Making the Unacceptable Acceptable
Over the last days, England and Northern Ireland have witnessed a wave of racist violence and destruction. These riots, which have thrown the country into chaos, included attacks on mosques, burning of cars, and confrontations with the police. The racist nature of the events is made clear by the racist chants that are sung amid them, by posters shown by participants, and by the selective targeting of minorities. Given how shocking these scenes are, one naturally wonders what is causing them. Research suggests that elite rhetoric in recent months can have made these events more likely, by making far-right individuals feel that acting on their views is more acceptable.
Continue reading >>
Unprecedented Fraud and New Momentum
Venezuela is entering a new, dangerous phase of its conflict. Though not fully verified, the opposition appears to have won the July 28 election by a landslide. Nicolás Maduro's government has likely committed unprecedented fraud, tampering with votes and withholding tallies. Massive protests have erupted nationwide, with the government rapidly increasing repression and surveillance. This challenges prospects for a democratic transition, requiring a skilled national and international response.
Continue reading >>The French Fifth Republic Enters Uncharted Waters
After yesterday's elections, the French Fifth Republic steps into uncharted waters. In the short term, France’s role at the heart of EU integration and as a key supporter of Ukraine remains steadfast. This stability is impressive, given most predictions. However, this new phase of French politics will be fragmented and fluid, demanding a recalibration to find a stable equilibrium while countering the far right. French moderate parties face a tough road ahead. Their success or failure will not only shape France’s future but also reverberate beyond its borders.
Continue reading >>
France’s Legislative Elections and the Uncertain Path to 2027
As most expected, Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) was the clear winner of the first round of the snap legislative elections in France, unexpectedly called by President Macron three weeks ago. Le Pen’s party, allied with a rump Les Républicains, led by Eric Ciotti, obtained 33.1% of the votes. A coalition including moderate and radical left parties, the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP), came second with 28.1%, while the centrist parties supporting Gabriel Attal’s government received 21.3%. The mainstream right Républicains who refused to ally with the RN stopped at 6.6%. The RN confirmed its strong showing at last month’s European elections and more than doubled its votes in comparison to the last legislative elections of April 2022. Yet, an RN-led government is not a foregone conclusion.
Continue reading >>
A Global South Perspective on Loss and Damage Litigation
In June 2024, delegates undertook two-week-long negotiations at the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Change Conference. These meetings concerned the modalities of the newly instituted Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund and the provision of financial assistance to developing countries. In this piece, we reflect on the future interactions between the L&D Fund and litigations regarding L&D. We argue that these two phenomena must be seen as having a synergistic relation, effectively benefitting the Global South.
Continue reading >>
A High-Stakes Game
So it has happened: Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) received more than twice the votes of Macron’s Renaissance list in the European elections (31.4% vs. 14.6%). Following the results, Macron announced to dissolve parliament and call an early election. Judging by the immediate reactions on social media, Macron’s announcement shocked several commentators and the public. Yet, from the perspective of the 2027 presidential elections, the reasoning may not be as reckless as it seems. Macron’s calculation is based on the consideration that three more years of the current situation would make a Le Pen presidency highly likely in 2027.
Continue reading >>When Treaties are Forbidden
A few months ago the UK’s Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State’s policy to remove protection seekers to Rwanda to have their claims determined there was unlawful. The British government responded to this decision with a Treaty and Bill that seek to legislate the fiction, or indeed, the falsehood, of Rwanda’s safety. This move demonstrates the fragility of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally. Addressing the latter, this essay shifts focus from domestic challenges to international ones, exploring whether STCs could be contested as ‘forbidden treaties’.
Continue reading >>
Supreme Judgecraft
In R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) the UK Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State’s policy to remove protection seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. Rwanda is not, at present, a safe third country. There are, the Supreme Court found, “substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.” Should this occur “refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment in circumstances where they should not have been returned at all.” We argue that the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning and evidential assessment are both impeccable, applying legal principles that are well-embedded in international and domestic law to very clear evidence. However, the UK government’s responses are deeply troubling, from the perspectives of refugee protection, international legality, and the rule of law in the UK.
