FID Recht - Recht und Technik

Rebalancing online speech regulation: a model-sensitive approach to judicial protection of end users in Europe

2026-06-08T02:27:44+00:00

Making algorithmic transparency enforceable: sufficient intelligibility, technical evidence, and auditability across the EU and the US

2026-06-05T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This article examines algorithmic opacity as a legal–technical problem that undermines the enforceability of transparency and accountability obligations in automated decision-making systems across the European Union (EU) and the USA. From a comparative legal perspective, it argues that opacity is not merely a matter of technical complexity but an institutional condition that prevents verifiable accountability, hinders the traceability of automated decisions, and weakens the practical protection of equality, non-discrimination, privacy, and due process. The analysis shows that the EU, through Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, adopts a preventive and risk-based approach that translates transparency and intelligibility into ex ante documentation, traceability, and impact assessment duties, whereas the US framework remains fragmented, relying on sectoral or state-level rules and predominantly ex post enforcement. Landmark cases (SyRI, iBorderCtrl, COMPAS, SafeRent) illustrate how the absence of auditable technical evidence produces disproportionate effects on vulnerable groups and limits effective contestability. The article further highlights technological and extraterritorial asymmetries, as many systems deployed in the EU are designed or operated by US-based providers, constraining access to the technical evidence required for legal scrutiny. In response, it proposes an operational standard of ‘sufficient intelligibility’, grounded in a minimum package of technical evidence—model and data memory, inference records, and subgroup performance metrics—combined with a risk-proportionate verification scheme (ex ante/ex post). This framework operationalizes transparency as a verifiable legal obligation, enabling courts, regulators, and internal control bodies to assess, audit, and enforce accountability in practice.

Opacified transparency? Assessing the DSA transparency database via TikTok's moderation during the 2024 Romanian presidential election

2026-05-25T01:51:24+00:00

Same rights, new duties: the global digital compact and the limits of technological exceptionalism in digital governance

2026-05-21T02:47:44+00:00

Equity token issuance platforms in European Union financial law: regulatory classification, intermediation and compliance

2026-05-21T02:29:29+00:00

Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship

2026-05-20T00:00:00+00:00

Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship by SchneierBruce and SandersNathan E, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 2025, pp. 337, £27. ISBN-13: 9780262049948

Decentralised governance and the fiduciary architecture of charity law: the limits of DAO integration

2026-05-20T06:39:06+00:00

Explainable throughout the AI lifecycle: the evolution of the explainability provisions in the EU AI Act

2026-05-18T07:54:43+00:00

Rethinking India’s cybercrime law: from information technology act to emerging threats in a global context

2026-05-16T06:01:25+00:00

Beyond optimization: the non-computable core of law and the limits of AI-mediated legal decision-making

2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between artificial intelligence and legal decision-making through the lens of computability. It argues that many challenges associated with AI in law do not arise solely from technical limitations, but from structural features of legal reasoning itself. Drawing on computability theory, the article shows that legal judgment cannot be fully reduced to algorithmic procedures, as it relies on interpretation, proportionality, and discretionary justification. These elements constitute a non-computable core of law that resists exhaustive formalization. The analysis then explores how AI-mediated decision-making reshapes institutional structures through predictive rationality, algorithmic opacity, and hybrid forms of agency. In response, the article develops a due process framework grounded in contestability, meaningful human oversight, and accountable hybridity. It concludes by proposing a limits-aware approach to AI governance, in which computational systems support but do not replace the interpretative practices that sustain legal legitimacy.

Regulatory dialogues: Asia-Pacific perspectives in data governance between global standards and regional innovations

2026-05-15T00:00:00+00:00

data governanceinternational economic lawtechnologysovereignty

Encryption debates, regulation thereof and the implications for the quantum-safe cryptography transition: the case of the EU

2026-05-15T09:10:21+00:00

Algorithmic judging: lessons of logic and jurisprudence

2026-05-14T11:02:52+00:00

Singapore: an exemplar for future-proofing social media regulation in the age of AI or an anomaly?

