1. bookTom 13 (2020): Zeszyt 1 (June 2020)
Informacje o czasopiśmie
License
Format
Czasopismo
eISSN
2029-0454
Pierwsze wydanie
05 Feb 2009
Częstotliwość wydawania
2 razy w roku
Języki
Angielski
Otwarty dostęp

Balancing Personal Data Protection with Other Human Rights and Public Interest: Between Theory and Practice

Data publikacji: 23 Oct 2020
Tom & Zeszyt: Tom 13 (2020) - Zeszyt 1 (June 2020)
Zakres stron: 140 - 162
Otrzymano: 26 Apr 2020
Przyjęty: 28 Jul 2020
Informacje o czasopiśmie
License
Format
Czasopismo
eISSN
2029-0454
Pierwsze wydanie
05 Feb 2009
Częstotliwość wydawania
2 razy w roku
Języki
Angielski

1. Anđelković, Luka. “The Elements of Proportionality as a Principle of Human Rights Limitations.” Facta Universitatis Series: Law and Politics 15:3 (2017): 235 – 244.10.22190/FULP1703235ASearch in Google Scholar

2. Barak, Aharon. Proportionality. Constitutional Rights and their Limitations. Harvard: Cambridge University Press, 2012.10.1017/CBO9781139035293Search in Google Scholar

3. Bendor, Ariel L., and Tal Sela. “How proportional is proportionality?” International Journal of Constitutional Law 13 (2015): 530–544.10.1093/icon/mov028Search in Google Scholar

4. Bernstorff, Jochen von. “Proportionality without Balancing. Comparative Judicial Engagement”: 63-83. In: Liora Lazarus, et al., eds. Reasoning Rights. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

5. Bienias, Emma, et al. “Implicit bias in the legal profession” (2017) // https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Implicit-Bias-White-Paper-2.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

6. Blades, Nicholas, and Fernando Herrera-González. “An economic analysis of personal data protection obligations in the European Union.” 7th European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society (ITS). Cambridge, United Kingdom (7-9 September 2016) // https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2018/economics/Presentations/.Search in Google Scholar

7. Boersema, David. Philosophy of Human Rights: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2018.10.4324/9780429498312Search in Google Scholar

8. Burazin, Luka. “Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights Norms”: 111-120. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

9. Cianciardo, Juan. “The principle of proportionality: the challenges of human rights.” Journal of Civil Law Studies 3:1 (2010): 177-185.Search in Google Scholar

10. Clerico, Laura. “Proportionality in Social Rights Adjudication: Making it Workable”: 25-48. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

11. Dolzhikov, Alexey V. “The European Court of Human Rights on the Principle of Proportionality in ‘Russian’ Cases.” Teisė 82 (2012): 215-224.10.15388/Teise.2012.0.127Search in Google Scholar

12. Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. New York: Cornelian University Press, 2013.10.7591/9780801467493Search in Google Scholar

13. Duarte, David. “Gains and Losses in Balancing Social Rights”: 49-70. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

14. Dworkin, Ronald. “It is absurd to calculate human rights according to a cost-benefit analysis.” The Guardian (May24, 2006).Search in Google Scholar

15. Endicott, Timothy. “Proportionality and Incommensurability”: 311-342. In: Grant Huscroft, Bradley W. Miller, and Gregoire Webber, eds. Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning. Harvard: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

16. European Data Protection Supervisor. “About” (2018) // https://edps.europa.eu/about-edps_en.Search in Google Scholar

17. Faigman, David L. “Madisonian Balancing: A Theory of Constitutional Adjudication.” Northwester University Law Review 88 (1994): 641-694.Search in Google Scholar

18. Feinberg, Joel. “Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 93(1978): 223-257.Search in Google Scholar

19. Finnis, John. “Commensuration and Public Reason”: 215-260. In: Ruth Chang’s, eds. Incommensurability, Incompatibility, and Practical Reason. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

20. Guntrip, Edward. “International Human Rights Law, Investment Arbitration, and Proportionality Analysis: Panacea or Pandora’s Box?” Blog of the European Journal of International Law (January 7, 2014) // https://www.ejiltalk.org/international-human-rights-law-investment-arbitration-and-proportionality-analysis-panacea-or-pandoras-box/.Search in Google Scholar

21. Hauck, Sué González. “A Critique of Proportionality Balancing as a Harmonization Technique in International Law.” Völkerrechtsblog (5 August 2015) // DOI: 10.17176/20170920-12125.Search in Google Scholar

22. Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

23. Kelleher, Denis, and Karen Murray. EU Data Protection Law. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

24. Khosla, Madhav. “Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights? A Reply.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 8 (2010): 298–306.10.1093/icon/moq002Search in Google Scholar

25. Lindsey, Nicole. “Understanding the GDPR Cost of Continuous Compliance” (2019) // https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-protection/understanding-the-gdpr-cost-of-continuous-compliance/.Search in Google Scholar

26. Lopes, Pedro M. “Balancing Principles and A Forteriori Reasoning”: 137-156. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

27. Nalty, Kathleen. “Strategies for Confronting Unconscious Bias.” The Federal Lawyer (January/February 2017): 27-34.Search in Google Scholar

28. Panagis, Nikiforos. “Putting Balancing in the Balance” (2014): 1-10 // https://tsakyrakis.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/nikiforos-panagis-putting-balancing-in-the-balance/.10.2139/ssrn.2423378Search in Google Scholar

29. Peer, Eyal, and Eyal Gamliel. “Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions.” Court Review 49 (2013): 114-118.Search in Google Scholar

30. Posner, Richard. How Judges Think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

31. Posner, Richard. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.Search in Google Scholar

32. Pyykkö, Elina. “Data protection at the cost of economic growth?” (2012) // https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/data-protection-cost-economic-growth/.Search in Google Scholar

33. Rivers, Julian. “Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review.” The Cambridge Law Journal 65:1 (2006): 174-207.10.1017/S0008197306007082Search in Google Scholar

34. Sampaio, Jorge S.” Proportionality in its Narrow Sense and Measuring the Intensity of Restrictions on Fundamental Rights”: 71-110. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

35. Sartor, Giovanni. “Consistency in Balancing: From Value Assessments to Factor-Based Rules”: 121-136. In: David Duarte and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

36. Sartor, Giovanni. “The Logic of Proportionality: Reasoning with Non-Numerical Magnitudes.” German Law Journal 14:8 (2013): 1419–56.10.1017/S2071832200002339Search in Google Scholar

37. Sartor, Giovanni. “The right to be forgotten balancing interests in the flux of time.” International Journal of Law and Information Technology 24 (2016): 72–98.10.1093/ijlit/eav017Search in Google Scholar

38. Schlink, Bernard. “Proportionality”: 249-266. In: Michel Rosenfeld and Andras Sajó, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

39. Sieckmann, Jan. “Proportionality as a Universal Human Rights Principle”: 3-48. In: David Duarteand and Jorge Silva Sampaio, eds. Proportionality in Law. An Analytical Perspective. Cham: Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

40. Souliotis, Panagiotis. “Proportionality and The European Convention on Human Rights: A Critical View” (2016): 1-30 // https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2690366.Search in Google Scholar

41. Stijn Smet, “On the Existence and Nature of Conflicts between Human Rights at the European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights Law Review (2017) // DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngx016.10.1093/hrlr/ngx016Search in Google Scholar

42. Tsakyrakis, Stavros. “Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?” Jean Monnet Working Paper 09/08 (2009) // https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/paper/proportionality-an-assault-on-human-rights-2.Search in Google Scholar

43. Tyler, Tom. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review of Psychology 57 (2006): 375-400.10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038Search in Google Scholar

44. Urbina, Francisco. A Critique of Proportionality and balancing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.10.1017/9781316796276Search in Google Scholar

45. Vranes, Erich. “Vom ‘rechten Maß’ zum globalen Rechtsgrundsatz? Schlaglichter in der Entwicklung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatzes” (From ‘right measure’ to global legal principle? Highlights in the development of the principle of proportionality): 99-136. In: Günter Herzig, et al., eds. Europarecht und Rechtstheorie. Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

46. Webber, Grégoire C. “Proportionality, Balancing, and the Cult of Constitutional Rights Scholarship.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2010): 179-202.10.1017/S0841820900004860Search in Google Scholar

47. Wiggins, David. “Incommensurability: Four Proposals”: 52-60. In: Ruth Chang’s, eds. Incommensurability, Incompatibility, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

48. Worstall, Tim. “Is GDPR worth the cost?” (2018) // https://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Is-GDPR-worth-the-cost.Search in Google Scholar

1. EDPS Guidelines on assessing the proportionality of measures that limit the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data. European Data Protection Supervisor (19 December 2019) // https://edps.europa.eu/data-protection/our-work/our-work-by-type/guidelines_en.Search in Google Scholar

2. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 On the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU-GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union L 119/1 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Polecane artykuły z Trend MD

Zaplanuj zdalną konferencję ze Sciendo