Abstract The main focus of this paper is the meaning of the term “theory” in comparative law. It examines the comparative law theory literature and conducts an in-depth analysis of a sample of articles from two journals (ajcl and ejclg). Theory is considered very important in legal scholarship. ajcl articles are usually more “theory-thick” than their European counterparts. Nevertheless, the majority of European literature also places a strong emphasis on theory-related language. Yet, it is often unclear why authors used these words or what they contributed to the paragraph, section, or research objective. None of the articles reviewed discussed or acknowledged the polysemous nature of theory. This lack of clarity and transparency may hinder the progress of comparative law scholarship.

Abstract Relying on a micro-comparative analysis, mainstream comparative scholarship tends to be of the view that most modern legal systems place limits on both the number and the content of the property rights private parties can create. This paper takes a different angle, arguing that such conclusion, although correct and meaningful, is essentially incomplete, as it does not take account of the implications this ‘numerus clausus principle’ has for the institutional governance of legal systems. Adopting a macro-comparative approach, the paper analyses this principle from the perspective of its impact on the role of courts and their legal reasoning in modern Germany, England and the US. It concludes that the numerus clausus principle has materially different ‘systemic effects’ in each of these jurisdictions and that this has important implications both for the understanding of the principle and the development of property law more broadly.

Abstract In the last five years, several issues related to the development of artificial intelligence have been tackled by various countries and international organisations and the legal definition is one of them. Fundamentally to understand what Artificial Intelligence is, and when to apply the related rules, the definition issue is addressed in this essay considering various documents adopted by several countries and international organizations, such as the European Union, United Kingdom, United States of America, China and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (oecd). Moreover, the paper also considers the intended meaning of “trustworthy ai” in considered countries and supranational organizations and eventually, aims to give a comprehensive definition of Artificial Intelligence starting from what is exposed and trying to merge the considered solutions.

Abstract At first glance data protection litigation seems to be a niche topic. Yet, record sum compensation such as those resulting from the Meta – Cambridge Analytica lawsuit (725 million usd) reveal enormous practical relevance. This proceeding took the form of a class action, brought before a Californian court. Such collective proceedings might sweep across the Atlantic, as the EU Directive on Representative Actions introduced a new collective litigation mechanism. We commence our comparative analysis by outlining the relevant legal landscapes in the EU and the US, give an account of the latest developments, and examine relevant case law and scientific literature (paras. 1.–4.). Subsequently, the law and economics of data protection litigation are explained (para. 5.), which will serve as standard of comparison. On this basis, in para. 6. the article contrasts the efficiency of collective litigation mechanisms, enabling enforcement against data protection infringements, with the objectives of evaluating the legal status quo and distilling proposals for future legal policy.

Abstract In this article we wish to point out – using the metaphor of a marital crisis – some of the reasons behind the growing conflict between digital technologies and the law. We identify various causes: a)Over the last years there has been a radical change in roles: once one looked at the law for solutions, now they are searched in digital technologies, seen as very efficient instruments of governance. b)Legal instruments are inadequate to cope with a phenomenon in constant evolution, and whose economic and socio-political weight is immense. c)Digital actors have become the most effective law makers, with rules not only prescriptive but directly executable. Our conclusions are that: a)The digital has changed international relations. We see “digital empires” and “digital colonies”: the EU has gradually fallen in the latter category. b)The EU approach, expressed by thousands of normative provisions, is ineffective and will be counter-productive in respect of its objectives. c)It would be preferable to adopt a “general principles” model able to govern not only the present issues but also the changes expected in the next years.

Abstract The Indonesian Government is attracting foreign investment in infrastructure to support equitable development by simplifying the bureaucratic process for business licensing through Online Single Submission (oss). However, from the oss introduction in 2018, it has not yet transformed Indonesia’s investment climate. This paper consists of a normative legal study which uses a statutory, conceptual, and comparative approach with Canada and New Zealand to identify the oss policy disharmony that negatively impacts the investment climate in the Indonesian infrastructure. The results showed a need to reconstruct systems and policies based on the Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 24 of 2018 concerning Online Integrated Business Licensing Services and the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation to accelerate and increase investment in the era of the fourth industrial revolution.

Abstract This paper examines Central American community law, legal production, and the levels of legalization in the Central American Integration System (sica) from an interdisciplinary perspective. While exemplifying regional integration through community law and common rule production, sica´s progress in modest after thirty years, raising doubt about achieving its objectives. Findings reveal the influential role of intergovernmental design and anomalies in the norms production, leading to medium-low levels of legalization that hinder quality and effectiveness. This scenario erodes Community Law, rendering sica ineffective in advancing its constitutive agreements goals. This paper underscores the value of interdisciplinary analysis in understanding the intricate link between legal and political factors in international organization. It advocates prioritizing complementarity between law and politics, emphasizing the need for institutions with legal and political capacity to produce derived norms. This conceptual shift could drive reforms, enhancing legalization levels, and fostering a more effective regional institutionality to prevent delegitimization.

Abstract We live in societies in which an ever-growing array of activities in a range of fields are assessed, controlled and governed according to quantitative techniques. This paper focuses on processes grounded on quantitative tools (e.g. scores, indicators, rankings, algorithms) that are used in order to measure the performance of processes, people or organizations. Such processes are referred to in this paper as ‘legal metrics’. We explore how different legal systems and sectors rely on legal metrics, and develop a twofold argument. On the one hand, we argue that performance-based quantification often qualifies as a form of regulatory intervention. On the other hand, we contend that performance-based measures are always adopted and applied in legal contexts that react differently to the quantification turn. Both sides of this picture have largely been overlooked by comparative lawyers, even though they imply looking for law in extraordinary places and appraising a variety of legal manifestations in different settings. Understanding which forms of quantitative measures are widespread, in which sectors and regions, made by whom and producing what regulatory effects, is a research task that could (and in our opinion should) be of interest for all comparative law scholars.

Abstract We investigate whether a green bond issue constitutes a reliable indicator to capital market participants that the issuing firm will be able to improve its environmental footprint in the near future. Based on a propensity-score-matched sample of green bond and conventional bond issues within the EU, we compare firms’ environmental performances with respect to three measures, namely greenhouse gas emissions, energy intensity, and water intensity. We find that there is no evidence of green bond issues being a good indicator of a firm’s ability to improve its environmental performance in the near term. Overall, while we observe certain improvements in environmental performance in the years following corporate bond issuances in general, green issuers and conventional issuers do not differ significantly with respect to these changes. Hence, we conclude that a green bond issue in itself is not a useful indicator of a firm’s commitment to a more sustainable business model.