AI is transforming all levels of society and every profession. It also impacts our interface on a human level. These intersect in the attorney-client relationship. How will it change? Not just document production, and administrative tasks, but the delivery of advice and the training that goes into providing that advice. This section will explore the nature of the attorney-client relationship today, and how it will be viewed 5-10 years from now.

Αs provided by CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) companies operating within the European Union, will gradually produce - beginning this year - their first sustainability reports under unified ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards), ensuring that all corporations “speak the same language when telling their sustainability stories”.

However – ironically - just as ESG was about to reach its long –awaited widespread adoption, the European Commision, by its Omnibus  proposal (https://omnibus.gr)  now seems to set a turning back, regarding obligatory ESG reporting, by providing:

1. the postponement of entry into application - by 2 years - for large companies and listed SMEs (wave 2 and 3) and
2. the limitation of the scope of the reporting only to large corporations (with more than 1.000 employees and either a turnover of over EUR 50 million or a balance sheet above 25 million. ) .

On the other hand, a recent breakthrough KPMG survey (”KPMG 2024 Global ESG Due Diligence” study/ https://kpmg.com) showed that four out of five dealmakers globally, indicate that ESG considerations are on their Mergers +Aquisitions agenda, with 45% of them encountering a significant deal implication, as a result of a material ESG due diligence finding (with more than half of these experiencing a "deal stopper").

Thus, ignoring ESG risks could lead to serious deal implications.

Helsinki - based “Upright” company  (https:// www.uprightproject.com) has just launched a groundbreaking platform designed to quantify the impact of ESG risks and opportunities – such as climate change, pollution, and business conduct – on key financial metrics including revenue, operating profit, profit before tax, company assets, liabilities, cash flow movements.

Τhus, ignoring ESG risks is translated into tangible financial metrics.

Rating agencies, once focused solely on financial fundamentals, have expanded their methodologies to recognize the direct impact of ESG factors – such as corporate corruption or rising sea levels caused by climate change – on credit default risk.

Thus, ignoring ESG risks is increasingly seen as credit misjudgement.

By the above mentioned latest tools ( (KPMG survey, platform, ratings) it is clearly shown that ESG issues, aren't just qualitative concerns but are also translated into tangible, financial metrics, leading to serious business implications for the companies.

Thus, ignoring ESG factors in business decisions is increasingly proved as financially highly irresponsible.

Therefore, despite the proposed changes of  Omnibus I - by which the obligatory reporting may be delayed for some companies, nevertheless, the corporations should, necessarily still adhere to the (voluntary) reporting, as a strategic tool - focusing on the two - dimensions analysis (double materiality) still provided in CSRD, by which they will trace the impacts, risks and opportunities on ESG issues - enabling them to accordingly plan their future (financial) sustainable strategies.

Concluding, ESG should be regarded as a valuable, priceless strategic tool - far beyond a regulatory compliance framework.

When harmful levels of pollution are caused, victims should be entitled to compensation from the polluter. For people to win a lawsuit claiming they were harmed by pollutants in the environment, they have to prove that there was a causal link between their contact with those pollutants and the harm they suffered, such as respiratory damage or other illnesses. While epidemiological evidence often supports these plaintiffs, it typically addresses type-level causation, which diverges from the courts' demand for token-level causation. This conceptual distinction carries significant practical implications, especially for the burden of proof.

Judea Pearl demonstrated that even if type-level causation is established through statistical adjustments for confounding variables, these methods aren't enough to make probabilistic claims about token-level causation [1]. Nevertheless, legal professionals often misapply findings from population-level studies, assuming they can be directly applied to individual cases without making the necessary additional assumptions. Should this discrepancy arise, victims who are legally entitled to compensation may be denied a compensatory award by the courts, or, in turn, parties who contributed to the pollution may incur disproportionate liability.

