The chapter explores the impact of the use of AI in civil dispute resolution on the public/private divide. It argues that the introduction of digital technologies, and particularly AI, complicates traditional boundaries between public and private institutions, reshaping both values and institutional dynamics. The chapter unveils a dual trend: on the one hand, private-sector involvement in public courts can result in a creeping privatisation, impacting the allocation of technical expertise, the power to shape procedural law, and the ability to affect fundamental rights. On the other hand, technology can also drive a publicisation of private dispute mechanisms, with private actors adopting public-oriented goals. The chapter identifies three AI-driven disruptions of the public/private balance: (a) the extraction of value from publicly generated legal data by private AI developers; (b) the potential of AI to constrain judicial discretion and independence by reinforcing precedent-based reasoning; and (c) the lack of context sensitivity in AI systems, which necessitates a broader understanding of human–machine interactions. Therefore, the chapter argues for a careful delimitation of AI’s role in civil dispute resolution, so as to protect fundamental rights and values, as well as ensuring that human judgement remains central.

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) serves as a cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to align audiovisual media policies across Member States and candidate countries. Central to the Europeanisation process, the AVMSD aims to safeguard media freedom, pluralism, and cultural diversity while addressing emerging challenges in the digital landscape. However, the transfer of EU media policy has faced significant hurdles, particularly in candidate countries such as Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia. These challenges include weak institutional capacity, limited independence of national regulatory authorities (NRAs), and the misalignment of EU policies with local contexts. The 2018 AVMSD revision introduced rules extending regulatory frameworks to video-sharing platforms and reinforced NRA independence. Yet enforcement remains inconsistent within the EU, complicating its transfer to countries grappling with systemic political and economic pressures. Furthermore, geopolitical tensions, disinformation, and internal governance failures amplify the risks of exporting untested or problematic EU practices. This chapter critically examines the EU’s media policy transfer mechanisms, highlighting their inadequacies in fostering resilient governance structures. It underscores the need for reciprocal feedback during the accession process, advocating for reforms that integrate diverse cultural and political contexts. These insights contribute to rethinking Europeanisation to strengthen media governance and democratic values.

Technology has become the ‘fourth party’ in dispute resolution through the growing field of online dispute resolution (ODR), which includes using a broad spectrum of technologies in negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and everything in between. Furthermore, AI has become a particularly powerful fourth party, and may even become the third party in some situations where AI makes the decision. Accordingly, it is imperative that professionals and policymakers tread cautiously and remain responsible in their use of AI in dispute prevention and resolution. This chapter will discuss foundational considerations around the benefits and risks of AI in dispute resolution, and the regulations as well as ethical guidelines that should remain a top priority when using AI in civil dispute resolution.

In an era in which recycling is becoming almost an obligation that allows us to ensure the preservation of our planet, it is relevant to analyze the interferences between IPRs in the recycling activity. In this sense, it has been considered appropriate to study in this chapter the impact of the protection of artisanal and industrial geographical indications, especially now, when the European Union has adopted a new regulation. In Europe, artisanal and industrial geographical indications will protect porcelain, clothing, jewellery, and a wide variety of products resulting from the cultural heritage of European countries. It will be interesting in this regard to assess the limits that apply to geographical indications as IPRs. In particular, it will be interesting to analyze cases where parts of these protected products are used to create other recycled composite products, as well as the possibility of using recycled products for the creation of the protected products.

The contemporary proliferation of ‘reimagining’ as a cultural practice has evolved from a largely personal or artistic pursuit into a broader societal and technological phenomenon. A diverse range of actors – artists, political actors, corporations, advocacy organizations, and minority communities – now routinely engage in the reworking of popular works, symbols, and culturally significant designs. Against the backdrop of the shift from a linear economic model toward a circular economy, this chapter contends that a substantive recalibration of IP law is required. It argues that reimagining practices should be protected from excessive control by IP rights-holders through both legislative and judicial intervention. In doing so, the chapter contributes to ongoing debates concerning the appropriate equilibrium between exclusive IP rights and the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

In Chapter 4, we contribute to the debate of aligning green transition goals with the incentive structures inherent in IP law, with a focus on design law. Bringing together theoretical and practical perspectives on upcycling in design, we review the state of the art in the scholarly literature and analyze findings from our qualitative research, including interviews with Nordic designers who integrate upcycling into their design and business strategies. We examine the economic incentives and disincentives of design upcycling and assess the competitive advantages and disadvantages of shifting from a linear to a circular approach in design. Against this background, we discuss the extent to which the European design law framework aligns with upcycling as a design and business strategy, including the effects of the scope of protection, the definition of infringement, limitations, and the doctrine of exhaustion. We emphasize that undue legal uncertainty arises from the ineffectiveness of limitations and exceptions, and that horizontal problems result from overlaps between IP rights. Taking stock of challenges and opportunities faced by design upcyclers we propose principles from circular economy that may be infused into design law to counterbalance the economic and legal disincentives that design upcyclers are faced with.

