Search results

This study aims to develop a comprehensive insolvency model tailored to Islamic banks, ensuring alignment with Shariah principles throughout pre-insolvency, bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy stages.

The research adopts a qualitative research method, using a desktop research approach. Primary sources and secondary sources are examined to gather information and draw conclusions.

This study presents a comprehensive insolvency model designed for Islamic banks, rooted in Shariah principles. The model covers pre-insolvency, bankruptcy (taflis) and post-bankruptcy stages, incorporating key Shariah parameters to ensure adherence to Islamic finance principles. It addresses challenges such as adapting to dynamic financial landscapes and varying interpretations of Shariah principles. Notably, the model recognizes the separate legal personality of Islamic banks and emphasizes transparency, fairness and compliance with religious obligations. In the post-bankruptcy stage, directors are urged to voluntarily settle remaining debts, aligning with ethical and Shariah-compliant standards.

The study contributes to the stability and growth of Shariah-compliant financial systems by extending insolvency principles to Islamic banks, providing a foundation for future research and policymaking specific to this context.

In this chapter, the authors explore the concept of actorial identity through analysing the construction of legal persons as actors, centred on the argument that there is an ontological separation between living men and women and their legal representations. The authors propose an analytical frame based in part on the games studies literature, wherein actorial identities known as ‘Avatars’ are created by performative declarations that articulate Avatars with Players (living persons). The Avatars act within a bounded ‘Matrix’ while being controlled by Players who are outside the Matrix. In applying the frame to the legal Matrix, the authors distinguish between living persons, natural persons and artificial persons, and introduce the concepts of first-order and second-order Avatars. The authors then employ the analytical frame to model the use of legal Avatars by Apple Inc. and illustrate how cryptocurrency technology enables the creation of Avatars that can transact outside legal systems. The frame also helps explain how autonomous systems could acquire actorial identity and then functionally participate in the legal Matrix.

In this chapter, I analyze the notion of corporate responsibility from the person-centric perspective. I offer a four-dimensional exposition in terms of which I examine the corporate moral personhood view. These four dimensions are explained and critiqued to arrive at a definition of moral responsibility and status appropriate to corporations. I suggest that a corporation cannot be construed as a person in the sense in which individuals are persons. Since a corporation cannot be an independently existing entity, it cannot have an independent moral personality of its own as individual persons have. Therefore, I argue that a reasonable construal of corporate moral personhood has to exploit a different point of view altogether. With this difference of standpoint, I develop what is called the institutional personhood view. I argue that corporations do acquire a sort of collective institutional moral personality.

The main objective of this study is to present a compact overview analysis of intellectual property laws, specifically copyright-related provisions applicable to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in the Indian context.

The paper adopts a qualitative research methodology that is grounded in secondary sources of information. The data were gathered from the Scopus database for a systematic literature review.

GenAI technology has given rise to numerous questionable issues within the domain of intellectual property that need resolution in the form of policy solutions. Based on the findings of this paper, it can be deduced that Indian copyright laws are not adequate for addressing the rights pertaining to AI and its creations and outputs. Different countries like the United States, European Union and China have approached the regulation and protection of AI-generated content within the realm of copyright law in different ways. The future of law, as it has been established thus far, seems to be on a path of substantial evolution.

The study has implications for policymakers globally as there is a need to create feasible policy solutions that can efficiently safeguard against risks stemming from large language models (LLMs) and other GenAI models, while also promoting innovation, technical advancement and adoption.

The paper discusses the copyright-related issues in GenAI technology in the context of an emerging economy, India.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the development of the theory of authenticity and metaconversations, particularly in relation to managerial metaconversations, and to show an empirical example of what one might term authentic metaconversational management from below.

The theoretical part of the paper consists of an analysis and elaboration of theories of metaconversation and management. The empirical part of the paper builds on a single case study, which was of both the one holistic and embedded holistic type. In connection with the case study structured and unstructured, open and direct techniques of participant observation were applied. Certain parts of the case study were based on action research and consultation methods.

This conceptual paper presents a definition of authenticity in relation to the theory of metaconversations, and demonstrates with the help of a case study that metaconversations can also be created from below, via a bottom‐up process.

