The Taxonomy Regulation establishes common and science-based definitions to determine whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable. It aims to make sustainable finance more accessible to investors, while also protecting them from false or misleading claims about a financial product’s sustainability. In doing so it shifts a large part of the burden to prevent greenwashing onto the legislator. This chapter therefore critically analyses the Taxonomy’s ability to protect investors from greenwashing and identifies a number of pitfalls. The market for sustainable financial products is rapidly growing, yet the Taxonomy so far only covers environmental sustainability in selected sectors. Gathering and disclosing the necessary environmental data can be challenging and costly and may discourage companies and financial market participants to offer Taxonomy-aligned products, possibly turning it into a niche product. The Taxonomy’s binary approach makes it difficult for investors to assess the sustainability of complex financial products and limits incentives for non-aligned companies to improve their performance. This chapter therefore argues for an extension of the Taxonomy that distinguishes between positive, intermediary and harmful activities and provides definitions for social and governance aspects of sustainability

Recent progress in deep learning and natural language processing has given rise to powerful models that are primarily trained on a cloze-like task and show some evidence of having access to substantial linguistic information, including some constructional knowledge. This groundbreaking discovery presents an exciting opportunity for a synergistic relationship between computational methods and Construction Grammar research. In this chapter, we explore three distinct approaches to the interplay between computational methods and Construction Grammar: (i) computational methods for text analysis, (ii) computational Construction Grammar, and (iii) deep learning models, with a particular focus on language models. We touch upon the first two approaches as a contextual foundation for the use of computational methods before providing an accessible, yet comprehensive overview of deep learning models, which also addresses reservations construction grammarians may have. Additionally, we delve into experiments that explore the emergence of constructionally relevant information within these models while also examining the aspects of Construction Grammar that may pose challenges for these models. This chapter aims to foster collaboration between researchers in the fields of natural language processing and Construction Grammar. By doing so, we hope to pave the way for new insights and advancements in both these fields.

We present an overview of constructional approaches to signed languages, beginning with a brief history and the pioneering work of William C. Stokoe. We then discuss construction morphology as an alternative to prior analyses of sign structure that posited a set of non-compositional lexical signs and a distinct set of classifier signs. Instead, signs are seen as composed of morphological schemas containing both specific and schematic aspects of form and meaning. Grammatical construction approaches are reviewed next, including the marking of argument structure on verbs in American Sign Language (ASL). Constructional approaches have been applied to the issue of the relation between sign and gesture across a variety of expressions. This work often concludes that signs and gesture interact in complex ways. In the final section, we present an extended discussion of several grammatical and discourse phenomena using a constructional analysis based on Cognitive Grammar. The data come from Argentine Sign Language (LSA) and includes pointing constructions, agreement constructions, antecedent-anaphor relations, and constructions presenting point of view in reported narrative.

In this chapter, we argue that it is highly beneficial for the contemporary construction grammarian to have a thorough understanding of the strong relationship between the research fields of Construction Grammar and artificial intelligence. We start by unraveling the historical links between the two fields, showing that their relationship is rooted in a common attitude towards human communication and language. We then discuss the first direction of influence, focusing on how insights and techniques from the field of artificial intelligence play an important role in operationalizing, validating, and scaling constructionist approaches to language. We then proceed to the second direction of influence, highlighting the relevance of Construction Grammar insights and analyses to the artificial intelligence endeavor of building truly intelligent agents. We support our case with a variety of illustrative examples and conclude that further elaboration of this relationship will play a key role in shaping the future of the field of Construction Grammar.

Climate change is humanity’s greatest challenge for the XXIst century. Its effects will be felt for generations to come. In light of the enormity of the challenge, bank regulators are moving, yet reforms are neither homogeneous nor comprehensive. The EU is clearly more committed to the effort than any other player, and even within the EU, attitudes are cautious towards Pillar 1 (prudential requirements) and macroprudential measures, and bolder towards Pillar 3 (market discipline through disclosures) and Pillar 2 (supervisory review), though more uneven on the latter. This does not follow a scientific logic (due to the high uncertainty of climate risk) but a policy logic, since legislators and regulators tend to follow a path of minimum resistance, and undertake first the reforms that require them a lower epistemic burden.

After a long tradition of studying languages as isolated systems, researchers are increasingly aware of the fact that speakers of most of the world’s languages are multilingual. The coexistence of multiple languages within the brain can be a significant force shaping each. The recognition of constructions and their arrays of constructional properties provides a useful tool for understanding contact phenomena: much of what is transferred in contact situations are constructions or constructional features. Conversely, examination of what is replicated can enhance our understanding of the nature of linguistic knowledge. Here replicated constructions of varying sizes and degrees of schematicity are first described, from words through discourse structures, then the transfer of individual constructional features, including prosody, special connotations, various pragmatic effects, linguistic and extralinguistic contexts of use, and frequency are discussed, as well as the social situations under which they occur. The kinds of constructions and constructional properties replicated provide additional evidence that constructions are more than simple combinations of basic form and meaning.

