Suchergebnisse

The CODATA-RDA Legal Interoperability Interest Group has studied the issues related tothe intellectual property of data: the resulting outcome is a set of principles and practical implementation guidelines. They are offered as high-level guidance to all members of the research community—the funders, managers of data centers, librarians, archivists, publishers, policymakers, university administrators, individual researchers, and their legal counsel—who are engaged in activities that involve the access to and reuse of research data from diverse sources. The Principles are synergistic, so their greatest benefit is realized when they are considered together. The following Principles on the Legal Interoperability of Research Data focus on all types of data that are used primarily in publicly funded research in government and academia: One: Facilitate the lawful access to and reuse of research data. Two: Determine the rights to and responsibilities for the data. Three: Balance the legal interests. Four: State the rights transparently and clearly. Five: Promote the harmonization of rights in research data. Six: Provide proper attribution and credit for research data. This document examines each of the six principles and provides guidelines for implementing these principles. The guidelines have been refined through two strenuous rounds of peer review. These Principles and Implementation Guidelines are the product of the entire RDA-CODATA Interest Group. The co-chairs of this Interest Group are Paul F. Uhlir, Enrique Alonso Garcia, and Robert Chen. The full list of the Interest Group's members may be found at: https://rd-alliance.org/groups/rdacodata-legal-interoperability- ig.html. However, the following individuals were the principal authors of this document and they participated in frequent conference calls and in the RDA Plenaries to develop this between March 2015 and August 2016 (listed in alphabetical order): Donat Agosti, Enrique Alonso Garcia, Baden Appleyard, Christoph Bruch, Robert Chen, Gail Clement, Willi ...

In today's globalizing world, which is formally based on state sovereignty but in which the latter is called into question by economic, cultural and technological trends, new institutional frameworks need to be designed to allow people, goods, services and ideas to move across legal systems. The European Union provides an interesting model in this regard. Looking at the EU institutional model for achieving legal interoperability, this case-study explains how supranational law can achieve the interoperability of a diverse array of legal systems to attain larger policy goals, while pointing to the fact that lack of coherence between different legal orders (supranational vs. national) can be an obstacle to legal interoperability.

In today's globalizing world, which is formally based on state sovereignty but in which the latter is called into question by economic, cultural and technological trends, new institutional frameworks need to be designed to allow people, goods, services and ideas to move across legal systems. The European Union provides an interesting model in this regard. Looking at the EU institutional model for achieving legal interoperability, this case-study explains how supranational law can achieve the interoperability of a diverse array of legal systems to attain larger policy goals, while pointing to the fact that lack of coherence between different legal orders (supranational vs. national) can be an obstacle to legal interoperability.

In the wake of the increasing development and use of space systems, alliances and partnerships appear to be the solution for minimising the risk of harmful interferences, reducing costs, and further apply advancement in new technologies. The military uses space systems to support a wide range of activities such as intelligence gathering, telecommunications, tracking, positioning, navigation, and early warnings to detect ballistic missile launches. Interoperability is bringing under the spotlight the disparities between technologically advanced and less-advanced States. Only a few States are able to produce and access space technologies individually and subsequently determine the standards and operational parameters. The utilisation of space systems requires like-minded operators who collectively agree on the same idea of norms of behaviours, threat characterisation, and thresholds for interference. This article critically engages with the idea that interoperability poses legal problems and an unfair burden on the less developed members of the Alliance. This article presents a two-fold analysis of interoperability challenges in utilising space equipment, with particular attention to joint responsibility during hostilities. Ensuring space systems' functionality appears necessary to preserve the operational effectiveness of the space infrastructure used by different operators. In turn, this entails the existence of interoperable systems and compliance with standards and regulations unilaterally set by the most technologically advanced States and sometimes not collectively agreed or developed. If allies want to operate the same equipment, they need to thwart compatibility issues from both a technical and legal perspective. In focusing on a small number of technologically advanced States to fix the interoperability standards, other States are deprived of a certain degree of autonomy and protection as they will have to share proprietary information. Moreover, less developed States are not able to fully control their operations or decide their responsibility for joint activities.