2026-05-13T01:45:10+00:00

Fighting the beast of image-based sexual abuse. Part 2: be strategic and be proactive

2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This article is part two of a two-part series of articles on image-based sexual abuse, the non-consensual production and dissemination through social media platforms and search engines of intimate and sexual images and videos, including synthetic images (‘deepfakes’). This second part focuses on the technological measures platforms can take and discusses the measures that could be employed. Additionally, it analyses what measures the UK Online Safety Act 2023 mandates online platforms to take, and how the measures fit or should fit into the co-regulatory framework established by the Act. It examines the provisions in the OSA and the relevant codes of practice and guidance and finds that while the Act itself envisions the use of proactive measures to prevent the amplification of IBSA, the recommended measures in Ofcom’s instruments are limited to reactive measures (notice and action) and to measures already implemented by (some of) the large platforms. It argues that Ofcom should be more ambitious in its regulatory approach. The article also classifies the platforms on which IBSA appears and argues that enforcement should take a strategic approach, distinguishing between platforms. It concludes with an exhortation to regulators to be both proactive and strategic.

Fighting the beast of image-based sexual abuse. Part 1—the criminal law and platform regulation

2026-05-08T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This article is Part 1 of a two-part series of articles on Image-Based Sexual Abuse, the non-consensual production and dissemination through social media platforms and search engines of intimate and sexual images and videos, including synthetic images (‘deepfakes’). Part 1 explains the harms caused by IBSA to victims and considers two legal frameworks for countering it, namely the criminal law and platform regulation. It analyses the newly enacted criminal legislations on the Federal level in the USA (Take It Down Act, TIDA) and in the UK (Online Safety Act, OSA). The Article explains that because of the considerable challenges of prosecution, criminal law by itself is insufficient. It then explains the concept of platform regulation and considers the frameworks for platform regulation in TIDA and OSA. A major challenge examined in this context is jurisdictional reach of the law and cross-border enforcement necessary to make these platform regulation frameworks effective. It concludes by synthesizing how the criminal and regulatory framework interact.

The evolution of UK online governance: an examination of the compatibility of the risk assessment model with the ECHR

2026-04-28T06:29:09+00:00

Confidentiality of AI Conversations: Protecting Self-Represented Litigants Who Use ChatGPT for Legal Advice

2026-04-17T20:24:09+00:00

When a layperson uses ChatGPT to obtain feedback on a legal matter, attorney-client privilege may not apply, as ChatGPT is not a lawyer, much less a human. Further, while lawyers are entitled to protection for their opinion work-product, it is not clear whether self-represented litigants are entitled to the same protection. Additionally, the broader duty of confidentiality binds only attorneys, not AI systems like ChatGPT. The public increasingly uses AI tools such as ChatGPT. If a layperson employs ChatGPT for legal advice, particularly in a civil matter, such communications may be discoverable and potentially admissible. This presents an access to justice issue because a self-represented litigant who seeks to understand the scope of their legal rights may not realize that their AI communications can be used against them. Alternatively, they may not be able to afford an attorney, and thus decide to take the risk of communicating with AI anyway. This Article argues that self-represented litigants should enjoy protection for opinion work-product, and further, AI responses to self-represented litigants should also be permitted to count as opinion work-product. In addition, this Article proposes a discovery management protocol so courts may handle AI communications in a practicable manner. The work-product solution may be implemented more easily than other options, such as extending attorney-client privilege, though that also may be advisable in the interests of justice. Finally, as a backstop, judges could also consider excluding such AI communications from admission under Rule 403.

Data scraping for scientific research purposes: legal bases under the GDPR

2026-04-16T12:01:28+00:00

Fossil-Fueled Failure: How Nonrenewable Energy Policy Will Cost the United States the AI Race

2026-04-16T19:33:40+00:00

This Article examines the structure and regulation of the United States electricity industry in light of accelerating electricity demand driven by Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and digitalization. It argues that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and related executive actions have exacerbated existing structural weaknesses within the nation’s energy governance framework by repealing renewable energy incentives, privileging nonrenewable generation, and reinforcing the instability of an executive dominated regulatory model. Through a comparative analysis, the Article contrasts the United States’ fragmented, market-based approach with China’s centralized, statute-based framework, which integrates renewable energy development, grid expansion, and AI infrastructure into a cohesive national strategy.

