Discussions of animal law and legal longtermism often take place separately. That separation is misguided. Each field has much to gain from the other. In this post, we explain why animal law is important for legal longtermism. We then propose two general steps that legal longtermists can take to bridge these fields.
As Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine continues, EU Member States are contemplating new sanctions, including Schengen visa bans for Russian citizens. The underlying rationale is the WWI ‘enemy alien’ logic, where all Russian civilians are enemy aliens, and must be treated with suspicion. This populist construction of an ‘enemy alien’ is antithetical to the EU’s constitutional core, which also informs its visa and migration law. The populist retributive logic, to us, is a stress-test of the rule of law in the EU. It’s good news that, outside Estonia and Latvia, it seems to be holding strong in other Member States.
Compute or computing power refers to a software and hardware stack, such as in a data centre or computer, engineered for AI-specific applications. We argue that the antitrust and regulatory literature to date has failed to pay sufficient attention to compute, despite compute being a key input to AI progress and services, the potentially substantial market power of companies in the supply chain, and the advantages of compute as a ‘unit’ of regulation in terms of detection and remedies.
Auch wenn touristische Reisen in die Europäische Union im Zusammenhang mit den kriegerischen Verbrechen Russlands in der Ukraine wie Nebenschauplatz erscheinen mögen – hier geht es um etwas. Angesichts der schrecklichen Verbrechen der russischen Armee in der Ukraine erscheint das touristische Reisen und das Beharren darauf, dass dieses Recht nicht einzuschränken sei, kaum nachvollziehbar. Rein legalistische Argumentation verdeckt, dass das Recht immer auch ein Instrument zur Durchsetzung politischer Interessen ist.
This post introduces a proposal to promote the long-term interests of humanity and to avert existential and other catastrophic risks, such as those resulting from extreme climate change, pandemics and unaligned artificial intelligence, through the adoption of a novel legal decision rule: in dubio pro futura. In the face of legal indeterminacy, when the law does not provide a single correct answer but a range of several acceptable answers, courts should choose the one most favorable to the future of humanity.
It is clear that humanity is not prepared for the next pandemic; the global health governance architecture requires fundamental change in order to get us to that point. If humanity is to be prepared for the next pandemic, we must fix the deep rooted, structural inequalities which are embedded within our global health system. The pandemic treaty is an opportunity to do this, but on the basis of the present proposals, and the manner in which the treaty is being developed, it is clear that the treaty will fall far short of such expectations.
This post examines whether competition law can remain effective in prospective AI development scenarios by looking at six variables for AI development: capability of AI systems, speed of development, key inputs, technical architectures, number of actors, and the nature and relationship of these actors. For each of these, we analyse how different scenarios could impact effective enforceability. In some of these scenarios, EU competition law would remain a strong lever of control; in others it could be significantly weakened. We argue that despite challenges to regulators' ability to detect and remedy breaches, in many future scenarios the effective enforceability of EU competition law remains strong.
Recently, politicians in different EU countries have suggested barring Russian tourists from visiting the EU. Such a ban would be in retaliation for the war waged by Russia against Ukraine. From a legal perspective, these suggestions raise the interesting question whether such a blanket ban would be lawful. From a legal perspective, the question is precisely whether there is a possibility to amend the existing acquis, in order to ban Russians from obtaining short term visas for the purpose of visiting Europe as tourists. It seems hardly tenable to argue that the EU (secondary) legislature is somehow bound by the ratio legis of the current Schengen visa system.
After some heads of EU governments advocated for an all-out ban of Russian nationals’ Schengen visas, a heated academic and political debate arose over the question whether the EU could bar Russians from acquiring visas for a short-term stay in the Schengen area. Could a sweeping travel ban for Russian citizens be justified in the light of EU law? This blogpost advises caution.
In the aftermath of Ukrainian President Zelenski’s call on the EU to introduce a ban on short-term ‘tourist’ visas for Russians wishing to travel the Schengen area, a lively debate on the issue erupted, featuring important interventions not last on this website. For instance, Sarah Ganty argues that an EU tourist visa ban would be ethically wrong and unlawful. However, there is no absolute right to travel through the EU.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters