The adoption of AI in arbitration practice has increased significantly in the past few years. Even though AI has not been adopted to date for the purpose of arbitral decision-making in international commercial arbitration, questions arise regarding its use in the decision-making process by arbitrators. There have been new regulatory developments on this in the past year with the publication of several guidelines on the use of AI in international commercial arbitration and the promulgation of the EU AI Act. The chapter carries out an analysis of these instruments and the current arbitration framework in order to provide a clarification on the evolving position of the law on this matter. The chapter namely explores the extent to which the regulatory framework considers that the use of AI tools in the decision-making process by arbitrators could lead to influencing the arbitrators’ decision, which could lead to delegation of justice. The chapter argues that the international commercial arbitration framework does not expressly prohibit the use of AI in decision-making by arbitrators but that this use can come under breach of the arbitrator’s personal mandate and due process.

This chapter traces how contemporary media pass through different regulatory zones and examines the different rules that govern each zone and how the zones relate to each other. It briefly charts the recent and ongoing evolution of the media, from analogue roots to generative AI futures, and notes the fundamental rights and regulatory ramifications of technology-driven innovations. It draws an analytical line from these conceptualisations through to the contemporary threats to media freedom that regulation urgently needs to address.

This chapter analyzes the marketing of upcycled products from a perspective of European and German unfair competition law. As part of the sustainability trend, some traders use upcycled products to enhance their image or develop new business models. Marketing such products must not only comply with trademark law but also with unfair competition law rules. Under Articles 6, 7 UCP Directive, traders must not mislead consumers about a product’s commercial origin. When upcycling involves third-party products, consumers might wrongly assume the upcycled items come from the original producer, especially when both operate in similar markets. Clear information is therefore required to prevent confusion. If traders reference the original products in their advertising, the rules on comparative advertising under MCA Directive may apply, since even broadly interchangeable goods, like wine bottles upcycled into vases, can qualify as competitors. Additionally, German unfair competition law may restrict practices that exploit another trader’s reputation. For instance, using luxury goods to create everyday items could unlawfully damage the reputation of the original brand.

Access to justice is a fundamental right, yet for millions of people around the world resolution of legal problems via both formal and informal means is not available, affordable, accessible, or understandable. This chapter explains how artificial intelligence (AI) is making a practical difference in the problems of everyday people through the exploration of three case studies: two expert systems, including both an eviction defence system and a tool to help with a high-volume immigration clinic, and a conversational AI tool that incorporates a large language model to provide legal information to tenants in Illinois. Ultimately, this chapter shows the range of impacts that AI will have on the legal profession, from methods of legal service delivery, to replacing routine legal tasks, or by offering significant support by freeing up resources and providing essential legal assistance to those who might otherwise go without. Through concrete examples and discussions of both benefits and challenges, we invite legal professionals and policymakers to consider AI’s role in creating a more just global legal system.

In this chapter, we review emerging evidence on cultural differences in emotion regulation by featuring three key aspects. First, cultural contexts influence what people want to feel (i.e., emotion goals). Second, cultural contexts shape the means with which people try to change their emotions (i.e., emotion regulation strategies). Third, cultural contexts guide the extent to which people attend to emotions. Furthermore, cultural contexts influence the association between emotion regulation and well-being. Engaging in emotion regulation valued within one’s cultural contexts tends to be associated with better well-being and health, whereas engaging in devalued emotion regulation tends to be associated with poorer well-being and health. These findings on cultural differences in emotion regulation and their consequences for well-being and health provide insight into how cultural meaning systems shape individuals’ emotional experiences.

Welfare economic theory seeks the justification for government intervention in markets, in market failure, and in distributional issues. An analysis of the market failures that exist in a specific industry or market can not only provide justification for government regulation or other kinds of intervention in general, but it can also suggest which type of intervention or regulation is optimal from a welfare economic perspective. This chapter addresses the question of how the emergence of news aggregator platforms and the introduction of generative AI in news production have affected the market failures that constitute the core problem underlying private investment in news production. The focus of the analysis is on the public good character of news and the positive externalities of news production. The question addressed is: Have the consequences of these existing market failures become more prominent or have they been resolved by these developments? Based on this analysis, the chapter discusses how this informs policy concerning these developments.

