REVIEW OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

The question of the legal permissibility of heritable gene editing techniques is unsettled. The international consensus opposes clinical research and applications involving germline modifications. Building on previous work, this paper examines how international human rights law, particularly human right to science standards, can inform the regulation of this controversial advancement. We present the normative content of the human right to science, apply it to the governance of heritable gene editing, and identify action points that States must take, as a matter of national law and international cooperation, to align the governance of heritable gene editing with human rights standards.
Key-words: genetic research, reproductive technologies, human rights, human right to science, international scientific cooperation, heritable gene editing.
JEL Classification: K38

This paper aims to analyse the implications of technology of gene editing on the scope and meaning of the legal concept of the heritage of humanity in the context of the wider phenomenon of the Anthropocene. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are two-fold; first, does the concept of heritage of humanity allow gene editing to modify this heritage? Secondly, given that humans can modify not just the human genome, but genomes of other life using the new gene editing technologies, how should non-human genetic manipulation on larger and faster scales be governed? This paper uses the doctrinal research method to investigate international bio-law using interdisciplinary concepts from earth systems science. The analysis draws attention to the weak framework of existing international law, and the acceleration of the Anthropocene biosphere, which in turn pushes the earth out of the safe operating zone. This paper calls for regulating gene editing through an international policy and legal framework for novel entities, rethinking the concept of the ‘heritage of humanity’ as going beyond the human genome.
Key-words: common heritage; human genome; gene editing; novel entities; planetary boundaries; universal declaration on the human genome.
JEL Classification: K33

The paper outlines the impact of gene editing techniques applied to crops and their derived products on the right to adequate food, as it has been developed under international law. The objective of the research is to assess whether such framework is apt to protect the right to adequate food and the role of national policies and legislation in this regard. After analysing the current regulatory scenario of gene edited plants and their derived products, as well international law’s instruments directly and indirectly protecting the right to adequate food, the paper argues that the international framework converges on a core of principles and rules which lay the basis for the fulfilment of the right to adequate food. At the same time, there is a global tendency to foster innovation and adopt more lenient regulation for certain uses of gene editing. However, while such techniques may be either beneficial or detrimental for the right to food, depending on the strategic purposes for which they are employed, it falls upon states to implement regulations which strike a balance between innovation and social interests, ensuring a fair and trustworthy development of gene editing techniques, contributing effectively to food accessibility, safety and acceptability.
Key-words: gene editing, agriculture, food, biodiversity, international law, patents.
JEL Classification: K33

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a game-changer in many scientific fields. Gene editing is no exception, and many applications are increasingly playing a crucial role in the field of human health. Emblematically, when combined with the CRISPR technology, AI allows creating such helpful tools as DeepCRISPR, CRISTA, and DeepHF. These instruments can help to treat various serious diseases, improve immunotherapy, increase longevity, and develop biomedical research. These promising applications of AI need appropriate responses from international bio law. So far, somatic gene editing for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes has been considered admissible under international law; however, important challenges need to be addressed. On this premise, this study, first off, aims at analysing the compatibility of advanced AI-based tools with the principles of bioethics and with human rights, while also adopting a comparative law perspective. Subsequently, a bioethically consistent and human rights-based framework for the promising use of AI in gene editing is theorized. Finally, this paper suggests that an internationally concerted action should be adopted in the framework of the World Health Organization.
Key-words: gene editing, artificial intelligence (AI), CRIRSPR, human rights; human dignity, informationally-projected corporality.
JEL Classification: K33, K38, K39

The role of international law becomes particularly evident when discussing scientific freedom, scientific responsibility, and the handling of security-relevant research such as gene editing. I’ve often heard statements like ‘science needs freedom, and freedom entails responsibility.’ Attention should not be solely focused on the ethics of the researchers but on the safety of their lives and the results of their work. In reality, the danger lies in the abusive use of genetic research results by third parties for harmful purposes often unrelated to the researcher’s behaviour. Action to avoid discouraging research opposes these potential dangers. Researchers and institutions within a particular state are subject to the legislation of that state. In addition to regulations concerning gene editing research, international law can be applied to protect human rights, or, depending on the context, international humanitarian law becomes applicable, prohibiting torture and the use of force, the Convention on Biological Diversity, etc. From the requirements of ethics and responsibility to endangering the lives of researchers, there is a road that must be paved with precise rules for the international protection of the lives and freedoms of scientists. So, whether we’re talking about amending existing treaties or creating new ones, procedurally the 1969 Vienna Convention speaks to the same process, but the idea remains to incorporate these changes into the landscape of international law because the results of genetic research cannot be confined to a particular city or region but are beneficial to all of humanity, akin to a common heritage.
Key-words: gene editing, security, freedom of scientific research, international law and technologies..
JEL Classification: K33, K38, K39