On the basis of the theory of authenticity and metaconversations, the manager(s) and staff, collectively and individually, can reflect on and discuss whether the metaconversations they create and by which they are encompassed – or to which exposed – are authentic in the sense that everyone is being given a voice.

The paper offers a concept of authenticity, as it relates to management, which challenges the idea of authenticity as being primarily concerned with the manager's relationship with himself or herself, e.g. the degree of consistency between a manager's “walk” and “talk”. Authenticity in relation to the theory of management as a metaconversation deals with the relationship between the manager and the staff, for which reason authenticity in this paper is treated as a social and collective matter, not merely one which is individual and personal.

The purpose of this paper is to question the common conviction that responsibility is the major factor influencing performance.

The paper takes the form of a comparison of two recent cases of ecological catastrophes.

In emergency situations, locating parties able to perform gives better results than establishing responsibility for the accident.

More similar cases should be examined systematically.

If the conclusions are accepted, the conventional mode of acting in emergencies may change.

Hopefully, the paper may redirect attention from responsibility to performativity.

The paper opposes a commonly accepted belief and the corresponding mode of acting.

Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are the tool of choice for federal prosecutors when adjudicating corporate misconduct. A DPA is a negotiation that permits the allegedly guilty party from undergoing a criminal trial if they avoid committing further wrongdoing for a specified period. This paper aims to examine whether DPAs are a beneficial mechanism for the criminal justice system to use while adjudicating corporate misconduct. By conducting in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with 24 practitioners in the legal field and white-collar crime experts, this study identifies the shortcomings and advantages of DPAs and highlights what policy enactments might enhance their application. The study contributes to the existing literature by expanding the narratives used by judicial officials, legal practitioners and white-collar crime scholars on the role of DPAs.

The current study is an in-depth qualitative analysis that explores judicial actors’ and white-collar crime scholars’ opinions on the adoption of DPAs to adjudicate corporate misconduct. The literature on DPAs is currently derived primarily from law and literature reviews published by legal scholars. Clandestine negotiations are not accessible to the public and are frequently kept in sealed files unless a breach of contract occurs, resulting in the case proceeding to trial. Hence, a qualitative analysis is the best approach to evaluate the effectiveness of DPAs. Further, little evidence is available that focuses on the opinions of professionals who have participated in these agreements. The interviews were conducted over Zoom and lasted an average of 43 min, with the longest interview spanning 1 h and 45 min and the shortest interview being 14 minutes. A non-probability sampling method – specifically, snowball sampling – was used to generate a total sample of 24 legal professionals and white-collar crime scholars. Initial participants were found by contacting law offices specializing in white-collar crime litigation and using current networks to attain access to a broader range of participants. Then, 19 participants provided referrals throughout the study. The final sample consisted of nine government officials, eight legal practitioners and seven white-collar crime academics experts. One of the government official interviews was excluded from the final research project due to a lack of expertise in the field of white-collar crime. The interview questions were designed to promote in-depth conversation and insight into personal opinions on the adoption of DPAs. Several inquiries highlighted whether DPAs are an appropriate response to corporate misconduct and whether they reduced recidivism through their intended deterrent effect. Furthermore, several descriptive questions sought to understand which criminal justice actors support the adoption of DPAs in white-collar crime cases and why. Coding of the data was first conducted individually by each author. The researchers then compared thematic findings that reflected consensus.

