Browsing by master's degree program "Master's Programme in International Business Law"

The anonymity of virtual currency allows for its misuse for criminal purposes. Of particular concern are transnational organized crime users of virtual currency platforms. The global regulatory response to virtual currency has been disparate, far from uniform, and until recently, fairly muted. In 2018, the European Union integrated virtual currency into a robust anti-money laundering legal regime by requiring the registration of all EU-based virtual currency providers to comply with the rules of the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The United States has a messier, but equally stringent approach to virtual currency. However, American regulators struggle with fifty state courts issuing wildly varied interpretations, while virtual currency companies meet different conditions for licensing, described as ‘Frankenfinance’ or full of absurd contradictions and incongruities. China took an altogether different approach as it banned all cryptocurrencies in order for the People’s Bank of China to pave way for the introduction of its own cryptocurrency, the digital yuan. This decision was made after recent high profile security breaches, including thefts and fraud, warned the Chinese regulator of increasing risk to the financial market. The responses of these three jurisdictions demonstrate the different ways that regulators have begun to define and limit the use of virtual currency. Permissive and contentious regulators in the EU and the United States are normalizing the trade of virtual currencies if it complies with international anti-money laundering rules. However, the hostile Chinese approach suggests that this Western regulatory approach may not meet the demands of every global jurisdiction. This paper uses a vertical and horizontal comparative approach to identify both legal definitions and approaches to virtual currency regulation to answer the research question: is the harmonization of virtual currency regulation desirable, or even possible?

Article 22 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR)arguably forbids the data controller from using solely automated processing to make decisions which produce legal effects concerning the data subject or similarly significantly affects the subject. It can be argued that the legislature assumes that solely automated processing of decisions is disadvantageous for the data subject’s legitimate interests. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the hypothesis that solely automated processing of decisions is in some cases advantageous for the data subject’s legitimate interests, especially economic ones, and human involvement at times disadvantageous. The focus of the research is on situations where the data controller is a private enterprise, and the data subject is a natural person in a customer relationship with the enterprise. The economic impact that human involvement in automated decision-making may have on data subjects will be demonstrated through a thought experiment. In addition, an evaluation framework for determining the “goodness” of human vs algorithm decisions will be established. The scholarly debate surrounding GDPR Article 22 will be discussed and the argument that the subject’s economic interests should be part of the legal consideration for GDPR Article 22 will be established in the literature review. This will be complimented with a comparison of how certain other EU and non-EU legislation have approached legislating automated decision-making, with a particular interest on human involvement. Analysis of available case law connected to GDPR Article 22 will be analyzed for the protection it provides to data subject. The potential negative economic effect for data subjects of human involvement or intervention in automated decision-making will be established based on established economic concepts. The nature of human and algorithmic decision-making will be discussed, reaching the conclusion that the core problem of advanced algorithmic automated decision-making is not caused by lack of human involvement in decision-making but lack of transparency and explicability of the algorithm.