This chapter explores the delicate balance between the need to combat online disinformation and the safeguarding of fundamental rights, particularly media freedom and pluralism, as essential elements of freedom of expression and democracy. The chapter outlines the evolution of the EU’s policies and regulations related to information integrity and discusses the key elements and challenges of the EU’s approach to addressing disinformation in the context of media pluralism. Focusing on the Code of Practice on Disinformation, the Digital Services Act, and the European Media Freedom Act, the chapter discusses their complex interplay and overarching strategy, which delegates the critical task of assessing systemic risks and fundamental rights – including media freedom and pluralism – to very large online platforms.

Infrastructures that underlie public debate have a significant role in public opinion formation and have long been regulated in multiple ways. Limiting the domination of opinion power by particular interests has been one of the stated aims of such regulation. But the approaches have also depended on the often-unstated presumption of a journalistic-editorial role being highly influential in the formation of public speech and opinion. This chapter examines how communication infrastructures have changed with the development of major platforms and resulting changes in journalism’s role within public debate. These changes raise new regulatory challenges if opinion power is to be limited, and they make the positive dimensions of freedom of expression all the more valuable for understanding what would now be required for communicatively legitimate forms of democracy. The chapter examines aspects of the Digital Services Act and the European Media Freedom Act in light of freedom of expression’s positive dimensions to consider how European law and practice might promote a pluralism of public speech that is curated in the audience’s interests.

The purpose of this chapter is to study in some detail the membership of composition operators Cϕ in the Schatten class Sp (H), where H is a weighted Hilbert space (equivalently a rotation-invariant Hilbert space) of analytic functions on D.

The 1980s ushered in a new era of electronic music in Yugoslavia with the introduction of personal computers. The young and progressive composers Srđan Hofman and Zoran Erić established the first computer music studio in Yugoslavia – the Tonski Studio of the Faculty of Music, which opened in 1986. The state-of-the-art facility acquired Apple Macintosh II machines in 1988, becoming one of the very few Macintosh-equipped studios in Europe. Composers who studied at the Electronic Studio of Radio Belgrade in the 1970s and 1980s quickly traded the outdated analog machine for personal computers. The arrival of the modern equipment quickly brought Yugoslav computer music into dialogue with developments abroad. Vladan Radovanović embraced computer composition in his pieces from the 1980s. Younger composers used sampling. However, these new and dynamic technological explorations would abruptly come to a complete halt only three years later, with the start of the Yugoslav Wars and the ensuing brutal economic sanctions.

This chapter analyzes upcycling practices from the perspective of trademark law, verifying their compatibility under the functional approach governing such exclusive right, whose impact on trade is not going to diminish in the context of a contemporary market increasingly dominated by communicative and reputational logics of brands. The analysis refers to the new paradigm of the circular economy, within which upcycling tends to be included, in order to question whether this change of political horizon in the European production model may affect the lawfulness of such practices, similarly to what can be argued in light of EU case law for recycling and refurbishing practices. In this sense, correctness in product elaboration and presentation to the market, mirroring the actual positive (if not even sustainable) contribution of the upcycler, should play a decisive role to exclude trademark infringement. The analysis will further reflect upon the applicative side of this issue, questioning whether this permissive interpretation does not end up in a return to well-established ‘old-fashioned’ principles that, properly tailoring exclusivity according to a model of fair competition, offer a valuable counterbalance to the excesses of protection that the trademark evolution has long been suffering from, like other IP rights.

Platforms and legal tech tools have enabled new ways to draft, manage, conclude, and monitor contracts. This chapter will focus on contract performance management tools and automated systems for monitoring contract execution. Thanks to the granularity offered by technology, broader and more detailed monitoring is possible, even at the contract execution phase. These may include using key performance indicators (KPIs), feedback systems to automatically identify performance gaps and compliance verification mechanisms. Introducing tools for monitoring contractual performance may prevent disputes by providing a more precise qualification of non-compliance. Contract performance management tools can also be used in dispute resolution mechanisms, which can intervene in situations where the KPIs have already been identified. After an introduction to some of these tools and solutions and a description of the relevant software, this analysis will examine the effects on contract practices and contract law, focusing mainly on (a) performance determination and non-performance contestation, and (b) monitoring infringements of mandatory rules or policies with contract compliance.