This concluding chapter synthesises insights from across The Cambridge Handbook of AI in Civil Dispute Resolution, offering a forward-looking reflection on the ethical, institutional, and technological dimensions of AI integration in civil justice systems. It traces the evolution of AI in dispute resolution – from rule-based automation in e-commerce to the emergence of agentic AI – and evaluates how foundational principles such as transparency, accountability and human-centred design must guide future developments. Drawing on the book’s thematic parts, the chapter emphasises the importance of hybrid human–AI collaboration, stakeholder-driven system design and robust governance frameworks. It warns against over-reliance on opaque technologies and highlights the need for legal professionals to maintain core skills in empathy, discretion, and communication. Ultimately, the chapter calls for a principled approach to AI adoption that enhances, rather than undermines, fairness and access to justice in both public and private dispute resolution contexts.

This chapter examines the evolution and deployment of AI tools in the delivery of dispute resolution in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) with particular focus on arbitration. The chapter draws on publicly available original data to argue that there indeed is greater opportunity to deploy AI in arbitration as a tool for efficiency, which may lead to cost and time savings. It also explores the emerging regulation of these tools globally, regionally, and in some SSA countries and concludes that regulation of the use of AI must maintain the right balance of achieving efficiency in the process of arbitration and mitigation of its negative effects.

Fashion upcycling offers unprecedented opportunities for the sustainable reuse of clothing: using second-hand garments as raw materials for new creations, upcyclers can transform used pieces of clothing into new fashion products that may become even more sought-after than the source material. The productive reuse of garment components in upcycling projects is socially desirable in the light of the overarching policy goal to achieve environmental sustainability. However, the more individual fashion elements are protected by IP rights, the more legal obstacles arise. Fashion items may enjoy cumulative copyright, industrial design, and trademark protection. Accordingly, infringement claims may be based on several rights. Seeking to enhance legal certainty for upcyclers in light of the overarching objective to ensure a circular economy, it is thus important to develop horizontal defences that are applicable across different domains of IP law. Against this background, the essay will explain how the referential use concept known from trademark law can be transformed into a cross-cutting defence that dispels concerns about infringement not only in trademark law but also in industrial designs and copyright law.

The chapter examines the adjudication of AI-related disputes as well as the application of AI-driven technologies in international commercial courts (ICommCs), a relatively new adjudication forum. It argues that ICommCs are well-suited for resolving digital technology disputes due to their publicness, transparency, and capacity to develop jurisprudence for the digital economy – advantages that set them apart from ADR and ODR mechanisms. Their international nature also aligns with the transnational character of digital disputes. Additionally, ICommCs are ideal for integrating AI-driven innovations in dispute resolution, as they are more agile and adaptable than other forums, particularly ordinary domestic courts. Their specialised judges, manageable caseloads, and ability to swiftly address emerging technological challenges further enhance their suitability.

Chapter 4 considers a variety of legal theories that have been applied to protect the rights of wildlife. In recent years, the protection of wildlife has been enhanced by extending gains secured in strategic litigation to protect the rights of nature in Latin America. Beyond the cases that leveraged rights of nature, however, many of the creative theories seeking to protect the rights of wildlife in captivity, such as habeas corpus, have not been successful in courts in the United States, whereas a few such cases outside the United States have been successful. The obstacle in most of these cases is the courts’ reluctance to interpret the term “person” to extend to non-human animals. The chapter lays a foundation to explore the troubling dichotomy of how the law is more ambitious in protecting non-human elements of nature through a variety of legal mechanisms, addressed in Chapter 5, than it is in protecting non-human animals, addressed in the cases in Chapter 4.

This introductory chapter maps the evolving field of European media law and policy and unravels the roles that the Council of Europe, the European Union and European states play in the shared regulatory space. The chapter provides an overview of the key standards and instruments in European media law and policy. It critically reflects on overarching challenges for European media policy that result from the digital transformation of the media ecosystem, the dominance of global tech platforms, the enlargement of the European Union, rising political pressures on independent media and disruptive new technologies such as generative AI. Lastly, the chapter offers a roadmap to the contributions in the handbook.

This chapter explores potential advancements in co-regulatory settings to better cope with basic rights and democratic requirements when tackling disinformation online. While dubious information has become increasingly prevalent on social media platforms and might cause individual and societal harm, regulatory measures have depend on state regulation, self-regulation, and traditional co-regulation. In view of the disadvantages of state regulation and self-regulation, co-regulatory approaches are seen as the way forward in disinformation governance. The chapter argues that current co-regulatory settings have inherited structural deficits from state regulation and self-regulation when dealing with the specific challenges of disinformation, especially in cases of ‘awful but lawful’ speech. The chapter examines the requirements of adequately advanced co-regulatory approaches, the roles of the relevant actors, and the implications for future EU audiovisual policies.