Search

The introduction of statistical ‘legal tech’ raises questions about the future of law and legal practice. While technologies have always mediated the concept, practice, and texture of law, a qualitative and quantitative shift is taking place: statistical legal tech is being integrated into mainstream legal practice, and particularly that of litigators. These applications – particularly in search and document generation – mediate how practicing lawyers interact with the legal system. By shaping how law is ‘done’, the applications ultimately come to shape what law is. Where such applications impact on the creative elements of the litigator’s practice, for example via automation bias, they affect their professional and ethical duty to respond appropriately to the unique circumstances of their client’s case – a duty that is central to the Rule of Law. The statistical mediation of legal resources by machine learning applications must therefore be introduced with great care, if we are to avoid the subtle, inadvertent, but ultimately fundamental undermining of the Rule of Law. In this contribution we describe the normative effects of legal tech application design, how they are potentially (in)compatible with law and the Rule of Law as normative orders, particularly with respect to legal texts which we frame as the proper source of ‘lossless law’, uncompressed by statistical framing. We conclude that reliance on the vigilance of individual lawyers is insufficient to guard against the potentially harmful effects of such systems, given their inscrutability, and suggest that the onus is on the providers of legal technologies to demonstrate the legitimacy of their systems according to the normative standards inherent in the legal system., L’introduction des “legal techs” statistiques amène avec elle des questions sur le futur du droit et celui de la pratique juridique. Alors que depuis toujours les technologies affectent le concept, la pratique et la texture du droit, nous pouvons constater désormais un changement qualitatif et quantitatif : les legal techs statistiques sont intégrées dans la pratique juridique courante, particulièrement en matière de litiges. Ces applications – en particulier celles qui automatisent la recherche juridique et la génération de documents – influencent la façon dont les avocat.e.s praticien.ne.s interagissent avec le système juridique. En définissant comment le droit se « fait », ces applications finissent par définir ce qu’est le droit. Ces dernières impactent la créativité des avocat.e.s en litige dans leur pratique, par exemple à travers l’automatisation des biais, et affectent par là-même leur devoir professionnel et éthique qui consiste à offrir une réponse appropriée aux circonstances particulières du cas de leur clientèle – c’est un devoir qui est central à l’État de Droit. La gestion statistique des ressources juridiques à travers des application d’apprentissage automatique doit donc être introduite avec une attention particulière afin d’éviter d’ébranler de manière certes subtile et involontaire, mais aussi fondamentale, l’État de droit. Dans cette contribution, nous décrivons les effets normatifs des applications en legal tech, ainsi que leur potentielle (in)compatibilité avec le droit et l’État de droit comme ordres normatifs, particulièrement au regard des textes juridiques que nous considérons être la source du droit préservé (lossless law), du droit qui n’est pas amputé par les approches statistiques. Nous concluons qu’afin d’éviter les potentiels effets néfastes des systèmes statistiques en droit, notamment liés à leur impénétrabilité, il n’est pas suffisant de compter sur la seule vigilance des avocat.e.s. Nous suggérons donc qu’il revient aux fournisseurs des technologies juridiques de prouver la légitimité de leurs systèmes, sur la base des standards normatifs inhérents au système juridique.

Sophie A Derksen, Xenia Brancart, Gina Rossi Department of Psychology, Personality and Psychopathology Research Group (PEPS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, BelgiumCorrespondence: Sophie A Derksen, PE-PEPS, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Pleinlaan 2, Brussels, 1050, Belgium, Email sophiederksen@outlook.comIntroduction: With a rapidly aging population, age-neutrality of psychological instruments is becoming ever more important for accurate assessment of older adults. This study aims to test the age-neutrality of the Dutch Behavioral Inhibition System/Behavioral Approach System (BIS/BAS) scales by means of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) and Differential Test Functioning (DTF) analyses.Methods: DIF and DTF analyses were conducted using an odds ratio approach. Potential DIF was examined for the two primary scales and three BAS subscales in 390 Dutch-speaking participants divided over three age groups.Results: Overall, the BIS-BAS scales lacked age-neutrality when comparing older adults to young adults: eight out of 20 items (ie, 40%) displayed DIF according to the adjusted Bonferroni corrected cut-offs, which exceeds the threshold of 25% for large DIF. Thus, for 40% of the test items, items were differently endorsed by young and older adults with the same position on the construct measured by the item. Therefore, the implications of the item-level DIF on the scale level were investigated across age groups. DTF analyses revealed large DTF for all BIS and BAS scales according to the adjusted Bonferroni corrected cut-offs.Discussion: DIF found in items on the BIS scale and BAS-Drive and BAS-Fun Seeking scale can probably be explained by a difference in degree of expression across age groups. A solution could be the development of age-specific norms. DIF on BAS-Reward Responsiveness subscale could be partly due to measuring a different construct across age groups. Rephrasing or replacing such items with DIF may increase age-neutrality of the BIS/BAS Scales.Keywords: older adults, BIS/BAS questionnaire, personality, assessment, differential item functioning

