The article herein examines the case-law interplay between human rights and international investment law. An example of this interplay is the relation of property rights to protection from expropriation. In this study, a conceptual framework is developed, which represents the various ways of case-law interaction between the two disciplines regarding protection of property. This is achieved by using a cross-reference approach, where it is proven that the two legal fields overlap and share these common principles, albeit with their structural differences. This interplay has various dimensions, and this article aims at analysing them and ultimately illustrating that human rights and international investment law are not independent from each other.

The article herein examines the multifaceted challenges of misinformation and disinformation in the media landscape, with a focus on strategies to enhance media literacy among adults. The primary objective of this study is to examine the prevalence, characteristics, and impact of disinformation and misinformation in media within the internet society, ultimately contributing to developing targeted educational programs and policy recommendations. To achieve this, a qualitative research design was carried out to explore the views and the broader societal experiences in media-related challenges. The research design utilized thematic analysis of data collected from focus groups and expert interviews, ensuring the representation of diverse perspectives. By focusing on the information landscape in Cyprus and Greece, the present article aims to address the unique local challenges and contribute to the literature gap. The findings reveal the critical importance of tailored educational programs and the cultivation of critical thinking skills in fostering media literacy and combating false information in an effort to put together in a unique study the various experiences, opinions, and needs of individuals who seek to navigate successfully in an information-rich world.

This article examines the extent to which foreign investments negatively impact Indigenous Peoples. Drawing on case law insights from investor-state dispute settlement and relevant international human rights instruments, this study highlights the tensions between the protection of Indigenous communities and the rights of foreign investors. The article demonstrates that international investment law inadequately addresses human rights concerns, leaving Indigenous Peoples vulnerable to adverse effects from investment projects. The findings from case law analysis emphasise the need for a more consistent and comprehensive approach to reconciling these competing interests, incorporating human rights considerations into investment arbitration. This paper advocates for greater inclusion of Indigenous communities in decision-making processes and reforms that balance economic development with the protection of Indigenous rights.

The rise of generative AI has complicated longstanding challenges in the fight against disinformation, enabling the creation and spread of synthetic content at unprecedented speed and scale. While disinformation is not new, AI’s ability to impersonate credible sources, manipulate audiovisual material, and craft persuasive narratives across languages raises urgent legal and regulatory concerns. This article examines the provisions of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which can provide innovative responses to AI-driven disinformation. The AI Act does not address disinformation in a direct manner, but it establishes mechanisms that are relevant to this emerging problem. The article situates the AI Act within the broade EU regulatory landscape, which also includes the Digital Services Act, the Code of Practice on Disinformation, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The focus is on the risk-based classification and transparency rules of the AI Act, which can enhance democratic resilience, if they are paired with the necessary safeguards.

The rise of generative AI has complicated longstanding challenges in the fight against disinformation, enabling the creation and spread of synthetic content at unprecedented speed and scale. While disinformation is not new, AI's ability to impersonate credible sources, manipulate audiovisual material, and craft persuasive narratives across languages raises urgent legal and regulatory concerns. This article examines the provisions of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which can provide innovative responses to AI-driven disinformation. The AI Act does not address disinformation in a direct manner, but it establishes mechanisms that are relevant to this emerging problem. The article situates the AI Act within the broade EU regulatory landscape, which also includes the Digital Services Act, the Code of Practice on Disinformation, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The focus is on the risk-based classification and transparency rules of the AI Act, which can enhance democratic resilience, if they are paired with the necessary safeguards.

Suspicion is an important, yet elusive concept in anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT), which allows for intervention below the threshold of proof. In its traditional form, suspicion can be understood as a situated legal judgement by human actors within identifiable jurisdictions. It is argued that this understanding is no longer adequate. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes an integral part of financial surveillance, suspicion is increasingly produced through data-driven processes. This transformation is epistemic, but also spatial. Since AI-driven financial surveillance operates through transnational data infrastructures, regulatory reach is less a matter of where conduct occurs than a question of whether such conduct becomes visible within data systems. This article develops the concept of algorithmic extraterritoriality, understood as a form of regulatory power mediated by data infrastructures rather than formal assertions of jurisdiction. Moreover, since individuals are increasingly constituted as datafied subjects of suspicion, they are rendered governable through dispersed and opaque processes of evaluation. This constitutes a challenge for accountability and contestability because suspicion becomes more difficult to locate, explain or contest.