Craig Purshouse on The Montgomery mistake (New Book Chapter)

"The Montgomery mistake"
Craig Purshouse
in José Miola (ed) and Louise Austin (ed), Research Handbook on Medical Consent, (Edward Elgar Publishing, April 2026), Chapter 6, pp. 98 - 111
Published in April 2026

Introduction: Until very recently, the arc of the law of negligent information non-disclosure appeared to be bending towards ever-greater protection of patient autonomy. The high point of this vision was the 2015 UK Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Mrs Nadine Montgomery was a pregnant diabetic woman who was not warned of a 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia, a medical emergency where the baby’s shoulder become trapped behind the mother’s pelvis, associated with a vaginal delivery. Shoulder dystocia carries with it a much smaller risk of serious complications and, unfortunately, both risks eventuated during her labour and so she brought a claim on behalf of her son for the injuries he had sustained. In their joint leading judgement, Lord Kerr and Lord Reed held that a doctor is under a duty ‘to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments’. The test of materiality was said to be ‘whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attached significance to it’. The much-maligned House of Lords decision in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital – where the majority had supported the Bolam test, with its focus on whether a professional’s actions complied with responsible peer opinion – was dead.

Ambiguities in Montgomery about what makes an alternative or variant treatment ‘reasonable’ have recently been the subject of another UK Supreme Court decision. McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board was a claim brought by the window and family members of Mr Neil McCulloch, who had died of a heart attack at home after being discharged from hospital with potential acute pericarditis. His family argued that he should have been offered a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as ibuprofen, by the defendants. The claim…...

Ryan Whalen et al on The institutional dynamics of inequality for women inventors who break with conventional thinking (PNAS)

"The institutional dynamics of inequality for women inventors who break with conventional thinking"
Tara Sowrirajan, Ryan Whalen, and Brian Uzzi
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Published online: April 2026

Significance: The gender innovation gap—where women’s inventions are less likely to be patented or pursued—raises concerns about its potential to slow scientific progress. Our analysis of millions of patent applications reveals that the gender gap in patenting is not uniform across conventional and unconventional patents. Rather, it manifests for women inventors who attempt to patent unconventional inventions—innovations that combine knowledge in unfamiliar ways. We find the USPTO’s practices overassign women inventors to women examiners who are relatively inexperienced and more likely to reject unconventional inventions due to their inexperience, not due to gender stereotypes. By identifying these institutional barriers, we propose that organizational policies can complement gender bias explanations and may more immediately address the gender innovation gap.

Abstract: Though women comprise a growing share of the scientific workforce, the gender innovation gap in patenting between men and women inventors persists, potentially limiting innovation output and equity. We study millions of scientific and technological innovations and find that the innovation gap faced by women is not universal. No gap exists for highly conventional innovations, which combine ideas in familiar ways. Rather, it exists when women inventors attempt to patent unconventional inventions, which combine ideas in surprising ways and drive scientific advancements. Our data suggest that rather than deliberate bias, a confluence of institutional practices lower women inventor’s chances of patenting unconventional innovations. We find that women examiners relative to men have less of the on-the-job experience needed to appraise unconventional innovations. Additionally, women examiners are overassigned to women applicants, reducing their odds of successfully patenting unconventional inventions. Lastly, traditional explanations weakly account for this innovation gap because men examiners grant comparably more unconventional innovations to women inventors than do women examiners. These institutional barriers reveal new factors that slow innovation, but at the same time can be more directly addressed than deeply rooted gender norms.

HKU ranks 9th and wins M. Cherif Bassiouni Award – Top Memorials from the National & Regional Rounds for Written Memorial in the Jessup Moot in Washington DC

From left: Mr Thomas Lam (Coach), Mr Matthew See, Ms Cherie Cheung, Mr Jonathan Ho, Mr Evan Robinson, Mr Fergus Tam (Coach)

Congratulations to HKU Jessup team for winning the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award – Top Memorials from the National & Regional Rounds for Written Memorial, in the Jessup Moot in Washington DC.

After prevailing as the Overall Champion in the regional rounds of the 2026 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, the HKU Jessup Team represented Hong Kong in the White & Case Jessup International Rounds held in Washington DC, USA from 28 March 2026 to 4 April 2026. 