When it comes to resolving disputes, planning before the conflict has arisen has become more and more a substantiated phenomena around the world. It is interesting to analyse and explore whether this could be possible also in solving work related individual disputes in Finland by other means. The typical solving method is through litigation, in Finnish district courts. However, This often requires a greater amount of resources and time than what a normal employee might not have, at least they would be in a weaker position than the employer in court. Thus, other ways to resolve these types of disputes do exist, Nevertheless, among litigation there are alternative dispute resolution methods. One of the methods is part of the research question of this paper, so-called Arbitration. Arbitration is private, efficient and usually less costly than litigation. It is highly used in business related disputes between two businesses in Finland, but it is intriguing to gain knowledge if it is used or could be used in individual disputes concerning work related disputes. The main focus will be in Finland because arbitration is not relatively used as much as it is in other countries in individual disputes, especially in employment relationships. What makes everything complicated and Finland an interesting topic is the availability of a labour court that doesn’t resolve all labour disputes, the vital principles that protect weaker parties like the employers and many other laws which interfere with arbitration. It is not solemnly up to the parties to go with arbitration even though arbitration is described as a process that is voluntary and time efficient. The features of arbitration would probably be ideal for both employees and employers, but there are downsides which will be explained and demonstrated in a more detailed manner. Even though it would be ideal, especially for workers to receive the verdict or judgement sooner in cases like illegal determination of work contract, there are other perks lost when one chooses arbitration over litigation. One of these includes the legal-aid the state offers in Finland, which is not admitted to arbitration. This might or mostly does put the employee and employer in an unpleasant disadvantage even though arbitration considered the parties to be equal. Along with these other values are considered and weighted along the research. Thus, Our main focus is whether arbitration could be possible or even allowed to be used in Finland in individual work related disputes, if not, maybe there could be an opening soon for arbitration in the future.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an ubiquitous technology in society with ever more diverse applications. Different AI systems have become especially pervading in the domain of creative arts, where they can near-autonomously generate content. For example, there is a number of software that allow generation of musical output with minimal specifications from the user of the AI system. Where the creative process combines human and machine labor, results of such joint efforts can be called ‘AI-assisted output’. Ascertaining the legal status of AI-assisted output forms the crux of this Master’s thesis. On one hand, the research is concerned with the copyrightability of AI-assisted output. This question pertains to musical output produced with the assistance of illustrative AI systems of AIVA and Jukebox. The research adopts a legal comparative method in this regard: it seeks to assess how the copyright laws of EU and England could accommodate the AI-assisted output. Evidently, the focus in the analyses of the respective systems will revolve around their conceptions of originality, the key requirement to qualify for copyright protection. As a counterpart for the legal comparative study into the feasibility of copyright protection of AI-assisted output, the second prong of the research probes into the desirability of protecting such output. In other words, the research seeks to establish the merits of protecting AI-assisted outputs by juxtaposing the underlying, theoretical rationales of copyright law against AI-assisted output. To this end, the research aims to survey how the relationship between the human author and AI system interacts with the different rationales of copyright. Against this backdrop, the research preludes by looking into the foundations of AI and the selected legal systems. AI is examined retrospectively with a view on how the technology has emerged and how machine learning, the most prominent method of modern AI, has significantly increased the autonomy of AI systems. The illustrative AI systems of the research, AIVA and Jukebox, match the foregoing trends. However, in exploring the features of the systems, variance can be perceived in the amount of influence the user may be able to exert in the creative process of the musical output. The research then proceeds to provide a thorough picture of the framework of copyright law. In the first half of the section, the origins of the law are traced back to the civil law and common law traditions that underlie most copyright systems. Thereafter, the utilitarian and deontological rationales that underpin those systems are discussed including an exposition of the legal and economic discipline’s relationship with copyright law for later discussion. The second half of the section zeroes in on the copyright laws of the selected legal systems. It first notes the influence from the international framework of copyright and some general discussion on AI and its output on that level. Following up, the respective schemes of awarding copyright protection under EU and English law are broken down into their constituent parts. As per alluded, the crux of the analyses are on their respective standards of originality. In the EU, the notion is construed as an exercise of identifying ‘author’s own intellectual creation‘; specifically, the CJEU is concerned with the identification of creative choices that can take place in different phases of the creative process. In England, the standard of originality denotes first and foremost origination: the pertinent artifact should originate from the author and no one else. In addition, the English standard seeks to establish the exercise of skill, labor and judgment in its creation of the right kind. In the analytic section of the research, the illustrative systems of AIVA and Jukebox are then related against the copyright systems. The section begins with an application of the standards of EU and England against the output from the AI systems in abstract; no concrete samples from the systems are studied but rather the focus is on how their users may harness their features. Herewith, the amount of user engagement in the creative process becomes the key in both system; where the user can apply creative choices in the different phases of the production or alternatively exert skill, labor and judgment as opposed to mere generation off output with the systems, there is very likely an original work at stake. Hereby, the two AI systems diverge when examined in isolation; whereas AIVA provides the user with a vast amount of tools to interact with their product, Jukebox has little to offer in terms of post-processing. Accordingly, whereas output from AIVA would very unlikely fail to meet the standards of either jurisdiction, output from Jukebox could potentially be barred where no human intervention can be perceived from the final product. The section concludes with a survey of alternative forms of protections for AI-assisted output. As per the foregoing discussion, it is noted how the deontological rationales have limited application in justifying the protection of output that have minimal human involvement. It follows that the economic-utilitarian grounds are emphasized and options that spur therefrom. The related rights regime, a new sui generis right and alternatives that disregard considerations of originality and authorship are explored with alike conclusions: the alternatives do not serve as a backdoor protection but are rooted in valuing socially beneficial activities. Evidently, with AIVA and Jukebox, it would have to be evidenced that their generated output merits protection from a market failure. In light of the foregoing discussion, there is no such substantiation. Accordingly, it would be best to leave AI-assisted output in the lower end of the spectrum of human interaction well alone to preserve the balance between private and public interests.

