This article analyses the US and the EU systems of risk regulation through the lens of two ideal models: evidence-based and socially acceptable risk approaches. The examination is conducted against the backdrop of these ideal regulatory paradigms, which broadly inform US and EU risk governance. The article employs an analysis of transatlantic divergencies in the regulation of pesticides and agricultural biotechnologies to illustrate that neither approach can lay claim to neutrality and objectivity; non-scientific normative frames are always at stake in the field of risk regulation. Through these case studies, the article thus challenges the narrative that transatlantic divergencies result from a focus on “risks” or “hazards,” “science” or “politics.” The US and the EU systems reflect different approaches to scientific uncertainty, the pursuit of different levels of protection, and consideration of different non-scientific factors. They also have very different implications. The conclusive section of the article sketches out some final considerations on the strategic vision of the Biden administration. Environmental and public health protection are high on President Biden’s agenda; further, public interest litigation is thriving in the US. Will this be sufficient to break regulatory path dependency and lay the foundations for a paradigm shift in US risk governance?

This article examines the reasons for different constitutional approaches to platform governance across the Atlantic. By adopting a comparative perspective under the lens of digital constitutionalism, it analyses the move from converging to diverging strategies of the United States and the European Union to address platform governance. From a liberal approach inspired by the US framework at the end of the last century, the European Union has moved towards a constitutional democratic strategy as demonstrated, for instance, by the launch of the Digital Services Act. On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States has reacted to the consolidation of platform governance by maintaining a liberal approach based on a vertical paradigm driven by the First Amendment. Given these democratic and liberal approaches, this article explains how the different constitutional premises of the United States and the European Union have produced diverging responses to the power of online platforms, thus underlining different expressions of digital constitutionalism across the Atlantic. The first section of the article introduces the rise of digital constitutionalism as the primary research angle to study the trans-Atlantic approaches to platform governance. The second section compares the European and US responses to the rise of platform powers. The third section focuses on the implications of these different constitutional strategies on a global scale.

This article presents useful clues for British law librarians and legal researchers conducting research on American laws and legal systems. It focuses on general guidelines and key sticking points the author, Erin Gow, found when transitioning between legal research in the American and British jurisdictions. Key skills introduced include the ability to: differentiate between federal and state legal jurisdictions in the US; recognize key differences in American legal terminology and construct searches using American terms; analyze and select key American legal resources for different types of research questions; and identify American standards of legal citation. This article is based on the presentation that the author gave at the BIALL Online Annual Conference in June 2021.

This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability, as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

Beginning in the early 1800s, New York has followed a comprehensive model of law-reporting with official law reports. This article by Charles Dewey Cole, Jr. looks at the influence of James Kent in establishing comprehensive law-reporting in New York, reviews the 1938 legislation that created the law reporting bureau and charged the state reporter with reporting almost all appellate court and selective trial court decisions, describes the state reporter's current publication practices and considers both the advantages of and the challenges presented by comprehensive official law-reporting. The article is based on a June 2019 presentation given at the annual conference of the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians in Bournemouth.

This article explores the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court on the fundamental rights of commercial companies. The rights considered include property, the privilege against self-incrimination, freedom of speech, double jeopardy, the right to make political donations, and the freedom of religion. The article highlights the dangers of taking the fundamental rights of companies too far, as has recently occurred in the US; and it advocates a cautious and coordinated approach to this delicate issue, which has become increasingly important on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the Seventh Circuit case Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, an arbitration tribunal's award was challenged on the grounds that it manifestly violated the Sherman Act. This argument would normally be expected to be dealt with in a public policy test, which serves as the standard of reviewability in most laws governing award enforcement proceedings. However, instead of examining whether or not the award was in fact violative of antitrust law and therefore incompatible with US public policy, the Circuit Court of Appeals deferred to the tribunal as a simple matter of prerogative. Taking it literally, this reasoning would seem surprising if not remote. The Court not only brushed aside serious concerns of antitrust law but also seemed to offer a re-interpretation of the Supreme Court's case law on arbitration. Nevertheless, despite the provokingly worded majority opinion, which other circuits will feel invited to consider in similar cases, the rather peculiar factual background of the Baxter case appears to be the true basis for the Court's ruling. Analysing the details of the litigants' relationship reveals that an issue of fundamental fairness was underlying the dispute, which serves well to reconcile Baxter with the Supreme Court's authority in Mitsubishi.