Daithí Mac Síthigh’s research while affiliated with Queen's University Belfast and other places

New approaches to the legal duties of Internet intermediaries are emerging. Current critiques of technology companies in what is said to be a ‘techlash’ overlap with the proposing of new models of liability and responsibilities. Do these shifts in attitude, and the associated set of new ideas, mean that legislative bodies might be more willing, today, to revisit the balance struck in the late 1990s? Changes and challenges to the general provisions applicable to intermediaries, and the introduction of standalone provisions in specific sectors (such as audiovisual media regulation and copyright) are discussed; emphasis is placed on the proliferation of ‘voluntary’ measures (e.g. on illegal content and on disinformation), which provide evidence of changing attitudes. Further arguments include the overlap between available causes of action in relation to Internet communications (e.g. data protection and harassment law), with implications for jurisdiction, remedies, and other matters, and the attractiveness of alternative approaches, including the cross-cutting control of ‘harmful digital communications’ in New Zealand, and proposals to apply specific regulatory regimes, influenced by financial regulation and other fields, to online material. The UK government’s recent ideas regarding a possible ‘duty of care’ for certain intermediaries are assessed in the context of these developments.

Many countries know financial consumer credit ratings, and recent years have also seen a proliferation of rating systems in relation to online platforms and in the ‘sharing economy’, such as eBay, Uber and Airbnb. In the view of many Western observers, however, the emerging Chinese Social Credit System indicates a paradigm shift compared to these former rating systems as it aims for a comprehensive and uniform social rating based on penalty and award mechanisms. By contrast, this article suggests that the evolving forms of the Chinese system should be seen as a specific instance of a wider phenomenon. Thus, it develops a framework that compares different rating systems by reference to their drafters, users, aims, scoring systems, application, use of algorithms, enforcement and accountability; it identifies shortcomings of both low and high interventionist rating systems; and it discusses a range of regulatory approaches and emerging issues that law makers should consider.

In this article we argue that the impact of Brexit on the law schools in Northern Ireland is tied to the “unique circumstances” of legal education in this part of the world. Legal education in Northern Ireland is likely to develop to become even more distinctive than that in other parts of the UK. Although there are two distinct jurisdictions on the island, they are deeply entangled by shared history and geographical proximity that make cross-border practice a daily reality. These circumstances seem likely to drive the trajectory of the development of legal education in Northern Ireland. Indeed, EU law is likely to remain a component of the Northern Irish qualifying law degree. The potential for the development of law specific to Northern Ireland under backstop arrangements is another significant driver for the future orientation of legal education in this jurisdiction. Legal education in Northern Ireland is, therefore, likely to become noticeably more “European” than that in other parts of the UK.

What are the official languages of the United Kingdom and of Ireland? Constitutions typically provide a starting point, although the answer is clearer in the case of the latter than the former. Nonetheless, the adoption of language legislation by the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament, in respect of Welsh and Gaelic, forms part of a general shift towards official status within the UK; clarity in Northern Ireland, contemplated by the Belfast Agreement and St. Andrews Agreement, is further off. These changes also highlight an emerging story of the status of recognised languages at UK level. Meanwhile, the constitutional position in the Republic of Ireland has been supplemented by legislation and caselaw. This article considers the developing status of various languages (especially Welsh, Gaelic, and Irish) in the UK and Ireland, set in the context of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, issues of identity and territory, and the similarities and differences between laws on language within and across both states.