The main research question of this thesis is what implications deregulating the Finnish gambling monopoly could have in terms of competition in the gambling industry, and in terms of player protection. I will examine the current state of the gambling monopoly in Finland, how it came to be, and where it is headed. It examines the potential consequences of deregulating the monopoly on the industry, with a focus on competition and responsible gambling practices. The research aims to analyze the legal frameworks governing the gambling industry and its socio-economic effects. I will also propose new ways in which the gambling industry could evolve to become better for companies and players. The study scrutinizes the legal standing of the monopoly and whether it fulfills the requirements set for monopolies in the EU law. I will also discuss controversial business practices of Veikkaus, such as aggressive advertising strategies. In addition, I will explore alternative approaches for a more competitive market. To gain insights into potential policy changes, I will compare Finnish gambling regulations to those of other Nordic countries, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. These comparisons highlight the different degrees of market liberalization and player protection measures adopted by these countries. My conclusion is that as there is no de facto monopoly anymore, there is also no justification to treat it as such. Holding on to the monopoly violates EU competition rules and harms the players and the state. Establishing a new legal regime to control gambling would also give Finland a chance to become a leader in player protection practices.

This Master thesis belongs to the project of the HELSUS Co-creation Lab. The project topic is about the circular economy and the challenge given by a HELSUS partner UPM-Kymmene Corporation to find opportunities for the circular economy business model from a legal perspective. As an international forest industry company, UPM has developed innovative ways to reduce its waste and to reuse its side in new products, and to use resources sustainably. Circular economy principles already applied in UPM, and develop and implement the technology and innovation of using wood in various new products. However, UPM wants to know what challenges and possibilities the regulations pose in creating new circular business opportunities? At the same time, this thesis chooses Germany and China for comparative research. Both countries have promulgated special circular economy legislation, established the 3R principles of reduce, reuse and recycle, stipulated extended producer responsibility systems, established waste recycling systems, and so on, aim to promote waste treatment and resource recycling legal system. However, the circular economy legal system of these two countries have apparent differences in legislative models, legislative purposes, and institutional arrangements. So, there are two purposes for writing this essay. First, explaining the historical evolution of the circular economy legal system in Germany and China, the objective is to understand the historical evolution of the circular economy law in two counties. Second, evaluative whether they are under circular economic aims in comparative research, the purpose of the comparison is not to determine which country's laws are more suitable for creating new business opportunities. It is to find out the challenges and possibilities of creating new circular business opportunities for UPM. Therefore, the research question is about: What are the challenges and possibilities of creating new business opportunities for UPM when compares the circular economy legal system between Germany and China?