We'll begin by clarifying the decision criterion for assessing type-level causation in legal practice. We'll then explore why this criterion doesn't correctly determine token-level causation, which is an essential step in assigning liability among those allegedly contributing to pollution. Finally, we propose an improved framework for assessing the probability of token-level causation. We believe this framework also offers guidance in areas such as drug-related harms and industrial accidents, where epidemiological evidence is frequently employed.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that the fourth pillar of international nuclear law is liability compensation.  A number of initiatives since the accident at Chernobyl in 1986 have worked to strengthen the international liability regime.  One such initiative is the Convention on Supplemental Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).  This paper will summarize the objectives of the CSC created separate from the existing Vienna or Paris liability conventions. 
Opened for signature in 1997 as a free-standing instrument, the United States ratified the CSC in 2008.  The CSC went into effect in 2015 when it was ratified by Japan as the sixth party because the installed capacity of treaty members exceeded four hundred gigawatts of thermal power.  Several other nations have accepted the CSC; currently there are eleven contracting parties and another eleven signatories that have not yet ratified it.
After exploring the history of the CSC, this paper will explore its terms.  The CSC requires a State Party to accept the higher compensation amounts, including participation in an international fund, a broader definition of nuclear damage, and the updated jurisdiction rules that agree to litigate in the courts of the nation where the incident occurred.  The provisions of the CSC on these matters take precedence over any similar provisions in other nuclear liability instruments to which a Nation might adhere.  The CSC established two tiers of compensation with the first tier that specified the minimum amount that a State must make available under its national law to compensate for nuclear damage.  A second tier is provided by other parties in the event of nuclear damage that exceeds the first tier.  Each nation’s contribution varies depending on the number of operating plants in the nation at the time the second tier is called.
With that foundation, the paper will explore the benefits and drawbacks parties considering accepting the CSC face.  A global nuclear civil liability regime would promote international trade in peaceful use of nuclear technology by bringing more predictability to the market. It would also encourage improvements in civilian nuclear plant safety by helping ensure sharing of improved nuclear safety technology to all nations. Lastly, the CSC's creation of a supplementary international fund is expected to help ensure that potential victims of a civil nuclear incident overseas will be adequately compensated compared to the dismal compensation provided after the Chernobyl accident. 
Any nation considering entering or expanding its participation in commercial nuclear technology whether as a user or a supplier should weigh its options for upholding the fourth pillar of international nuclear law.  Joining the CSC is one option to weigh, and this paper will help inform that choice.
 

This paper intends to provide foreign conference participants with a systematic overview of China's labor and employment - related laws and regulations. Starting with the recent labor incident at BYD's Brazilian plant to spotlight labor rights protection, it delves into the legislative background, purpose, and scope of application of China's Labor Law and Labor Contract Law, with an emphasis on key aspects of the Labor Contract Law. It also explains the deferred compensation and performance clawback systems in China's financial sector and outlines the procedures for resolving labor disputes, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation, to present the current state and characteristics of China's labor and employment legal framework for international labor law exchange.

In China, despite clear labor laws and regulations, excessive overtime work is prevalent across various industries. According to data from China's National Bureau of Statistics, the average weekly working hours for employed persons in urban units reached 48.5 hours in March 2025, exceeding the statutory standard working hours. The statutory standard in China is 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week, with a monthly overtime cap of 36 hours. However, during peak seasons in the manufacturing and construction industries, weekly working hours often surpass 50 hours. The "996" work schedule prevalent in the technology and internet industry entails working up to 72 hours per week. Although China's Supreme People's Court explicitly ruled the "996" system illegal in 2021, and some large tech companies have made adjustments, excessive overtime persists due to factors such as regulatory enforcement and workplace culture. Against this backdrop, gaining an in-depth understanding of China's labor laws and regulations is of significant importance.

Internationally, the world was caught significantly by surprise by COVID-19. Public authorities needed to learn many lessons but so too did the evolving discipline of public health law and how best the balance can be achieved between protection of vulnerable populations and subpopulations and respect for individual rights and liberties. The World Health Organization in 2025 has attempted to synthesise some of these lessons in the “Pandemic Treaty”.

This paper reviews key decisions by superior courts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,  and New Zealand to identify the trends and lessons needing to be learned by public health law. It is upon these precedents that jurisdictions will draw when the next pandemic challenges the role of government, epidemiology and clinical interventions. Internationally, diverse approaches have emerged. However, measures will need to be taken that encroach upon rights and liberties in an attempt to achieve publicly acceptable legislative and interpretative balances when global threats to health re-emerge. Again, governments will be required through laws and interpretation of laws to grapple with proportionality of responses during a time of crisis. Once more measures such as lock-downs, quarantining, curfews and impediments to freedom to movement, assembly and practice of religion will become controversial and lives will depend upon the capacity of governments, locally and internationally, to command community confidence and secure popular co-operation with measures that in ordinary circumstances would be wholly unacceptable.

This paper reflects on the role of government in public health crises and also the emerging jurisprudence on public health law to provide guidance and protection during pandemics and public health crises of international concern (PHEICS). It wrestles with competing considerations and argues that extraordinary health circumstances require extraordinary responses provided that they are time-limited, transparent and proportionate. It does so by reference to international decisions by courts that have been called upon to evaluate such issues during the course of of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only by learning from past pandemics will respion se to future pandemics be community-acceptable and efficacious.

