Over the centuries, dizzying technological developments have brought about radical changes in diplomacy. As a result, the role ofnon-state actors has been strengthened in the postmodern era, significantly impacting the traditional state-centered diplomatic model. Various forms of diplomacy have emerged as key instruments of soft power, including digital diplomacy. The latter has become an essential element for achieving states’ foreign policy goals and involving non-state actors in international relations. To understand the growing importance of digital diplomacy, this research article examines its historical evolution and potential, which are the main goals of the paper. Qualitative methods, specifically document analysis and case studies, were applied to conduct the research. The research results indicate that digital diplomacy emerged from continuous technological advancements, which have fundamentally transformed diplomacy by improving communication among state actors, increasing negotiation efficiency, facilitating the targeting of global audiences, and enabling non-state actors to engage in solving global challenges. The article’s conclusions enhance knowledge about the evolution of digital diplomacy, thus revealing its potential for all the subjects ofinternational law.
The evolution of digital financial platforms and other species of ‘internet banking’, has enabled new opportunities for greater participation of people, particularly the masses, in the official payment arrangements in Nigeria and South Africa. Smart-technology-enabled- financial market has resulted in financial inclusivity by affording the poor the leverage to transact in the money market and sundry economic activities previously seen as a preserve of the elite. The emergence of internet financial solutions constitutes part of an amazing circle in the evolving financial technology (fintech) which has birthed the recognition of digital currencies in most countries. This paper adopts the doctrinal method of legal research in evaluating the attempts to bureaucratically govern internet financial platforms and their products by legislation and regulatory mechanisms in Nigeria, South Africa and other African countries like Zimbabwe, particularly the proposed introduction of National (Central Bank) Digital Currencies. Leveraging the African Union (AU)’s economic blueprint of promoting trade synergy amongst member states, also known as Agenda 2063. This paper advocates for synergy while making a case for a robust statutory framework to sustain fintech operations in Nigeria and South Africa, which in turn would drive the African regional economic integration through the evolving cashless policy design.
Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly underpins automated decision-making (ADM) in high-stakes contexts such as credit scoring, workforce management, and public service allocation, raising acute concerns about transparency, accountability, and the limits of algorithmic secrecy. This paper examines how Article 22 GDPR should be understood following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s SCHUFA ruling, which resolved the prior doctrinal debate by confirming that Article 22(1) operates as a prohibition in principle, qualified by exceptions under Article 22(2) and safeguards under Article 22(3). Through doctrinal analysis of SCHUFA alongside EU national court and data protection authority decisions spanning multiple sectors, including Uber/Ola, Deliveroo/Foodinho, Buona Scuola, AMAS, Caixabank, and Grindr, the paper delineates operational criteria for when ADM is solely automated, when it reaches the significant effects threshold, and what meaningful information must substantively provide. The analysis demonstrates that intermediate algorithmic outputs can constitute ADM where they materially shape subsequent outcomes, and that nominal human review fails to satisfy Article 22 where it amounts to rubber-stamping without interpretive criteria or authority to deviate. The paper further develops a cumulative ADM doctrine: sequential or continuous automated steps may collectively trigger Article 22 where they produce aggregate effects on livelihood, credit, services, or public benefits. A key doctrinal contribution is the distinction between transactional non-selection, which does not cross the significance threshold, and positional assessment, where algorithmic flagging, downranking, or sanctioning alters an individual’s standing within a system and determines future access to opportunities. The paper concludes that explainable AI is a legally necessary instrument for making disclosures contestation-enabling under Article 22(3), but is insufficient without institutional safeguards, including genuine human oversight, rights to challenge, data protection impact assessments, and coordination with the AI Act’s risk-based framework.
The implementation of the European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet is among the EU’s most ambitious cross-border digital identity initiatives undertaken within the EU. Estonia, a country often regarded as a digital frontrunner, received an EUDI Wallet Minimum Viable Product (MVP) from the private Estonian company, Cybernetica, in June 2024, enabling credential issuance independent of physical ID cards, selective disclosure supported by privacy-preserving cryptography, and a modular design aligned with the EU Architecture and Reference Framework (ARF). While Estonia’s existing identity and interoperability infrastructure provides strong continuity in trust, assurance, and security, the transition produces frictions centred on the redistribution of control, data minimisation and presentation, portability, and cross-border interoperability. The analysis therefore indicates that the principal challenge is not establishing baseline legal compliance, but aligning governance, supervision, liability, and recovery support with a wallet-mediated transaction chain during a period of channel coexistence.
With the advent of the digital age, data has become one of the most powerful tools shaping markets. The article examines how data is crucial for online platforms in gaining dominance, as well as several characteristics of online markets that play a role in competitiveness. Throughout the article, network effects, multi-sided markets, switching costs, and lock-in effects are discussed as examples of how these factors might affect innovation and restrict competition. The purpose of the article is to provide an overview of digital markets’ challenges and highlights recent regulations intended to promote a competitive digital markets.
