We show that accounts of NDEs, including the experiences of blind people, and NDE research methods used by popular researchers in the USA lack scientific credibility, at least with regard to their explanations of the possible origin of the extraordinary experiences. In order to be scientifically valuable, NDE research has to follow verification and validation of the data. While the verification of the content of NDE reports – the personal truth of the NDE themes – has been established, validation via objective scientific methods is largely missing.

Drawing on the extensive history of study of the terms and conditions (T&Cs) and privacy policies of social media companies, this paper reports the results of pilot empirical work conducted in January-March 2023, in which T&Cs were mapped across a representative sample of generative AI providers as well as some downstream deployers. Our study looked at providers of multiple modes of output (text, image, etc.), small and large sizes, and varying countries of origin. Our early findings indicate the emergence of a “platformisation paradigm”, in which providers of generative AI attempt to position themselves as neutral intermediaries similarly to search and social media platforms, but without the governance increasingly imposed on these actors, and in contradiction to their function as content generators rather than mere hosts for third party content.

The complexity involved in developing and deploying artificial intelligence (AI) systems in high-stakes scenarios may result in a “liability gap,” under which it becomes unclear who is responsible when things go awry. Scholarly and policy debates about the gap and its potential solutions have largely been theoretical, with little effort put into understanding the general public’s views on the subject. In this chapter, we present two empirical studies exploring laypeople’s perceptions of responsibility for AI-caused harm. First, we study the proposal to grant legal personhood to AI systems and show that it may conflict with laypeople’s policy preferences. Second, we investigate how people divide legal responsibility between users and developers of machines in a variety of situations and find that, while both are expected to pay legal damages, laypeople anticipate developers to bear the largest share of the liability in most cases. Our examples demonstrate how empirical research can help inform future AI regulation and provide novel lines of research to ensure that this transformative technology is regulated and deployed in a more democratic manner.

This chapter demonstrates that analyzing what people post on social media sites can yield powerful evidence for use in commercial litigation. This kind of analysis is a natural way of listening in on people’s conversations about products, services, brands, trademarks, and patents, all of which are often the subject of high-stakes lawsuits. An argument is made that an expert who could commission an opinion survey could now also commission a social media analysis, which will contribute to a more persuasive and often more time-appropriate body of evidence upon which to rely. Examples of the use or potential use of social media in litigation are presented, including cases that used social media evidence, such as the US government’s lawsuit against Lance Armstrong; a case involving a meat byproduct sometimes referred to as “pink slime”; a case centering on an allegedly deceptive Super Bowl beer advertisement; and many cases involving disputes having to do with intellectual property. Finally, we compile and discuss a number of issues relating to the use of social media in litigation. These issues include questions about social media’s authenticity, the best way to preserve it, and several other analytical and legal questions. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how social media analysis can migrate from the periphery of litigation evidence toward having a more central role.

This chapter addresses the parties to international arbitration agreements. It follows the standard distinction between signatories (those persons whose names appear on the arbitration agreement – or the contract that includes an arbitration clause) and nonsignatories (those persons whose names do not appear on the arbitration agreement but are nonetheless bound by or entitled to invoke it). Part I addresses the treatment of ‘parties’ in the New York Convention and national arbitration laws governing international commercial arbitration, and the ICSID Convention governing (many) investor-State arbitrations. Part II examines the theories under which affected others – that is, nonsignatories to an international arbitration agreement – might nonetheless be bound, likewise first in international commercial arbitration and then in investor-State arbitration. Finally, Part III discusses the available empirical evidence on the parties to international commercial arbitration and investor-State arbitration proceedings.

Empirical research into investment treaty conflict is simultaneously promising and potentially perilous. This chapter identifies both its costs and benefits while striving to provide a clear set of guidelines for quality research in an effort to identify the potential uses and abuses of empiricism in international investment law.Empirical research is not immune from the polarization within the field, but certain steps can ensure that empirical work is not influenced by narrow or ideological perspectives. First, we need to understand norms of quality social science to enable a data-driven, rather than emotive, conversation. Second, we need to create time and space for balanced contemplation that cuts across ideological groupings – rather than having conferences and events attended by one selected segment – and ensuring that alternative perspectives are welcomed. Third, we need to work on developing empathic dialogue to engage productively about empirical research and normative reform, including focusing upon aspects that are valuable and those that require development. The objective should be to organize conversations about international investment law around data to engage productively, so that reason and intuition can interact to create solutions that are constructive and sustainable for the longer term.

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the work of the Court of Protection (CoP) and mental capacity law, before setting out the core concepts and arguments of the book. The key argument is that the CoP has not effectively achieved access to justice for the subject of proceedings, particularly through its failure to sufficiently place their voice and participation at the centre of its work. This chapter outlines the key issues raised, including the extent to which CoP proceedings involve people affected by its decisions, the type of evidence it considers in reaching decisions on mental capacity and best interests, the ways in which its processes and spaces operate, and use of alternative ways of resolving CoP disputes.

