This article presents and discusses recent developments of using autonomous vehicles and analyses their effectiveness in terms of the theory of criminal responsibility for harm caused. The authors consider the liability of the autopilot according to several theoretical approaches. The main approaches assume liability for injury caused during the operation of the elevator, responsibility for damage caused by autopilots of large transport, and the charge of the human driver. There are some types of criminal liability concerning harm caused by autonomous vehicles. One way relates to using partially autonomous cars where a human driver is always responsible for driving. In the case of road incidents, only the human driver might be found guilty. In the case of full automation, when a human driver does not control the vehicle, be it autopilot as a self-learning program or not, only the developer or the technicians should be responsible in case of harm. Another case is related to the behaviour of the owner of the autonomous vehicle. The authors conclude that legal regulation is necessary. A separate corpus delicti as a new article is needed in the criminal legislation to provide criminal liability for death or other grave consequences caused by unmanned vehicles.

The inclination of humans towards self-preservation is the pivot for the universalist notion of human rights and a good starting point of what humans do and desire. What defines good is where the criticism by particularist jurisprudence halts the conclusion of universality. This article aims to resolve the question whether universalism should be the standard for human rights. Using qualitative data analysis, the arguments of the universalists and the particularists on the human rights discourse are examined. A deductive content analysis was applied on a set of data from treaties, declarations, internet sources, and journal articles, arguing that both worldviews failed to address some fundamental issues related to human rights. It is argued that the universality notion of human rights has a better operational value than the particularity perspective, since universality encourages a convergence of purpose which makes for determinable standards within the international law system. The article concludes that the universalist notion of human rights is important to a beneficial agenda of open societies, where governments would be accountable to their citizens, and where people would be able to express themselves without fear of oppression.

Albania has established a representative system of protected areas, covering almost 16% of the Albanian territory. Over the past 20 years, protected areas in Albania have not been integrated into national and local development policies. Most of the natural resources in Albania are under the threat of constant pressures such as illegal logging, hunting, fishing. The National Agency for Protected Areas is actively working to improve the management of protected areas according to the requirements, international standards, and experience of other European countries. In the field of nature conservation and biodiversity, Albania has an obligation to identify and protect natural heritage areas of high conservation interest for the European Union. Using qualitative research methodology, this paper aims to address the issues related to protected areas by also identifying the measures that may improve their management. The findings from the analysis highlight problems and delays in meeting Albania’s obligations under the integration process in the field of nature conservation and biodiversity.

Formerly taken by the members of the assize in its early days, the foundations of a jury predate Norman roots whereby members of the assize took the oath to justly try the cause of land disputes; although it was not until the 15th century where a jury became a part of the criminal and civil trial. Nearly 6 centuries later the general practice of jury has survived historical evolution and has become a civic duty today, however this ultimately begs the question whether a jury system is fit for purpose in a cosmopolitan and modern society despite its centrality to the English and Welsh justice system. Whilst this article does not seek to challenge the importance of the jury system, it argues that the current system is in- adequate to an extent. By reflection of one’s own academic and career experiences, and by exploring studies from the domains of law and psychology, this article explores whether the jury system in England and Wales is fit for purpose today in consideration of its strengths and diffi- culties, whilst also offering alternatives and areas for reform in response to this critique.

This publication is a brief communication in response to the UK government report: “Genomics Beyond Healthcare”, which was released on January 26, 2022. We discuss some of the key areas covered by the report, as well as other recent research; and call for interdisciplinary and international collaborations.

On 22 December 2017 Microsoft Corporation ("MS") filed a lawsuit (Microsoft Corporation v. John Does 1-10 using IP address 73.21.204.220, (United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle. Decided 2 Jan 2018, Microsoft Corp. v. Doe, CASE NO. C17-1911RSM) (the "MS case"). The suit alleges large-scale copyright infringement through software piracy and trademark infringement relative to Microsoft registered trademarks. What was unusual about this filing is that MS, at the time of filing, had nothing more on which to base its lawsuit than an IP address that had communicated over 28,000 times with its registration servers in Seattle. I discuss this in the first section discussing the MS Case. In 2017, Kristanalea Dyroff sued Ultimate Software Group, Inc for the death of her son due to a drug overdose. She contended that her son – 29 years old at the time – was guided to a dealer of fentanyl-laced heroin based upon recommendation from Ultimate’s proprietary machine learning (ML)-based tool that guided users to things on its website that might interest them. Although it could have been a major effort at applying the law to ML-based software, it failed because the judge failed to address the ML aspect directly. Instead, the court analyzed the case based upon conventional law and precedent. Likewise, the issue of personal jurisdiction in cyberspace was not, but should have been, addressed. A discussion with one of the attorneys for the plaintiff conducted by the author the week of 19 April 2021 confirmed that, in the attorney's opinion, the court erred in finding for the defense. This paper analyzes the jurisdictional and technical issues raised by these two types of cyber event and postulates the jurisdictional and technical challenges raised by next generation cyber events that employ artificial intelligence ("AI"), particularly machine learning ("ML") through the lens of two cyber case analyses.