Out of more than 700 teams who participated in National Rounds and Regional Rounds, 164 teams went on to participate in the White & Case Jessup International Rounds in one of the largest and most prestigious international mooting competitions in the world. 

This year, the Team captured the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award (known until 2025 as the Hardy C. Dillard Award) for ranking 9th worldwide out of more than 700 teams for its excellent combined scores of both the Applicant and Respondent memorials. This is the first time HKU has won the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award (or its predecessor) since 2006. 

The M. Cherif Bassiouni Award recognises excellence in Memorial writing. The Memorials of the Team with the highest total Memorial score in each National or Regional Round shall be entered to compete for the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award. Each Memorial eligible to compete for the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award is graded by five judges. 

This year’s Jessup moot problem concerned the issues of intervention of non-party states, indigenous rights, general principles of international law and immunities of state-owned enterprises. The 2026 HKU Team, consisting of Cherie Cheung (PCLL), Jonathan Ho (PCLL), Evan Robinson (PCLL), and Matthew See (LLB III), displayed excellence in both written and oral advocacy at all stages of the competition. 

The Team would like to express their sincerest gratitude to the coaches, Mr Fergus Tam and Mr Thomas Lam, for their valuable feedback and support in their final year of coaching HKU’s Jessup Team. The Team would also like to thank the guest judges, Ms Natalie So, Mr Ryan Cheung, Mr Raphael Leung, Mr Jason Louie, Mr Alex CH Chan, Mr Ambrose Yu, Ms Tiffany Ng, Ms Faith Lee, Ms Holly Leung, Ms Ally Chan, Mr Leo Pang, Mr Chung Hin Yue, and Ms Veronica Yu for their kind assistance, helpful advice and rigorous advocacy training before the Hong Kong regional round, as well as in preparation for the international rounds.

HKU Team enters the Quarter-Finals in Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot and wins Best Individual Mooter in the Preliminary Rounds

From left: Ms Kei Yin Audrey CHOW, Mr Zheng Yu CHOW, Ms Hin Ching Hillary LO

The University of Hong Kong was among the 32 teams—selected from a pool of over 70—that advanced through the written phrase of the 23rd Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot to compete in the oral phase held in Oxford.

During the Preliminary Rounds of the oral phase, the team faced: (i) Goethe Universität, Frankfurt (Germany); (ii) University of Virginia (USA); (iii) Australian National University (Australia); and (iv) King’s College London (UK). The team emerged victorious in all four match-ups, ranking within the top 4 of the 32 participating teams and qualifying for the knock-out stage of the oral phase. In the quarter-finals, the team were eliminated by Osgoode Hall Law School (Canada) following a closely contested round.

As recognition for Mr Zheng Yu Chow's excellent performance in the oral phase, Mr Chow was awarded 4th Place for Best Individual Mooter in the Preliminary Rounds.

The team would like to thank the team coaches, Associate Professor Alice Lee and Ms Phoebe Woo, for their invaluable guidance and mentorship. The team are also deeply grateful to the guest judges, Mr Norman Hui and Mr Byron Chiu, for generously volunteering their time and for providing insightful feedback during the practice sessions.

Sida Liu joined the Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) as President

Congratulations to Professor Sida Liu, who has joined the Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) as President.

ALSA is an international association of socio-legal scholars with an Asian perspective on law and society research. ALSA was officially established at the East Asian Law and Society Conference 2015, held at Waseda University, Japan, from August 4–7, 2015.

Since then, ALSA’s membership has grown steadily, including members based in more than 30 countries and regions. These include Australia, Belgium, Canada, China (Mainland), Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States, Vietnam, and others. The executive office is currently housed at Waseda University, Japan.

ALSA aims to foster scholarship on law and society in Asia and to engage the broader global research community. It stands at an opportune moment to help develop Asian law and society research into a vibrant and cohesive research field. Its annual meetings provide a platform to define the field, advance theory, and cultivate empirical work and new scholarship.

Please click here for more details about ALSA.

The list of ALSA people is available here.

