This paper offers a systematic and interdisciplinary analysis of contemporary work on memory externalization, with a particular focus on how technological systems are integrated into human mnemonic practices. Drawing on the frameworks of extended cognition (EXT), the article examines how a wide range of digital technologies participate in memory processes. The paper provides a structured review of how three forms of declarative memory – semantic, episodic, and prospective – are differentially externalized through technological environments. While existing literature often discusses ‘external memory’ in general terms, it rarely distinguishes between the specific functions involved, leading to conceptual imprecision. Addressing this gap, the article develops a refined conceptual taxonomy of memory externalization. Its central contribution is the distinction between two fundamentally different externalization strategies. Cognitive offloading refers to the delegation of information to external systems in order to reduce internal cognitive load. Biloading, by contrast, refers to a strategy of redundancy in which internal and external resources jointly support memory, not by replacement but by reinforcement, enhancing reliability, well-being, autonomy, construction of narrative identity. By clarifying these distinct modes of externalization, the paper shows that memory externalization is not a uniform phenomenon but a complex pattern of cognitive delegation and coordination between neural and technological resources. This conceptual framework offers a more fine-grained understanding of how external resources, such as technology, are integrated into mnemonic processes. The article argues that this taxonomy provides a significant contribution to the contemporary philosophy of memory and opens new avenues for empirical and philosophical research on technologically EXT.

Government guidance published during the COVID-19 pandemic implied that employers owe a duty to protect their employees from the risk of infectious disease in the workplace. That employers owe a duty in respect of occupational disease – including occupational infectious disease – is well established. However, there is no authority to support the proposition that the employer’s duty extends to include infectious diseases in general circulation in the community (e.g. COVID-19, flu, measles). The Government’s guidance was therefore based on a misunderstanding of employers’ liability. This article argues that infectious diseases in general circulation are, and should remain, beyond the scope of the employer’s duty in English law.

This article investigates selected contradictory procedural arrangements in France and Poland to establish how they can all operate under the same European rule-of-law standards. Building on the theoretical framework of procedural formalism and on the Polish and French highest administrative courts’ case law on the procedural question of whether court staff can produce certain documents and copies thereof in place of a party to court administrative proceedings, the authors portray diversified, and sometimes even contradictory, approaches to procedural formalism, which testifies to inconsistent understanding and implementation of rule-of-law standards in proceedings before administrative courts in both countries.

In the digital age, the proliferation of illegal content online remains a significant public concern for which no ideal solution has yet been found. In recent years, the European Union (EU) has developed a complex legal framework that relies on social media companies to implement both EU and Member State laws in addressing the issue. This paper examines this development through the lens of regulation studies, showing how the EU is mandating social media companies to act as regulatory intermediaries. On this basis, it argues that the EU is institutionalising the content moderation processes created by these companies, effectively integrating them into the legal enforcement landscape. The paper highlights how this institutionalisation raises important questions about the tension between the self-interest of private actors and the public interest in combating illegal content online. It further underlines how, by adopting such a legal framework, the EU continues to pursue governance frameworks grounded in market-based principles. From this perspective, the paper makes two main contributions to the literature on digital law in the EU. First, at a conceptual level, it demonstrates the value of regulation studies as a lens for interpreting recent legal developments. Second, from a critical standpoint, it questions the EU’s legal framework in light of the tension between companies’ self-interest and their intermediation mandate, as well as the persistence of market-based governance approaches within the EU. The paper also contributes to the literature on regulation studies by proposing a new case study of regulatory intermediation in the digital context.

Constitutional theory remains obsessed with high-profile constitutional decision-makers, but front-end constitutional actors that provide key support and advice to decision-makers also help protect and defend constitutions. This paper profiles a group of front-end constitutional actors that I call ‘the influencers’, which is composed of: statutory drafters, permanent secretaries, government lawyers, and house officials. After detailing the roles and responsibilities of these actors, I then look at how they influence frontline decision-makers. Next, I examine the perspectives, values, and mentalities that the influencers operate on, all of which are key to further understanding these constitutional actors. This exploration into the influencers contains significant implications for the UK constitution, such as: disregarding influencer advice can often boil over; back-end constitutional actors are not the sole preservers of the rule of law; and front-end actors may help fill a decisive scrutiny gap regarding legislation. The influencers also contain implications for constitutional theory, in that they challenge some typical narratives found in constitutional scholarship, and they can also significantly impact constitutional success (or failure). Ultimately, deeper insight into the influencers can help us understand how to better protect and defend constitutions on the front-end.

The enforcement priorities set by competition authorities carry significant socio-economic consequences: their decisions affect market structures, determine what constitutes legitimate business conduct, and influence how economic power and welfare are distributed. Yet, in most jurisdictions, priority-setting remains a largely reactive, insulated process, guided by a narrowly defined consumer welfare standard and disconnected from wider social, economic, and democratic concerns. Consequently, the benefits of enforcement, such as correcting market failures or enhancing consumer savings, are often unevenly distributed among members of society, and without specific accountability to the broader public. This issue is particularly pressing today, in a turbulent world shaped by geopolitics, geoeconomics, the politicisation of competition law and regulation, and growing pressure to deliver rapid and efficient results. By relying on insights from the theory of responsive regulation, social accountability of independent regulatory authorities, and deliberative and participatory governance models, the paper investigates how priority-setting can be theoretically rethought and practically restructured to be more responsive, strategic, and socially accountable to broader concerns. Our proposed approach remains within the scope of competition authorities’ administrative discretion and does not entail changes to the current substantive, procedural, or institutional frameworks.