The use of digital technologies in healthcare is changing how medical treatments are developed by researchers, delivered by medical professionals and experienced by patients. This chapter argues that a defining feature of this disruption is the emergence of medical apps that leverage algorithm-based AI systems. As the use of such apps and AI wearables goes mainstream and new players – notably ‘Super Platforms’ with digital rather than medical expertise – enter the healthcare sector, traditional medical services will be transformed.

These developments pose several challenges for regulators and policymakers, most obviously in terms of privacy and data protection. Here, we examine how the emerging field of Legal Design can provide a more transparent infrastructure that embeds relevant legal protections in the user interfaces of healthcare products and services. A Privacy-by-Design approach focused on the user interface (UI) offers several advantages, most obviously greater transparency, accountability and human choice. The chapter offers real-world examples of design patterns that illustrate the value of UI-focused Privacy-by-Design in protecting sensitive information, enabling people to retain control of their personal data. The chapter concludes with some examples and reflects on the challenges in implementing Legal Design in an eHealth context.

In order to make the concept of social-ecological resilience and resilience governance comprehensible in a legal context the study first established some general governance features that represents the core of resilience governance. These features are the core of what a legal design for social-ecological resilience should reflect. However, law must also safe guard the legal principles and legal characteristics of law and its role as a stable institutional base with binding requirements. The study reviewed both possible matches and potential obstacles where law may not sufficiently reflect resilience governance. However, it also unveiled legal mechanisms that contributes in other ways than expected. All in all, a general conclusion is that law has many important features that matches resilience governance and thus has the potential to form an important basis for resilience governance in many different settings.

Despite the fast development of environmental governance and environmental law over the past decades, the world is facing fundamental threats to the environment and the earth system. Many scholars argue that the world is entering the Anthropocene, a new geological epoch represented by the fact that the earth is now in an unprecedented way shaped by human activities. In addition to reflecting the global scale of the environmental problems, this perspective also emphasizes the complex and intertwined relationship between the human and the natural systems (i.e., the social and the ecological). Research on social-ecological resilience provides a theoretical framework for the governance of such complexity. This governance calls also for new legal approaches and pose significant challenges for legal design. The purpose of this book is to explore the resilience theories and concepts, focusing on their compatibility with international and EU environmental law.

The conclusion draws together the book’s findings and arguments, and elaborates on their historical and normative–legal implications today. It calls for a history of human rights that explores the multiple social and narrative practices through which the human rights discourse has been deployed and sometimes transformed; in other words, it calls for an unabashedly interdisciplinary legal–historical–ethnographic approach to human rights.

This final orientation chapter in Part I explores how a legal system that fails to account for comprehension asymmetries can exacerbate preexisting impediments to cooperative communication. After identifying those legal settings where comprehension asymmetries are likely to be most severe, the chapter concludes by suggesting general reforms that strengthen the speakers' incentives to communicate cooperatively with their audience.

Nobel prize-winning economist Herbert Simon warned more than 70 years ago that if we did not find a way to manage the flood of information that threatens to overwhelm us, we would find ourselves unable to make sense of it. This short introductory chapter explores the various ways that legal architects have failed to heed Simon's warning in legal areas as diverse as consumer protection, financial regulation, patents, chemical control, and administrative and legislative process. A number of significant legal programs in the U.S. are designed to facilitate the sharing of complete information, yet these programs often neglect to ensure that the information is also comprehensible to the target audience.