An immediate theme identifiable in the research is the intrinsic value that DPAs offer in adjudicating corporate wrongdoing. As indicated by a participant, corporate misconduct is not “black or white,” stressing the importance of prosecutors having a middle ground between criminal prosecution and the dismissal of charges. A judicial official indicated that “DPAs are another essential arrow in a prosecutor’s quiver – and something a defense attorney can bargain for” (Respondent 5). Seven government officials and legal practitioners noted that you are unable to send a corporation to jail, and you do not simply want to put them out of business; thus, a DPA is the only tool in which the government can mandate structural change in a company without dismantling the entire entity. Only three academics concurred with the government officials and legal practitioners that DPAs are beneficial and offer prosecutors a vital middle ground. One academic, for example, stated that “DPAs have given U.S Attorney offices that ability to be involved for a considerable amount of time in a company's business, while simultaneously promoting change within the entity” (Respondent 14). Additionally, DPAs ensure that corporations are held criminally liable without triggering an endless cycle of collateral consequences for innocent third parties. One legal practitioner, for example, stated: “Just look at the Enron case; they charged Arthur Andersen with obstruction of justice and dismantled the entire entity they made it where the business was never going to come back. A small subset of individuals, in this case, should have been held responsible but instead, hundreds and if not thousands of people were harmed. With this in mind, DPAs are extremely important, in that it limits collateral consequences because DPAs take a more holistic view that criminal prosecution does not consider” (Respondent 21). Another respondent highlighted that “DPAs are the only tool available that can be employed to change an entire organization structurally” (Respondent 20). Ultimately, the findings suggest that there is a consensus among respondents that DPAs are an appropriate response to corporate misconduct, particularly when the agreement stipulates that a company must hire an external compliance monitor and update their current compliance system. Overall, participants emphasized that these stipulations promote a sense of corporate accountability, provide for the dismissal of guilty employees and mandate structural change. The majority of the respondents (n = 20) insisted that DPAs are advantageous, yet a subset of participants were skeptical of their use in white-collar crime prosecutions. One legal practitioner, for example, noted that “DPAs are political creatures that are awarded as political favors to the largest of corporations that our economy relies upon” (Respondent 17). Another government official confirmed this statement, indicating that “DPAs are a mere slap on the wrist for large corporations – they simply see it as doing business” (Respondent 6). Four academic participants emphasized that DPAs are typically negotiated with multi-level corporations and are not extended to the small businesses that suffer the dire consequences of criminal prosecution. One academic, for instance, stressed that “the question becomes is it fairly applied and being implemented properly. Larger companies are more likely to receive and benefit from a DPA, thus, raising the question of fairness” (Respondent 12). Another academic who was previously a government official stated: “DPAs risk abuse – there have been several instances where prosecutors have forced companies to donate money to favored charities and overstepped their powers. Sometimes DPAs also come with monitors. For example, banks typically have to pay for the auditor, and it becomes extremely intrusive, and it it not clear that they are efficient.”

Several limitations exist in this research. First, it is not a comprehensive study that is representative of the larger population, which limits generalizability. Given the contention of research on DPAs, this qualitative research contributes to the literature, and its findings are likely transferable to multiple settings in which DPAs are used. Second, DPAs are processed and drafted differently across jurisdictions; thus, comparing DPAs across state levels and among departments in the federal government would be equivalent to comparing apples to oranges. This comparison is yet another limitation to the study because criminal justice practitioners operate in both the state and federal jurisdictions. Another challenge in the current study and something that likely will be a problem for future researchers is the difficulty of gaining access to experts in an exclusive field of criminal justice, such as federal prosecutors, Department of Justice officials, federal judges and elite corporate defense attorneys. Ultimately, several obstacles arose during the study, particularly when recruiting participants to gain a large enough sample size to conduct meaningful analysis. This resulted in smaller sample size but rich, in-depth data that achieved saturation among participants.

Several policy implications are identifiable. First, it appears that DPAs are a mainstay of white-collar crime prosecution. No participants advocate for their complete removal from the prosecution process. Participants highlight that DPAs occupy an essential middle-ground between dismissal and criminal charges. Without this mechanism, prosecution would be impeded, and holding corporate criminal actors liable would increasingly become formidable. Although it appears that the system cannot function without DPAs, several respondents emphasize that we must begin to hold individuals accountable alongside corporations. Another policy implication that a minority of participants mentioned within the study involves ensuring that our compliance monitoring system operates appropriately. A majority of participants note that the overarching stipulation that promotes structural change within an organization is adopting a functioning compliance monitoring system, thus, emphasizing the importance of this process operating smoothly and ethically. The selection of an independent compliance monitor may be problematic. For example, a former government compliance monitor notes that not all monitors are experts in the field they are overseeing. A pharmaceutical expert, for example, may be attempting to regulate an automotive organization, which may present unique challenges. An agency of federal professionals dedicated to supervising specific industries such as automotive, pharmaceutical and financial would ensure that organizations are actually implementing the terms of the DPA.