While acknowledging the constitutional and institutional limits of United States energy federalism, the Article contends that meaningful reform remains possible through measures that promote reliability and long-term planning. It concludes that the United States economic and technological leadership in the AI era requires a durable, whole-of-government energy policy that supports all forms of energy generation and unites generation, transmission, and distribution within a coherent framework capable of supporting both innovation and sustainability.

Juror Contact in the Digital Age: The LinkedIn Problem

2026-04-12T18:33:59+00:00

This Article examines an evolving dispute in professional responsibility: whether a lawyer makes a prohibited communication when viewing a juror’s LinkedIn account. When one LinkedIn user views another’s profile, the platform automatically notifies the profile owner and may include the viewer’s identity. Ethics rules are currently divided on whether or not this notification would count as a prohibited juror communication. On one hand, the ABA and some state bar associations explicitly allow attorneys to view social-media profiles of jurors even when the lawyer’s identity is revealed. On the other hand, some bar associations and courts believe these automatic notifications violate ethical rules, primarily, the juror-contact rule. Drawing on a survey of ethics opinions and the purpose of juror-contact rules, this article argues against a strict interpretation of what prohibited juror contact means in the digital age. This article argues that, with respect to the juror-contact rule, a communication requires that the attorney have a purpose to convey information. Since there is no purpose to convey information through these automated notifications, there is no communication. During voir dire, lawyers have an obligation to understand the people who will be deciding their client’s case. This interest needs to be balanced against the purpose of the juror-contact rule, which is preserving an impartial jury. Hiding the fact that an officer of the court is researching a juror’s public internet presence does little, if anything, to promote an impartial jury. Therefore, the ethical juror-contact rule cannot be used to justify a ban on researching jurors’ LinkedIn profiles.

Defining a blueprint for sustainable academic conferences: lessons learned from the BILETA annual conference 2024

2026-04-10T03:10:32+00:00

Non-consensual deepnudes: responses under EU law to a novel form of sexual abuse

2026-04-10T02:10:42+00:00

Accelerating innovation and strengthening digital governance-BILETA 2025 special edition

2026-04-09T01:17:53+00:00

Pay or consent to have your data used – the complex intersection between the DMA and data protection rules

2026-04-02T08:10:20+00:00

The Myth of Sufficient Technological Barriers: Reevaluating the "Gates-Up-or-Down" Analogy in Data Scraping

2026-04-09T18:39:21+00:00

In Van Buren v. United States, the Supreme Court adopted a “gates-up-or-down” analogy from physical trespass law to define “authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Despite historical shifts in judicial interpretation, courts have recently relied on this binary framework to interpret authorization as it applies to online trespass. But courts have struggled to apply this binary inquiry while still accounting for complications in modern authentication technologies. When pursuing a code-based inquiry based on the gates-up-or-down analogy, courts risk oversimplifying the dynamic nature of online trespass. Such an approach fails to account for how modern authentication measures—such as CAPTCHAs, unsearchable URLs, and compromised passwords—blur the line between public and private information. This Note argues that the gates-up-or-down framework is inadequate in defining authorization in online trespass and calls for a more balanced approach that looks beyond a code-based inquiry.

Falling Flat: Why AI Cannot Free Melodies from Copyright Protection with “All the Music” as an Example

2026-03-30T17:43:39+00:00

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to surprise us with its humanlike abilities, it raises the question of whether AI-created music can or should be afforded legal protection. Particularly, how should copyright law treat melodies produced by an AI designed to algorithmically generate every possible melody? This article seeks to answer that question, ultimately concluding that AI-produced melodies are not copyrightable and that melodies are not merely facts undeserving of copyright protection, but something valuable to mankind and worth protecting by law.