Ilmiö joukkoviestintämarkkinoiden keskittymisestä ja uusien teknologien aiheuttamista muutoksista media-alalle on maailmanlaajuinen; osa mediataloista on lakkauttanut toimintansa kokonaan, kun taas osa yrityksistä on myyty suuremmille kilpailijoille tai muille alan toimijoille. Tämä on johtanut suurien, eri aloilla toimivien monialayritysten syntymiseen ja vähentänyt markkinoilla toimivia yrityksiä. Kehitys on havaittavissa myös Suomessa: esimerkiksi vuonna 2016 päivälehtiä oli 30 vähemmän kuin kymmenen vuotta aikaisemmin. Maaliskuussa 2020 sanomalehtien keskittymiskehitys kulminoitui, kun Sanoma Oyj osti Alma Media Oyj:n paikallislehdet, mikä herätti julkista keskustelua siitä, uhkaako yrityskauppa Suomen median monimuotoisuutta. Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto kuitenkin (KKV) jätti kysymykset median monimuotoisuudesta huomioimatta vedoten kilpailulain asettamien toimivaltarajojen lisäksi Euroopan komission viimeaikaiseen tapauskäytäntöön, jossa kysymyksiä yrityskauppojen vaikutuksista median monimuotoisuudelle pidetään kilpailuoikeuden alaan kuulumattomina. Tämä opinnäytetyö tutkii Euroopan unionin (EU) kilpailuoikeuden suhdetta median monimuotoisuuteen liittyviin kysymyksiin. Tutkimus osoittaa, että vaikka komission viimeaikainen tapauskäytäntö on keskittynyt yrityskauppojen taloudellisiin vaikutuksiin – antaen painoarvoa erityisesti hintakilpailulle – komissio on aikaisemmin antanut painoarvoa myös median monimuotoisuutta käsitteleville seikoille. Koska EU:lla ei ole toimivaltaa antaa kulttuurialaan liittyviä säännöksiä, on ensisijainen vastuu median monimuotoisuuden suojelusta kuitenkin jäsenvaltioilla. Kun huomioon otetaan kilpailusääntöjen joustavuus ja monimuotoisen median merkitys demokratialle, joka on yksi EU:n perusarvoista, tukee teleologinen laintulkinta kuitenkin myös median monimuotoisuusnäkökulmien huomioonottamista myös kilpailuanalyysissä. Lisäksi EU:n kilpailusäännöissä huomioidaan hinnan olevan vain yksi kilpailuparametreistä mm. tuotteen laadun ohella. Tämä puolestaan mahdollistaisi sen arvioimisen, heikentääkö yrityskauppa mediamarkkinoilla olevien tuotteiden laatua. Opinnäytetyö ottaa myös kantaa laajempaan keskusteluun siitä, tulisiko niin kutsuttuun yleiseen etuun (public interest) liittyviä kysymyksiä käsitellä kilpailuoikeudellisessa analyysissä. Keskeinen argumentti on, että vaikka nykyinen, vahvasti hintakilpailuun perustuva analyysi ei palvele kuluttajia parhaalla mahdollisella tavalla, ei kilpailuoikeutta ole tarkoituksenmukaista käyttää ensisijaisena keinona median monimuotoisuuden suojelussa. Kilpailuoikeuden vallalla olevia menetelmiä ja käytäntöjä olisi kuitenkin suotavaa uudistaa siten, että ne ottavat jokaisen markkinan erityispiirteet huomioon. Media-alalla tämä tarkoittaa esimerkiksi sen huomioimista, ettei hinta ole keskeinen kuluttajaa ohjaava tekijä. Tämä tukisi mahdollisesti myös median monimuotoisuuden säilymistä ja palvelisi kuluttajien hyvinvointia nykyistä staattista analyysiä paremmin. Media-ala tarvitsee kuitenkin säilyäkseen tuekseen myös erityislainsäädäntöä, mikä on kilpailuoikeutta tarkoituksenmukaisempi keino vastata median monimuotoisuutta koskeviin uhkiin, vaikka kilpailuoikeutta voidaan käyttää erityislainsäädännön tukena.

