International Law

**Jurisdictional Comparison and Analytical Commentary** The recent episode of EJIL: The Podcast, "Owning the Future? International Law and Technology as a Critical Project," highlights the pressing need for international law to adapt to rapid technological transformations. A comparative analysis of US, Korean, and international approaches to technology and international law reveals distinct trends and implications. **US Approach:** The US has historically been at the forefront of technological innovation, with a strong emphasis on intellectual property protection and data privacy regulation. However, the US approach has also been criticized for prioritizing corporate interests over individual rights, as seen in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The US government's stance on technology regulation is often characterized by a mix of permissive and restrictive policies, reflecting the country's complex relationship between economic growth and individual freedoms. **Korean Approach:** South Korea, on the other hand, has taken a more proactive approach to regulating technology, with a focus on promoting innovation while mitigating the risks associated with emerging technologies. The Korean government has introduced various regulations, such as the Personal Information Protection Act, to safeguard citizens' data and prevent the misuse of personal information. Korea's approach reflects a balancing act between economic development and social welfare, with a strong emphasis on protecting individual rights. **International Approach:** Internationally, the conversation around technology and international law is increasingly centered on issues of accountability, transparency, and human rights. The United Nations has taken steps to develop guidelines and frameworks for the responsible use of technology

As the Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I will analyze the article's implications for practitioners, noting any relevant case law, statutory, or regulatory connections. The article discusses the rapid technological transformation in the field of international law, highlighting the challenges posed by the introduction of new technological tools in various areas, such as conflict, humanitarianism, development, counterterrorism, and migration management. The use of advanced algorithmic targeting tools, as seen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demonstrates the limitations of existing international law in addressing the harm caused by data-driven technologies. Implications for Practitioners: 1. **Treaty Interpretation**: The article underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of treaty obligations in the context of emerging technologies. Practitioners must consider how existing treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, can be interpreted to address the challenges posed by new technologies. 2. **Customary International Law**: The article suggests that customary international law may not be equipped to address the novel challenges posed by emerging technologies. Practitioners must consider how customary international law can be developed to address these challenges. 3. **Reservations to Treaties**: The article highlights the need for clear and consistent approaches to reservations to treaties in the context of emerging technologies. Practitioners must consider how reservations can be used to address the challenges posed by new technologies. Relevant Case Law: * **Nicaragua v. United States** (1986): This case highlights the challenges of applying treaty obligations

The article highlights the pressing need for a harmonized international framework to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI), as the current international legal framework falls short in addressing the associated legal and ethical risks. A comparative analysis of US, Korean, and international approaches reveals the following key differences: In the United States, the regulation of AI is largely left to the private sector, with some federal agencies and state governments taking steps to establish guidelines and standards. In contrast, South Korea has implemented a more comprehensive approach, with the government actively involved in regulating AI development and deployment through laws and regulations such as the "AI Development Act" and the "Personal Information Protection Act." Internationally, the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act serves as a model for a more robust regulatory framework, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and human rights protection. The implications of this regulatory gap are far-reaching, with potential consequences including weak human rights protection mechanisms, unclear legal responsibility for AI-related impacts, and uneven governance of technology across countries. The lack of a binding international agreement on AI regulation exacerbates these challenges, underscoring the need for a collaborative and coordinated effort to establish a global framework that balances the benefits of AI with the need for robust oversight and accountability.

As the Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I provide domain-specific expert analysis of the article's implications for practitioners. The article highlights the need for a global legal framework to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) under international law. The current international legal framework lacks a specific binding agreement related to AI, creating a legal vacuum that poses significant challenges for human rights protection, legal responsibility, and technology governance. This analysis has implications for practitioners working in the fields of international law, human rights, and technology regulation. In terms of case law, statutory, or regulatory connections, this article is relevant to the following: 1. **Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)**: The VCLT Article 2(1)(d) states that a treaty shall be interpreted in the light of its object and purpose. The article's findings on the lack of a specific binding international agreement related to AI may be seen as a challenge to the object and purpose of the VCLT in promoting the progressive development of international law. 2. **International Human Rights Law**: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) are frequently cited in human rights cases related to AI. The article's analysis on the need for a global legal framework to regulate AI may inform future human rights cases involving AI. 3. **Regulatory frameworks**: The article mentions the EU Artificial Intelligence Act as an example of regional regulation. This highlights