Julian Nowag and Anna Tzanaki on The Institutional Framework of the Digital Markets Act: a novel but thoughtful experiment in regulatory design? (Journal of European Competition Law & Practice)

"The institutional framework of the Digital Markets Act: a novel but thoughtful experiment in regulatory design?"
Anna Tzanaki, Julian Nowag
Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
Published online: March 2026

Key Points: 

• By comparison to the enforcement-based model of antitrust that relies on punishment, this article sheds light on the new more complex and hybrid institutional structure of the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) that is focused on ‘cooperative’ compliance based on dialogue between regulator and regulated firms and third parties at first instance and leaves the ‘punitive’ model of enforcement as an option of last resort.
• The Commission as the key institutional actor has discretion to escalate or deescalate the process of the DMA’s implementation along this compliance–enforcement continuum through different instruments.
• The central role of the Commission is supported and counterbalanced by a wide array of decentralized institutional actors and procedures, which render the DMA’s institutional architecture less hierarchical and more participatory and flexible.
• The openness in the DMA’s procedural and institutional design effectively complements the closed nature of its substantive obligations imposed on digital gatekeepers.

Elizabeth Wong on Returning to Hong Kong after commercial surrogacy: The court's decisions in FH v WB, and CS v SW (Common Law World Review)

"Returning to Hong Kong after commercial surrogacy: The court's decisions in FH v WB, and CS v SW"
Elizabeth Wong (JD 2025)
Common Law World Review
Published online: March 2026

Abstract: With the evolution of medical technology, surrogacy has become a favorable alternative for couples to create a family. Yet, section 17 of the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap 561) prohibits commercial surrogacy in Hong Kong (HK), prompting many couples to seek paid surrogacy arrangements overseas. This practice creates complexities upon their return to HK with their surrogate-born child. Two significant cases, FH v WB and CS v SW involve cross-border commercial surrogacy arrangements where commissioning parents pursued parental orders under section 12 of the Parent Child Ordinance (Cap 429) to acquire legal parenthood. Although the time limit for the application had expired and unreasonable surrogate expenses were incurred, amounting to breaches, the Court of First Instance (CFI) adopted a lenient attitude and granted a parental order in both cases, prioritizing the welfare principle. This note will first go through the HK legislation and these two decisions, then compare the CFI's reasoning and policy considerations. The CFI faces challenges in reconciling the legislation and its precedents, resulting in legal gaps that indirectly allow commercial international surrogacy arrangements. The discussion will also delve in to potential solutions to effectively regulate commercial surrogacy, such as local legislative reforms or adopting international conventions.

Jedidiah Kroncke on The Comparative Challenges of Cooperative Corporate Governance (JOTWELL)

"The Comparative Challenges of Cooperative Corporate Governance (reviewing Ville Pönkä, Investor Shares in Cooperative Financing: A Comparative Legal Analysis, 36 Eur. Bus. L. Rev. 341 (2025))"

Jedidiah Kroncke
The Journal of Things We Like (Lots)
Published online: November 2025

Popular dissatisfaction with economic life has emerged as a growing challenge to countries across the globe. Magnified by growing inequality, this dissatisfaction stems from a sense that dominant economic institutions can no longer be relied upon to provide citizens with predictable and meaningful economic lives. Yet, even as nations have rejected left- and right-wing incumbents alike, there has remained only episodic engagement with one of the longest-standing alternative traditions for governing economic activity with a proactively social vision: cooperatives. In his article Investor Shares in Cooperative Financing: A Comparative Legal Analysis, Ville Pönkä provides a revealing primer on the challenges of promoting cooperatives through an incisive comparative analysis of “investor shares” as a means for cooperatives to raise capital.

Please click here to view full text on JOTWELL.