The intersection of law and sustainability is no longer just a theoretical debate. It is an urgent, evolving reality. Legal professionals today face not only the traditional challenges of meeting increasing compliance demands but also the pressing need to address sustainability challenges that encompass human rights, environmental risks, and ethical business practices. 

For decades, lawyers have approached addressing legal issues through the lens of existing statutes, regulations, and fiduciary obligations. This conventional framework, however, often overlooks a growing and critical dimension: sustainable business practices. The universal adoption of sustainable frameworks (for example, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights) combined with mounting legal disclosure requirements calls on lawyers to take a proactive role in understanding how to apply these principles when providing legal advice and apply them to their own legal companies. Those who fail to adapt risk being left behind in an era increasingly defined by accountability and transparency. 

The Challenge Facing the Legal Profession 

The legal profession today operates in a rapidly shifting landscape, shaped by global sustainability initiatives such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and climate-focused directives, such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Yet, the traditional training that most lawyers receive leaves them underprepared to address sustainability-related complexities. 

Some of the key hurdles legal professionals face include:

• Lack of training in identifying and advising on sustainable risks, human rights impacts, and understanding the role of disclosure in mitigating risk.
• Resistance to mindset shifts, where traditional legal counsel prioritises reducing risks instead of aligning legal advice with global best practices.
• Complex disclosure demands, such as mandatory human rights due diligence laws in the EU and beyond, which require comprehensive legal oversight of broader sustainability issues.
• Role ambiguity, with clients increasingly expecting lawyers to go beyond black-letter law and act as strategic advisors on sustainability initiatives.

These challenges, while daunting, are also an opportunity for the legal profession to redefine its role in advancing sustainable progress. 

This presentation will explore these issues in more detail, providing examples on how the legal profession should evolve. It will cover issues, such as understanding sustainability in the context of the legal profession, navigating mandatory disclosure requirements and considerations for law firms and lawyers to expand their practice areas to meet the requirements of the sustainability agenda. 

•   https://www.ardeainternational.com/resources/publications/modern-slavery-and-transparency-in-supply-chains-the-role-of-business/
• IBA guidance note on business and human rights – downloaded here: https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=English-Updated-IBA-Guidance-Note-on-Business-and-Human-Rights-role-of-lawyers-apr-23
• UN Guiding principles on business and human rights : https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf

In this paper, I deal with the principle of sustainable development, as containing the principle of proportionality, in the context of the liability of company managers for the tax debts of companies from the imposition of environmental taxes and related sanctions, after a relevant research of court judgments (through electronic legal information databases). The aim is to investigate whether the enhancement of sustainable development is achieved through the mandatory collection of environmental taxes and environmental fines of companies from their managers, as third parties. The first part of the paper refers to the liability of company managers for the tax debts of the latter [1], where the relevant legislative framework of the Greek Tax Procedure Code and the relevant case law are presented [2] and the issue of the liability of company managers for the failure to submit the companies' sustainability reports is highlighted, as well as the issues of their judicial protection (1). Subsequently, the limitation of the rights of company managers by their aforementioned joint and several liability is commented on, especially with regard to the right to property/ownership and the right to effective judicial protection (2). Finally, the possibility of protecting the environment through taxation and tax sanctions is examined, where I propose the term “Tax Environmental Law” with sustainable development [3] as the main axis through fair taxation (3). In conclusion, my proposals de lege ferenda are presented. Ultimately, it is concluded that it is in accordance with the principle of proportionality to impose environmental taxes and related sanctions in order to protect the environment [4], within the framework of the principle of sustainable development. In relation to the aforementioned liability of company managers, it is proposed to interpret the legislative provisions on joint and several liability by applying the principle of proportionality. Thus, the unconditional liability of company managers for the tax debts of companies by their mere capacity is not acceptable, but the "causal connection" of the tax debt and the related liability must be proven by the tax audit bodies, without a reversal of the burden of proof. Otherwise, the joint and several liability of company managers would act as a deterrent to the undertaking of the management of companies, with adverse consequences for the economy and the "market". By applying the principle of proportionality, the restrictions on the individual rights of those managing companies for the tax debts of companies will be limited, to the point where the "hard core" of their individual rights is not affected, while at the same time the public interest objective is achieved. This objective is the enhanced protection of the environment [5], without affecting the economic and business freedom of taxpayers, in order for the "market" to function smoothly with elements of free competition. It is therefore understandable that the goal is to promote economic development, under the condition of environmental protection and it is emphasized that "economic development" and "environment" should operate complementary and balance. This is achieved through the effective operation of the principle of sustainable development.   

