Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the topic. It demonstrates how the administration of justice by insurgents is one element of rebel governance and can play an important part in a group’s strategy to challenge the authority of the state. The chapter then explains that international law does not contain any rule that governs recourse to the use of force in an intra-state setting and is, therefore, ‘neutral’ towards rebellion. However, it also shows that international law contains rules that impose limits on how insurgencies may be fought in NIACs, most notably through the regime of IHL. Based on this introduction, the chapter then sets out the core research questions that the monograph aims to answer, namely whether armed groups enjoy a legal capacity to operate courts and pass penal sentences and, if so, whether international law might require them to do so under certain circumstances.

Chapter 3 engages with the thesis that transnationalisation of law has taken place in the development of Internet regulations, since it was invented in the 1990s. Is it true that a transnational law is developing that is largely free from state influence? What does a factual analysis reveal about the relationship between non-state governance and state regulation in addressing pressing social problems related to the ‘network of networks’? How do approaches to content and technology regulation differ between the United States and the EU? Net neutrality serves as a case study for an in-depth examination of the transnationalisation thesis in the context of the technological preconditions of free speech. In addition to the debates on net neutrality in the United States and the EU, this chapter also analyses the debate in India using the example of Meta Free Basics, which illustrates how the actions of large technology companies can lead to restrictions on freedom of expression. Does the history of net neutrality in these three jurisdictions, where regulatory solutions have been found along national territorial lines, confirm that there is a risk of developing a ‘splinternet’ and speak against a transnationalisation of the law?

The legal theory of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) posits that SOEs persist due to legal failures rather than market failures. It views privatization fundamentally as a process of legalization rather than liberalization. Privatization does not always suggest the state’s withdrawal from private sectors; in many cases, it is accompanied by expanded or stricter regulatory oversight. This perspective generates two implications. First, the successful reform of SOEs depends on the state’s ability to clearly define its control and establish institutions that deter opportunistic actions. A judiciary capable of effectively distinguishing between government opportunism and the legitimate exercise of power – thereby restraining abuse of power while upholding lawful decisions – is crucial. Second, if the government can develop effective regulation of private firms without ownership, the need for maintaining SOEs diminishes. Given the advantages of private firms in terms of ownership costs, further investment in developing robust legal and regulatory institutions could promote social efficiency by reducing the role of SOEs.

Chapter 3 presents the other side of the coin, namely AI risks and harms. Automated decision systems, chatbots, recommender systems, and other AI-powered software and platforms have been found to cause potential risks or actual harms to affected persons and communities. Such risks and harms include bias and discrimination, surveillance, inaccurate, incorrect and unreliable output, disinformation, misinformation or manipulation, harm to life, livelihood and wellbeing, privacy violations, decline in product and service quality, political polarization, online radicalization and algorithmic censorship, and job replacement. Some of these harms, such as bias and discrimination, have already been experienced frequently, while others, like job replacement, point to future risks. It is also worth noting that AI risks and harms often aggravate existing social and political problems. For example, political polarization and radicalization, while exacerbated by algorithmic curation, appear to have origins in societal divisions. Finally, AI is criticized for causing system-level harm in the form of environmental degradation, exploitation of labor, and market concentration.

The treatment of alleged “spiriting” victims in London courts versus colonial American courts further reveals presumptions of consent to work. The lower courts in London offered redress to people targeted by illicit transatlantic servant brokers when they escaped before transportation. Early modern notions about how people’s behavior flowed from their intentions meant that contemporaries sympathized with rescued or escaped spiriting victims in London precisely because they had avoided transportation. By contrast, spirited servants who arrived in the colonies struggled to shift the perception that the mere fact of their arrival indicated that they had wanted to come. The colonial magistrates presumed that newly arrived servants had been complicit in their own transportation and oversaw the belated creation of servants’ indentures. Far fewer servants found redress for spiriting in the colonies than in London, because of this presumption and further procedural obstacles.

From the 1610s in London, servant brokers, merchants, and eventually justices of the peace and their clerks recorded consent to transatlantic colonial indentured servitude with heightened attention. In doing so, they were responding to the vastness of the distances servants crossed, compounded with the multi-year length of their contractual terms and the unlikeliness of the servants returning home. The assignability of these contracts further differentiated them from the contemporaneous forms of indentured labor. In this newer system, contracts more often specified the voluntary nature of servants’ agreement with a free will clause, precisely because their willingness seemed implausible. The treatment of different categories of recruits, including adults, children, convicts, and paupers, are compared. Unwilling recruits could sometimes secure their release before the ships departed England. Sealed indentures made escape far less achievable.

The competing forces of ownership costs and regulatory costs explain the sectoral distribution and historical development of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China. While SOEs are generally believed to incur higher ownership costs and have thus been reformed in many sectors, they continue to play a significant role in others. This chapter focuses on several sectors where a trend of "advance of the state, retreat of the private sector" has been observed. In the water utilities sector, empirical evidence suggests that in prefectures where the government fails to frequently adjust water tariffs according to the law to reflect changes in production costs, SOEs are more prevalent, indicating that challenges in tariff regulation likely deter private investment. In the steel and coal mining sectors, frequent changes in state policy have also likely negatively affected private investment. Additionally, in the commercial banking sector, the state maintains SOEs probably due to concerns that regulatory failures could lead to a financial crisis. These examples illustrate how regulatory costs influence the development of SOEs in regulated sectors in China.

This short chapter contains the overall conclusions of the book. Its aim is to put into perspective the conclusions reached in the previous chapters and to briefly reflect on their impact on the broader system of international law.

In the early modern system of impressment, able-bodied common men of fighting age entered armies and navies by conscription. This form of service was an obligation of English subjects who did not pay levies, and it was based on royal prerogative, but many people conceived of pressed service as contractual, nevertheless. Men of both middling and lower status loathed compulsory military service – as becomes clear from their testimony in a 1641 parliamentary investigation. The tension between the honor that lay in giving service to the king and kingdom, and the dishonor that lay in being pressed, allowed for an articulation of an edge at which coercion might invalidate consent, depending once again on the status of each man whose service was in question.

Overview of the 2020 Chinese Civil Code, discussion of general principles of civil law and their application, analysis of such matters as persons, civil rights and acts, civil liabilities, and statutes of limitations as provided in the general provisions of the Civil Code.