### **Jurisdictional Comparison & Analytical Commentary on AI in Adjudication: US, Korean, and International Approaches** The article’s critique of AI-driven adjudication highlights a growing tension between efficiency and procedural fairness, with jurisdictions diverging in their responses. The **US** has adopted a cautious, case-by-case approach, emphasizing transparency and human oversight (e.g., via the *Model AI Principles* and state-level AI governance laws), while **South Korea** has been more proactive, embedding AI in administrative adjudication (e.g., the *Smart Court* initiative) but facing criticism over accountability gaps. At the **international level**, the *Council of Europe’s AI Convention* (2024) and the *UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights* set broad ethical standards, prioritizing human rights protections over unchecked automation—reflecting a preference for hybrid models that preserve judicial discretion. The divergence underscores a shared skepticism toward full automation, but differing degrees of regulatory intervention.

### **Expert Analysis: AI in Adjudication, Procedural Fairness, and the ECHR** This article intersects with **Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)**, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the principles of **impartiality (Article 6(1))** and **equality of arms**. The **European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)** has consistently emphasized that procedural fairness requires not just substantive justice but also **perceived fairness**, as seen in cases like *Benthem v. Netherlands* (1985) and *Hauschildt v. Denmark* (1989). The introduction of AI in judicial decision-making raises concerns under **Article 6(1)** regarding **autonomy, transparency, and accountability**, as AI systems may lack explainability (*black-box problem*), potentially undermining public trust in judicial proceedings. From a **Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) perspective**, while AI adoption does not directly implicate treaty interpretation, the **principle of *pacta sunt servanda*** (Article 26 VCLT) could be invoked to argue that states must ensure AI-assisted adjudication complies with their **ECHR obligations**. Additionally, **customary international law** on fair trial rights (reflected in the ICCPR and regional human rights instruments) reinforces that procedural fairness must be preserved, even

This study on using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has significant implications for International Law practice, with potential applications in various jurisdictions. A comparison of US, Korean, and international approaches reveals that the use of machine learning in predicting judicial decisions is a relatively new and developing area of research. In the US, the use of machine learning in the legal domain is still in its infancy, with some courts and law firms experimenting with its application. For instance, the US Patent and Trademark Office has explored the use of machine learning to improve patent examination efficiency. In contrast, South Korea has been at the forefront of adopting artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal sector, with the Korean government investing heavily in AI-powered legal services. Internationally, the ECHR's use of natural language processing tools to analyze court proceedings and predict judicial decisions highlights the potential of machine learning approaches in the legal domain. The study's findings on the limitations of predicting decisions based on past cases (average accuracy range from 58 to 68%) and the high classification performance achieved by predicting outcomes based on judges' surnames (average accuracy of 65%) underscore the complexity of using machine learning in the legal domain. These results suggest that International Law practitioners must carefully consider the limitations and potential biases of machine learning approaches in predicting judicial decisions. As the use of machine learning in the legal domain continues to evolve, it is essential to develop more sophisticated models that account for the nuances of human

As a Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I will analyze the article's implications for practitioners and provide domain-specific expert analysis. **Implications for Practitioners:** 1. **Predictive Analytics in Treaty Law:** The article highlights the potential of machine learning approaches in predicting judicial decisions, particularly in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights. This has significant implications for practitioners, as it may enable them to anticipate potential outcomes in future cases, potentially informing their strategic decisions. 2. **Big Data Analysis in International Law:** The article demonstrates the feasibility of using natural language processing tools to analyze large datasets of court proceedings, which can be applied to other areas of international law, such as treaty interpretation and ratification. 3. **Customary International Law:** The article's findings on the limitations of predicting decisions based on past cases may have implications for the development of customary international law, which is often based on the accumulation of state practices and opinio juris. **Case Law, Statutory, and Regulatory Connections:** 1. **European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):** The article focuses on the ECHR, which is a key treaty in the European human rights framework. Practitioners working with the ECHR will be interested in the potential of machine learning approaches to predict judicial decisions. 2. **Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT):** While not directly mentioned in the article, the VCLT is a foundational treaty in international law that govern

