We’re pleased to announce that in November and December 2024, Kostina Prifti (ESL), Ida Varosanec (RUG), and Benedikt Schmitz (RUG) will be the first “Public-Private Challenge” PhDs to defend their dissertations.

Below, you’ll find a link to the official announcement page, including an abstract of their manuscripts.

Kostina Prifti

Abstract

This study is concerned with regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies by focusing on its design processes, from an EU law perspective. Regulating AI systems is one of the most prominent regulatory discussions, due to the societal problems sprung by AI, which require the introduction of governance measures.

These measures, which may be embedded in various governance levels and governance modes, should aim to steer the design and deployment of AI technologies in directions that benefit societal interests, preventing or (at least) mitigating the risks that AI poses. Regulation by design, a research field and a practice concerned with the regulative activity of design, can play an important functional role in this societal objective by virtue of the impact that the practice of designing has on the behaviour of the technological system.

This thesis aims to explore and develop the field of regulation by design in the context of AI and EU governance. Concretely, this is performed by identifying and addressing the problems that hinder the potential of regulation by design, both as a research field and as a practice. Analytically, these problems may be categorised in four groups: conceptual, theoretical, practical, and governance-related problems.

Ida Varosanec

Abstract

The legislator is often placed on a tightrope. This PhD dissertation explores the complexity of balancing transparency and secrecy in using artificial intelligence (AI) systems within the public sector, particularly when these technologies affect individual rights and freedoms. AI can make public services more efficient, but when decisions are made by or with the help of algorithms, citizens and oversight bodies often struggle to understand the rationale behind them, due to secrecy concerns linked to intellectual property (IP) and confidentiality.

Although transparency is the currency of trust, trust necessitates a dose of secrecy. This research examines how current EU laws applicable to AI try to reconcile transparency – needed for accountability and public trust – with the confidentiality that protects proprietary AI technologies. It introduces a transparency-secrecy spectrum, where transparency fosters trust but cannot always be absolute due to privacy, security, and business interests. The study shows that whereas laws like the EU AI Act strive to ensure ‘sufficient transparency’, they fall short of fully balancing these needs, leaving public bodies with limited guidance on what should be disclosed.

Through an analysis of legal frameworks, the dissertation proposes that transparency in AI could be enhanced with technical tools (e.g. explainability methods), tailored laws, and ethical standards. Such an approach could help public authorities use AI responsibly, maintaining public trust while respecting the confidentiality required by AI developers. The findings suggest that a holistic approach combining transparency and secrecy can support ethical, transparent, and trustworthy AI in governance.

Benedikt Schmitz

Abstract

Consumer protection is taken for granted in today’s society. A multitude of consumer law harmonisation measures exist on the EU level. Also conflict-of-laws knows a specific rule for consumer contracts: Article 6 Rome I Regulation. It regulates that the law of the consumer’s home country applies to the contract unless a choice of law was made. If so, that choice may not lead to the consumer being ‘deprived of protection’ that they enjoy in their home country.

It is unclear how to assess whether the consumer is deprived of their protection. This book shows that both involved laws need to be compared. If one law is more favourable to the consumer, then that law applies (‘preferential law approach’). The judge needs to exercise this comparison on their own motion.

However, comparing the consumer laws of two countries leads to practical issues. The language and the difficult accessibility of sources on foreign law, amongst other things, render the comparison complicated. A comparative analysis of Dutch and German consumer law shows that the level of consumer protection in EU countries differs despite harmonisation efforts. Comparing both laws can therefore lead to the conclusion that the chosen law protects the consumer better. Yet, the complicated application of the rule leads the author to conclude that Article 6 needs to be revised.

The best option is to abolish the right to choose a law. The law of the consumer’s home country then applies, resulting in lower costs and higher legal certainty for both parties. 

Next April 3-4, the 2025 conference of the “Public-Private Challenge”, a joint research initiative of Erasmus School of Law and the Faculty of Law of the University of Groningen, will take place in the beautiful city of Groningen. The theme of the conference will be “‘Law in the Age of Transitions: Public Interests and Private Powers’.

The conference will focus on the role of law in structuring two key transitions that play a defining role in this emerging socio-economic organisation: the digital and the green transition. Developments in these fields have been rapid, with legislative initiatives like the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Service Act, the Net-Zero Industry Act, or the Critical Raw Materials Act having far-reaching ambitions and shaking-up the political economy of the Union. Drawing from this transformational spirit, this conference concentrates on how law reinterprets the public-private challenge and revises the balance between public and private actors. In other words, how does the law restructure claims and burdens, rights and entitlements between private and public actors in these emerging transitions?

For a detailed description of the call for for papers follow this link.

Deadline for abstract submission:  15 December 2024

From 12 to 13 September 2024, the Annual Conference of the Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association and of the Teaching Business and Human Rights forum took place at Wageningen University. During this conference, prof.dr. Martijn Scheltema (EUR), together with dr. Claire Bright and dr. Daniel Schönfelder, presented the European Model Clauses (EMCs) for upholding human rights and environmental standards in global supply chains, which they developed together with the rest of the European Working Group.

The European Model Clauses (EMCs) are a set of model clauses that aim to support effective human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD). They are designed to be in alignment with the requirements of the new EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which entered into force in July of 2024. The EMCs are publicly available and people are encouraged to participate in the consultation process, which can be found here. The consultation period closes on 2 December 2024.