The Hungarian country report provides an overview of the effectiveness of substantive antitrust fines in Hungary. It summarizes the rules governing the sanctions for antitrust infringements, primarily focusing on the logic behind the relevant soft law instruments on fine-setting issued by the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH). It also reflects on certain material investigation issues such as the goals of sanctioning, corporate parental liability, and the legal discretion of the association of undertakings. The chapter covers the core numbers in the GVH’s sanctioning practice, while the case history appendix provides an exhaustive list of established infringements by each undertaking, showing the exact fining details and the results of the court review procedures for the last ten years. The report formulates the results of an empirically based research conducted among private practitioners on the perception of the effectiveness of competition law sanctions. The qualitative survey explores attitudes toward existing regulation through competition law sanctions and the application thereof by the GVH. The data indicate a collective openness to enhancing the effectiveness of substantive antitrust sanctions in Hungary.

Chapter 5 considers evidence that disagreements about the jus ad bellum are linked to disagreements about between ‘pacificist’ and ‘interventionist’ strategic cultures ‘extra-legal’ politico-strategic and ethical principles. The chapter describes extra-legal reasoning, particularly in evaluating facts, in UK government statements and writings by eight legal scholars about the lawfulness of military action in Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), judges’ opinions in the ICJ cases Nicaragua (1986), Wall (2004), and Congo (2005), and in interviews and a survey with thirty-one UK-based international lawyers. The chapter concludes that lawyers’ extra-legal reasoning and views on lawfulness of force broadly align, on a continuum between pacificists preferring a restrictive jus ad bellum, and interventionists favouring an expansionist approach. But again, there are caveats. Most interventionists accept some legal prohibitions they believe are politically or ethically wrong. Most pacificists accept some justifications they politically or ethically condemn. This suggests most lawyers’ politico-strategic and ethical intuitions act as forms of cognitive biases, shaping but not wholly determining opinions about legal interpretation and the jus ad bellum.

Chapter 4 considers evidence that disagreements about the jus ad bellum are linked to disagreements between ‘formalist’ and ‘dynamist’ legal cultures. The chapter describes legal interpretation techniques identified in analysis of UK government statements and writings by eight legal scholars about the lawfulness of military action in Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), judges’ opinions in the key ICJ cases Nicaragua (1986), Wall (2004) and Congo (2005), and in interviews and a survey with thirty-one UK-based international lawyers. The analysis suggests the jus ad bellum displays the forms of vagueness already identified: paradigms, supervaluationism, and fuzzy logic. Lawyers’ legal interpretive choices broadly aligned with their views on the lawfulness of force, on a continuum between a formalist legal culture aligning with a restrictive approach to the jus ad bellum, and a dynamist culture aligning with an expansionist approach. But the correlation has caveats: expansionist lawyers sometimes deployed formalist arguments, while restrictivist lawyers sometimes deployed dynamist arguments. Competing interpretation techniques also do not explain lawyers’ differing factual assessments and forecasts about the jus ad bellum.

The empirical research gap in GAL is introduced. Further, it is shown why procedure is an important element in institutional design from an international relations perspective.

GAL is one of the most ambitious projects to capture the role of procedure in global governance. Other concepts are briefly introduced and compared. The idea of procedural justice as akin to GAL in scope but focusing on perceptions of fairness and legitimacy rather than normativity emerges.

The main strands of international relations theory regarding institutions are briefly introduced. The work focuses on rational choice, notably Rational Institutional Design theory.

To unite the concept of procedural justice with the perspective and methods of rational institutional design, the factor of state interest is studied. It is shown how state interest can operate even within nominally private institutions and which factors determine whether and how a state is interested in introducing procedural justice.

The codebook variables creating the matrix of sensitivity of state interest - quantitative and qualitative procedural density is introduced. The mode of sample collection is explained.

A substantial industry has pushed forward the market for multiple citizenships. Drawing on extensive empirical research, this chapter investigates investment migration programs in practice by analyzing their constitution and evolution within a global market. This chapter identifies the underlying dynamics of supply and demand, rethinking the literature on citizenship in three areas: inter-country differences in citizenship’s benefits, privileged access for elites, and the decisive influence of third-party actors on citizenship policy. Within this theoretical landscape, the empirical analysis unpacks how these programs emerged within a broader field constituted by immigrant investor visas and discretionary economic citizenship. It reveals how this field conditioned the development and spread of formal programs, and the roles of geopolitical inequalities, industry actors, and extraterritorial rights in this change. The conclusion shows how incorporating jus pecuniae into our understanding of citizenship revises conventional assumptions in two domains: inequality and third-party actors.