The article "Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges" presents a comprehensive introduction to the complexities of AI governance, highlighting the need for accountable, fair, and transparent AI systems. In comparing the approaches of the US, Korea, and international frameworks, it is evident that while the US has taken a more industry-led approach to AI regulation, Korea has implemented a more proactive and comprehensive framework, incorporating both technical and ethical considerations. In contrast, international frameworks, such as the European Union's AI Regulation, have adopted a more holistic approach, emphasizing human rights, data protection, and accountability. Jurisdictional comparison: - **US Approach:** The US has largely relied on industry-led initiatives and voluntary standards, with limited federal regulation. This approach has been criticized for lacking a comprehensive framework for AI governance. - **Korean Approach:** Korea has taken a more proactive and comprehensive approach, incorporating technical, ethical, and social considerations into its AI governance framework. This includes the establishment of a dedicated AI regulation agency and the development of guidelines for AI development and deployment. - **International Approach:** International frameworks, such as the European Union's AI Regulation, have adopted a more holistic approach, emphasizing human rights, data protection, and accountability. This includes the development of regulatory frameworks for AI, such as the EU's AI White Paper, and the establishment of international standards for AI development and deployment. Implications analysis: The article highlights the need for a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to AI governance

The article signals a critical juncture for practitioners in AI governance, emphasizing the urgent need to align ethical, legal, and technical frameworks to address accountability, fairness, and transparency in AI systems. Practitioners should consider the implications of high-risk AI applications in sectors like urban infrastructure, banking, and healthcare, where governance gaps may lead to systemic risks. Case law and regulatory connections may arise from precedents addressing algorithmic bias or transparency obligations, such as those in digital rights litigation or sector-specific regulatory frameworks (e.g., GDPR, AI Act proposals). The references to recent developments in AI governance also suggest opportunities to engage with evolving technical standards and ethical guidelines emerging from international forums.

The article highlights the European Society of International Law (ESIL), a prominent network of researchers, scholars, and practitioners in the field of international law. A jurisdictional comparison between the approaches of the US, Korea, and international law frameworks reveals distinct differences in their approaches to international law practice. **US Approach:** The US tends to take a more unilateral and pragmatic approach to international law, often prioritizing national interests and economic considerations. This is reflected in the US's emphasis on self-help and the use of force, as seen in its approach to international conflicts and trade agreements. **Korean Approach:** Korea, on the other hand, has been increasingly adopting a more multilateral approach to international law, particularly in its relations with neighboring countries and within regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Korea's approach is often characterized by a strong emphasis on cooperation, diplomacy, and human rights. **International Law Framework:** In contrast, the international law framework, as reflected in the ESIL's activities, emphasizes the importance of cooperation, dialogue, and the rule of law. The ESIL's focus on promoting sustainable international law, reconciling stability and change, and protecting human rights at sea reflects a commitment to upholding the principles of international law and promoting global governance. The ESIL's approach is more aligned with the Korean approach, emphasizing cooperation and multilateralism. However, the ESIL's global scope and focus on international law as a whole set it apart from Korea's regional

As the Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I analyzed the article's implications for practitioners in the field of international law. The article highlights the European Society of International Law (ESIL) as a dynamic network of researchers, scholars, and practitioners in the field of international law. This organization plays a crucial role in fostering discussion, staying up-to-date, and promoting the development of international law. The emphasis on events such as the 2026 ESIL Annual Conference and Research Forum demonstrates the society's commitment to addressing pressing issues in international law, including conflict and sustainability. In terms of case law, statutory, or regulatory connections, this article is relevant to the following: 1. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969, particularly Article 31, which sets out the rules for treaty interpretation. Practitioners may benefit from the insights and discussions at the ESIL events to better understand the application of these rules in real-world scenarios. 2. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decisions, such as the Nicaragua v. United States (Nicaragua v. United States) case (1986), which dealt with the interpretation of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the two countries. The ICJ's approach to treaty interpretation may be discussed and analyzed at ESIL events. 3. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is an important instrument in the field of human rights law. The ESIL

