Regulating DNA Fingerprinting in India

By Rebant Juyal, Indraprastha University, Delhi

I. Introduction

Human DNA(Deoxyribonucleic Acid), is the fundamental genetic blueprint of the person. It is hereditary and responsible for the characteristics of the person.[1] The advanced biotechnology enabling the study & exploration of DNA has fundamentally revolutionized the world. DNA today can be modified[2], engineered[3], patented[4] and fingerprinted[5]. DNA Fingerprinting is one of the most revolutionized techniques to analyse DNA of individuals.[6] DNA fingerprinting (DNA Profiling /Typing /Testing)[7] is a form of DNA forensic technology that is used to identify persons by analysing the unique patterns within their DNA.[8] About 99.9% of DNA of two individuals is the same[9], however, 0.1% of DNA is unique to every individual, which results in all forms of variations in physical appearances among individuals[10] and makes DNA of every individual distinct, with exceptions to identical twins[11].

Continue reading “Regulating DNA Fingerprinting in India”

Virtually Impossible: The Many Barriers to Multi-Jurisdictional Virtual Legal Practice

By Krystian Seebert 

I. Introduction

Imagine that a client schedules a consultation with his lawyer. After listening to the client’s story, the attorney advises the client, and the two conclude their meeting.  This is a standard consultation, right?  Wrong.  Thanks to the power of modern technology, the client and his lawyer do not have to meet face-to-face.  In fact, the lawyer’s permanent Virtual Legal Office (“VLO”) could be halfway across the country from the client.[1]

If such a meeting really happened, ABA Model Rule 5.5 (the “Rule”) requires that the lawyer be admitted to the bar in the state of his or her office.[2]  Furthermore, other restrictions may require that the lawyer also operate a physical office in the state of his or her virtual practice.[3]

This article reviews how the current rules on the remote practice of law developed, examines the current state of the law governing virtual legal practice, and finally argues that overly-restrictive regulation of VLOs has negative policy implications for the modern world.

Continue reading “Virtually Impossible: The Many Barriers to Multi-Jurisdictional Virtual Legal Practice”

The Importance of Language: Autonomous Weapon Systems vs Weapon Systems With Autonomous Functions

By Clea Strydom 

I.  Introduction

States and corporations are utilising Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to create more ‘intelligent’ weapon systems with autonomous functions. The international community is divided on whether or not this development in technology is positive. There are many who have called for fully autonomous weapon systems to be banned;[1] while others feel that this reaction is going too far and stands in the way of ‘progressive’ development.[2] The prevalent terms used by NGOs, researchers, academics, as well as the States and International Organizations to label weapons that can perform tasks autonomously is Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) or Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS).[3] However, there is to date no universally accepted definition for these labels,[4] or any agreement on what constitutes such a weapon. The terms are misleading and ambiguous and often conjure up images of rogue killer robots. This article postulates that in order to have a rational debate about these weapon systems, the AWS and LAWS labels need to be discarded in favour of more accurate descriptors.

Continue reading “The Importance of Language: Autonomous Weapon Systems vs Weapon Systems With Autonomous Functions”