope for an EU mechanism to address the problem of individually non-viable consumer claims. This would however have to address certain fundamental issues such as the opt-out mechanism, cy-pres distribution and funding if consumer organizations are to be encouraged to bring such actions. At a legal doctrinal level, it is interesting to note the influence of comparative studies on policy development within Member States as well as at the EU level.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/20488295

Collective redress procedures - European debates

1. General Introduction 2. Overview of State Liability in English and French Law 3. Public Law Unlawfulness and Liability in Damages 4. Beyond Illegality: Liability for Fault in English and French Law 5. Lawfully Caused Loss 6. Assessing the Causal Link 7. Damage and Compensation 8. Alternative Means of Redress 9. General Conclusion

State Liability in Tort: A Comparative Law Study

1. Introduction 2. Justiciability 3. Duty of Care 4. Policy Considerations 5. Other Aspects of Negligence Claims 6. Other Remedies 7. Human Rights Act 1998 8. Social Services 9. Education 10. Police 11. Detention 12. Emergency Services 13. Health and Safety Regulators 14. Planning, Environmental and Banking Regulation 15. Highways 16. Housing and Land-use 17. Armed Forces 18. Miscellaneous Public Authority Functions

The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities

Tort liability of public authorities in comparative perspective

While the role of comparative law in the courts was previously only an exception, foreign sources are now increasingly becoming a source of law in regular use in supreme and constitutional courts. There is considerable variation between the practices of courts and the role of comparative law, and methods remain controversial. In the US, the issue has been one of intense public debate and it is still one of the major dividing issues in the discussion about the role of the courts.

/pdf/courts-and-comparative-law-4lgrnb40j5.pdf

Duncan Fairgrieve

Papers

Collective redress procedures - European debates

State Liability in Tort: A Comparative Law Study

The Negligence Liability of Public Authorities

Tort liability of public authorities in comparative perspective

Courts and Comparative Law