首页> 外文OA文献 >Privacy, Constitutions and the Law of Torts: a Comparative and Theoretical Analysis of Protecting Personal Information Against Dissemination in New Zealand, the UK and the USA.
【2h】

Privacy, Constitutions and the Law of Torts: a Comparative and Theoretical Analysis of Protecting Personal Information Against Dissemination in New Zealand, the UK and the USA.

机译:隐私权,宪法和侵权法:对保护个人信息免于在新西兰,英国和美国传播的比较和理论分析。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has recently acknowledged the existence of a freestanding tort of invasion of privacy in Hosking v Runting. The tort is in its infancy and the courts are still grappling with essential problems, the most prominent of which is the conflict with countervailing interests in freedom of speech. In need of guidance, the courts turn to overseas authorities, predominantly from the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The commonly found descriptive nature of the comparison invites a broader analysis of these jurisdictions.In this thesis, I offer a theoretically informed comparative law analysis of New Zealand's new tort with the American public disclosure of private facts tort and the British extended breach of confidence action. In all three jurisdictions, the conflict of privacy with individual and societal concerns in freedom of speech has led to an exten-sion of (quasi-) constitutional norms derived, for instance, from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 into the common law sphere – the horizontal effect. The horizontal application of constitutional rights poses significant legal problems to the common law, because it has learned to deal with duties rather than rights. The time has come to re-consider the nature of rights in both constitutional and tort law. The comparison shows that New Zealand has effectively adopted two torts – one following the duty-based lead of the United States of America and an alternative modelled along the lines of the more rights-orientated British law. The law of the United Kingdom and the USA differ to a degree that calls their comparability into question. I present the preferable British ap-proach as a 'constitutionalised common law tort of privacy.' The results also show that this model represents a competitive third way to traditional solutions based on common law or statute by means of utilising a statutory human rights instrument as an analytical framework for the common law.
机译:新西兰上诉法院最近在Hosking诉Runting案中承认存在侵犯隐私权的独立侵权行为。侵权行为尚处于起步阶段,法院仍在努力解决基本问题,其中最突出的是与言论自由权衡利益冲突。在需要指导的情况下,法院主要是从联合王国和美利坚合众国求助于海外当局。比较的常见描述性要求我们对这些司法管辖区进行更广泛的分析。在本文中,我提供了对新西兰新侵权行为的理论上有据可依的比较法分析,其中包括美国公开披露的私人事实侵权行为和英国扩大的违反信任行为。在这三个司法辖区中,隐私与言论自由中的个人和社会关注的冲突已导致(准)宪法规范的扩展,例如从《 1990年新西兰权利法案》转化为普通法球体–水平效果。宪法权利的横向适用给普通法带来了重大的法律问题,因为它学会了处理职责而不是权利。现在是时候重新考虑宪法和侵权法中权利的性质了。比较表明,新西兰有效地采用了两种侵权行为:一种是在美利坚合众国以职责为基础的领导下采取的,另一种是根据更加注重权利的英国法律制定的。英国和美国的法律有所不同,这使它们的可比性受到质疑。我将较为可取的英国做法称为“私隐违反宪法的普通法侵权法”。结果还表明,该模型通过利用法定人权文书作为普通法的分析框架,代表了基于普通法或成文法的传统解决方案的第三种竞争方式。

著录项

  • 作者

    Heite Martin;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2008
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号