This chapter surveys existing work on the connection between religion and terrorism and proposes an alternative theory, the religious utility hypothesis, in which terrorist organizations piggyback on the utility of religion as a source of meaning and belonging. By tying the duty to perform violent acts to an individual’s faith and community, terrorist organizations can (1) elicit costlier sacrifices (e.g. suicide bombing), even when these actions run counter to the actor’s moral convictions, (2) motivate a small group of extreme types to radicalize a larger community, and (3) use moderate religious organizations, which are shielded from monitoring, infiltration and closure due to their value to the community, for recruitment and incubation of more extreme groups.

Security forces around the world use offensive counterterrorism tactics against specific terrorist targets. These actions are initiated by security forces against specific terrorist targets and are launched in the areas where terrorists inhabit and operate. Government policies to deter terrorism and disrupt the operations of terror organizations can be effective but may also have a boomerang effect. That is, harsh measures of counterterrorism may backfire by fostering hatred and attempts to exact revenge. This chapter surveys and evaluates the use and effectiveness of offensive counterterrorism tactics, focusing on the actions of the Israeli security forces.

International investment law faces a paradigm shift with the rise of the digital economy. Emerging technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and the platform economy redefine investment dynamics while challenging traditional regulatory frameworks. Digitalisation expands cross-border investment opportunities in areas like AI, genomics, and smart infrastructure, while also complicating traditional jurisdictional and territorial considerations. The shift from physical to digital assets necessitates a re-evaluation of the classic definitions of an ‘investor’ and ‘investment’. Meanwhile, states increasingly regulate strategic digital assets under national security concerns, introducing measures ranging from data localization mandates to investment screening mechanisms. These changes raise geopolitical and geoeconomic tensions and highlight disparities in digital governance models between major powers. Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) may have to adapt to address disputes over digital assets and data, as well as leverage AI and other digital technologies for efficiency while safeguarding due process. This chapter, along with the broader volume, examines these themes, emphasising balanced frameworks that promote innovation while safeguarding public interests in the evolving digital economy.

Terrorism’s history teaches important lessons about the causes and consequences of asymmetric warfare between standing armies and paramilitary insurgents. This chapter supplies a series of snapshots of the long sweep of terrorist activity, running from the turn of the twentieth century’s “Golden Age of Assassination” to 9/11 and beyond. Terrorists, whether “lone wolves” or members of militant groups, differ sharply in their motivations, their tactics and the goals they pursue – indeed, some leftist groups have not articulated any purpose beyond “wrecking the system” – but economic models of rational human action help identify some commonalities and, what is most important, supply ways of seeking answers to history’s open questions.

The second chapter analyzes the government pension question and the role of adjusting benefits as an important part of the answer. It charts constitutional constraints to public pension reform under state and U.S. Contract Clauses from unprotected gratuities to protected contracts, highlighting the concept of contract as an essential ingredient to constitutional protection. It cautions, however, that the contract element is in flux given the deluge of decisions challenging benefit reductions and emphasizes key challenges to examining contractual obstacles to public pension reform.

Corruption remains a pervasive global challenge, undermining trust, governance, and economic stability. Despite increased regulation, arbitral tribunals have struggled to address corruption effectively, often due to the high evidentiary threshold and associated procedural complexities. Artificial intelligence presents an opportunity to enhance efficiency and accuracy in detecting corruption by analysing evidence supplied by the parties to a dispute or amici curiae for red flags of illicit activities, similarly to other fields like anti-money laundering. The chapter examines the procedural implications of using artificial intelligence in arbitration, including data acquisition, party consent, and the potential impact on due process. It underscores the need for arbitrators to collaborate with parties to design protocols that ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. By carefully addressing these challenges, artificial intelligence has the potential to become a transformative tool, balancing innovation with procedural integrity.

This article examines sovereign States’ three approaches to data security: data storage, data disclosure, and the ban on data-based applications. It investigates whether these three approaches comply with the principles of international investment law. It also analyses possible defenses for State parties to adopt its approaches by taking examples: the Indian government banning the operation of China-based Applications, and the forced but failed sale of TikTok under governmental pressure from the United States. Importantly, this article reflects whether the international investment legal regime can appropriately address the issue of data security. Reflecting the combined nature of data, it proposes an alternative approach—a holistic approach—to data security.