Tests and scales measuring psychological disorders should provide information about how scores relate to other constructs such as quality of life or functional impairment. Such information is necessary to allow their scores contribute to clinical decision-making. The current study analyzes the clinical utility of the Spanish version of the Inventory for Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS-II) to discriminate between different levels of functional impairment and identify the IDAS-II scales that contribute most to explaining impairment. The total sample (N=1390) consists of two subsamples: a community sample of the general population (n=1072) selected by random sampling; and a sample of patients (n=318) from public and private mental health services. The Spanish IDAS-II for measuring internalizing symptoms and WHODAS 2.0 for measuring impairment were administered to all participants. All scales show statistically significant higher scores in the patient sample, with Cohen's d effect sizes values greater than 0.30, except for well-being (d=0.19). The cutoff values and their confidence intervals do not overlap with the means of either the community or patient sample. AUC values for most of the scales are above .70, except for appetite gain, ordering, euphoria, cleaning, and well-being. Multiple linear regression model using IDAS-II scales explains 57.1% of the variance of the WHODAS 2.0 (F 12.1377=155.305; p, Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Huelva/ CBUA. This work was supported by the grant “Reliable and clinical relevant change of Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms II – IDAS-II: a longitudinal clinical utility study (RELY-IDAS-II)”, project PID2020-116187RB-I00 on Proyectos I+D+i 2020 “Retos del Conocimiento” provided by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain); grant number FPU19/00144 provided by Ministerio de Universidades (Spain) and grant number PRX21/00319 provided by Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain).

Gedrukte versie van het inauguraal college uitgesproken aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in mei 2022 in het kader van de OVR-Wisselleerstoel 2020-2021. De bijdrage gaat in op de doctrinale (I) en politiek-strategische (II) uitbouw van het neutraliteitsrecht tussen de Amerikaanse Onafhankelijkheidsoorlog (1776) en de Frans-Pruisische Oorlog (1870). Een derde stuk gaat in op het concept van de permanente neutraliteit., The law of neutrality evolved from 1776 to 1870, but not in a linear way. Enlightenment saw neutrality as an autonomous choice of a sovereign polity. The First League of Armed Neutrality (1780) and the Declaration of Paris (1856) can be seen as landmarks in the rise of the free ships/free goods-principle and the promotion of free trade. The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars brought a regression. The British restrictive position before 1856 was starkly criticized. Even in the late 1880s, the lack of codification and unity in the law of neutrality was striking: national case law, criminal law and ad hoc neutrality declarations remained essential sources for individuals and states alike to interpret the seemingly candid and simple twin obligation of impartiality and abstention. This period also saw the birth of the malleable concept permanent neutrality, imposed or guaranteed by the European Great Powers.

The concepts ‘rebel’ and ‘pirate’ abound in eighteenth-century political discourse. These categories can be used to place individuals outside of the political arena and the protection of the law of nations. The present contribution focuses on the epithet ‘rebel’ or ‘pirate’ in the complex negotiations on the amendment and confirmation of the European peace order established at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701/1702-1713/1715). Delving into British and French diplomatic correspondence, successive examples of ‘rebels’ or ‘pirates’ come to the fore, from Brittany over Scotland, Catalunya, the Jacobites and Neapolitan privateers, to arrested Spanish and Swedish diplomats. Alliances and status of enmity between sovereigns were not necessarily conclusive, hence the importance of an ambiguous continuum of potential positions.

News about personal data breaches or data abusive practices, such as Cambridge Analytica, has questioned the trustworthiness of certain actors in the control of personal data. Innovations in the field of personal information management systems to address this issue have regained traction in recent years, also coinciding with the emergence of new decentralized technologies. However, only with ethically and legally responsible developments will the mistakes of the past be avoided. This contribution explores how current data management schemes are insufficient to adequately safeguard data subjects, and in particular, it focuses on making these data flows transparent to provide an adequate level of accountability. To showcase this, and with the goal of enhancing transparency to foster trust, this paper investigates solutions for standardizing machine-readable policies to express personal data processing activities and their application to decentralized personal data stores as an example of ethical, legal, and technical responsible innovation in this field.

