: In the mid-1960s, representatives of the European Communities (EC) took note of the growing concern among the scientific community and civil society about the welfare of animals in livestock farming. The directive on the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages, called for by the EC Council in 1979 and adopted in 1988, was the first regulation on the living conditions of farm animals at the Community level. It simply lays down minimum standards: this article examines in particular the provision that “laying hens must have at least 450 cm² of cage space.” However, this legislative process was motivated less by concern for animals than by the urgent need for European integration, and more specifically, the harmonization of the European agricultural market. Although it explicitly aims to “protect battery-farmed laying hens,” this directive does not actually protect laying hens, but provides a standard for strengthening trade within the free market and ultimately defines animal products as just another co[...]
: 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 ad[...]
: 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 disc[...]