In legal and commercial practice, the notion of the “no-confidence protocol” (protokół nieufności) displays a specific semantic duality, which draws a clear boundary between the colloquial understanding of corporate institutions and the automated architecture of the ICT systems of the administration of justice. Verification of this term requires, above all, the rejection of any assumption as to its statutory origin, for a thorough dogmatic analysis leads to the unambiguous conclusion that managerial practice and the registration procedure are not one and the same.
The longevity economy is commonly estimated at several hundred billion dollars worldwide and continues to grow rapidly.[1] Venture capital flows into biotechnology companies that promise to slow, halt, or reverse aging. Clinics from Zurich to Seoul to Miami sell “longevity programmes.” Supplement brands attach the word “longevity” to products ranging from NAD precursors to collagen powders. And yet the word “longevity” does not exist as a legal category in European Union law. There is no definition, no register, no certification scheme, and no authority empowered to decide what may or may not describe itself as a longevity product, a longevity clinic, or a longevity company.
As part of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of International Law’s highly successful conference at Mansion House in London, we had the opportunity to take part not only in the substantive programme of the conference, but also in a number of exceptional events accompanying it.
The loss or corruption of data in a business is rarely “just” a technical problem. In practice it is a serious legal and financial crisis: production downtime, loss of trust among business partners and, in extreme cases, administrative fines running into millions. The scope of liability, however, depends above all on what kind of data has been lost or corrupted. The law treats the loss of source code or technical documentation quite differently from a leak of employee records or a customer database. The first step in assessing liability for a breach of the integrity or availability of data is therefore its unambiguous legal classification.
under the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property
Publication date: October 05, 2026
When does a State act like a merchant? A scholarly and practical analysis
I. The restrictive theory of State immunity and the significance of the 2004 Convention
The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, adopted by General Assembly resolution 59/38 of 2 December 2004 (hereinafter the “Convention” or “UNCSI”), is the first comprehensive multilateral instrument to regulate the jurisdictional immunity of States before the courts of foreign States. Although the Convention has not formally entered into force – it requires thirty ratifications, and twenty-five States have ratified or acceded to it so far – it exerts a considerable influence on the formation of customary international law, since it expresses the opinio iuris of States and reflects their practice in the field of jurisdictional immunity. The Convention thus constitutes an important point of reference both for domestic courts and for international tribunals. Many States also regard the Convention as binding to the extent that it codifies customary law already existing in this area.