This thesis examines contractual interpretation in the United States and the Nordics. The effect of the entire agreement clause on the interpretation process is also examined. The purpose is to identify the main differences and similarities in the U.S. common law and the Nordic civil law approaches to interpretation and enforcement of the entire agreement clause. The principles of contractual interpretation are very similar among the Nordic countries, which allows the Nordics to be discussed as a single entity in relation to interpretation. In the United States, however, we can see a lot of variety in contractual interpretation matters, and not just between states but within the states themselves. Contract law (and contractual interpretation) is mostly governed by state law, which is why very few generalizations can be made that would be representative of every state. In some states contractual interpretation has also been incorporated into statutes. In the Nordics, there are no statutes regulating contractual interpretation; instead, interpretation is guided by general principles. The first part of the thesis concentrates on contractual interpretation in the United States. First, after an introduction to the common law system and sources of law, the entire agreement clause (which originates in Anglo-American law) is studied. Second, the parol evidence rule, which is a unique common law phenomenon and serves a similar purpose as the entire agreement clause, is examined. The focus of the study then moves onto examining the three different theories of interpretation: literalism, objectivism, and subjectivism, after which the interpretation process in general in discussed. Objectivism and the four corners and plain meaning rules stand out in this part of the research. The second part of the thesis focuses on contractual interpretation in the Nordics. The enforcement of the entire agreement clause is also discussed. Objectivism and subjectivism are also addressed from a Nordic point of view, but the general principles of interpretation discussed are not arranged under either label since the interpretation material available for interpretation in the Nordics includes both types of evidence. The interpretation process in general is also examined. The third part comprises of a comparison of contractual interpretation in the U.S. and the Nordics as well as differences in the enforcement of the entire agreement clause. The final part summarizes these findings. The main goal of contractual interpretation, determining the common intention of the parties, is the same in both jurisdictions. The difference is in the way of achieving that result. The main conclusion is that interpreters in the Nordics have more tools at their disposal to reach an optimal interpretive result, as both objective and subjective evidence are always available to aid in the interpretation process. In the U.S., an objective approach to interpretation is favored by most U.S. courts, and the four corners of the contract and the plain meaning rule are emphasized at the start of the interpretive process. Generally, an ambiguity is required to allow extrinsic evidence. In the Nordics, there is no ambiguity requirement. The availability of subjective evidence is not a given in the U.S. like it is in the Nordics. The principles of contractual interpretation presented in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts in the U.S. mirror the Nordic principles closely; however, the adaption of these principles is at the discretion of the courts. The entire agreement clause is generally enforced in the U.S. where greater emphasis is given to written agreements. In the Nordics, however, the effect of the entire agreement clause can be described persuasive at best. Therefore, the conclusion is that the position of the entire agreement clause in the Nordics is weak compared to the U.S.

This thesis in law examines the legal effects that companies may face if they use carbon dioxide (CO2) offset as a basis for their carbon neutrality claim and this offset is in later scrutiny revealed as double counted. Double counting renders the carbon neutrality claim void, as the offset is also counted for elsewhere and therefore does not deliver climate change mitigation outcome for the company. Avoiding double counting is one of the established quality criterions of carbon offset, however it is not straightforward to assess the criterion ex-ante as the practise occurs ex-post. Double counting can occur unintentionally but also intentionally by fraud. This thesis examines the topic in relation to EU law and draws examples from national legislations of the Member States, notably from Finland. Companies can purchase carbon offset from the voluntary carbon market. They can purchase it for varied reasons related to corporate social responsibility. However, most often offset is purchased to claim carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is a voluntary goal for companies. It can be achieved by reducing CO2 emissions that can be reduced and then compensating the residual emissions by purchasing offset. Carbon offset is a commodity - one kiloton of CO2 emissions equivalent is valued as a one carbon credit. Carbon credits are constructed under different schemes, and as such are based on different standards and have different prices. The market is international in nature, and in many cases the actors are in different countries. The voluntary carbon market is not regulated by substantive law and therefore, the market remains regulated by self-regulation. This creates issues in quality assurance and also the problem of lack of oversight and enforcement. The differently constructed commodities are also difficult to compare, and the market includes information asymmetry and integrity risks. The legal effects of double counting in relation to carbon neutrality claims is a phenomenon currently related also to the Paris Agreement, as both offset project host country and a company might claim the same emissions reductions. This current state of affairs makes it probable that the corporate offset is double counted. If the corporate claims are rendered void, it has negative effect on climate change mitigation but also to the company’s reputation which can in turn can lead to significant monetary losses. In relation to ‘green’ consumer products, companies may face accusations of misleading marketing practices or greenwashing, if it is revealed that compensation was purchased from a poor-quality offset project. Also, the rise of human rights consciousness in relation to emissions reductions under the Paris Agreement may play part in the risk of environmental litigation also for companies.

Two Abstracts