[{"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12098999","description":"From time to time, this blog will highlight initiatives, ideas, or activities coming from members, committees or special interest groups (SIGs). Today: Adapting the SALI Taxonomy to the Canadian Legal Environment , b y Michael McAlpine , Manager, Information, Research & Knowledge at Siskinds (London, Ontario) On September 28 th , the Knowledge Management Special Interest Group of CALL met to discuss and learn about the Legal Matter Specification Standard developed by the SALI Alliance . The SALI Alliance (Standards Advancement for the Legal Industry) is a non-profit organization open to all stakeholders in the legal community. Members include law firms, companies, legal service providers, legal industry associations and academic institutions. Founding sponsors are the Legal Marketing Association (LMA) and the Association of Legal Administrators (ALA). Guest speaker Jim Hannigan spoke about the history of the taxonomy and the current uses of it in the legal industry. Michael McAlpine then discussed the work done by the SALI Canadian Working Group to adapt the taxonomy to the Canadian legal environment . There was a general discussion about the uses of the taxonomy and efforts to implement it in law firms. First released in 2019, the SALI taxonomy was developed in order to provide a standard method for describing legal matters and associated documents. Version 2.0 was released at the end of 2020 and represented a significant expansion of the code set. Organizations and individuals around the globe continue to contribute to its development and growth. The SALI taxonomy is extensible and can work in conjunction with other standards (eg, NAICS, UTBMS codes). SALI is an open, free and party neutral that can be used by law firms, vendors and others in the legal industry to ensure matters and documents are described consistently. SALI has been endorsed by several large law firms and by vendors such as Fastcase, NetDocuments and Reynen Court. Some of the core attributes of the current standard are: Area of Law: Each matter can be assigned a primary and secondary area of law. Primary areas include topics such as Corporate Law, Constitutional and Human Rights, Personal and Family Law, and Food and Drug Law. Secondary areas are more specific and include topics such as Corporate Governance, Accident Benefits Law, and Labour Law. Service: The Services attribute is a central feature of the taxonomy. Examples of services are Transaction, Advisory, or Dispute. Services provide more detail to a matter description than just relying solely on Area of Law. Player Role: The Role attribute is what makes SALI party neutral. Roles include Appellant, Respondent, Acquiror or Acquiree. Other attributes that can be used to describe a matter or client include Industry, Legal Entity, Location, or Trial Type. The KM SIG will next meet on November 30 th to discuss website monitoring applications. If you would like an invitation, please contact Michael","titre":"Adapting the SALI Legal Taxonomy to the Canadian Environment","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:47 +0100","id":3241454},{"titre":"[hal-05733006] The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law: a unique tool for cross-border regulatory interoperability","id":3189681,"pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:21:30 +0200","description":"The Framework Convention on AI builds on international human rights law to establish a legal instrument aimed at ensuring respect for fundamental rights and principles recognised by States in the context of the development and use of AI. It is therefore in line with international and European ethical frameworks on AI. At the same time, it is a unique text, the first multilateral treaty applicable to activities within the AI lifecycle. This raises questions about its contribution to the contemporary co-construction of global AI governance. To this end, this contribution offers a systematic and contextual legal analysis of the main provisions of the text, examining first the holistic scope of the Framework Convention on AI and secondly its high-level normative substance. The analysis shows that the Convention is the result of a global political compromise, which makes it a text with modest and uncertain legal scope, especially with regard to persons affected by AI. At the same time, the legal methodology it adopts, which is based on transnational normative interoperability rather than legal harmonisation, offers an interesting prospect for ‘soft’ global legal coherence in the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in AI context. In particular, it could help to standardise at the international level the principle of risk and impact management of AI on fundamental rights and","source":"Annuaire français de droit international","url":"https://hal.science/hal-05733006v1"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 04 Jul 2026 07:41:47 +0200","id":3005970,"titre":"[hal-05678079] Introduction to Special End-of-Life Issue: ‘Reflecting on the need for an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach to bettering end-of-life care and research’","description":"Advances in medical technology as well as changing individual and societal perceptions of death and dying mean that death, as an event, and dying, as a process, have fundamentally changed. In addition, we know that the process of dying and death, at least in a healthcare context, is different based on where it happens, to whom it happens, and why it happens. We know that the process remains heavily medicalised, with calls to understand dying and death more relationally, culturally, socially, and philosophically. There is a great benefit in disciplines working together to promote cross-jurisdictional perspectives and methodologies, and to prioritise interdisciplinary thinking and research on end-of-life issues, for the benefit of society, the individual, healthcare professionals, and healthcare itself. Our contribution to this special issue on end-of-life for the Journal de Droit de la Santé et de l’Assurance Maladie serves a small part in this bigger goal for an interdisciplinary approach to end-of-life discourse and research. It brings together perspectives from 9 jurisdictions, from 17 