Our lives and societies have become largely digital. So too have many security practices. Digitization has led to an increase in surveillance. In this chapter, we explore the connections between security and surveillance in the order to discover how (in)security and violence are fostered by the digital. To do so, we need to understand the digital in terms of datafication, computation, and materiality. These enable us to critically explore security through society and technology and tensions between the local and the global, while asking questions about the growing role of IT companies in our worlds.

Foreword to the Acta of the Belgian Assistants Conference in Law (ACCA), held at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel on 22 October 2022

How to protect people from algorithmic harms? A promising solution, although in its infancy, is algorithmic impact assessment (AIA). AIAs are iterative processes used to investigate the possible short and long terms societal impacts of AI systems before their use, but with ongoing monitoring and periodic revisiting even after their implementation. When conducted in a participatory and transparent fashion, they could create bridges across the legal, social and computer science domains, promoting the accountability of the entity performing them as well as public scrutiny. They could enable to re-attach the societal and regulatory context to the mathematical definition of fairness, thus expanding the formalistic approach thereto. Whilst the regulatory framework in the European Union currently lacks the obligation to perform such AIA, some other provisions are expected to play a role in AI development, leading the way towards more widespread adoption of AIA. These include the Data Protection ImpactAssessment (DPIA) under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the risk assessment process under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Conformity Assessment (CA) foreseen under the AI Regulation proposal. In this paper, after briefly introducing the plurality of definitions of fairness in the legal, social and computer science domains, and explaining to which extent the current and upcoming legal framework mandates the adoption of fairness metrics, we will illustrate how AIA could create bridges between all these disciplines, allowing us to build fairer AI solutions.We will then recognise the role of DPIA, DSA risk assessment and CA by discussing the contributions they can offer towards AIA but also identify the aspects lacking therein. We will then identify how these assessment provisions could aid the overall technical discussion of introducing and assessing fairness in AI-based models and processes.

The endeavor to find appropriate data governance frameworks capable of reconciling conflicting interests in data has dramatically gained importance across disciplines and has been discussed among legal scholars, computer scientists as well as policy-makers alike. The predominant part of the current discussion is centered around the challenging task of creating a data governance framework where data is ‘as open as possible and as closed as necessary’. In this article, we elaborate on modern approaches to data governance and their limitations. It analyses how propositions evolved from property rights in data towards the creation of data access and data sharing obligations and how the corresponding debates reflect the difficulty of developing approaches that reconcile seemingly opposite objectives – such as giving individuals and businesses more control over ‘their’ data while at the same time ensuring its availability to different stakeholders. Furthermore, we propose a wider acknowledgement of data collaboratives powered by decentralised learning techniques as a possible remedy to the shortcomings of current data governance schemes. Hence, we propose a mild formalization of the set of existing technological solutions that could inform existing approaches to data governance issues. Our proposition is based on an abstractive notion of collaborative computation as well as on several principles that are essential for our definition of data collaboratives. By adopting an interdisciplinary perspective on data governance, this article highlights how innovative technological solutions can enhance control over data while at the same time ensuring its availability to other stakeholders and thereby contributing to the achievement of the policy goals of the European Strategy for Data.

Migrants fearing harm in their own country may benefit from the protection of refugee law. This protection, however, is not extended to those considered undeserving of it, for example, because they committed atrocities in the past, and may be removed from those who become a threat to the host State’s national security. In practice, States need to find solutions for such migrants, who are often failed asylum-seekers or criminal refugees who lost their protection status. In this regard, Australia is infamous for its extensive use of immigration detention, which is frequently applied to such migrants. The country’s practices have stirred much academic debate and gave rise to a multitude of legal cases and legislation changes. This contribution provides a human rights assessment of Australia’s practices towards failed asylum-seekers and criminal refugees, showing that when faced with such migrants, States may adopt measures that violate their international human rights obligations, such as returning them to harm or placing them in indefinite detention. As States are increasingly adopting similar practices, especially regarding the use of immigration detention, this analysis of the Australian context can inform the assessment of these practices anywhere they may be applied.

In this article, we explore the security politics of EU database interoperability, inquiring how knowledge infrastructures underpin European security integration. Sitting at the intersection of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and critical approaches to European security, we unpack the co-constitutive relation between database anxieties and interoperability mechanisms. By database anxieties, we refer to what European institutions identify as the main epistemic and operational concerns that emerge from the current use of databases by security authorities across Europe. These anxieties are expected to be resolved by mechanisms that foster interoperability. We argue that the relation between database anxieties and interoperability mechanisms shapes the novel conditions of possibility for European security integration in a datafied world. While far-reaching in technological terms, interoperability is not about introducing a new overarching system, but about the management, re-organisation and re-purposing of datasets. Such formatting matters politically because it eventually informs sovereign acts of policing and mobility control.

