英语论文网

authorities in the event of a dispute. [25] Also the ECA was proposed to be consistent with the “European Union Directive” [26] and “the UNCITRAL Model law on electronic commerce and signature. [27] Though its provision is considered compatible with the cryptography guidelines published by the “Organization for Economic Co-operation and development (OECD)” in 1997, it adopts the minimalist approach of regulating electronic signature and transactions. The ECA permits the setting up of independent, “voluntary approval scheme” for organizations who intend to provide trust services. For example the ‘tScheme’ “is an independent self regulatory scheme created to provide strict assessment criteria”, approve trusted cryptography service providers and guarantee they meet high quality standard. [28]

The legal status of electronic signature is made clear and government is given the authority to update obsolete laws, facilitate the use of various electronic technologies to provide sufficient and reliable alternatives to handwritten signatures and documents. It also “provides a fallback to self-regulatory schemes” who guarantee and ensure that electronic signature including other cryptography support services still have value, even in the event “self regulation” fails. [29]

The ESR and ECA implemented “article 5(2) of the Directive” [30] and defined electronic signature to mean any method of authentication in electronic form [31] , without clearly defining the legal requirement and effects or mandate the use of a specific type of electronic signature. The whole aim is to cover a wider scope in regulating all forms of electronic signatures. The transacting parties are left to decide the legal status and validity of electronic signature between them. [32] The ESR in particular is silent on regulating the conducts of the signatory or a third party to the transaction, although it awards liability for ca in the event a relying party suffers damages as a result of negligence except the CA can prove otherwise. [33] The ECA makes provision for electronic signatures to be legally admissible in court and gives legal effect to circumstances surrounding the authentication/certification process and the certificates issued, because the circumstances also ascertains the genuineness and credibility of electronic signatures and documents. [34] The court is now left to decide the evidential value of electronic signature as to whether it was correctly used or fraudulently created.

It is important to note that both the ECA and ESR did not provide for the recognition or validity of cross border electronic signatures or certification authorities. However, ECA vaguely makes provision mandating the “secretary of state” to provide a plan put in place for approving UK based certification service providers or who are based elsewhere [35] . This does not clearly recognize or give validity to certification authorities in other jurisdiction. It would then be reasonable to assert that both laws did not expressly implement the EU direction relating to international acknowledgement of electronic signatures and certificates.

CHINA

In March 1999, China made it first notable legislative attempt to regulate electronic commerce by enacting the “Contract Law” [36] The law is significant because it addressed critical legal issues concerning electronic commerce. The law clearly defined ‘writing’ in