Is the world without investment arbitration, a world with(out) justice? Investor-State Dispute Settlement has been undergoing profound criticism for the past fifteen years. This has, in turn, generated a wave of initiatives and proposals for reform, either institutionally mandated (e.g., the work of the UNCITRAL Working Group III) or commenced by scholars and civil society organizations. These proposals range from minimal reforms of the current investment arbitration mechanism (e.g., introducing a code of conduct for arbitrators) to a complete eradication of the system. What these all have in common is the acknowledgment that the status quo is untenable and requires at least some degree of change.

Starting from these premises, the conference intends to push the ‘reform’ debate forward and interrogate what a ‘post ISDS’ world entails in terms of delivering ‘justice’.

The conference aims to address two key questions: (i) whether and, if so, (ii) what form(s) of ‘justice’ will feature in the post ISDS scenarios proposed thus far.

We welcome abstracts (max. 500 words) addressing one or multiple aspects of the themes indicated in the call from different legal and non-legal disciplinary perspectives, including economics, political economy, and development studies.

If you are interested in contributing, kindly submit your abstract to sail@law.eur.nl by July 16th. The conference will take place on the 23rd and 24th November at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Successful applicants will be informed by October 1st and will be asked to submit an extended abstract (max. 3000 words) by November 5th.

Select papers will be invited for a post-conference publication project. Details will be shared during the event.

For more information on the themes and overall structure of the event, see our event page or click here. 

On 14-16 June 2023, the 5th World Congress of the World Society of Mixed Jurisdiction Jurists (WSMJJ) will take place in Malta. The topic is “Mixity in Private Law and/or Public Law“. This congress will be hosted by the University of Malta – Faculty of Laws through its Departments of Civil Law and European Law. Prof.dr. Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi from Rijksuniversiteit Groningen has been invited to give the first keynote speech. 

To register online to attend the 5th World Congress, click here. 

The University of Groningen is proud to host the 28 th  Annual Meeting of the Common Core of European Private Law. Entitled ‘Sustainability and its Narratives’, the meeting will be held at various locations in the city centre of Groningen from Wednesday, 24 May to Friday, 26 May 2023.

Any questions about this event? Send us an email at commoncoregroningen@rug.nl.

The Common Core of European Private Law was founded at the University of Trento in 1993, with the aim of comparing and understanding the private laws of Europe and thereby uncovering their Common Core. Through a case-based approach, the Common Core has so far explored myriad legal issues in the areas of contract, tort, and property law, with the commitment and help from hundreds of national reporters from various EU Member States. The fruits of this research network have to date been published in the 23 volumes of the Common Core series. The Common Core is the longest-standing and most productive comparative-law project worldwide. See Common Core and Intersentia for more information.

Past meetings were held in Sweden (2022) and in Italy (1995-2021). In 2023, the Common Core Meeting will be held for the first time in the Netherlands. Given the pressing economic, environmental and social questions posed by environmental degradation, global warming and inequality, the meeting will focus on ‘Sustainability and its Narratives’. With the great expertise of ten speakers from nine jurisdictions, we will reflect on the foundations of the law and the role of sustainability in the law before we move on to discuss sustainability in the areas of contract, tort, and property law. We will close the Annual Meeting by exploring Sustainable Private-Law Forms of Collaboration. Throughout the Annual Meeting there will be working group sessions that give editors and reporters the opportunity to discuss existing projects and to explore and pitch new ones.

Click here to registrate!

Date: 22nd of March 2023 

Location: European University Institute, Florence 

Organizers: Karolina Kocemba (European University Institute), Michał Stambulski (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Since the populist rise (especially in Central and Eastern European countries), scholars focusing on human rights and EU law have used the terms such as ‘rule of law crisis’, ‘human rights backlash’ or ‘democratic backsliding.’ Despite these terms primarily referring to policies and rhetoric carried out by populist governments, there are more actors than just populist parties involved in and responding to current development in Europe. On one hand, right-wing and fundamentalist organizations use legal mobilization to challenge human rights and European standards. Those organization with the support of populist governments are seeking social change through extensive usage of legal norms, discourse, or symbols. Therefore, institutions such as constitutional courts and constitutional litigation, designed to protect liberal rights and freedoms, are used to restrict them. Right-wing organizations learned how to use legal actions and tools, sometimes even more efficiently than liberal and human rights organizations that mastered these tools in the last decades. On the other hand, their effectiveness spurs the activities of liberal, rule-of-law-oriented legal (academic and judicial) organizations. Previously rather abstract categories like ‘constitution’ and ‘rule of law’ are becoming political ideas capable of mobilizing protest. In the middle of this we also have the EU institutions responding to the populist and nationalist challenge by seeking to close its democratic deficit and mobilize European political citizenship.

During the workshop, using both empirically and theoretical oriented papers, we would like to address the following questions:

• what are the legal and political criteria that distinguish ‘correct’ and ‘unacceptable’ legal mobilization,
• how populism facilitates legal mobilization,
• what role non-state actors play in populist regimes and what legal tools they use,
• what is the mobilization potential of European institutions, law, and academia,
• what factors constitute the effectiveness of mobilization through the law. 

Registration and full programme are available here. 

On Wednesday 21 September 2022, the seminar “Environmental Crime & Gender” took place in Malaga, Spain. This one-day event explored the varied intersections of environmental crime and gender with the aim of sharing knowledge with the criminological community and inspiring new research and collaborations. Since 2012, green criminologists from around the world have been organising this (bi)yearly seminar that focuses on different aspects of environmental crime, with the aim of pushing green criminological scholarship further by bridging (sub)disciplinary boundaries, but also by bringing together junior and senior scholars as well as practitioners to learn from each other. For more information about this seminar click here.