Facebook, Instagram, TikTok - any social media is full of advertising. The history of celebrity endorsement of products is nothing really new, but Internet brought it to the extreme level. A wide range of global population has been relying on influencers for all sorts of information. It creates the great responsibility as influencer marketing may lead to faulty advertising and misinformation, especially among minors and people with low digital literacy. Until recently influencers and their activities were not the subject of particular legal interest. These issues are currently addressed through tailored legislation neither at EU level nor in national regulations. To compensate for it, the last few years have seen a proliferation of soft law (regulatory guidelines) and industry self-regulatory measures to provide greater transparency. But is soft law combined with case law enough to provide the desired standard of consumer protection in the whole Single Market? Since platforms and technologies change at fast pace are we able to create a regulation that will not lag behind the development of the market? The digital environment in which influencer marketing takes place, which can hardly be confined to one country, creates additional challenges for legislators. The objective of the article is twofold: firstly, to present the existing legal framework at the EU and Polish levels; and secondly, to identify potential weaknesses in these regulations in the context of influencer marketing.
This study examines the extent to which national legislation in Iran aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the framework of Multi-Level Governance (MLG). Employing a mixed-method computational approach—combining thematic analysis and topic modeling—the research explores the argumentative and content structures of legislative texts. Findings reveal partial alignment in areas such as education, health, and environmental protection, while significant gaps remain in community empowerment, gender equality, climate action, and participatory governance. From a policy perspective, the study highlights the need to revise legislative processes to systematically integrate SDG principles, establish mechanisms for assessing legal compatibility with SDG indicators, and build the capacity of lawmakers. It also emphasizes the importance of enhancing the participation of local institutions and civil society in the legislative process and recommends developing data-driven platforms for continuous monitoring of legal alignment with the SDGs. Theoretically, the study contributes to the application of the MLG framework in legal and development studies by offering empirical insights into the interplay between governance levels and legal systems. However, the research is limited by its exclusive focus on formal legal texts, limited interpretive depth of topic modeling, and its single-country scope. Future studies should explore comparative legal assessments, critical discourse analysis, and network-based approaches in other developing countries. Additionally, analyzing sub-national laws and their implementation could provide further insights into the challenges and opportunities of SDG localization.
The topic of Cyber peace is receiving surprisingly little attention. Having considered some characteristics of Cyberspace affecting the topic of Cyber peace and having considered whether we benefit from trying to strictly define what we mean by Cyber peace, the article proceeds to offer a defence for the role that law may play towards Cyber peace. Against this background, the article proposes a focus on the three criteria Alfred Nobel articulated for his famous Peace Prize: (1) advance fellowship among nations, (2) the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and (3) the establishment and promotion of peace congresses, as a suitable point of departure towards Cyber peace. The article concludes that to move towards Cyber peace we need specific, practical, and realistic actions rather than lofty proclamations. Thus, it calls for the establishment of a realistic "Cyber Peace Agenda" and introduces ongoing work towards such an Agenda under the custodianship of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.
This contribution examines the need for European normative legal framework governing artificial intelligence implementation in parliamentary institutions. Using a three-pillar methodology—analysing soft law instruments (particularly Inter-Parliamentary Union Resolution and Guidelines), investigating European parliamentary AI use cases, and developing policy recommendations—the study reveals significant regulatory gaps. Whilst the EU AI Act provides limited coverage of parliamentary AI applications, several European legislative bodies (Estonia, Italy, Portugal, Spain, the European Parliament) have successfully implemented AI for speech recognition, document processing, and citizen engagement. Current soft law frameworks establish important principles including transparency, privacy protection, and sustainability, yet lack binding force. The research demonstrates that parliamentary AI's connection to democratic processes and national sovereignty necessitates stronger oversight. Two regulatory approaches are proposed: reclassifying parliamentary AI as high-risk under the EU AI Act, or developing dedicated European legislation addressing fundamental rights protection, national sovereignty, security concerns, and innovation promotion. The study concludes that establishing explicit European normative regulation would provide essential democratic safeguards whilst maintaining national sovereignty, parliamentary autonomy and fostering technological innovation in European democratic institutions.
Meta has more than two billion daily active users, two and a half billion posts a day, and more than a million reports of violations of policies and guidelines every day. These large numbers justify the establishment of a body that goes beyond the usual content moderation and reporting system. Recognizing that its role in online speech cannot be managed solely through algorithmic decision-making and reporting, Meta has introduced a non-judicial grievance mechanism, the Oversight Board, which delivers its decisions solely in light of Meta’s policies, values, and guidelines. The OB is committed to the Business and Human Rights regime, and in line with this commitment, the UNGPs are the governing international human rights law standard. This article cross-referenced the OB goals defined by its Charter, the UNGPs standards relevant to the goals of the OB, the statistics of the operation of the OB, and the doctrinal background of these goals, in particular, the accessibility, predictability, and transparency prongs as elements of an effective remedy. Through this in-depth analysis, we aim to explore whether the OB fulfills its predefined goals, and thus provides an effective non-judicial grievance mechanism regarding freedom of speech in the online environment.