The 17 Sustainability Goals of the United Nations form an international basis for measuring the action taken by countries - poor, wealth and middle income - to promote prosperity while protecting the planet. They recognise that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with adoption of strategies to build economic growth and address a range of social needs, including health, social protection and education, while tackling issues such as climate change and environmental protection.

The third of the goals relates to "Good Health and Well-Being". Amongst other things, it affirms the commitment to end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other communicable diseases by 2030 and it aims to achieve universal health coverage and provide access to safe and affordable medicines and vaccines for all.

However, it has become apparent that there is a long way to go to realise these objectives. Moreover,  the COVID-19 pandemic has impeded progress  and childhood vaccination rates have latterly suffered a significant decline and tuberculosis and malaria cases have increased as against pre-pandemic levels. Recent political developments in relation to the provision of aid and the manufacture and distribution of medications internationally may also affect the achievement of Sustainability Goal Number Three.

This paper reviews issues relating to the achievement of Sustainability Goal Number Three, including by reference to the 2025 amendments to the World Health Organisation's International Health Regulations and its 2025 Pandemic Agreement. It also reviews key international decisions by superior courts in relation to  in public health law, reflecting on the extent to which the right to health and the Sustainability Goal in respect of health are achieving progress in enhancing member States' provision of adequate health care, including in the event of another, potentially worse, pandemic.

In the era dominated by digital platforms, knowledge workers and companies grapple with challenges concerning the value of their work, copyright, distribution, and authorship. Urgent questions arise regarding the devaluation of human creative work through AI interventions and the lack of harmonization in the meaning of authorship under copyright laws across differing jurisdictions. How do existing legal frameworks adapt to the nuances of AI-generated content, and to what extent do they safeguard the integrity and dignity of human-authored works and value? As AI contributes to the creative processes of individuals and organisations, who holds authorship and subsequently ownership in AI generative works, and how can this be reconciled with traditional notions of creativity and intellectual property? What do we understand by creativity in a work environment where artificial and human intelligence are increasingly integrated. This paper responds to these inquiries. 

The paper introduces a new idea for a sui generis right in generative AI works and how such a right could be operationalised in copyright law. Also, the paper looks at the different actors who may hold ownership from users of AI platforms to developers, and legal persons through works made for hire or in the course of employment. The paper completes an in-depth analysis of legislative forums and regulatory frameworks related to AI, copyright, and authorship within the UK, EU, and US. The methodology is doctrinal, comparative, and socio-legal for assessing the effectiveness of copyright/competition regulations in relation to AI, identifying gaps, and proposing solutions.  

Also, the paper explores the significant implication for the training of AI applications: During the process of creating and training an AI application, if copyright-protected works as well as copyright-free works in the public domain are used in the process of training generative AI, copyright infringement in derivative or transformative works could arise and this could be classed as infringing in several jurisdictions despite fair use or fair dealing as exceptions to copyright being in place. 

The paper concludes by posing the question of whether current copyright laws in the UK, EU, and the US have now become redundant in the era of AI, blockchain and SMART contracts—is current jurisprudence sufficient to meet the challenge of user generated works or are end user derivative and transformative works smashing through the copyright ceiling? Is there a need for a completely new sui generis right for works created entirely by generative AI where no human has facilitated the work? In answering these questions, the Author will be drawing from his own recently funded UK Arts and Humanities Research Council research on copyright in the digital domain.  

Solid waste management in Brazil faces structural and institutional challenges, especially at the municipal level, which ownership and responsibility for organizing and providing urban cleaning and waste management services. Despite legal advances, such as the National Solid Waste Policy (Law No. 12.305/2010), the effective implementation of these guidelines is still hampered by factors such as budget restrictions, lack of specialized technical staff and low political appeal for environmental projects. In the school context, the adoption of waste management practices, such as selective collection, composting and the integration of environmental education into the curriculum, is proving to be strategic for the formation of conscious citizens and the dissemination of sustainable habits. Experiences from schools that have adhered to the "zero waste" concept show positive results, such as a significant reduction in the volume of waste and an increase in community engagement. In addition, the link with the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda reinforces the importance of educational and participatory actions, capable of transforming the school into a sustainability benchmark and replicating good practices in other social contexts. Therefore, investing in solid waste policies in the school environment is fundamental to promoting environmental citizenship and contributing to a more balanced future.