Artificial Intelligence (AI) has enriched the lives of people around the globe. However, the emergence of AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has become a significant concern for the international community. LAWS are computer-based weapon systems capable of completing their missions, including identifying and engaging targets without direct human intervention. The use of such weapons poses significant challenges to compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law. Scholars have extensively examined LAWS in the context of humanitarian law; however, their implications for human rights warrant further discussion. Against this backdrop, this paper analyzes the human rights challenges posed by LAWS under international law. It argues that using LAWS in warfare and domestic law enforcement operations could violate human rights, such as the rights to life, human dignity, and remedy, among others. Thus, it calls for a prohibition of the use of killer robots against humans.

To compare and classify objects on the basis of quantitative indicators is nothing new. Bereft of any direct subjectivity, the quantified method of assessing quality may be a useful tool to avoid or reduce any bias or other forms of human frailties in the assessment. However, the effort to assess the quality of academic output with quantifiable metrics is perhaps a relatively new but increasingly common phenomenon. This article argues that while some higher education rankings can serve laudable purposes, such as sending signals to aspiring students and other stakeholders and giving institutions an opportunity for introspecting on their affairs, the ranking of research outputs on quantifiable metrics alone is an inherently hazardous task. Rankings may be used as an indicium of quality; however, they cannot and should not be the sole proxy for assessing the quality of scholarly outputs. Another main argument of the article is that the university-wide “one size fits all” metric should exhibit more deference to discipline-specific norms, such as law.

The proliferation of satellite technology has ushered in an era of opportunity and challenge for the existing international legal framework of space law. International regulatory bodies have looked to existing treaties governing space activities like the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention. In this new era, the challenges that have emerged cannot be enforced by the broad language of the treaties and outdated terms. For example, the deployment of large constellations of smaller satellites poses new challenges, like orbital debris damage and evasive responsibility, which the legal landscape for outer space must address. Space law stresses geopolitical considerations and strategic international legal frameworks that work to reduce the militarization of space and ensure that space is for all. This paper explores current treaties and challenges and proposes legal and policy solutions for the satellite industry’s responsible use of outer space.

In the digital age, “commercial sharenting” refers to parents excessively sharing their children’s images and data on social media for profit. Initially motivated by parental pride, this practice is now driven by child-to-child marketing, where young influencers shape their peers’ consumption habits. While regulations protect child influencers’ privacy, a significant gap remains regarding the rights of child viewers. We argue that commercial sharenting threatens children’s right to health under Article 24(1) of the UNCRC, potentially leading to harmful consumer behaviors and identity confusion. In response, China has adopted a fragmented regulatory approach to platform liability. This article advocates for a comprehensive legal framework incorporating content filtering, moderation, and reviewal to regulate commercial sharenting and safeguard children’s rights and interests in China.