Arbitration has had a long history in the United Kingdom and the United States. For many centuries, it has been widely used for the settlement of a variety of disputes between states, state entities and private parties and between private parties inter se. In England, the integration of equity and common law proceeded gradually until the beginning of the fifteenth century, when it slowed down and came to a halt. Thereafter, law and equity flowed in separate channels; and for many hundred years, much of the ethical content of English law consisted of principles of equity developed and applied in a separate court. Equity was used to correct the inadequacies and precedent-bound decisions of the common law in jurisdictions including the United States. But the situations in which and principles upon which relief was granted became in the course of time so well defined that equity developed into a technical branch of the law like what it was intended to correct. Reliance on equity to bring about a balance between legal rights and the interests of those persons who would be seriously harmed by their strict enforcement became less frequent, with the result that equitable principles as to what was fair and just were far less widely used in Anglo-American law than in any of the other great legal systems in the world. The simultaneous existence of two systems of substantive law in modern times is a phenomenon peculiar to common law countries. In two competing systems in the same body of law, the concept of ‘equity’ came to be regarded as an act of grace; it could not be demanded as of right.

A timely response to the pressing issue of public pension reform, The Public Pension Crisis explores the complex relationship between contract law and government pensions, specifically focusing on the Contract Clause and related state Pension Clauses. Analyzing over a decade of litigation, the book highlights the evolving role of pension contracts in constitutional law and examines more than 70 landmark cases to establish a clear, principled framework for determining when pension benefits qualify as contractual obligations. T. Leigh Anenson presents a unified theory to consistently treat public and private pensions, balancing the interests of employees’ earned benefits with the financial challenges facing governments. Combining legal scholarship with practical policy insights, Anenson not only provides a much-needed legal perspective on pension reform but also calls for a systematic approach to addressing the retirement security crisis.

Terrorism event databases provide systematized descriptive information about terrorist attacks from unclassified, open sources where the attack is the unit of analysis. Because terrorism is a type of behavior that is difficult to study by more traditional means (e.g., perpetrator interviews or police reports), event databases have come to fill an important niche. Contemporary efforts to build event databases can be traced back to the late 1960s . Thus far the most comprehensive event databases have been the RAND Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism and the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (MIPT-RDWTI), the International Terrorism: Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), the terrorism data collected by the US State Department, and the World-Wide Incidents Tracking System (WITS). Given the often-clandestine nature of terrorism, event data have important weaknesses, most notably media inaccuracies; conflicting information or false, multiple or no claims of responsibility; government censorship and disinformation; and a lack of systematic empirical validation. Nevertheless, event databases on terrorism can be justified in part because most terrorists seek publicity. Likely future improvements include better coverage of domestic terrorism, more extensive automated coding, enhanced geo-spatial coding, and better linkages to related databases.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms are complementary to court proceedings and have gained wide acceptance. The main advantage of ADR techniques is that litigants are not bound by the technicalities of ordinary court procedures. Society, the state and parties to a dispute are equally under an obligation to resolve the dispute before it disturbs the peace in the family, business community and, ultimately, humanity as a whole, because a civilised society implies the application of the rule of law and principles of natural justice. In fact, arbitration, one such ADR mechanism, has a long tradition in many countries, and India too has an age-old tradition of settlement of disputes through arbitration and conciliation. In ancient rural India, panchayats were a forum for the settlement of disputes. In villages, disputes were not to be taken to the courts of law; instead, they were referred to the panchayats consisting of village elders who commanded great respect. The village panchayats were so called because each consisted of five (panch) elders, who used to preside over civil, criminal and family disputes; these five elders were referred to as panch parameswar (equating them to the gods). This system worked successfully in the villages and was independent of state authority and control. The concept of parties settling their disputes in a binding manner by referring them to a person or persons of their choice or private tribunals was thus well known in ancient and medieval India. Appeals were also often made against the decisions of such persons or tribunals to the courts of judges appointed by the king and, ultimately, to the king himself.

The rapid digitalization of the economy has led to the proliferation of companies with primarily digital presences and global operations. This transformation has prompted governments worldwide to impose digital taxes on technology companies, sparking debates about the compatibility of such measures with international investment law. The introduction of digital taxes represents a significant departure from traditional territorial based tax principles, creating legal uncertainty and potentially discriminatory effects. And while the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework aims to establish a multilateral solution to digital taxation, its implementation poses challenges, including potential investor claims. Against this backdrop, this chapter explores the implications of digital taxation on foreign investors’ rights under international investment agreements, by examining four key questions: whether digital assets can qualify as protected “investments” under investment treaties; whether digital taxes violate national treatment obligations by disproportionately burdening foreign investors; whether such measures breach the right to fair and equitable treatment, including legal stability; and whether they amount to unlawful indirect expropriation by neutralizing digital assets as investments. By addressing these issues, this chapter highlights the evolving interplay between digital taxation and international investment law, emphasizing the need for balanced solutions that mitigate conflicts while fostering legal certainty in the digital economy.