This contribution reflects on the 2026 Montesquieu lecture given by Elisa Morgera at Tilburg University. From a green criminological perspective, it argues that phasing out fossil fuels to curb climate change is a good start. However, we also need to take into account that greening the economy will not sufficiently reduce the ongoing problems of ecological destruction and pollution as long as growth remains a central goal. More radical steps may be necessary, such as rethinking how our economies and societies are currently functioning.
On December 2025, 452 plaintiffs filed a tort case, suing Japanese government for damages incurred due to its inadequate climate change measures. According to the complaint, they seek 1,000 yen in compensation per person as a part of damages suffered by each plaintiff. Prior to this case, Japan has observed five climate cases in Japan, four of which sought to halt the construction or operation of coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) one sought emission reduction from thermal power plants. This case is the first case to claim state’s tort liability, incorporating several novel elements not seen in the previous five cases. This paper introduced this most recent climate case as of writing, by outlining the background of climate litigation in Japan, the circumstances leading to this lawsuit’s filing, and the content detailed in the complaint. It then compared this case with previous climate lawsuits, to find its novelty in priority in invoking social movement toward climate action to judicial victory, as well as general citizens’ accessibility toward the case. It then identified its potential in accelerating climate movement, and challenges in maintaining unity of plaintiffs’ group. This case, which differs from the previous five cases in various respects and includes a second filing scheduled for February this year, has the potential to bring significant changes to the development of climate litigation in Japan, drawing continued attention.
Criminal proceedings against America's La Cosa Nostra dominated headlines and captured the public's attention in the late 80's and early 90s. However, they have all but disappeared from scene, with many declaring La Cosa Nostra to a 'thing' of the past. This commentary reviews the case US v. Aiello et al., an FBI lead indictment into a multi-year, multi-million-dollar fraud scheme carried out against participants in illegal gambling, specifically, backroom poker games. Of interest, the fraud was supported by advanced digital technologies and the cooperation of La Cosa Nostra - seemingly contradictory phenomena. The events of US v. Aiello et al. recount a noteworthy resilience, continuity, and, simultaneously, evolution in the five families' activities and modi operandi. In particular, the following questions are addressed: is La Cosa Nostra returning to the crime scene, in what form, and in cooperation with whom.
This contribution discusses the case of CJEU CK v. Dun & Bradstreet. This case concerned the right to information when an algorithm is used to take the decision. The CJEU considered that the received information had to be meaningful. The CJEU however left open what should be considered meaningful information. This contribution considers what legal and technical standards can be used to interpret the criterion of meaningful. This contribution uses ideas proposed by computer sciences and US standard agencies to propose concrete guidelines.
This editorial introduces the Tilburg Law Review’s 2025 Case Commentary Issue, examining how legal systems responded to three major challenges: adaptive organised crime, algorithmic transparency, and climate justice. Bringing together contributions on La Cosa Nostra’s use of technology, the CJEU’s approach to meaningful explanations under the GDPR, and Japan’s climate litigation following the ICJ climate advisory opinion, the issue highlights law’s evolving but still tentative capacity to address complex transnational problems.
