The modern world increasingly integrates information and communication technologies into more and more digital services. This involves the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its algorithms with, necessarily, a transfer of data between various stakeholders, whether through networks or devices.

Procedural rights play a crucial role in the functioning of the EU rules on asylum, migration and borders, as they provide fundamental guarantees allowing individuals to safeguard their substantive rights. The growing importance in the case law of the CJEU and in EU secondary legislation of, in particular, the right to an effective remedy and the right to be heard has acted as a catalyst for an increased standard of protection in the Member States in this field. Three further fundamental procedural rights – namely the right to access the file, the right to legal assistance and representation and the right to legal aid – are still at a comparatively embryonic stage for the moment, but they could be very significant for the future development of the EU acquis in the field.

This chapter presents the significant influence that British administrative law had on Israeli administrative law – starting with the law of Mandatory Palestine, and then dealing with the gradual process of independence which has developed since the modern State of Israel was founded in 1948. The influence of British administrative law has been one of the most enduring legacies of British Mandatory rule in Palestine. At the same time, the Israeli Supreme Court has allowed itself a significant degree of independence in developing on these traditional principles. This process of independent development has intensified since the 1980s, and even more so following developments in the area of constitutional law since the 1990s.

Switzerland has long been a New York Convention (NY Convention)1 state. Although Switzerland’s arbitration law is not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (Model Law), it does by and large conform to the fundamental principles of the Model Law as amended in 2006, in particular in relation to the interpretation of arbitration agreements, and the vacation and enforcement of international arbitration awards.

Swiss law distinguishes between international arbitration and domestic arbitration. This proceeds from article 176 of Switzerland’s arbitration statute,of the Swiss Private International Law Act2 (PIL), which defines the scope of international arbitration as arbitrations with their seat in Switzerland and in which, at the time of the conclusion of the arbitration agreement,3 at least one of the parties had neither its domicile nor its habitual residence in Switzerland. Domicile for registered corporate entities is treated as the place of formal registration.4 For registered corporate entities, habitual residence does not apply. No other provision in Swiss international arbitration law is more stringent than those under the NY Convention.5