Ultimately, the current research highlights the necessity of empirically studying the benefits and drawbacks of such agreements. Future research on the topic remains onerous due to the scarcity of a centralized database that contains extensive details of DPAs. The present study suggests that the verdict on DPAs is undecided, with more than half of the study's criminal justice professionals advocating for their continued and even increased use. However, about half of the participants, particularly academics, called attention to the agreements’ potential bias. The disagreement among participants is most contentious in the consideration of a DPA centralized database which would immensely aid future research and policy advancements.

This manuscript attempts to provide answers regarding questions such as whether or not it is legitimate to describe and characterise humanoid robots as legal entities and individuals. The purpose of this paper is an attempt to answer this question using philosophical principles.

This manuscript uses text analysis to investigate answers to this question by examining thoughts put forth by respected theorists, classical philosophers, and psychologists.

The text dives further into the concept that artificial intelligence (AI) systems deserve to have their own unique identities, highlighting the significance of building a relationship with them that is meaningful. This is due to the fact that, just as every star in the sky at night radiates with its own special brightness, our AI counterparts should likewise vibrate with individuality. This will allow them to build connections that shed light on the human experience that we all share.

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that AI robots are not only lifeless things but rather the result of humans directing their psychological resources into something significant. This is a significant and innovative endeavour. This activity is noteworthy because it extends beyond individuals’ immediate surroundings.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the human rights issue. This study has also examined issues with AI for business and its civil and criminal liability. This study has provided inputs to the policymakers and government authorities to overcome different challenges.

This study has analysed different international and Indian laws on human rights issues and the impacts of these laws to protect the human rights of the individual, which could be under threat due to the advancement of AI technology. This study has used descriptive doctrinal legal research methods to examine and understand the insights of existing laws and regulations in India to protect human rights and how these laws could be further developed to protect human rights under the Indian jurisprudence, which is under threat due to rapid advancement of AI-related technology.

The study provides a comprehensive insight on the influence of AI on human rights issues and the existing laws in India. The study also shows different policy initiatives by the Government of India to regulate AI.

The study highlights some of the key policy recommendations helpful to regulate AI. Moreover, this study provides inputs to the regulatory authorities and legal fraternity to draft a much-needed comprehensive policy to regulate AI in the context of the protection of human rights of the citizens.

AI is constantly posing entangled challenges to human rights. There is no comprehensive study, which investigated the emergence of AI and its influence on human rights issues, especially from the Indian legal perspective. So there is a research gap. This study provides a unique insight of the emergence of AI applications and its influence on human rights issues and provides inputs to the policymaker to help them to draft an effective regulation on AI to protect the human rights of Indian citizens. Thus, this study is considered a unique study that adds value towards the overall literature.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the statistical link between an artificial personality model and the leading psychometric model.

An online survey was conducted made of two parts: a 40‐sentence humor appreciation survey corresponding to the artificial personality model, and a 50‐sentence Big 5 psychometric survey. The cross‐correlation between the scales of the two parts was computed, and exploratory factor analysis performed on the Big 5 scores using three different sample age spreads.

The cross‐correlation coefficients between the artificial and psychometric personality scores supported the suggestion that there is compatibility between the two, albeit their absolute values were not as high as other studies due to the small sample size. Also, when computing factor analysis on Big 5 scores it was found that the loading of two factors identified as motivational went down systematically with the size of the sample, which empirically supports the suggestion that motivational and cognitive factors are distinct.

The size of sample was not sufficient to reach a conclusive decision but the evidence was supportive and promising for additional research.

The compatibility between the artificial and psychometric personality models means that psychometric scores of real persons can be uploaded into artificial personalities in order to mimic real conversation and behaviour.

Improvement of man‐machine interface, facilitating education.

Correlating the scores of different personality scores is not new, but correlating with artificial personality dimensions defined by humor appreciation scores is new. The suggestion that there is qualitative difference between factors of well established psychometric model is new and could have far reaching implications.