Overview of the current state of the parliamentary intergroup Nouvelle Alliance Populaire, Écologique et Sociale in de Franse Assemblée Nationale

This contribution to the Festschrift of Prof. G. Gornig sheds light on a famous 18th century manuscript on the institutional structure of the Austrian Low Countries. I first illustrate the author's unique position (I), before delving into the issues of allegiance, taxation and consent (II).

Precision and effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) models are highly dependent on the availability of genuine, relevant, and representative training data. AI systems tested and validated on poor-quality datasets can produce inaccurate, erroneous, skewed, or harmful outcomes (actions, behaviors, or decisions), with far-reaching effects on individuals' rights and freedoms. Appropriate data governance for AI development poses manifold regulatory challenges, especially regarding personal data protection. An area of concern is compliance with rules for lawful collection and processing of personal data, which implies, inter alia, that using databases for AI design and development should be based on a clear and precise legal ground: the prior consent of the data subject or another specific valid legal basis. Faced with this challenge, the European Union's personal data protection legal framework does not provide a preferred, one-size-fits-all answer, and the best option will depend on the circumstances of each case. Although there is no hierarchy among the different legal bases for data processing, in doubtful cases, consent is generally understood by data controllers as a preferred or default choice for lawful data processing. Notwithstanding this perception, obtaining data subjects' consent is not without drawbacks for AI developers or AI-data controllers, as they must meet (and demonstrate) various requirements for the validity of consent. As a result, data subjects' consent could not be a suitable and realistic option to serve AI development purposes. In view of this, it is necessary to explore the possibility of basing this type of personal data processing on lawful grounds other than the data subject's consent, specifically, the legitimate interest of the data controller or third parties. Given its features, legitimate interests could help to meet the challenge of quality, quantity, and relevance of data curation for AI training. The aim of this article is to provide an initial conceptual approach to support the debate about data governance for AI development in the European Union (EU), as well as in non-EU jurisdictions with European-like data protection laws. Based on the rules set by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), this paper starts by referring to the relevance of adequate data curation and processing for designing trustworthy AI systems, followed by a legal analysis and conceptualization of some difficulties data controllers face for lawful processing of personal data. After reflecting on the legal standards for obtaining data subject's valid consent, the paper argues that legitimate interests (if certain criteria are met) may better match the purpose of building AI training datasets.

Most studies on the psychometric properties of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) were done in adolescents and adults. The scarce studies in older adults were mainly limited to associations of CERQ scales with internalising symptoms and wellbeing. Only one study explored the underlying factor structure in Spanish older adults and concluded that only a 27 item CERQ version showed adequate fit when tested with confirmatory factor analysis. The present study analyses the psychometric properties of all three versions of the CERQ in a sample of 451 community-dwelling older adults: the original 36 item CERQ, the short 18 item CERQ developed by the original authors and a Spanish 27 item CERQ version. Because gender differences among strategies used have been reported, the present study examined and provided first evidence for the gender invariance of the CERQ structure. Moreover, cognitive emotion regulation strategies correlated like hypothesized with clinical symptoms in general, and behavioural inhibition and activation systems and coping styles. The nomological net was highly similar for the original CERQ and shortened versions. The shortened versions of the CERQ consequently can be viable alternatives to the CERQ in settings where short assessment instruments are needed.

On 8 March 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating violence against women and domestic violence. Inter alia, the proposal includes minimum rules on the definition of certain forms of violence against women and domestic violence, including rape. Building on a historical overview of what counts as rape and on the legal context in which the European Commission has tabled the proposal, this article will critically discuss whether the European Union (hereinafter: the EU) has the competence to harmonise the crime of rape pursuant to Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and what the desirable content of EU legislation in this field should be. For this purpose, the article will use long-lasting, feminist scholarship as an analytical tool to address the transformations that these feminist discourses have traditionally brought into rape law, stressing the legal gaps that still need to be filled, and suggesting a possible new synergy between EU criminal law and feminist scholarship and activism.