The article assesses the possibilities of using databases to secure receivable debts, i.e. as collateral, more than ten years after the ruling in the case Your Response v. Datateam Business Media where this possibility was denied. In order to do so, it first examines why someone may wish to use a database for this purpose and what the features are, including the limited accessibility of the database and its contents, that make a database an asset that may be useful in that context. The article then addresses the scope of the sui generis database right and its limited utility from the perspective of security rights, taking into consideration the entry into force of the Data Act. It analyses databases at three different levels: semantical, syntactical and structural, exploring at which level the features resulting in the value of the database should be placed, and thus the level at which the question of establishing a security interest over a database should be dealt with. The article goes on to provide for some theoretical approaches of introducing the rules on securities over databases into the legal system. It analyses the perspective of introducing proprietary rights to the database, the possible qualification of the database as a digital asset and the question of its control, as well as the contractual schemes that may be used in order to establish and enforce the security interest over a database.
This review considers Cybersecurity für Manager: Cybergefahren wirksam begegnen – das Kompetenzmodell für die Praxis, a recent contribution to the German-language cybersecurity literature for executives. Situated within the context of rising regulatory expectations and the EU’s NIS2 Directive, the book seeks to enhance management-level awareness and provide a structured framework for addressing cyber risks. The review situates the work in relation to comparable publications, outlines its main thematic orientation, and reflects on its significance for non-technical leadership.
This study is necessitated by India’s abysmal record with internet shutdowns, raising human rights concerns. In the past decade, India has witnessed a surge in internet shutdowns, ostensibly justified on grounds of national security, counterterrorism efforts, maintenance of law and order, and suppression of misinformation. These actions have sparked concerns regarding the violation of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech, expression, and profession. Recognizing the pivotal role of the internet in contemporary society, this study scrutinizes the legal framework surrounding such shutdowns and the permissible grounds of governmental intervention. Through an exhaustive examination of shutdown grounds, frequency, and duration across Indian states and Union Territories (UTs) during 2021-24, this study evaluates their alignment with statutory and judicial directives. Employing both doctrinal and non-doctrinal methodologies, the study interrogates the hypothesis that internet shutdowns in India often transgress mandated guidelines. Findings underscore repeated violation of the established norms at the hands of governmental authorities and stress upon strict adherence to guidelines to curb potential abuses of state authority in implementing internet shutdowns. The study concludes that while India's approach to internet shutdowns provides valuable insights for the global community, it highlights the need for stronger enforcement of legal safeguards to prevent misuse. These lessons can help other nations balance state control with the protection of digital rights.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are not merely tools to assist legal professionals—they represent a deeper epistemic and normative challenge to the foundations of legal authority. While LLMs allow humans to produce outputs that convincingly simulate legal reasoning, they lack the embodied judgment, ethical intentionality, and contextual awareness that define legitimate legal decision-making. This paper argues that the social legitimacy of the legal profession relies on capacities that are not reproducible through computational systems. We first examine the epistemological limitations of LLMs, drawing on Kantian philosophy and complexity theory to show that their outputs are simulations, not acts of understanding. We then analyze how this technological shift risks reducing legal professionals to jurists of the gaps – filling in only where machines fall short – thereby hollowing out the humanistic mission of law. Against this backdrop, we call for a renewed professional ethic centered on interpretation, creativity, and normative judgment, rather than technical supplementation. The automation of law is not the end of the profession, but it could be the end of its authority – unless its practitioners reclaim what cannot be outsourced.
As equity tokenization using blockchain-based distributed ledgers and tokens is trying to gain traction in multiple jurisdictions, the need for compliant, reliable and scalable secondary markets has become urgent. Forming a vital component of the overall venture financing value chain exchanges and other secondary market trading facilities are necessary to provide adequate levels of liquidity, investor confidence and market access to make the tokenization value proposition viable. In contrast to cryptocurrencies and utility tokens used for Initial Coin Offering (ICO) fundraising equity tokens are classified legally in the European Union broadly as financial instruments and specifically as securities invoking extensive compliance requirements not only for the issuer of the equity token and/or primary market issuance platform, but in particular for secondary market operators. The objective of this article is to identify key legal and compliance challenges impacting operation of these secondary markets and their ability to support a viable tokenization value chain. While research questions are analyzed from a European Union-level perspective, specific examples from the jurisdictions of Luxembourg, Germany, Liechtenstein, Estonia and Poland are investigated in order to identify root causes of deficiencies and potential observations and recommendations for future European developments in this highly competitive and globalized industry. Quantitative overview of key relevant market players is also attempted with the objective of substantiation of qualitative observations and conclusions.
