Rapid technological development of autonomous and unmanned systems has impacted all sectors of industry. Now, sea drones capable of delivering force – i.e., designed or equipped to cause injury or damage – are also transforming naval warfare. The tangible effects of their deployment are already witnessed in, for example, the international armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine in the Black Sea. Despite the ongoing use of sea drones during naval hostilities, however, their legal status, including related rights and obligations, remains unclear under both the law of the sea and international humanitarian law frameworks.

This article analyzes the legal classification of sea drones capable of projecting force, examining whether they qualify as warships under Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or as means of warfare under Articles 35–36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. It also discusses the legal implications, showing that the classification of sea drones is not just a theoretical exercise but carries significant legal and operational consequences during both war and peace, such as those relating to sovereign immunity, navigational rights and lawful targeting. The paper argues that, since unmanned sea drones cannot pass the warship test (i.e., the cumulative requirements under UNCLOS Article 29), they should be categorized as naval means of warfare; thus, sea drone regulation can be drawn from the regimes governing naval mines and torpedoes. In conclusion, the paper highlights that the classification of sea drones must also consider their humanitarian implications.

This paper contributes to the discussion on the link between international trade policy and food and nutrition security by looking at whether and how these concepts are addressed in Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs). We compile a dataset covering almost 600 PTAs that entered into force between 1948 and 2024, and apply textual analysis to show that the number of references to food security has increased over recent decades. To analyse the role of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) in shaping the rules and practices of international food trade, we investigate the placement, function, and significance of food security provisions in four case studies, looking at the extent to which the regulatory approaches of these PTAs align with or diverge from the relevant provisions of the WTO AoA. Our study reveals that, despite the growing prominence of food security and nutrition in PTAs, their regulatory approaches largely align with the AoA and seldom overcome its shortcomings. While some agreements introduce broader and more contemporary understandings of food security, binding commitments remain limited and structural tensions between national and global objectives persist.

Le droit à l’alimentation, vecteur de la sécurité alimentaire, a longtemps fait l’objet de débats contradictoires, d’une part, sur son appartenance à la catégorie des droits humains et, d’autre part, sur sa justiciabilité. Toutefois, au regard de son importance dans la vie de l’être humain, la prise de conscience semble avoir évolué sur son sujet. Des textes juridiques tant à l’échelle nationale qu’ internationale l’incorporent de plus en plus. Joint à cela, des théories à l’image de la théorie des trois niveaux d’obligations de Henry Shue en matière de mise en œuvre des droits humains et de la théorie générale des droits en filigrane, peuvent être mises à contribution afin de prouver son existence et sa justiciabilité. Dès lors, on pourrait affirmer qu’en sa qualité de personne morale de droit public qui se présente comme une entité souveraine, l’État a une responsabilité pour lutter contre l’insécurité alimentaire et favoriser la jouissance du droit à l’alimentation par sa population. Toutefois, cette réalité ne peut permettre de marginaliser l’existence de difficultés au niveau d’une telle mise en œuvre. C’est le cas du manque de reconnaissance universelle de ce droit, de l’insuffisance des textes juridiques à valeur contraignante qui l’encadrent ou encore de la marginalisation de certaines branches du droit international qui sont pourtant contributives à sa réalisation et à celle de la sécurité alimentaire. C’est à l’image du droit international de l’agroalimentaire et du droit international des sols. À cela, s’ajoutent d’autres défis. Ceux-ci sont liés aux disparités existantes entre les États au regard de leurs situations économiques différentes, mais aussi aux fléaux de plus en plus prononcés comme les changements climatiques et les conflits armés. De la sorte, l’insécurité alimentaire reste une problématique internationale qui nécessite une action collective de l’ensemble de la communauté internationale (États, organisations internationales, organisations non gouvernementales) pour son éradication.

This exploratory study aimed to empower people with serious mental illness to create and implement supported decision-making plans and study the impact on their decision-making process. We found that study participants were able to: (1) use supported decision-making once empowered to do so; (2) decide when and how to use supported decision-making; and (3) develop individualized decision-making strategies based upon their unique characteristics and situations. The adoption of supported decision-making in clinical practice, research, and policy is essential to ensure the rights and well-being of adults with decisional incapacity. In particular, integrating supported decision-making into clinical research protocols can enhance informed consent processes and promote meaningful participation of individuals with serious mental illness, balancing respect for their autonomy with appropriate protections.

This paper argues that research ethics for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities must attend to the value of non-domination. First, we highlight the role of domination in the history of abusive research practices against individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, practices which directly led to existing protections for this vulnerable population. Second, we argue that existing protections do not adequately safeguard potential participants from domination in decision-making about whether to participate. This is a distinct concern from the well-established criticisms that existing protections may wrongfully exclude potential participants. Finally, we outline and defend an account of supported decision-making grounded in the value of non-domination in order to safeguard potential participants from domination. Our account nonetheless preserves supported decision-making’s possibilities for greater inclusion of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in research participation.