The article explores Damien Riehl’s All the Music project (ATM) and his arguments for why ATM’s outputs should be protected as a case study that AI-produced music is uncopyrightable and that melodies are more than uncopyrightable facts. The article shows that U.S. copyright law does not recognize machines as “authors” for copyright purposes, that reducing melodies to “just math” conflicts with mainstream legal and musicological understandings of melody, and that even if ATM’s outputs were copyrightable, most of its “melodies” would fail for lack of originality. Projects like ATM neither free existing melodies from copyright protection nor meaningfully reduce the risk of infringement litigation for musicians.

Regulating cookies without consent: the risks of the UK’s new exemptions

2026-03-25T01:18:11+00:00

Scaling Sustainable Propellants to Address Rocket Emissions: Lessons From the U.S. Aviation Industry

2026-03-24T20:31:55+00:00

The rapid growth of the U.S. commercial space industry has exposed a profound regulatory gap in addressing rocket emissions. By releasing greenhouse gases and particulates like black carbon, alumina, and water vapor, rocket launches not only contribute to climate change but also accelerate stratospheric ozone depletion. The U.S. aviation industry encountered similar environmental challenges decades ago, which eventually prompted legal and policy frameworks to curtail aviation emission through sustainable fuel technologies. Unlike aviation, however, the space industry now operates in a legal vacuum, with no binding international environmental standards or domestic regulations targeting rocket atmospheric pollution. As rocket emissions penetrate into every layer of the atmosphere, their environmental risks are even more intensified and distinct from aviation emissions. This Note argues that sustainable rocket technologies, such as green propellants and green non-chemical propulsion systems, offer an effective pathway to contain rocket emissions. Drawing lessons from the U.S. aviation industry’s gradual regulatory evolution, the Note proposes that a proactive regulatory framework, including industry-specific emission standards, incentive programs, and international collaboration, is critical for the U.S. space industry to avoid replicating aviation’s delayed response and to ensure that the new space era proceeds within environmentally sustainable bounds.

Artificial intelligence in the judiciary: a systematic literature review on the practical applications

2026-03-18T07:50:09+00:00

Facial recognition on trial: data protection, discrimination, and the ethics of algorithmic governance in policing

2026-03-09T09:18:10+00:00

Correction

2026-03-03T10:21:53+00:00

Processing of synthetic data in AI development for healthcare and the definition of personal data in EU law

2026-03-03T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform healthcare, but this requires access to health data. Synthetic data generated through training machine learning models on real data offers a way to balance innovation and privacy protection. However, uncertainties in the practical classification of synthetic health data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) currently limits the possible benefits of synthetic data. Through a systematic analysis of relevant legal sources and an empirical study, this article explores whether synthetic data should be classified as personal data under the GDPR. The study investigates the residual identification risk through generating synthetic data and simulating inference attacks, challenging common perceptions of technical identification risk. The risk of identification depends on several factors. The findings suggest synthetic data are often likely anonymous since results of an attack cannot easily be verified. The legal analysis highlights uncertainties about what constitutes a ‘reasonably likely’ risk and a need to further investigate a threshold for accepted risk. To promote innovation, the study calls for clearer regulations to balance privacy protection with the advancement of AI in healthcare.

Regulating digital influencers: legal accountability and commercial speech in the age of social media – a French model

2026-02-28T02:48:38+00:00

Incident reporting and investigation under the AI act: some insights from aviation

2026-02-27T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This article examines the provisions of the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) on incident reporting and investigation and explores how the regulatory context of the AIA could benefit from the experience of aviation. Accounting for the differences between the AI and the aviation industries, it is concluded that the establishment of a strong safety culture is a key element, while a series of interventions could significantly improve the current AIA system on incident reporting: (i) clarification of the reporting duties, including the development of a common taxonomy of risk or harm, alongside the expansion of the duty’s personal scope; (ii) disconnection of incident reporting and investigation from liability; (iii) establishment of voluntary reporting systems; (iv) provisions on confidentiality of the reports and protection of the reporters; (v) mandatory investigation of at least some serious incidents by an independent authority; and (vi) effective dissemination of safety information. A major enabler of all these is the development of a strong safety culture.