Objectives:Categorical criteria are not well suited to inform personality disorder (PD) diagnoses in older adults. More promising are the ICD-11 and DSM-5 alternative models. Both conceptualize PD by level of severity and maladaptive traits. Severity is conditional for making a PD diagnosis. Trait levels portray stylistic differences in PD expression. Yet, in older adults the hierarchical trait structure is unknown. Neither is the differentiation of the severity criterion from maladaptive traits confirmed.Methods:A series of exploratory factor analyses with progressively greater numbers of factors were conducted to examine the hierarchical trait structure in 293 community dwelling older adults. The on average differentiation of a single higher order personality functioning factor from trait factors at succeeding levels of the hierarchy was estimated with Cohen q effect size.Results:Six meaningful trait levels were identified. From the fourth trait level on the general personality functioning factor shared less than 15% variance on average with the trait factors. Trait factors at the sixth level corresponded to both DSM-5 and ICD-11 pathological traits.Conclusion:A future nosology integrating DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait proposals would be applicable in older adults. Personality functioning can be differentiated from traits, so separate assessment of traits and severity is worthwhile.

Can satisfactory explanations for complex machine learning models be achieved in high-risk automated decision-making? How can such explanations be integrated into a data protection framework safeguarding a right to explanation? This article explores from an interdisciplinary point of view the connection between existing legal requirements for the explainability of AI systems set out in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the current state of the art in the field of explainable AI. It studies the challenges of providing human legible explanations for current and future AI-based decision-making systems in practice, based on two scenarios of automated decision-making in credit scoring risks and medical diagnosis of COVID-19. These scenarios exemplify the trend towards increasingly complex machine learning algorithms in automated decision-making, both in terms of data and models. Current machine learning techniques, in particular those based on deep learning, are unable to make clear causal links between input data and final decisions. This represents a limitation for providing exact, human-legible reasons behind specific decisions, and presents a serious challenge to the provision of satisfactory, fair and transparent explanations. Therefore, the conclusion is that the quality of explanations might not be considered as an adequate safeguard for automated decision-making processes under the GDPR. Accordingly, additional tools should be considered to complement explanations. These could include algorithmic impact assessments, other forms of algorithmic justifications based on broader AI principles, and new technical developments in trustworthy AI. This suggests that eventually all of these approaches would need to be considered as a whole.

Recommendations are meant to increase sales or ad revenue, as these are the first priority of those who pay for them. As recommender systems match their recommendations with inferred preferences, we should not be surprised if the algorithm optimizes for lucrative preferences and thus co-produces the preferences they mine. This relates to the well-known problems of feedback loops, filter bubbles, and echo chambers. In this article, I discuss the implications of the fact that computing systems necessarily work with proxies when inferring recommendations and raise a number of questions about whether recommender systems actually do what they are claimed to do, while also analysing the often-perverse economic incentive structures that have a major impact on relevant design decisions. Finally, I will explain how the choice architectures for data controllers and providers of AI systems as foreseen in the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the proposed EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and the proposed EU AI Act will help to break through various vicious circles, by constraining how people may be targeted (GDPR, DSA) and by requiring documented evidence of the robustness, resilience, reliability, and the responsible design and deployment of high-risk recommender systems (AI Act).

The notion of digital sovereignty, also often referred to as technological sovereignty, has been gaining momentum in the European Union’s (EU) political and policy discourses over recent years. Digital sovereignty has come to supplement an already substantial engagement of the EU with the digital across various security policy domains. The goal of this article and of the overall Special Issue is to explore how the discourse and practices of digital sovereignty redefine European security integration. Our core argument is that digital sovereignty has both direct and indirect implications for European security as the EU attempts to develop and control digital infrastructures (sovereignty over the digital), as well as the use of digital tools for European security governance (sovereignty through the digital). It is thus essential to further explore digital sovereignty both in terms of European policies and of a re-articulation of sovereign power and digital technologies – what we suggest calling digital/sovereignty.

This study examined the content validity and consumer satisfaction of a newly developed forensic Measurement invariance across important subgroups such as gender and language has not yet been corroborated for Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ). We examined the structure of the DSQ-60 (N= 509) using Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling with target rotation to the three factor-structure (Image distorting, Affect regulating and Adaptive style). We did find good fit to this 3-factor model for the data of the total group of outpatients. Next, we explored measurement invariance for both gender and language (French and Dutch). We did find configural invariance (i.e. pattern invariance) across gender and language. However, metric invariance (i.e. equal factor loadings) was not supported for gender and language. Moreover, the highest scale loadings were not always on the factor that would be expected based on three-factor solutions found earlier with different DSQ versions (i.e. an adaptive, image distorting style, and affect regulating style). We did find an adaptive and an image distorting factor. The third factor did not clearly represent the affect regulating style. We conclude that, although the widespread use of the DSQ, researchers must be careful in their use and interpretation of the DSQ-scales across important subgroups such as gender and language. Yet the DSQ is still a good screening measure for immature defenses and can give an indication of the presence of relatively more mature versus more immature defenses in an individual.