The Academy of European Law’s influence extends beyond EU law, shaping international legal discourse by facilitating interdisciplinary research in human rights and transnational law. Jurisdictional comparisons reveal nuanced distinctions: the U.S. approach tends to prioritize judicial activism and constitutional interpretation in international law applications, whereas the Korean legal system emphasizes statutory compliance and regional cooperation under ASEAN frameworks, aligning more closely with EU-centric institutional models in procedural norms. Internationally, the Academy’s interdisciplinary framework resonates with global trends toward harmonizing legal standards through collaborative research platforms, thereby reinforcing shared principles across common law and civil law jurisdictions. These comparative dynamics underscore the Academy’s role as a catalyst for normative convergence in contemporary international law practice.

The Academy of European Law’s focus on EU Law, international law, and human rights directly informs practitioners by providing access to specialized research resources and event opportunities, enhancing compliance understanding and advocacy strategies in transnational legal contexts. Practitioners may reference analogous case law such as *Kadi v. Commission* (C-585/08, 2010) for interpreting EU law in light of human rights obligations, or *Al-Skeini v. UK* (2011) for jurisdictional analysis under international law, both of which inform statutory and regulatory compliance frameworks in EU-related litigation. The linkage between event content and judicial precedent underscores the practical relevance of academic institutions in shaping legal practice.

The AI Now Institute's recent activities, as highlighted in the article, demonstrate the growing importance of AI governance in international law practice. A jurisdictional comparison between the US, Korea, and international approaches reveals distinct differences in addressing AI-related challenges. In the US, the AI Now Institute's engagement with government agencies, such as the Philadelphia City Council Committee on Technology and Information Services, reflects a more collaborative approach to AI governance, whereas in Korea, the government has taken a more proactive role in regulating AI development, as seen in its efforts to establish a Korean AI governance framework. Internationally, the AI Now Institute's participation in UN General Assembly discussions on AI governance highlights the need for a more coordinated global response to AI-related challenges. The US approach, as exemplified by the AI Now Institute's testimony before the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, tends to focus on the potential risks and benefits of AI development, with a emphasis on balancing industry interests with public concerns. In contrast, the Korean government's approach is more focused on promoting AI development as a key driver of economic growth, while also addressing related social and ethical concerns. Internationally, the AI Now Institute's engagement with the UN General Assembly reflects a more nuanced understanding of the global implications of AI development, with a focus on establishing common standards and best practices for AI governance. The implications of these approaches are significant, as they highlight the need for a more coordinated and inclusive response to AI-related challenges. The AI Now Institute's efforts to promote a people

As a Treaty Interpretation & Vienna Convention Expert, I will analyze the article's implications for practitioners in the context of international law. The article highlights the AI Now Institute's efforts to address the development and governance of artificial intelligence (AI). The Institute's activities, such as testifying before the UN General Assembly, the Philadelphia City Council, and the US House Committee on Energy & Commerce, demonstrate its engagement with international and national policy-making processes. In this context, practitioners should be aware of the relevance of customary international law and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) to AI governance. The VCLT's principles on treaty interpretation (Article 31) and the rules on reservations (Article 20) may be applicable to international agreements related to AI. For instance, Article 20(4) of the VCLT prohibits reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty. Practitioners should also consider the implications of the Institute's advocacy for a people's AI action plan, which could be seen as an attempt to counterbalance industry-backed AI plans and executive orders. This may be relevant to the interpretation of treaty obligations, such as the Paris Agreement, which includes provisions on AI and sustainability. The Institute's efforts may also be connected to the development of customary international law on AI governance, which could be shaped by national and international policies and practices. In terms of case law, the article's implications may be connected to the US