Revisiting Eli Lilly v. Canada: Judicial Interpretation of IP Law and Exposure to Investor-State Disputes

2026-02-24T21:43:34+00:00

Eli Lilly v. Canada was an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) case widely noted for signaling a regime shift in intellectual property (IP) protection from the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to ISDS. Its true yet often overlooked significance, however, lies in being a case of first impression on whether judicial interpretation of IP law may serve as a basis for state responsibility independent of denial of justice. To bridge that gap, this Note undertakes a close reading of the novel doctrinal discussion in Eli Lilly and related precedents, drawing implications for the broader theory of state responsibility arising from substantive judicial acts. It then applies those implications to domestic IP regimes through a comparative lens, with particular attention to common law jurisdictions, where judicial interpretation plays a central role in developing IP law. This Note argues that Eli Lilly suggests judicial lawmaking may be reviewable by ISDS tribunals as a basis for state responsibility, akin to legislative or executive acts, thereby exposing common law IP regimes to heightened risk of investor-state disputes. Nevertheless, the “regulatory chill” of which scholars have warned as a result of Eli Lilly may be overstated. Any reading of the decision as offering a promising pathway to overturn domestic judicial lawmaking solely on the basis of reduced IP protection is likely too optimistic.

Quantum computing and digital payments: opportunities, threats, and the path toward regulation

2026-02-23T09:25:11+00:00

Coding computational laws: 20 recommendations for public administrations

2026-02-16T08:18:12+00:00

Autonomous systems: how should contract law treat such autonomy?

2026-02-12T02:03:04+00:00

Judges-in-the-loop? Judicial involvement in human oversight of high-risk decision support systems under the EU AI Act

2026-02-12T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) requires institutions that deploy high-risk AI systems to ensure that they are overseen by individuals with the necessary competence, training, authority, and support. Judicial institutions may look to judges who use the high-risk decision support systems they deploy to perform this oversight role. These judges are ‘in-the-loop’ in the sense that they review each output the system generates and decide whether to override, disregard, or defer to it. This article explores the implications of making judges-in-the-loop responsible for human oversight under the AI Act by assessing the unique professional responsibilities, skills, motivations, and biases they bring to the AI-supported decision-making process. It finds that the task of overseeing high-risk decision support systems is too big for judges-in-the-loop alone and proposes an alternative way of involving judges in human oversight that not only meets the AI Act’s requirements, but more reliably safeguards judicial values and fundamental rights.

Transnational personal data flows and blockchain technology

2026-02-12T07:23:28+00:00

Domestic and international approaches to combating ransomware: between contradiction and coherence

2026-02-05T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Ransomware is one of the greatest threats facing contemporary societies. Its harms are widespread and diverse, impacting physical assets, physical and psychological well-being, as well as trust in domestic and international institutions. To counter the ransomware threat, states have adopted a range of measures—from resilience-building at home to extraterritorial enforcement. These measures do not only have domestic implications. They have various touchpoints with international law. In some cases, especially in relation to extraterritorial law enforcement, they may come into tension with international obligations protecting state sovereignty. In others, states may be required by law to take positive measures to protect the rights of individuals and other states. States must take care in crafting domestic responses, as such responses must not conflict with obligations undertaken under international law. This paper explores the interaction between these domestic measures and relevant international obligations, with concrete examples from domestic practice and state signalling at the inter-governmental level.

Upstream, downstream, and in between: navigating the GPAI value chain under EU law

2026-02-04T03:09:53+00:00

Smart cities and privacy: comparative analysis of Japan and China on the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces

2026-02-04T00:00:00+00:00

ABSTRACT

Current research on smart cities focuses on the use of artificial intelligence and big data because smart cities require data—smart city projects ultimately combine data collected from multiple sectors to provide smart services. In this regard, the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) is a common urban technology and a convenient tool to collect data in smart cities for various purposes, including security monitoring, traffic management cameras, access permit systems, and automated fare payment. The use of FRT may require automated biometric identification in public spaces, and the question arises as to how different legal jurisdictions would regulate such cases. In this article, we compare the regulations of three jurisdictions in the European Union, Japan, and China to explore the social and political contexts behind the regulatory differences in handling personal information obtained from FRT use.

