Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international law. Show all posts
, ,

Nanotechnology and Transnational Governance, the case of China and US

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

On my other post, we have discussed the idea of establishing an international nanotechnology arms treaty, aimed at reducing negative impacts of nano arms race. There is another article at GMU which also discusses the transnational governance of nanotech, this time by focusing on China and US. Here's a quote:
Though nanotechnology R&D is currently an effort based largely upon chemistry and materials science, the high priority placed on it in both the United States and China will quickly lead nanotechnology to interact with other fields of study—such as biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science—that could further quicken the pace of both basic research and product development. This convergence of technologies could cause an even greater set of governance challenges than nanotechnology alone, further impacting institutions tasked with the responsibility of managing new technological advances. Since developments in nanotechnology are at the forefront of these potentially radical innovations, the United States and China have the chance to think and operate proactively, and work collectively, toward getting the governance system “right” from the start.

The author signaled that Chinese Nanotechnology will be booming, saying that the Chinese government spent $250 million on nanotechnology in 2005 -- when adjusted for purchasing-power parity -- places China’s nanotechnology investment second only to the United States. He stated that the number of scientific papers on nanotech, pubslihed by China is catching up with the US, and that from 2000 to 2002, "China ranked third behind only the United States and Japan in terms of the number of nanotechnology patents held." Given those tendencies, a coordinated risk-research endeavours would be required.

Well... China, together jointly with US discussing the policies of a general purpose technology that could inverted the world's balance of power? Hmmm...what would you do if you were Chinese?

Oh, read the paper yourself here. And a link to my previous post on Chinese nanotech in comparison with India here.

, , , , ,

Posner: Eventually there will be an international law of virtual worlds

Friday, December 15, 2006

In his talk in second life, Judge Richard Posner (JRP) said that we might have international law governing the virtual worlds. Here's a cite:

JRP: A currency is legitimate in the usual sense if it is legal tender-- i.e., you can't refuse it as a means of payment. So you can have a legitimate currency within a virtual world, but you could not compel people outside it to accept virtual world dollars in payment for goods or services.

Skadi Nordwind: The corporation still resides in the US.

JRP: Good question, but it arises in ordinary law--accident at sea, etc.--so there is an international law of admiralty. Eventually there will be an international law of virtual worlds.

Wow. This is almost similar to my opinion that we might have Convention on the Law and Jurisdiction Applicable to Virtual Societies in 2040. I would like now to rescind my opinion and resuggest to have it in, at the latest, 2015 (Guess why "2015"...). This is a quote from my original post titled Jurisdiction in online games:
What if there are disagreement between states on its taxation? Well, no other ways but to resolve this in a Treaty. And who knows, maybe as a part of that Treaty, online gaming societies can create their own version of body of law, independent of any state. This way they can refer their dispute to their own rules, interpret agreement in accordance with their own usage and customs, settle their problems at their own virtual court and enforce them with their own cyber police. A truly sui-generis legal community.
Custom, that's the keyword! That custom will evolve into law. I have said that virtual societies are unique as they:
  1. Develop their own customs, usages and traditions
  2. In the future, their "GNP" could be greater than a state
  3. Are in the process of developing their own dispute settlement process
  4. Are developing their own sense of citizenship, rights and obligations
With regards to custom, judge posner said:
JRP: The servers are solid, but not the software. The way law historically develops is from custom. I can imagine customs emerging from interactions among avatars, and then Linden codifying the customs, as laws, that seem best to regulate the virtual world.
What legal reporter usually do is codifying custom into codes. Well, why not start codifying it now? What are the custom enforced among avatars? Let's start codifying it and later we can make the draft convention (in a few years). We can do it through wikis if you want.

The transcript of the talk is available here.

(Hat Tip to Denise Howell)