"Legal interoperability" could be defined as the possibility of legally mixing data coming from different sources (including governmental data, data generated by online communities and data held by private parties). Legal interoperability is similar to technical interoperability, since it is a prerequisite for mixing data and create new knowledge or services. But it also has its own peculiarities, for instance because it could be achieved simply choosing the appropriate licensing scheme, but also because self-help mechanisms which could - at a certain price - guarantee technical interoperability to third parties cannot (lawfully) solve legal interoperability issues. In the mid/long run, legal interoperability could be achieved thorough the evolution of legal frameworks in order to harmonize the landscape of Government Data. In the short term, the shortcomings generated by diversified legal frameworks may be alleviated through the careful choice of copyright licenses. The presentation will focus on the latter aspects, discussing existing public licenses (such as the Creative Commons and Open Data Commons ones), representing a de facto standard in this domain, and the main open data licenses developed by European governments (e.g. the Open Government Licenses in the UK, the French License Ouverte or the Italian Open Data License). ; "Legal interoperability" could be defined as the possibility of legally mixing data coming from different sources (including governmental data, data generated by online communities and data held by private parties). Legal interoperability is similar to technical interoperability, since it is a prerequisite for mixing data and create new knowledge or services. But it also has its own peculiarities, for instance because it could be achieved simply choosing the appropriate licensing scheme, but also because self-help mechanisms which could - at a certain price - guarantee technical interoperability to third parties cannot (lawfully) solve legal interoperability issues. In the mid/long run, legal interoperability could be achieved thorough the evolution of legal frameworks in order to harmonize the landscape of Government Data. In the short term, the shortcomings generated by diversified legal frameworks may be alleviated through the careful choice of copyright licenses. The presentation will focus on the latter aspects, discussing existing public licenses (such as the Creative Commons and Open Data Commons ones), representing a de facto standard in this domain, and the main open data licenses developed by European governments (e.g. the Open Government Licenses in the UK, the French License Ouverte or the Italian Open Data License).

AbstractThis article briefly overviews some of the current and future challenges to NATO legal interoperability arising from the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law generally and between IHL and the European Convention on Human Rights in particular.

AbstractThis article describes some of the challenges raised by multinational operations for the application of international humanitarian law. Such challenges are the result of different levels of ratification of treaties, divergent interpretations of shared obligations, and the fact that there is no central authority that determines who is a party to an armed conflict. The article discusses methods that have been developed to ensure 'legal interoperability'. Some of these methods attempt to avoid situations where such interoperability is required. Where this is not possible, a 'maximalist' or a 'minimalist' approach can be taken, and in practice these are usually combined.

Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the UN Security Council issued a series of resolutions exerting increasing pressure on lraq. This process started with Resolution 660/ 90, condemning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and reached its highest point with Resolution 678/90, which authorized the use of force against Iraq after the deadline of 15 January 1991. These resolutions were the legal umbrella under which was built the largest international military coalition to be employed in combat since World War ll. Countries from Africa, Europe, East Asia, the Pacific, North America, South America, and South Asia joined forces with nations of the Middle East. 1 The ground forces were provided by twenty-five countries, the naval forces came front twenty-three, and the air forces from fourteen

Interoperability has become a buzzword in European policy debates on the future of the digital economy. In its Digital Agenda, the EU Commission has identified a lack of interoperability as one of the significant obstacles for the thriving of the digital economy. The EU Commission and a number of other actors have advocated far-reaching policies for ensuring the interoperability of digital goods, services, platforms and communication networks. In this paper, we present a systematic framework for discussing interoperability problems from an economic and legal perspective and apply it to several interoperability issues, as, e.g., standardization, interoperability regulation in the field of electronic communication, duties of dominant firms (including platforms) to ensure horizontal and vertical interoperability and IP law exceptions in favour of interoperability. The complex trade-offs between benefits and costs of a higher degree of interoperability suggest the need for a careful and separate analysis of each specific interoperability issue, caution regarding a (top down) imposition of mandatory standards and interoperability obligations, and a greater focus on unilateral solutions of interoperability problems, like adapters or converters. EU competition law may be better advised to develop, within the framework of Art. 102 TFEU, a workable test to address hurdles for unilateral interoperability solutions created by dominant firms, than to continue focusing on the essential facilities doctrine to mandate interoperability.

To achieve a significant level of interoperability in eGovernment, especially for political structures, such as federal states or the European Union, it is necessary to improve some rules concerning the eGovernment model and define a minimum standard for the different dimensions of interoperability. The legal dimension of interoperability consists of the rules concerning interoperability in a specific legal system and, so-called interoperability model. In this article, the author analyze the interoperability models of the European Communities and Spain. There are different legal models of interoperability according to four criteria of classification: volunteer or mandatory (binding), flexible or rigid, united or decentralized, and participatory or unilateral. In this article, the describe the characteristics of each of these criteria. The author defend the need to maintain mandatory frames of interoperability to the largest territorial level, whether united or decentralized. However, the ability to maintain these different mandatory frames faces several obstacles.