Christian Pauletto

University of Lausanne | UNIL · Centre de droit comparé, européen et international (CDCEI)

Dear network.

How to access "Research Spotlight" on one of my recently published book or article? Many thanks for any tips.

Dear Scholars

I would like to have a reference to an authoritative or relatively well-established definition of "online education" or "online teaching" or "e-learning". I also look for definition of related terms, such as "hybrid teaching" and "distant education", "distance learning", etc.

I looked at UNESCO documents to find a kind of international set of definitions, but I couldn't find any. Does anyone have a reference or a source?

Many thanks.

Even though the idea of a "pay with money not with data" principle is not new in the literature, so far this idea has not translated into domestic legislation. Why? Are there hurdles or obstacles to it? if so, of what nature (legal, political, financial)? If such principle were to be implemented, what should be the features of a corresponding legal provision under domestic law? Regarding the international regulatory framework of data protection, you are welcome to look at my last research on the matter at :

Dear scholars

Can the blockchain technology (DLT) help tackle the problem of fraudulent diplomas and other academic and professional credentials? Is there a scope for e-government applications for recognition procedures?

I recently published a research article on blockchain, e-government and recognition of diplomas which you can access and download at:

(published by Elsevier, in Research in Globalization).

The focus of the article was not specifically on diploma falsification, but rather on the e-government aspects. Now, I would like to hear from this the RG community what are the views on the potential of a technology such as DLT / blockchain to contribute to a solution to that specific problem. Precisely (because the issue is not new at all), what are the lessons from experiences made? What did work, and what not? What results where achieved in the fight against counterfeit diplomas? What are the current directions both in terms of research and of application in the market?

Many thanks

Christian Pauletto

The concept of "critical infrastructure" is not only at the core of national cybersecurity strategies. It is also a key element to implement international cooperation in cybersecurity. Hence, it is clearly desirable to reach a common definition (or sort of) of this term at international level, such as United Nations bodies. I recently published a research article on some ongoing work at the UN in the field of cybersecurity, available at:

. Protection of critical infrastructure is debated at large in this context. Yet, in spite of two decades of cybersecurity cooperation no such common definition has emerged yet. How should an an agreeable definition be approached? What should be its main characteristics? Is is more promising to work on a conceptual, notional definition or on a concrete one? Should the definition be of a general, or specific nature? Should it be open (illustrative) or closed (exclusive, encompassing)? Is the definitional technique of a list of sectors a workable one at international level, or not?

The compatibility of DLT-based applications with the GDPR has been reviewed in the past years, but the conclusions were in general not very sharp. Often, scholars underscored the fact that compatibility or lack thereof can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This is at least the conclusion I drew in my article on the matter, available at :

.Yet, I wonder if, with the recent developments in technology and applications, and with the better understanding of how the GDPR is implemented, time has come for a renewed assessment of the relationship between the two. Are there ways to make DLT applications a priori GDPR compatible? if so, how? Or, to the contrary, are DLT a priori not meeting the GDPR requirements? and if so why and what should be fixed when it comes to concrete use cases?

Many thanks for a lively discussion.

Christian Pauletto

There is consensus on the principle that cybersecurity can better be achieved through transnational cooperation rather every country or block on its own. Yet, the work undertaken under the auspices of the United Nations, namely under the General Assembly, is progressing at a very slow pace. I recently published a research article on that ongoing work at the UN in the field of cybersecurity, available at : . It confirms that progress is slow, so this raises a few questions. What is needed to improve multilateral cooperation on cybersecurity? Are there some specific topics of cybersecurity that should be prioritized in the multilateral arenas? What format (binding, non-binding, information sharing, confidence-building) should the expected deliverables have?

What is the potential of blockchain technologies (DLT) in the field of e-government, and in particular for procedures for recognition of credentials? If so, what are the specific hurdles in implementing a DLT-based solution in the context of e-administration at transnational level? I recently published a research article on blockchain, e-government and recognition which you can access and download at: (published by Elsevier, in Research in Globalization).

The fact is that beyond bitcoins and some Fintech applications, DLT / BC has led to encouraging use cases in some transnational administrative procedures, e.g. recognition of qualified exporters in the context of customs procedures, or in the field of government procurement bids. But for now that's about it. Are there other example of transnational administrative procedures where BC use cases could be developed? In my article I examine what are the opportunities and challenges of using the DLT /BC in the context of official recognition of foreign diplomas (diplomas earned abroad) by governments. Now I wish to ask the views on that from the RG community of researchers.

Citizens privacy and data protection is very high on the political agenda, and improvements of domestic regulatory measures are moving rather fast in all countries. In a recent research article In examine the international side fo it, see : . This raises a few questions. Is there a possibility to come closer to what would amount to an "international standard" of data protection? If yes, in which international organization or other forum would such global standard take shape? What level of protection would be afforded? What are the arguments in favor of the desirability of such multilateral standard?