In deze kadertekst worden de contouren geschetst van het thema dat centraal staat in dit Cahier: big data policing. Wat verstaan we hieronder, hoe bakenen we het thema af en hoe kijken we ernaar vanuit verschillende perspectieven? Op basis van een brede conceptualisering kunnen ook de verschillende bijdragen in dit verzamelwerk gekaderd worden in een ruimer perspectief. De auteurs hopen hiermee bij te dragen aan de demystificatie van big data policing, waardoor een constructief debat kan worden gevoerd, onderzoek kan worden uitgevoerd en beleid kan worden geformuleerd op een op kennis gebaseerde wijze.

This article explores the role of constitutional thought in Latour’s work on cosmopolitics. It will study his non-modern proposal in the Politics of Nature (2004) and argue for a constitutional rather than political understanding. To address criticisms of being too metaphysical or unpractical, we will work out the notion of a “constitutional ecology of practices” to highlight how different practices such as politics, science, organization, but also law, all contribute to the design of the stage and processes for composing a common world. Special focus will here be placed on the role of “epigrams”: practical models for ordering contributions of different practices or modes in hierarchical relationships. This renders them identifiable, mobilizable, and contestable as cross-cutting models for shaping mutual relations in concrete collaborative settings. The case of the legal regulation of robots will be presented as an example of a cosmopolitical attempt to introduce non-human entities in the common collective. We will here observe the role that epigrams play in framing, ordering and contesting the epistemic contributions of the various practices involved in this innovation ecology. This case will be used to discuss Latour’s proposals and to study non-modern constitutionalism in action.

Late-medieval Flanders was a patchwork of jurisdictions. Especially in terms of maritime plunder, different prosecutors and different courts could claim competency. However, where these plunderers appeared or where the plundered claimed their damages mattered significantly. This article investigates how these landlocked courts tried to claim competency over the events happening at sea. What were the consequences of the litigation strategies relating to maritime plunder, and how did plunderers and the plundered deal with these? Especially in medieval Bruges, there was a pragmatic approach towards favouring some of the important merchant communities while using princely institutions to chastise other (deemed harmful) plunderers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE. This paper will critically appraise the Regulation 953/2021 (DCCR) and its digital COVID-19 certificates (DCC) in the light of EU law’s strict requirements for scientificity and objectivity, aiming to provide a normative framework and recommendations on drafting evidence-based policies for the current and future pandemic(s). METHODS. To answer the following question: “What role has scientific evidence played in the DCCR, and in the light of EU law requirements, was the inclusion of scientific evidence effective considering the policy objectives?”, the author will analyse how relevant provisions of the DCCR interact with scientific evidence. Building on the relevant EU case-law on evidentiary requirements, and on the work of sociological jurisprudence, law turning outwards and studies of evidence-based policy, a normative framework will serve to analyse the effectiveness of the DCCR approach. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS. Like other EU pandemic laws, DCCR is vague about the inclusion procedures and the quality of science required to adopt additional restrictions. Nor is it clear what kind of scientific expertise should feed into the system – natural sciences, social sciences, public health ethics etc. The references to consultations and adapting the information on the pass to reflect the relevant scientific evidence are scant, and omicron has rendered several underlying assumptions about immunity and transmission outdated. Finally, while the DCCR was drafted to ensure a safe reopening, its implementation by member states has instead led to more social contacts and more infections. CONCLUSIONS. Further research on this topic will lead to reorientation of the evidence-based standards in EU law during pandemics and periods of scientific uncertainty, as well as the eventual consequences of the both member state and EU action, such as nullification suits. This is likely to be difficult due to DCCR’s claim to be a technical regulation, focusing on interoperability rather than substance.

This is an authorised Chinese translation of the article How (Not) to Write a Privacy Law written by Julie Cohen, professor of Law and Technology at Georgetown University. The original English version can be accessed at https://knightcolumbia.org/content/how-not-to-write-a-privacy-law.

Terms and conditions, legal notices, banners and disclaimers are not new for websites, applications and products. However, with the ambitious legislative plan in the European Union to introduce accessibility features to several websites, applications, services and products, it becomes imperative to also consider the accessibility of the information included in such statements. In my paper, I specifically investigate data protection notices as opposed to accessibility statements and aim to answer whether the concept of accessibility can help us redefine the principle of transparency in EU data protection law. I conclude that accessibility can benefit the principle of transparency, by contextualizing it. However, at the same time it introduces a number of new challenges.