Chapter 10 looks at Estonia, which has one of the world’s most advanced digital societies. Correspondingly, its legal frameworks are adjusted to support the high level of digitalisation, including its criminal laws. However, the ongoing reform aims at making rules technology-neutral rather than establishing specialised regimes. Therefore, on the one hand, general rules of evidence apply to evidence in digital form, and the criminal procedure relies to a great extent on general and broad powers to meet the challenges of modern investigations. On the other hand, the cooperation duties of national service providers are highly specific and governed by the Electronic Communications Act. The chapter first provides an overview of Estonian criminal proceedings and digital evidence, before elaborating on the details of cooperation between law enforcement authorities and service providers, both domestic and foreign. Additionally, it considers aspects of protection of fundamental rights in this context.

Chapter 13 focuses on Luxembourg, which sits near the top of several regional and international indexes for ICT development, digital economy and society, and technological readiness, and hosts an impressive and growing number of data centres along with the regional or global headquarters of major internet and e-commerce players. The country’s small size, highly connected nature and financial strength translate into the active cooperation of service providers in criminal investigations in both domestic and cross-border situations. Drawing on interview-based research, this chapter provides an international audience with a targeted overview of the Luxembourg legal framework, the ways in which it has adapted to developments at the international and EU levels (Budapest Convention, European Investigation Order, Law Enforcement Directive) and the practical as well as legal challenges relating to the various forms of cooperation between service providers and law enforcement authorities. It offers a comprehensive, up-to-date picture of national data retention rules and discusses the potential impact of the new European Production Order on service providers in Luxembourg.

Chapter 2 outlines normative challenges related to jurisdiction over data residing abroad. It illustrates how the law enforcement process involves different types of jurisdictional claim and highlights the challenges in bundling investigative measures with invasive enforcement measures. It also highlights that the traditional focus on territoriality does not meet the needs of law enforcement efforts in fighting cybercrime. Rather, basing claims of jurisdiction to enforce strictly on the location of data raises several questions in terms of the threshold of breaching sovereignty and the legality of accessing such data under international law. Further, the chapter looks at the inadequacies associated with single-factor jurisdictional tests and points to the need for multi-factor assessments. It discusses key actors being placed in a position where compliance with one state’s law necessitates violation of another’s. Last, it analyses international attempts to solve issues of transborder access to data, including the Council of Europe’s Second Additional Protocol to its Budapest Convention, the EU e-Evidence Regulation, the US CLOUD Act and the EU–US CLOUD Act agreement negotiations.

Chapter 7 asks how it took more than five years for one of the most pressing legislative projects, seen as essential to enable law enforcement authorities all over the EU to effectively investigate crimes, to be resolved. The European Commission put forward the legislative package concerning e-evidence in criminal matters in 2018, but the legislative process was not concluded until June 2023. What can explain the divergences and delays that occurred, despite all parties having acknowledged the importance of the project? This chapter provides an overview of the difficulties that marked the negotiation process, as well as the solutions finally found, and serves as a very useful guide to e-evidence. It outlines the pre-history of e-evidence and the different stages of the negotiating process, before laying out the positions of the various actors on several issues that had to be negotiated. Finally, it focuses on the most contentious issue, namely the notification to be given, in some cases, by the issuing state to other states involved, permitting them to review the requests to service providers in order to ensure that human rights are protected and that no abuse occurs.

Chapter 12 analyses Irish law on police access to digital evidence. It outlines the domestic legal framework regarding data retention, interception of communications and access to stored data. It then considers the law governing cross-border requests for data. It assesses the extent to which these rules are adequate for law enforcement purposes and whether these rules are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and data protection standards.

The Introduction sketches the main technological and legal challenges LEAs face in criminal investigations when seeking to collect electronic evidence in the digital era. It gives an overview of the relevant legal framework at EU, Council of Europe and international level, including recent developments such as the e-Evidence Regulation and the Second Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention, and identifies some missing pieces of the puzzle. Next, the chapter explains the main research objectives of this handbook, before presenting its overall structure and introducing the subsequent chapters.

Chapter 6 looks at how, in democratic societies, the regimes of data collection for the purposes of national security and law enforcement have traditionally been strictly separated. Yet, in the last two decades, complex challenges such as organised crime and terrorism have blurred the border between them, raising concerns about the use of data collected by intelligence agencies as evidence in criminal investigations. The chapter examines issues related to exchange of information between national security and criminal justice domains. It discusses problems associated with the inherent imbalance in aims, functions and safeguards between the two regimes. While considering the exchange of data between intelligence agencies and law enforcement inevitable, the chapter argues that the differences between the regimes create a danger of using national security frameworks to circumvent strict safeguards established in criminal procedure law. It suggests that robust safeguards and measures for accountability and oversight must become an integral part of frameworks that enable and facilitate data flows from the national security domain to criminal investigations.

Chapter 1 provides a broader picture of electronic evidence and digitalisation. After an overview of the latest EU digital and security strategies and their basic principles, it analyses specific far-reaching legislative instruments based on new ideas of EU criminal law prevention, reaction and cooperation in the digital age. It then analyses the main right affected by the new approach and instruments – the right to privacy – from a historical perspective and a modern understanding through concepts developed initially by the case law of the US Supreme Court. It addresses the question of what legal boundaries are necessary in the digital age for such a right to still be an effective one. Last, the chapter looks at the aspects of digitalisation in the EU criminal law justice area that pose the most questions when comparing digital cross-border cooperation with classical cross-border cooperation based on mutual recognition. It considers judicial (court) authorisation and its meaning, oversight and extraterritorial application of legislation in that regard.