DeepMind, the AI company of Google is using new tools that permit to identify changes in human DNA that cause disease. This research explores the connection among Artificial Intelligence and health, taking into account the information provided by Google DeepMind, AlphaFold and AlphaMissense. It seems to be a revolution: combining AI and health. There are many questions to be solved: are there any limits for science – and companies – on this field? Identification of proteins and the possibility of preventing (or why not, reduce or limiting) certain diseases seem to be the objective. There is a list of principles and objectives referred to the use of these techniques of AI described on the Google website. In particular, Google will not pursue, among others, ‘technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms’ or ‘technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights’. What are these internationally accepted norms? What are these widely accepted principles of international law and human rights concerning AI and health? So, the debate is open and this research tries to explore some key questions about that issue.
Key-words:artificial intelligence (AI), Google tools, health, international accepted norms..
JEL Classification: K33

The paper analyses the agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO) to enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. The global agreement was presented for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) on May 2024 and then approved by the following 78th WHA on 20th May 2025. The instrument was negotiated by WHO countries to better protect people, communities and countries against future pandemics, bearing in mind that COVID-19 showed that no government or institution can address the threat of future pandemics alone. So, its content is examined analyzing its strengths and weaknesses in a critical way. Then its impact on the existing WHO system is enlightened, putting it in relation with the already existing instruments. Finally, bearing in mind that the European Union Council adopted on 3 March 2022, a decision to authorise the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on pandemic and actively participated in the following process, the emerging relationship between the WHO and the European Union legal frameworks is taken into account too. Final remarks enlighten the main challenges and perspectives related to the implementation of the new treaty.
Key-words: global health, human rights, who, cooperation, genetic resources, pandemics.
JEL Classification: K33

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a concept born 50 years ago but which has returned to the spotlight in the last 5 years, especially in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic. Just as electric cars were invented more than 50 years ago but only aroused interest when climate change became stringent, artificial intelligence begins to concern us with the start of the fourth industrial revolution (Industry 4.0) that promises to reorganize production processes and commercial flows. How do we manage artificial intelligence? First, it is essential that we all understand the concept and how to use it, then to anticipate the consequences and take measures to mitigate adverse effects. It is a multidisciplinary team effort, and the challenge of our century is precisely to bring all stakeholders to the table, with equal rights. In the age of social networks where everyone wants to be seen and heard, the legal challenge of regulating the use of artificial intelligence arises. A regulation that ensures the continuity of the human race and respect for fundamental rights. This scenario involves the greatest challenge: putting scientists, lawyers, engineers and the biggest IT corporations at the table of discussions. Each, in good faith, must explain how their field works and accept proposals for improvement. The best result we could have would be the integration of artificial intelligence into everyday life, with the aim of improving people's lives, increasing their level of knowledge and respecting their fundamental rights. This article highlights the current challenges and proposes lines of dialogue between all stakeholders to elaborate a fair and flexible regulatory framework for technological development. For this we use a doctrinal, comparative and interdisciplinary methodology to explore how AI affects human rights in legal systems. Also, it analyzes legal frameworks, ethical concerns, and technological implications, compares international regulations, and proposes normative solutions to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability in AI-driven legal decision-making.
Key-words: artificial intelligence (AI) and law, rule of law, Industry 4.0, human rights, machine learning, deep learning.
JEL Classification: K22, K24, K38

The article analyzes the increasing recognition of a "right to encryption" within the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The ECtHR and the CJEU have important roles in shaping the European legal landscape regarding encryption, particularly in light of human rights protection, including the rights to privacy and data protection. The special attention in the paper is devoted to significant rulings, notably the ECtHR's landmark decision in Podchasov v. Russia (2024) and the CJEU's case law on data retention. Both courts uphold strict standards of necessity and proportionality when it comes to government interference with digital communications. This eliminates calls for "backdoors" or the weakening of cryptographic encryption. The scope of the paper is to clarify whether this judicial approach transforms the technical capabilities of an "unbreakable code" into a practical legal foundation for individual autonomy against state intrusion, reinforcing "digital resistance" within the European legal framework.
Key-words: right to encryption, European Court of Human Rights, Court of Justice of the European Union, right to privacy, data protection.
JEL Classification: K24, K33, K38

It is generally acknowledged that, to convict an accused after the conclusion of an admission of guilt agreement it is not necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal deed has occurred, as it is enough to be in the presence of a factual base. We will approach in this article just one of these issues, namely the special situations in which only one of the defendants concludes an admission of guilt agreements and the other defendants do not admit to the crime. In case all defendants are charged with one crime or of the distinctive crime of forming an organized crime group, the courts of law must analyze the cause from the perspective of two different standards of proof, one for the defendant who concluded an admission of guilt agreement and another for those who have not admitted to the crimes they are charged with. This can lead to different court decisions regarding the same crime, thus creating a significant risk of wrongful conviction of the defendant who concluded the admission of guilt agreement. This is why it would be necessary to distinctively regulate this situation and limit the possibility of concluding an admission of guilt agreement with only one of the defendants or only some of the participants in the crime or to allow the courts to analyze the admission of guilt agreement by considering the higher standard of evidence (beyond reasonable doubt).
Key-words: admission of guilt agreement, standard of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, factual base.
JEL Classification: K14, K38