The European Union’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic relied heavily on creating, deploying and using digital technologies. This article focuses on the implications of two such measures - digital contact tracing and digital vaccine certificates. Much of the academic response to these has focused on data protection law, the preservation of privacy and the reluctance to build surveillance infrastructures that would empower states with tracking capabilities. This contribution tackles these digital initiatives from another angle. It examines their deployment through a broader human rights lens, and explores whether the EU, in mobilising these measures to curb the pandemic and reinstate free movement during these times, complied with its international obligations to protect human rights, particularly those enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This paper argues that in urgent and extraordinary contexts where knowledge and understanding of health threats are limited, such as was the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains essential to be prudent if and when overstating the primacy of one or more rights over others. Human rights instruments include provisions on emergency contexts, and laws implementing fundamental rights, such as the GDPR, allow for the deployment of measures to help protect against threats to public health. It is essential in such contexts to strive for an appropriate balance which ensures a sustained role for protective mechanisms such as lawfulness, proportionality, and legal and technical safeguards, in light of public interest goals and without undue deference to state interests which may have serious implications - such as, in this case, unjustified mass surveillance.
With an electorate of 52m the German Social Elections (Sozialwahl) is arguably one of the largest single elections in the European Union. It elects representatives of all people under social security and has been conducted through postal voting only for decades. In 2023 eVoting was introduced as an additional voting channel for the first time. This paper focuses specifically on the eVoting part, particularly the technical requirements and the voting protocol used. It analyses them against general voting principles and the relevant Recommendation of the Council of Europe.
Chinese data protection seems to be problematic. On the one hand, it does exist, at least formally, especially after the reform initiated by the adoption of the Cybersecurity Law and finished by the Personal Information Protection Law entering into force. However, the mere adoption of personal data protection regulations does not guarantee that they provide personal data protection at an appropriate level. For EU law, the adequacy standard is the reference point for verifying personal data protection in a third country. Therefore, it is necessary to meet specific criteria summarising the term of essential equivalence, as introduced by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This article discusses the three most critical problems that result from comparing the provisions of the Chinese Cybersecurity Law, the Civil Code, the Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law with the EU’s adequacy standard. The article consists of the introduction, four parts and closing remarks. The first part explains the methodology of research on Chinese data protection law and criteria applied to its examination. The second, third and fourth parts discuss the complicated relationships between the laws related to the protection of personal data, the status of state authorities as data controllers and multi-stakeholder supervision over personal data protection.
Overall, algorithmic transparency is an important aspect of responsible AI development and deployment. Ensuring that AI systems are transparent and accountable will help build trust and confidence in these systems and ensure that they are used ethically and effectively. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a cutting-edge domain that is fundamentally redefining different areas of daily experiences, such as health care, transport, finance, education, and others. The systems are not created for making a judgment like human judgment of natural language, spotting patterns and problem-solving; rather AI produces machines that also have intelligence level same as that of human beings. AI having more influence over us, it is to be considered the ethical directions of these tools and see that they operate under principles of transparency and accountability. The element regarding algorithmic transparency, which means the process of understanding the functioning and explanation of how AI systems make their decisions is the one that is most crucial. The issue of algorithm transparency is of fundamental importance for many considerations. AI systems are not only supported by fairness but also by their non-discrimination. If we do not know how a system of AI arrives at the decisions made, it becomes impossible to determine if the provided results meet equal treatment for everybody. If used in delicate areas like recruitment, credit, and legal system- where the AI-machine must make choices which are life changing, then this aspect is very important. On top of fairness, algorithmic transparency is also an important factor for accountability. If we are ignorant about what an artificial intelligence algorithm does and what is the source of its decision-making process, we are unable to track and classify the mistakes or mishaps of the system. This has always mattered when central to the operation of systems with high stake, such as those used in self-driving vehicles or in health care. Algorithmic transparency may be reached using different instruments. The transparent AI systems can be made by a more transparent design, for example, the simple modelling tools, that use interpretable models. Another method is designing technologies and techniques that can help people why the artificial systems difficult to be decoded but easy to understand which they can utilize in making decisions. Therefore, algorithmic transparency is a key factor of the AI made responsibly and used by the society. It is crucial that AI machines are both transparent and accountable since this will lead to people building trust in the system and accepting its ethical and practical implications. This paper examines regulation of algorithmic transparency in the EU, specifically provisions under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it aims to situate analysis of the GDPR's provisions on explainability of AI systems within broader technology ethics and policy discourse. The paper's scope is limited to EU regulations applicable to AI data processing transparency.