The case for contextual copyleft: licensing open-source training data and generative AI

2026-02-04T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

The rise of generative AI systems presents new challenges for the Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) community, particularly around applying copyleft principles when open-source code is used to train AI models. This article introduces the Contextual Copyleft AI (CCAI) licence, a novel use of the copyleft mechanism that extends licence obligations from training data to resulting generative models. The CCAI licence enhances developer control, incentivizes open-source AI, and mitigates open-washing. A structured three-part evaluation examines: (i) legal feasibility under current copyright law, (ii) policy justification across traditional software and AI, and (iii) cross-contextual benefits and risks. Still, open-source AI carries a higher risk—especially misuse—making complementary regulation essential to achieve a fair risk-benefit balance. The article concludes that, within a robust regulatory environment focused on responsible AI, the CCAI licence offers a viable path for preserving and adapting core FOSS values to meet the demands of modern AI development.

Digital lawmaking: evolving landscape of digital lawmaking and the integration of digital twins

2026-02-02T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

In the digital age, the legislative process—the cornerstone of democracy—is being profoundly transformed by advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). Despite its significance, this shift remains largely overlooked in public and academic discussions. There is still no established field of ‘digital lawmaking,’ while concerns are growing about the transparency of AI use and its impact on legislation and democratic decision-making.This study provides a structured overview of the current state of digitalization in lawmaking, with a particular focus on the growing use of AI across parliaments. Drawing on international examples, it aims to increase transparency in legislative processes and to support the development of future-oriented digital solutions.Beyond describing current developments, the paper explores the potential, feasibility, and ethical basis of what could emerge as the most promising technological concept for future legislative processes: digital twins—as transformative tools for legislative planning and monitoring.

The new data protection convention 108+ and its importance for Asia

2026-02-02T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Over 40 years in the making, a new global data privacy agreement will soon come into force. The Council of Europe’s 1981 Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108) will be superseded by a ‘modernized’ Convention ‘108+’. The Parties to Convention 108, as a potentially global treaty, include three countries from Latin America, and five from Africa, but none from Asia, the continent with the next highest concentration of data privacy laws. This article considers which of the 18 Asian countries with data privacy laws could accede to 108+. Each country is assessed against five impediments to accession: Jurisdictions which are not States; States which are not democratic; Laws of inadequate scope; Laws lacking an independent and effective data protection authority; and Laws with substantive provisions falling short of 108+ ‘accession standards’.The analysis shows that seven countries deserve consideration, but only if the ‘accession standards’ for 108+ become more flexible.

Ensuring compliance with the UN guiding principles through contract: can AI help?

2026-01-30T05:33:04+00:00

53 Int'l J. Legal Info. [v] (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Issue 3

53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 185 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Editorial Comment

Human Rights Protection in Europe and Russia: Addressing the Implications of Russian Expulsion under the Statute of the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 187 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Jane Austen, Law Professor, on Bar Prep: Four Stress-Free Lessons on Estates in Land and Family Law 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 199 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Challenges Confronting the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in Nigeria 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 210 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Core Skills & "Cool Tools" from the Third Generation of FCIL Librarians 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 219 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Integrating Generative AI in Legal Pedagogy: A Case Study 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 272 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 285 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Behind the Books: Global Insights from Law Librarians

Research Handbook on Competition and Technology 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 291 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Book Reviews

Intellectual Property and Cannabis 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 292 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Book Reviews

A Research Agenda for Patent Law 53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 293 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

Book Reviews

53 Int'l J. Legal Info. 295 (2025)

2026-01-30T04:06:42+00:00

International Calendar