In this position paper I discuss the use of health-related training data for medical research, in light of the European Health Data Space. If such data is deployed as a proxy for 'the truth on the ground', we need to address the issue of proxies. Ground truth in machine learning is the pragmatic stand-in or proxy for whatever is considered to be the case or should be the case. Developing a ground truth dataset requires curation, i.e. a number of translations, constructions and cleansing. What if the resulting proxies misrepresent what they stand for and what if the imposed interoperability of health data across the EU affects the quality of the data and/or their relationship to what they stand for? I argue that ground-truthing is an act rather than a given, that this act is key to machine learning and assert that this act can have potentially fatal implications for the reliability of the output. Deciding on the ground truth is what philosophers may call a speech act with performative effects. Emphasising these effects will allow us to better address the constructive nature of the datasets used in medical informatics and should help the EU legislature to take a precautionary approach to medical informatics.

This chapter enquires into the use of big data analytics and prediction of judgment to inform both law and legal decision-making. The main argument is that the use of data-driven ‘legal technologies’ may transform the ‘mode of existence’ of law as-we-know-it, whose characteristics depend on its text-based nature. To explain why and how computational ‘law’ would be different, the author deciphers the mathematical assumptions of machine learning and natural language processing, opening the black box of algorithmic ‘insights’ at the level of its underlying research design. This allows her to compare the force of such computational ‘law’ with the force of law as-we-know-it. She then identifies some of the challenges as to legal protection, demonstrating the need for ‘by design’ approaches to anchor rule of law safeguards in the architecture of computational ‘law’, clarifying how and why ‘legal protection by design’ is not equivalent with ‘legal by design’ or ‘techno-regulation’.

EU digital covid certificates (DCCs) scheme, instituted in the summer of 2021 under the Regulation 2021/953 (DCCR) to facilitate reopening European borders, assumes that certificate holders pose less of a risk to public health and their freedom of movement should not be restricted. As the DCCR made sweeping assumption about the underlying mechanisms of immunity, transmission and risk, and access, questions about discrimination were raised. My doctoral project seeks to answer the following research question: In what manner should EU law consider scientific findings in its evaluation of legal questions such as discrimination, and how do scientific findings justify differential treatment?

“An Unbreakable Bond”is inspired by, on one hand, the notion of uberveillanceand, on the otherhand, by more recent developments in worker surveillance on the basis of microchip technologies. Uberveillanceis a term conceived by M.G. Michael in 2006 and refers to ubiquitous or pervasive electronic surveillance that may not be always on but that is always with you (Michael and Michael 2007). It is a form of bodily, invasive surveillance made possible by embedded devices that indiscriminately quantify and measure the self. Uberveillancethrough microchip technology has previously been explored in the context of healthcare, crime prevention, and worker monitoring (Michael and Michael 2014). In particular, the promise of the convenience and accessibility of microchip implants in the employee–employer relationship has prompted scholarly attention into its legal, ethical,and commercial implications (Ajunwa, Crawford, and Schultz2017; Rodriguez 2019; Weinberg et al. 2015). Taking these developments into account, “An Unbreakable Bond”makes a creative contribution to the potential, wider societal implications of uberveillancethrough microchip implants by taking them beyond previously explored contexts and placing them within a parent–child relationship. In doing so, it prompts a reflection upon the ways in which technology can mediate the closest relationships within our lives, for better or for worse. Through Alice, we are also confronted with the potential impacts that microchip implants can have not only on her relationship with her mother but also especially on her own emotional development. Through the mother’s perspective, the story explores the instances that might lead to the adoption of such a tool, such asanxiety over parenting abilities and trends or familial circumstances and economics. In bringing both perspectives together, “An Unbreakable Bond”ultimately aims to contribute to a wider conversation on the types of societies we’d like to create and the role of surveillance (or uberveillance) within those structures.

Smart devices have become ubiquitous in everyday life, and it is commonplace that migrants are among the users of connected tools. With the realization that migrants rely on connectivity for multiple purposes, including to access information and services, many initiatives started working on developing ICT tools to assist migrants to integrate into their new society. Technological tools, however, come with inherent risks, many of which are linked to the processing of personal data of their users. This is especially true for migrants, who are often vulnerable due to their migration status, which is not always secure in the host country. To mitigate these risks, we argue that an expanded data protection impact assessment, analyzing not only the impacts related to data protection, but also to the specific situation of migrants, should be conducted at the outset of any technology development project to influence the development of safe and reliable ICT tools for this target population. A practical example of the application of such an assessment is provided, based on the authors’ experience as legal advisors in the REBUILD project, which is one of the current initiatives in the EU aiming to develop ICT tools for migrant integration.

