This is very useful! I admit that this sort of argument (like with data privacy or consumer protection in general) requires different approaches for different cultures. Still: “unilateral decisions about when a violation of the spirit of the law is an actual violation of the law, regardless of the law’s text”.
So, is this an ex post, quite subjective decision each time? Or do they just treat all forms of tax avoidance as tax evasion? From an European position, I just do not see this working without strict liability, but I have recently seen an interesting debate (AI Safety ASIA, CAIDP) on Japan’s approach to AI regulation being more trust-based, so I get where you are coming from.
But from a multinational perspective, that is kind of part of the problem? Part of the strategy I was explaining is offshoring assets, processes, people- to parts of the world with less rigid regulation. I really do not want a ban to fail because companies just start moving their most dangerous capability development projects “offshore”…
Indeed, on global scale the Anti-Whatever Weapons Might End Humanity (Anti-WW MEH!) would require global enforcement power to catch “off-shoring”. But that’s true of any global treaty!
So, is this an ex post, quite subjective decision each time? Or do they just treat all forms of tax avoidance as tax evasion? It’s a holistic decision each time taking account of everything. This is how works with almost all things we learn in law school—most obviously in criminal cases: mens rea sometimes seems to apply from sheer recklessness; an imprisonment sometimes comes out as assault & battery even when there’s nothing physical about it; a killing sometimes comes out as self-defence even when its premeditated. It’s only in corporate-backed actions that some legal cultures have evolved an idea that predictability is paramount and so bad faith loopholes are totally fair and reasonable to exploit until they’re patched.
(Notably, multinationals are not fond of the Japanese legal system.)
(Also, notably, an overreliance on rigid black letter law was the origin of common law equity in the 14th-16th C.)
I was about to ask “do you have a legal background?” as you’ve consistently offered really good explanations of legal concepts in your comments. I’ve seen in your profile that you are a lawyer. That is great, I’d love to connect outside LW too :).
I don’t know a lot about the Japanese legal system, but I have heard the “multinationals not fond of it” before.
My guess is that the need for that enforcement power to catch offshoring will be what cements the need for strict liability. How this translates to the particular requirements of the Japanese legal system is something I don’t know. But I’d love to keep learning. Thank you very much for your comments!
This is very useful! I admit that this sort of argument (like with data privacy or consumer protection in general) requires different approaches for different cultures. Still: “unilateral decisions about when a violation of the spirit of the law is an actual violation of the law, regardless of the law’s text”.
So, is this an ex post, quite subjective decision each time? Or do they just treat all forms of tax avoidance as tax evasion? From an European position, I just do not see this working without strict liability, but I have recently seen an interesting debate (AI Safety ASIA, CAIDP) on Japan’s approach to AI regulation being more trust-based, so I get where you are coming from.
But from a multinational perspective, that is kind of part of the problem? Part of the strategy I was explaining is offshoring assets, processes, people- to parts of the world with less rigid regulation. I really do not want a ban to fail because companies just start moving their most dangerous capability development projects “offshore”…
Indeed, on global scale the Anti-Whatever Weapons Might End Humanity (Anti-WW MEH!) would require global enforcement power to catch “off-shoring”. But that’s true of any global treaty!
So, is this an ex post, quite subjective decision each time? Or do they just treat all forms of tax avoidance as tax evasion?
It’s a holistic decision each time taking account of everything. This is how works with almost all things we learn in law school—most obviously in criminal cases: mens rea sometimes seems to apply from sheer recklessness; an imprisonment sometimes comes out as assault & battery even when there’s nothing physical about it; a killing sometimes comes out as self-defence even when its premeditated. It’s only in corporate-backed actions that some legal cultures have evolved an idea that predictability is paramount and so bad faith loopholes are totally fair and reasonable to exploit until they’re patched.
(Notably, multinationals are not fond of the Japanese legal system.)
(Also, notably, an overreliance on rigid black letter law was the origin of common law equity in the 14th-16th C.)
I was about to ask “do you have a legal background?” as you’ve consistently offered really good explanations of legal concepts in your comments. I’ve seen in your profile that you are a lawyer. That is great, I’d love to connect outside LW too :).
I don’t know a lot about the Japanese legal system, but I have heard the “multinationals not fond of it” before.
My guess is that the need for that enforcement power to catch offshoring will be what cements the need for strict liability. How this translates to the particular requirements of the Japanese legal system is something I don’t know. But I’d love to keep learning. Thank you very much for your comments!