Yun Zhao and Zhiming Xiao on The Regulatory Framework for Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution: Revisiting the Dispute Resolution Triangle (Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal)

"The Regulatory Framework for Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution: Revisiting the Dispute Resolution Triangle"
Yun Zhao, Zhiming Xiao (PhD Candidate)
Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal
Published online: February 2026

Abstract: Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR) constitutes a transformative approach to digital-era disputes, fundamentally reconceptualizing dispute resolution through distributed participant networks rather than merely digitizing traditional alternative dispute resolution. Anchored in Katsh and Rifkin’s dispute resolution triangle (trust, convenience, expertise) and Perritt’s co-regulatory governance model, this paper analyzes CODR’s evolution from early systems such as iCourthouse to contemporary implementations. Case studies of eBay Community Court (contractual self-regulation prioritizing convenience) and Xianyu Small Court (state-aligned hybrid governance optimizing expertise through algorithmic juror specialization) demonstrate how platforms operationalize these theoretical frameworks. The legal analysis examines jurisdictional fragmentation and enforcement challenges, revealing how regulatory adaptations—from international harmonization to platform-level solutions—balance innovation against institutional legitimacy. Ultimately, CODR’s viability depends on dynamically synthesizing Katsh-Rifkin’s triad within co-regulatory paradigms across transnational contexts.

New Issue of Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law (Volume 26, Issue 3, Nov 2025)

ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW

Editor-in-Chief: Simon NM Young

Publisher: Brill, Leiden

2025, Volume 26, Issue 3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement:

Acknowledgement
Pages: 169

Online Publication Date: 15 Dec 2025

Articles:

Between Reformism and Conservatism

Author:  Ramindu Perera

Pages: 170–203

Online Publication Date: 27 Nov 2025

The Quota System in Malaysia – Time for Meritocracy?

Author: Avril Clarice Ning Chin and Gary Kit Min Ng

Pages: 204–226

Online Publication Date: 26 Nov 2025

Sovereignty Over Rights? Realism and Regime Theory Analysis of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights

Author: William J. Jones*

Pages: 227–256

Online Publication Date: 26 Nov 2025

Strengthening Human Rights Due Diligence in Indonesia’s Gig Economy

Author: Anjar Kususiyanah, Soleh Hasan Wahid, and Dede Nurohman

Pages: 257–302

Online Publication Date: 28 Nov 2025

back matter:

Back matter

Pages: 303–304

Online Publication Date: 15 Dec 2025

Albert Chen and Ulrike Davy on Social rights thinking and the welfare state: The cases of Germany and China—Afterword to the Foreword by Nehal Bhuta (International Journal of Constitutional Law)

"Social rights thinking and the welfare state: The cases of Germany and China—Afterword to the Foreword by Nehal Bhuta"
Ulrike Davy, Albert Chen
International Journal of Constitutional Law
Published online: February 2026

Abstract: Our Afterword to Nehal Bhuta’s Foreword “Social rights and the origins of the social constitution: From collective natural rights to the social state” first addresses Bhuta’s account of developments in nineteenth-century German states (unified in 1871), in particular the writings of Lorenz von Stein and the activities of the Verein für Sozialpolitik (VfS). Second, it considers Bhuta’s Foreword from the perspective of social rights and social policies in the global South, using China as an example. Our Afterword suggests that in nineteenth-century Germany and twentieth-century China, the emergence of a state that accepts responsibility for individuals’ welfare was not necessarily preceded by, or a consequence of, social rights thinking. Instead, other rationales prevailed.

John Murphy on The Nature and Scope of Liability for Procuring the Commission of a Tort (The Cambridge Law Journal)

"The Nature and Scope of Liability for Procuring the Commission of a Tort"
John Murphy
The Cambridge Law Journal
Published online: February 2026

Abstract: It has long since been accepted that where a defendant induces a primary wrongdoer to commit a tort against a claimant, the procurer may be held liable for the losses and harm thereby caused. Typically, the existence of such liability has been asserted rather than rigorously demonstrated both by judges and jurists. And while some detailed scholarly engagement with this form of liability has been proffered, the explanations on offer have tended to rely less on established principles of law, than on certain theoretical pre-commitments held by the authors in question. The Supreme Court’s decision in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed has injected some much-needed clarity into this conspicuously underexplored area of law. Yet even now, as this article seeks to show, there is much that remains uncertain concerning the nature and scope of such liability. It therefore seeks to shed light on those matters.

