Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

The present paper analyzes the right to privacy in the context of the Internet. The multi-stake- holder initiatives are an alternative that has already provided a regulatory structure on various aspects of the Internet, be it security, free flow of information or online privacy. Although there are elements that make it not a total solution, this paper analyzes some reasons why online privacy should be regulated by mechanisms of Internet Governance and by entities that do not respond only to governments or only to private firms. In this work, a general look at this alternative is given, without neglecting other approaches that should be applied to the topic of online privacy.

The Clean Hands doctrine is currently applied in international investment arbitration. Tis doctrine has the effect that arbitration tribunals declare their lack of competence over to process the dispute proposed by the investor and the host State. This doctrine could be applied when: a) the investment is illegal; and, b) when arbitrators fnd acts of corruption such as embezzlement, bribes or influence peddling. The article analyses, in frst place, how under a case law basis, the doctrine has been applied in different international investment arbitration procedures, concluding that there is no consensus on the nature of the doctrine "” whether or not it constitutes a customary law principle"” under international law nor about the required test standard. Second, the paper analyzes whether the Clean Hands doctrine could be applied or not in disputes on public contracts under Ecuadorian law.

The points presented in this document can be summarized as follows:1. The jurist mentality is characterized by a peculiar argumentation technique that is in conflict with common sense. This is due to the fact that a jurist has to work with defined texts and concepts (or precedents) and solve various practical problems with a reference to them (rather than personal feelings, morality or efficiency).2. Another typical quality is a practical procedural approach (e.g. auditur et altera pars). This goes back several generations of experience.3. The most striking feature of a good jurist is dual-connectedness thinking. This requires a jurist to meet an internal (typically jurist's) standard of argumentation and an external evaluation standard. This external criterion means that a good lawyer must always take into account the interests/values at stake in the legal debate.4. In general, the evaluation criterion does not normally appear explicitly in the argumentation, only between the lines and indirectly. Teleological argumentation may be, in special circumstances, the exception.5. Magnaud, the famous French judge of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, met the above criteria, so he was a really good jurist (or "good judge" as reflected in his epithet). 6. Depending on the concept of legal scholarship used, the above statements apply to works of legal scholarship only to a limited extent or do not apply at all.

The protection of human rights is one of the main obligations a state has in order to fulfill its duties. Therefore, the right of freedom of expression shall be protected, especially because it relates directly to the defense of the democratic of a society. Although there are different points of view regarding an issue, especially same-sex marriage, the state is obligated to stay neutral towards public opinions. Consequently, public opinions might end up transforming into hate speech which creates an even larger confrontation within people and the state. This is why, the state must establish fair limits for human rights. Finally, it is essential to understand that promoting tolerance is the most important aspect to safeguard the rights of people to freely speak their minds in order to exercise their right of freedom of speech.

Causa is a requirement for the validity of contracts under Bello´s Civil Code. One of the doctrinal debates surrounding causa refers to its very concept. While some authors believe that Bello"™s Civil Code refers to fnal causa, this is, an immediate purpose determined by the contract´s nature, other authors believe that it refers to impulsive causa, this is, the subjective motives that motivated the parties to contract. Tis paper argues that Bello´s Civil Code refers to impulsive causa. Judgments of Ecuadorian Cassation Court are consistent with this position, because in most cases in which the court has referred to causa in order to determine the validity of a contract, it has applied the concept of impulsive causa. Tis legal and jurisprudential choice for impulsive causa means a greater level of judicial control on contracts and a greater degree of restrictions to the autonomy of the will.

Settling criminal acts to uncover another crime shall be reason for investigation. In these circumstances, the basic principles of law, specialty, subsidies, proportion, jurisdictional control and legal security will need to be justified before infiltrating an undercover agent in an organized crime entity that uses cyberspace. Technology is replacing the participation of undercover agents, as technical devices allow an invisible way to observe and be present, scan, describe, listen and collect information from a potential crime scene, regardless of geographical limits and borders. This is particularly important when global crimes require international cooperation and mutual assistance between countries to deal with cyberspace that need the intervention of a cyber undercover agent.

Dossier"™s presentation. The Constitutional Reasoning Culture in Latin America.

During times of war, the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law has always been controversial, and has generally been solved by prioritizing the rules of the former and minimizing the application of the latter"™s. In practice, this has translated into insufficient standards of protection for individuals and, more specifically, into the endorsement of an unrestrained right to kill enemy combatants. This paper suggests a novel approach to this regime interaction: the application of International Human Rights Law during wartime should serve as an interpretative tool of International Humanitarian Law rules, strengthening the safeguards offered by the latter and, thus, better respecting the rights of individuals during hostilities. Regarding the right to life, this interpretation would require to abandon the idea of a right to kill opponents and, instead, demand that least harmful means be employed during military operations, when possible. Lethal force should be allowed only in cases where military necessity justifies it, henceforth avoiding causing individuals more harm than that strictly required. The purpose of this article is not to advocate for a prohibition of killing combatants -as the nature of armed conflicts would render that rule unattainable- ; it is, however, to establish a principle capable of guiding combatants"™ behaviour towards a more humane conduct of hostilities.

Within the 23 reform bills of the Organic Comprehensive Criminal Code (COIP) submitted to the Justice Committee of the National Assembly, there is a proposal that plans to eliminate the last paragraph of Article 581. The final paragraph of the article in question establishes the following: "[...] For the exercise of criminal action, for the crimes of embezzlement and illicit enrichment, a procedural presupposition is established that there is a prior report on indications of criminal responsibility issued by The Comptroller General of the State". This article seeks to elucidate the main legal implications of the suppression of the final clause of Art. 581 of the COIP. Similarly, seeks to expose the multiple incompatibilities presented by the crimes of illicit enrichment, embezzlement and the previous report of the Government Accountability Office as a requirement of procedure with the fundamental principles of Criminal Procedural Law.

The Ecuadorian legal system has undergone several modifications in relation to popular consultation by citizen initiative. First, on December 21, 2015 one of the constitutional amendments has limited the scope of popular consultation. Second, the precedents of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador have established general rules regarding the popular consultation procedure by citizen initiative. Third, the Constitutional Court has issued a regulation that alters the accounting of terms of the popular consultation procedure. When the laws are clear and precise, the function of the judge is only to prove a fact . However, all the modifications have been made directly and indirectly by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. So, the legislator has not issued clear and precise norms? Independent of that, the Constitutional Court, searching to clarify and specify normative precepts, has occasioned restrictions on the rights to citizen participation, obstacles to the exercise of direct democracy and uncertainty in the popular consultation instead. In this way, three fundamental points will be analyzed. First, the scope of the popular consultation has been limited by virtue of a constitutional amendment restricting the right of citizen participation. Secondly, through compulsory jurisprudence, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador has established that constitutional control is carried out after the collection of signatures, leading to citizens taking the risk of devoting economic and physical efforts to collect signatures with uncertainty that the questions are constitutional. This has led to hindering and ineffectiveness of the popular consultation procedure. Finally, the Constitutional Court, through its regulations, has changed the counting of deadlines and terms by shielding itself from the deadlines established in the constitution. Thus, all the actions of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador have led to a clear government of the judges.