For as vivid the academic debate around issues of algorithmic bias, discrimination and unfairness has been in the context of EU law, little attention has been paid thus far to the way in which such instances have been dealt with by courts. This article examines from a non-discrimination law perspective how domestic courts of Member States as well as the European Court of Justice have approached cases of algorithmic bias in automated decision-making, by focusing on the judges’ engagement with discrimination-related considerations. For the purposes of my analysis, I propose a taxonomy of judgments dealing with cases of algorithmic bias and analyse a number of examples accordingly to showcase the distinct features of each category. In this regard, a first distinction is drawn between judgments relating to cases of ‘algorithmic discrimination’ and those concerning cases of ‘unfair algorithmic differentiation’. Depending on the extent to which courts take into account any risks of discrimination in the cases falling under the second category, I further distinguish between judgments of ‘discrimination reflection’, those of ‘discrimination awareness’, and those of ‘discrimination silence’. On the basis of this classification, I then attempt to shed more light on how non-discrimination and data protection law may interact with each other in practice in cases of algorithmic bias. Finally, the article concludes with some reflections on the prevailing tendency to address equality concerns through recourse to data protection rules.

This study focuses on a unique Facebook group: ‘Cyprus Immigrants Organisation’, whose members are mostly refugees who were once held in camps in Cyprus in the late 1940s and their descendants. The study offers a content analysis of 687 posts and comments published by group members during 2022. It reveals how a Facebook group made possible, produced, and promoted narratives of a topic that receives relatively little attention in the literature, media, and other memory spaces. The study highlights the range of memory-related content and activities within a Facebook group. We found three main activities of memory work within the group: (a) Members try to shape a coherent narrative of the events; (b) Members discuss acts of remembrance, suggesting additional activities and sharing personal initiatives; (c) Members aim to emphasise their personal connection and belonging to the Cyprus exiles’ community by sharing photographs, artwork, and documents. These memory practices, alongside processes such as gathering knowledge, sharing memories, shaping narratives, and commemorating, highlight the uniqueness of a Facebook group as a platform for memory. These kinds of activities would not be possible on such a scale without the digital environment or, more specifically, a Facebook group. With numerous narratives and collaborative knowledge gathering, the group exemplifies a democratised process of multi-generational memory work and narrative construction.

Many legal disputes are resolved through settlement. The dominant theory explaining settlements – known as “bargaining in the shadow of the law” – assumes that litigants are informed, rational actors inclined to bargain toward a settlement prior to court proceedings. Yet many settlements are negotiated after litigants have appeared in court expecting to go to trial. This article argues that court organizational mechanisms play an undertheorized role in facilitating settlement agreements. To build theory on organizational mechanisms, we examine the case of eviction settlements. Drawing on ethnographic observations and interviews in a California eviction court, we find that organizational rules and workgroup norms funnel mostly unrepresented tenants – sometimes, in coercive ways – into unregulated hallway conversations with landlord attorneys and/or participation in the court’s mediation program. Through relational interactions with legal professionals in these organizational spaces, tenants are taught the risks of trial and the benefits of settlement. As a result, most tenants in our sample come to recognize their legal culpability and view settlement agreements as legitimate, even as their negotiated settlements reproduce their housing insecurity. We discuss implications for bargaining theory and research on housing insecurity.

Administrative burden describes the learning costs, psychological costs, and compliance costs people face when attempting to interface with the government, particularly in seeking a benefit. Algorithmic and automated processes offer the potential of reducing administrative burdens, but scant empirical research has determined to what, if any effect. This study uses the case of criminal record expungement in two policy contexts: traditional, court petition-based systems and newly enacted automated systems, to understand if and how administrative burden persists, and whether and how these burdens operate differently in the context of the criminal legal system. Drawing on interviews with 105 expungement-eligible people, we find that while automated expungement schemes shift the burden from petitioner to state to initiate the process, automation inadvertently creates new administrative burdens via failure to notify, partial clearances, and opaque data processes. Furthermore, respondents described how automation failed to provide a sense of confirmation from the state that their sentence was truly completed, rehabilitation had been acknowledged, or that collateral consequences should no longer wield the same power. Overall, we argue that leveraging automation to reduce burdens must include information availability by design; otherwise policy reforms may fail to fully achieve their goals.

People with intellectual and other cognitive disabilities often face barriers to participating in clinical research, particularly related to the informed consent process. Recent federal policy and legal efforts have advanced strategies to address these challenges, including using supported decision-making. This article discusses this recent progress and the risks and potential opportunities to continuing it in a shifting federal landscape.