The concept of sensitive data has been a mainstay of data protection for a number of decades. The concept itself is used to denote several categories of data for which processing is deemed to pose a higher risk for data subjects than other forms of data. Such risks are often perceived in terms of an elevated probability of discrimination, or related harms, to vulnerable groups in society. As a result, data protection frameworks have traditionally foreseen a higher burden for the processing of sensitive data than other forms of data. The sui generis protection of sensitive data—stronger than the protection of non-sensitive personal data—can also seemingly be a necessity from a fundamental rights-based perspective, as indicated by human rights jurisprudence. This Article seeks to analyze the continued relevance of sensitive data in both contemporary and potential future contexts. Such an exercise is important for two main reasons. First, the legal regime responsible for the regulation of the use of personal data has evolved considerably since the concept of sensitive data was first used. This has been exemplified by the creation of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe. It has introduced a number of requirements relating to sensitive data that are likely to represent added burdens for controllers who want to process personal data. Second, the very nature of personal data is changing. Increases in computing power, more complex algorithms, and the availability of ever more potentially complimentary data online mean that more and more data can be considered of a sensitive nature. This creates various risks going forward, including an inflation effect whereby the concept loses its value, as well as the possibility that data controllers may increasingly seek to circumvent compliance with the requirements placed upon the use of sensitive data. This Article analyzes how such developments are likely to influence the concept of sensitive data and, in particular, its ability to protect vulnerable groups from harm. The authors propose a possible interpretative solution: A hybrid approach where a purpose-based definition acquires a bigger role in deciding whether data is sensitive, combined with a context-based ‘backstop’ based on reasonable foreseeability.

The debate on the recognition of King Victor Emmanuel II of Piemonte-Sardinia as King of Italy in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives in the Fall of 1861 illustrates the challenges generated by constitutional change in the long nineteenth century. Recognition can be seen as a purely political decision, decided by the executive branch under supervision of the legislature. However, the terms of the debate between the ruling Liberal party and the Catholic opposition make clear that both the law of nations and constitutional history were used as arguments. Belgian constitutional history, and especially the revolution of 1830, had provided legitimating concepts sustained by both political parties. The recognition of Piemontese annexations was decried as a violation of Belgium’s permanent neutrality, and a potential precedent undermining the position of ‘secondary nationalities’. It is doubtful whether legal motives, rather than economic interests, played a decisive role in the outcome of the debate. However, the main actors’ legal training and historical curiosity urged the governmental Liberals to explain their position in a common legal vocabulary

This paper analyzes the interconnections between international and constitutional law through the study of the Consultative Litigation Committee (CLC) of the French Foreign Ministry. The Committee and its members illustrate the institutionalization and professionalization of international law from the 1830s to 1870s. The committee’s members were not only legal advisers employed by the Ministry but also international lawyers recruited from the apex of the judicial system and the Conseil d’État. Each member shaped the development of the discipline of international law leading up to its founding years of 1869-1873. Furthermore, the CLC served as a laboratory of international law practices, dealing with a great variety of legal cases and disciplines. Two topical case studies are explored more deeply to illustrate “Legal Entanglements”: the French claims regarding the indemnities of the 1815 peace agreements, and post-Napoleonic press legislation.

Why is it hard for online users to trust service providers when it comes to their personal data? While users might give away their data when using their services, this does not mean that they necessarily trust these companies. Building trust in online services is particularly relevant as digital economy policy strategies, such as the EU Data Strategy, deposit a considerable amount of faith in the benefits of a data-driven society. To achieve this goal, transparency should be considered a necessary feature, on which trust can be built. According to scholarly literature, the more information provided to data subjects, the less power asymmetry, caused by a lack of knowledge, between them and data controllers will exist. In this respect, transparency around data processing has been, and still is, conveyed through privacy notices. But these are far from being used as helpful tools to navigate complex data-intensive environments. Technical developments, such as Solid personal datastores, provide a fertile ground for the negotiation of privacy terms between the involved parties. But to do so, it is necessary to have clear and transparent processing conditions. However, while certain specifications have been developed to accommodate for the representation of privacy terms, there is still a lack of developed solutions to address this problem. With this in mind, we propose the usage of the Privacy Paradigm ODRL Profile (PPOP), which extends ODRL and DPV to specify data processing requirements for personal datastores envisaged as key core elements of the data economy. To demonstrate the usage of PPOP, a set of policy examples will be provided, as well as a prototype implementation ofa generator of machine and human-readable PPOP policies.