Say Goo on Shareholder Profit Maximization Efficient? Improving the Societal Efficiency of Corporations (Amicus Curiae)

"Is Shareholder Profit Maximization Efficient? Improving the Societal Efficiency of Corporations"
Say Goo
Amicus Curiae (‘Friend of the Court’), Vol. 7 No. 2 (2026): Series 2, pp.601-639
Published online: March 2026

Abstract: This article fundamentally challenges the dominant corporate social responsibility (CSR) paradigm by arguing that structural governance reform (stakeholder boards) is necessary because voluntary CSR, disclosure requirements, and external regulation cannot adequately internalize externalities when boards are legally bound to prioritize shareholder interests. It fundamentally reframes CSR from a voluntary ethical choice or matter of “enlightened” management discretion to a structural governance problem. It challenges the dominant assumption that shareholder profit maximization maximizes societal efficiency. It demonstrates formally that when externalities can be externalized, shareholder profit (M) diverges from societal efficiency (E), sometimes dramatically. Current corporate law compounds this problem by legally obligating directors to pursue the misleading profit figure rather than genuine social value. The proposed solution offered is that stakeholder board representation offers a more direct and potentially more efficient mechanism for internalizing costs than relying on external regulation alone. Voluntary environment, social and governance reporting, stakeholder consultation, and investor pressure all fail because they leave intact the fundamental board structure that creates incentives to externalize. Stakeholder representation addresses the root cause.

Say Goo on The Role of Party Committees in SOEs and Stakeholder Representation in China (The Journal of Comparative Law)

"The Role of Party Committees in SOEs and Stakeholder Representation in China"
Say Goo
The Journal of Comparative Law, Vol 20, Issue 2, 2025
Published in Oct 2025

The Background

State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China have long been struggling with, amongst other problems, the question of the efficiency of their governance structure and their corporate social responsibility (CSR). The recent introduction of party committees into China's SOEs and the imposition of a duty of corporate social responsibility on the SOEs was intended to deal with these issues, but have raised concerns in the West of political interference by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the SOEs' operations, thereby affecting the objectives and efficiency of the SOEs, and how this duty is to be fulfilled by SOEs. This paper therefore, examines the research question: how China can improve the corporate governance structure of SOEs to better fulfil CSR while maintaining efficiency, and specifically, whether implementing stakeholder representation within existing party committee structures or boards of directors would be able to address current governance shortcomings?

James Zeng on A Legal Theory of State-Owned Enterprises: The China Experience (Cambridge University Press)

A Legal Theory of State-Owned Enterprises: The China Experience
James Zeng
Cambridge University Press
Published online: January 2026

Description

The privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is more accurately described as a process of legalization rather than liberalization, given that the state often continues to regulate private enterprises even after privatization. This process requires clearly defining the boundaries between public power and private property, which entails significant social costs. The continued prevalence of SOEs in China is largely due to the difficulty of defining these boundaries, especially in sectors where safeguarding private property clashes with state priorities. Such sectors include water utilities, coal mining, commercial banking, and infrastructure, where competing state goals complicate the full privatization of the market. Therefore, it is essential to be cautious against the legal centrist view' that assumes law is inherently superior to state ownership. Privatizing SOEs is not merely the transfer of equity-it demands the establishment of advanced legal and regulatory frameworks, making it a complex and gradual endeavor.

Adrian Kuenzler on Meta’s peculiar acumen—moving privacy ahead in social media markets (Yearbook of European Law)

"Meta’s peculiar acumen—moving privacy ahead in social media markets"
Adrian Kuenzler
Yearbook of European Law
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: This article puts forward a new perspective on Meta Platforms Inc., a recent breakthrough decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), reconfiguring key debates around the use of personal data by social media companies and how that use affects the manner in which individuals and social relations are represented, realized, and governed through digital markets. The decision enables dominant social media companies to offer, for an appropriate fee, a paid version of their products if users reject personal data processing by the platform. While Meta defies conventional viewpoints as to how consumers can give valid consent to the processing of their personal data, this article submits that the decision to enable them to do so in this fashion is expedient. The CJEU uncovers a rift between different avenues of consumer influence and recognizes that these avenues are interlinking means of moving privacy ahead in concentrated markets. Though existing legal doctrine does not fully accept that vital reality, Meta in fact clears the way for privacy to be realized in digital markets.