academics from the disciplines of law, medicine, philosophy, criminology, sociology, to contribute to one very important end-of-life choice: assisted dying and assisted death. A ‘good-quality death’ depends on our relationships, achievements, values and the meaning we create. A good-quality death is not necessarily one without sadness or loss. Rather, it is a death marked by dignity, minimal suffering, and respect for personal autonomy. Good, quality end-of-life care and death need a deeper theoretical foundation, including consideration on concepts such as life cycles, changing relationships between the living and the dead, new technologies and new ways of dealing with the body and death, and cultural attitudes to death and dying. The contributions in this issue are based on a workshop that was hosted by the Brocher Fondation in January 2025 in Geneva, Switzerland led by the two of us. Following our Brocher-sponsored workshop, and having discussed the idea as early as the summer of 2022 (when we first met), we decided to establish the European End-of-Life Research Network (EuEOLNet), a Network that brings together scholars from across Europe to exchange on end-of-life. Specifically on the matter of assisted dying and assisted death, an increase in regulation of this end-of-life choice can be noted globally, including in Europe. Regulated access to a form of assisted death in Europe is, at the time of writing, available in Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia. In practically all jurisdictions, it is a form of medical-assisted dying. Discussion is underway in many jurisdictions, including France, Germany, Italy, England and Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man and Jersey, the Czech Republic. With this special issue, we aim to share the latest developments on assisted dying regulation in some selected jurisdictions and comment on its key regulatory features and","url":"https://hal.science/hal-05678079v1","source":"revue JDSAM"},{"url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-conference-cross-regulatory-cooperation-what-we-learned_en","source":"EDPB News","pubDate":"Tue, 24 Mar 2026 14:08:47 +0100","id":2780286,"titre":"EDPB conference on cross-regulatory cooperation: what we learned","description":"Brussels, 23 March - On 17 March 2026, the EDPB conference “Cross-regulatory interplay and cooperation in the EU: a data protection perspective” took place in Brussels. The event showcased high-level discussions, featuring contributions from representatives of key EU institutions, European Data Protection Authorities, academia and industry.  Key takeaways from the panel discussions Throughout the day, three panels were held, focusing on 1) data protection and competition , 2) the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the GDPR , and 3) the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the GDPR .  During the first panel , speakers emphasised the critical need for cooperation between regulatory bodies in the fields of data protection and competition and shared views on what regulators in the two fields can learn from each other, especially in the aftermath of the Bundeskartellamt ruling. A speaker emphasized that regulators should align their approaches and recognize synergies between the two fields, such as protecting consumers and data subjects. Others pointed out that fixing harm to end users does not always solve competition issues, and that data protection should be considered in competition analysis only when relevant, on a case-by-case basis. Panellists also highlighted the need to cooperate not just on individual cases, but on broader concepts and legal principles.  In this context, the EDPB has recently agreed to develop joint guidelines with the European Commission to address the interplay between competition law and data protection. The discussions in the second panel centred on the joint guidelines on the DMA and the GDPR , which were developed by the European Commission and the EDPB and recently underwent public consultation. The joint guidelines are an unprecedented work and a good example of regulatory cooperation paving the way for further examples ahead, in line with the  EDPB Strategy 2024-2027 and  Helsinki Statement ’s objectives to strengthen cross-regulatory cooperation. A crucial goal of the guidelines is the development of a coherent and compatible interpretation of the DMA and the GDPR while respecting the regulatory competences. It was emphasised that these guidelines help break silos, strengthen consistency, and provide further clarity and legal certainty. All of this contributes to easier compliance, which is valued by stakeholders and increases trust. At the same time, certain speakers suggested improvements to the final version of the guidelines, bearing in mind the DMA should not be given primacy over the GDPR and that the measures companies have to comply with should be proportionate.  Other examples of cooperation in this domain were also mentioned, such as the participation in the High Level Group for the Digital Markets Act and specific instances of cooperation on concrete cases.  The last panel of the day explored how the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the GDPR interact. Panellists provided the example of the protection of minors: age   verification should be effective yet fully in line with data protection legislation.  They highlighted the growing need for strong coordination between the two frameworks, including the role of the European Board for Digital Services and other ways for the Commission and the EDPB to work together. A speaker also underlined the challenges and ongoing work on cross-regulatory cooperation from the perspective of a national authority. Another speaker urged regulators to work on building a fully coherent interpretation of the two frameworks and more globally of the digital legislation. Panellists also stressed that emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are reshaping online ecosystems and, as a result, the role of the DSA and the GDPR.  The panel concluded with a clear message: online safety under the DSA and the lawful processing of personal data are two sides of the same coin, both calling for the DSA and the GDPR to be read coherently.  Highlights from the keynote speeches The event also"}]