Continue reading >>
What is Permissible in the War against Hamas?
What is permissible for the Israeli government to do in response to the murderous attack by Hamas? The answer to this is difficult, not only because blood is boiling and hearts are broken, but also because there is a complex moral dilemma here. In this blog, we hope to offer some guidelines to clarify the issue. We do not claim to provide definitive answers. The required analysis is complex, and it is incumbent upon the Israeli government and the IDF to ensure that the various steps taken are morally justified.
Continue reading >>Automated Decision-Making and the Challenge of Implementing Existing Laws
Who loves the latest shiny thing? Children maybe? Depends on the kid. Cats and dogs perhaps? Again, probably depends. What about funders, publishers, and researchers? Now that is an easier question to answer. Whether in talks provided by the tax-exempt ‘cult of TED’, or in open letters calling for a moratorium, the attention digital technologies receive today is extensive, especially those that are labelled ‘artificial intelligence’. This noise comes with calls for a new ad hoc human right against being subject to automated decision-making (ADM). While there is merit in adopting new laws dedicated to so-called AI, the procedural mechanisms that can implement existing law require strengthening. The perceived need for new substantive rules to govern new technology is questionable at best, and distracting at worst. Here we would like to emphasise the importance of implementing existing law more effectively in order to better regulate ADM. Improving procedural capacities across the legal frameworks on data protection, non-discrimination, and human rights is imperative in this regard.
Continue reading >>
The Definition of ‘Digital Labour Platform’ in the Proposed Platform Work Directive
On 9 December 2021, the European Commission announced its proposal for a Directive on improving working conditions in platform work—the ‘Platform Work Directive.’ The Directive’s main goals are to reduce false self-employment among persons performing platform work, to regulate algorithmic management on digital labour platforms, and to provide legal certainty for platforms. This blog post focuses on an element of the proposed Directive that has gone relatively unremarked in the scholarly and policy debates so far: the definition of ‘digital labour platform.’
Continue reading >>
YouTube Updates its Policy on Election Misinformation
Last Friday, YouTube announced that it ‘will stop removing content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past US Presidential elections’. This development has upsides and downsides, a few of which are worth sketching out, and all of which further accentuate why the US constitutional framework regarding online platform regulation requires updating. The nature of this update requires transcending a governance approach of overreliance on expecting good faith self-regulation by companies providing these intermediaries.
Continue reading >>Monetising Harmful Content on Social Media
The possibility to profit from the dissemination of harmful content triggering views, engagement, and ultimately monetisation does not only concern the contractual relationship between social media and influencers, but also affects how other users enjoy digital spaces. The monetisation of harmful content by influencers should be a trigger, first, to expand the role of consumer law as a form of content regulation fostering transparency and, second, to propose a new regulatory approach to mitigate the imbalance of powers between influencers and users in social media spaces.
Continue reading >>
Rethinking the Regulation of Financial Influencers
The growth of social media has led to an unprecedented rise in financial influencers, so-called finfluencers, who share investment ideas and opinions with a global audience, even if they are not qualified or licensed to provide financial advice. This can be particularly dangerous for retail investors with low levels of financial literacy. The regulation of financial influencers is a complex and multifaceted issue that demands a comprehensive approach; the current regulatory framework may not be adequate.
Continue reading >>
The Shape of Personalisation to Come
While targeted advertising is still a money-making machine for social media platforms, its motor has begun to sputter. However, with artificial intelligence, the potential is even greater for companies to discover and exploit biases and vulnerabilities in consumers that they themselves may not be aware of. The point of this dive into economic engineering of personalised environments on digital platforms is to highlight the intentional creation of algorithmically curated choice sets for consumers. How can the law ensure their fairness?
Continue reading >>