HKU Jessup Team crowned 2026 Hong Kong Overall Champion

The HKU Jessup Team was declared the Hong Kong Overall Champion in the 2026 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition on 28 February 2026. The Jessup Moot is also known as one of the most prestigious international mooting competitions in the world. This year’s Jessup problem concerned the issues of intervention of non-party states, indigenous rights, general principles of international law and immunities of state-owned enterprises.

The Team consists of Cherie Cheung (PCLL), Jonathan Ho (PCLL), Evan Robinson (PCLL), and Matthew See (LLB3). In addition to the Champion title, the Team was awarded both the Best Applicant Memorial Award and the Best Respondent Memorial Award, as well as two Best Oralist awards, with Evan Robinson and Cherie Cheung winning the 1st and 3rd Best Oralist awards respectively.

The Team would like to express their sincerest gratitude to the coaches, Mr Fergus Tam and Mr Thomas Lam, for their valuable feedback and guidance. The Team would also like to thank the guest judges, Mr Ryan Cheung, Mr Raphael Leung, Mr Jason Louie, Ms Faith Lee, Ms Holly Leung, Ms Ally Chan, Mr Leo Pang, Mr Chung Hin Yue, and Ms Veronica Yu for their kind assistance, helpful advice and rigorous advocacy training. The team now advances to the Global Rounds in Washington DC, in which they will represent Hong Kong.

Craig Purshouse and Emma Cave on Fifty years of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976: A spent statute? (Medical Law Review)

"Fifty years of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976: A spent statute?"
Craig Purshouse, Emma Cave
Medical Law Review, Volume 34, Issue 1
Published online: February 2026

Introduction: In July of this year, 50 years will have passed since the enactment of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, the statute governing tort liability for prenatal injuries in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Golden anniversaries are often worth commemorating and, given that the Act was a response to the thalidomide disaster, this one might seem especially deserving of celebration. Alas, in this commentary, we have come to spoil the party. We are far from the only killjoys. From its earliest conception, the Act elicited a stream of criticism. Commenting on the Bill that led to the Act, Ian Kennedy and RG Edwards believed that it represented ‘a number of ad hoc decisions without any coherent structure either in legal reasoning or in social policy’ that would not ‘satisfy the needs of most children’. The late Margaret Brazier was equally scathing, attacking its ‘complex and convoluted rules’ and concluding that it ‘does little for the reputation of Parliamentary draughtsmen and has proved a nightmare to operate in practice’.

Gary Meggitt on Insurance Brokers and AI (New Book Chapter)

"Insurance Brokers and AI"
Gary Meggitt
in Commercial Insurance Law: Emerging Trends and New Perspectives, edited by Barış Soyer (Routledge, February 2026), Chapter 11, pp.209-234
Published online: February 2026

Abstract: It is a widespread fear that thousands of gainfully employed people will soon be made redundant and replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. Yet, insofar as insurance brokers are concerned, that anxiety has been replaced by a growing belief that the “human element” of the role – including the relationships with clients and insurers – remains essential and irreplaceable. Indeed, many brokers now expect AI systems such as Marsh McLennan’s LenAI to enable them to focus on such activities.

Yet concerns remain. Principally, how will AI systems affect brokers’ obligations to policyholders and others?

Raymond Wacks on The Rule of Law Under Fire: Will it Survive? (Hart Publishing)

The Rule of Law Under Fire: Will it Survive? (Second Edition)
Raymond Wacks (Emeritus Professor)
Hart Publishing
Published on 19 February 2026

Description

Does the upsurge in populism, authoritarianism, and nationalism threaten the future of the rule of law? In this highly topical book, Raymond Wacks explores the philosophical roots of the concept, and its modern, often controversial, interpretation.

He explores numerous ideological, economic, legal, and institutional attacks on the rule of law. They range from the exercise of judicial and administrative discretion, and parliamentary sovereignty to the growth of globalisation, the 'war on terror', and the increasing power of Big Tech and especially artificial intelligence. The author identifies which threats pose genuine risks to the rule of law, and suggests how they might be confronted to ensure that democratic freedom is successfully fortified and conserved.

(Please click here to view the book reviews of the First Edition)