C.26 This general permissible situation applies to the collection, use or disclosure of personal data in the context of ongoing or planned legal proceedings. If no legal proceedings have yet been initiated, this will normally only apply to collection, use or disclosure that involves a real possibility of legal action, for example where professional legal advice is sought to initiate legal proceedings. On the other hand, this permissible general situation does not oblige an APP company to disclose personal data in response to a request from a third party, and it may be difficult for an undertaking to be satisfied that it is reasonably necessary to do so solely on the basis that a third party has requested the information in the context of ongoing or planned legal proceedings. Nglish: Translation of coming soon for Spanish speakers However, I can clarify the standard that Australia applies to these issues. Australia has long held the view that there must be a reasonable and objective basis for determining that an attack is imminent. And this view can only be formed on the basis of all the evidence available when the evaluation is made. Australia, however, does not adhere to any so-called “preventive” self-defence doctrine. The preventive use of force is very different from the use of force in anticipation of an imminent threat. The first is not a recognized application of the principle of self-defence; This is clearly the case for the reasons I have explained.
Australia believes that States are not allowed to use force to respond to threats that have not yet emerged but may occur in the future. As Livy wrote: “People, to protect themselves from their alarms, make themselves objects of terror; to remove the danger of their own minds by imposing on others the necessity of doing or suffering the evil they themselves fear. [13] An important issue that requires careful consideration is the scope of the concept of immediacy. It is all well and good to allow the use of force in self-defence against an imminent armed attack. But what is considered “imminent” in this context? 72.76 In Chapter 25, the Commission discusses a similar exemption under the “use and disclosure” principle. In this chapter, the ALRC finds that the requirement that a threat be both “imminent” and “serious” is inappropriate. According to the ALRC, any analysis of whether a threat is “serious” must take into account the severity of the potential outcome as well as the relative likelihood. The ALRC therefore recommends that the exception be amended to apply where the threat in question is serious, but not necessarily imminent. 72.73.
Several speakers supported the proposal. [65] The Australian Privacy Foundation stated that it supported the proposal, provided that the provision retained the qualifier “imminent”. The Foundation argued that, without this qualifier, the “public health or safety” portion of the exemption could be abused too easily. [66] By what standard should a government judge when the last window closes to act in self-defense against an impending armed attack? Of course, the question is not simple. 72.70 Sections 287 and 300 of the Telecommunications Act provide that the primary or secondary use or disclosure of information is permitted if the information or records relate to the business or personal data (including an unregistered telephone number or address) of another person and the first person has reasonable grounds to believe that the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce a serious and imminent danger to life or health. of one person. Unlike Nuclear Power Plant 2, the regulations do not authorize use or disclosure if necessary to reduce or avoid a serious threat to “public health or safety.” The ACMA reported that 3,980 disclosures were made under this exemption in 2006-07,[61] compared to 4,085 disclosures in 2005-06. [62] While we are accustomed to thinking about the law of armed conflict in relation to nation-states, the rise of globalized – and militarized – terrorist networks raises new legal questions. Imminent sounds a lot like eminent, and native English speakers can be excused for sometimes having to check their spelling. No wonder, because despite their very different meanings, both come from almost identical sources. The Latin minEra essentially means “to project, overhang” and forms the root of other Latin words.
The prefix e- was added, meaning âout fromâ, to create eminates, `to take offâ; another took the prefix im-, which means âuponâ, and became imminere, âto projectâ The difference between “stand out” and “project” is obviously small. However, even when the prominent and imminent words first appeared as English words in the 15th and 16th centuries, respectively, they had a markedly different meaning, as the prefix of imminent had reinforced the “overhang” of the ores to give the word its frequent indication of imminent threat. Australia applies both necessity and proportionality to any use of force in self-defence against imminent armed attack. These are essential controls for the exercise of forward-looking self-defense. What does this mean in practice? This makes Australia`s commitment to these standards all the more important. Our unwavering commitment to the rule of law, our willingness to explain, articulate and defend the international legal principles on which our decisions are made and judged, are among the elements that distinguish us from our enemy. They are part of the things that give moral strength and legal authority to our cause. In Australia`s view, the factors cited by Sir Daniel Bethlehem provide an appropriate, but not exhaustive, framework for assessing whether an attack is imminent. “Imminent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent.
Retrieved 4 October 2022. These sample phrases are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “imminent”. The views expressed in the examples do not represent the views of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. The necessity requirement means that, in the circumstances, the state must have no reasonably available means of protecting itself against imminent attack other than the use of force in self-defence. I would go further. Since customary international law places State practice at the centre of the development of law, we have a responsibility to participate proactively in the debate, including by publicly explaining the positions of Governments. To the extent possible, as I have tried to do tonight, we need to articulate and explain our legal argument. In the right of self-defence, the touchstones of necessity and proportionality in the principle of legality justify us.
What I have said does not give a state a pass to act without restraint. Middle English imynent, borrowed from Anglo-French and Latin; Anglo-French iminent, emynant, borrowed from the Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminÄre “to rise, to project overhanging (a structure or a natural element), to be intentional, to harm (something unpleasant or dangerous), to threaten”, from im- im- + -minÄre, understood as “to exceed, to rise” (not prefix not testified) to more at the minatory But if a threat has a right of self-defence under international law Australia strongly believes that Clear rules must be put in place to define the limits of the use of such force and to prevent its abuse. This is true even when we are faced with completely new security threats. The challenge is to ensure that our understanding of international legal principles adapts to these threats in a way that does not prevent states from defending their populations. The Tallinn Manual cites a scenario in which a “logic bomb” or malicious code is inserted into software, with activation conditions likely. [9] It is certain that the activation of the “logic bomb”, if these conditions arise, will cause considerable damage and constitute armed aggression within the meaning of Article 51. Does the deployment of the “logic bomb” herald an imminent attack? Does he need to know exactly when this “logic bomb” will be activated? What is the last feasible window of opportunity to act? Tonight, however, I am not interested in case law but in international law. The subject of this document, which I will read, is the right to self-defence against imminent armed attack under international law. I propose that we address this issue of the circumstances justifying the use of armed force in the face of an imminent armed attack. In particular, I would like to publicly state the Australian Government`s position on the principle of direct preference for armed aggression as a ground for the use of force justified by the principle of self-defence. C.27 A PAL should not rely on this general legal situation to disclose personal information if to do so would be contrary to an Australian law (e.g., a statutory confidentiality provision) or any legal system or principle (e.g., if disclosure would constitute a breach of solicitor-client privilege).