Business Law International (BLI)

This article considers tariffs in the international trade context and the impact on multilateral institutions, in particular Brazil’s Economic Reciprocity Law, as a case study regarding the growing fragmentation of multilateral trade governance. Adopted in 2025 to authorise unilateral countermeasures against foreign trade barriers, the law mirrors the very unilateralism it seeks to resist, say the authors of this article. The article situates this development within a broader trend of ‘reciprocal unilateralism,’ whereby states internalise retaliatory powers in response to the paralysis of the World Trade Organization’s enforcement system. By analysing the legal structure of the Brazilian law alongside comparable mechanisms such as the section 301 in the US, this article explores how the erosion of multilateral institutions reshapes the distribution of authority between international and domestic legal orders.

Read this article online     

This article proposes the Innovation in the Digital Economy Architecture (IDEA) framework to correct the structural imbalance of control over personal data between data subjects and data aggregators in digital markets. In this paper, the authors outline the regulatory changes needed to enact the IDEA framework within existing digital governance regimes.

Drawing on institutional economics and digital governance research, the authors present four mutually reinforcing mechanisms: control over verified key personal data, collective representation, fiduciary duties to process data in the best interest of data subjects and collective negotiation to realign market incentives with the welfare of data subjects. Together, the IDEA framework can transform data processing practices into negotiated participation, making compliance and accountability market-driven outcomes, argue the authors. Adopting the IDEA framework would enhance fairness, trust and innovation and economic growth by embedding human-centred governance within market institutions, say the authors. They argue that it offers policymakers a scalable, incentive-based model for systemic digital governance reform. In the article, the authors analyse how the IDEA framework can be applied within existing European Union legislation.

Read this article online     

Digital transformation has revolutionised healthcare, reshaping how patients access information, how providers deliver care and how companies market medical products. Yet the same connectivity that drives innovation also accelerates the spread of misleading health content – particularly through social media’s boundless reach – presenting unique regulatory challenges for pharmaceutical and medical device companies and healthcare providers alike. Navigating the patchwork of jurisdictional rules requires careful attention to government regulators, effectively informing healthcare professionals, reaching consumers through compliant marketing and avoiding unfair competitive practices.

This article examines how legal frameworks are evolving to address online healthcare communication, with a particular focus on Brazil. A comparative and concise analysis of European Union, United Kingdom and United States models follows, exploring key differences in permissiveness and enforcement. The article then confronts the infodemic phenomenon, examining how social media attention-capture mechanisms amplify misinformation and shape health-risk behaviours. Finally, emerging regulatory trends and institutional initiatives are assessed, underscoring the imperative for coordinated strategies between authorities and civil society to combat health misinformation threats to public health.

Read this article online     

The contemporary corporate landscape is undergoing a profound transformation, significantly influenced by advancements in computational systems capable of executing tasks that typically necessitate human intelligence. This category of technology, broadly referred to as artificial intelligence (AI), now permeates critical operational and strategic functions across diverse industries, from sophisticated financial modelling and automated production processes to complex risk assessment and customer interaction platforms. The deployment of these advanced systems promises considerable enhancements in efficiency, fosters innovation and offers a competitive advantage to entities adept at their integration. However, the pervasive adoption of AI also introduces an array of novel and complex challenges to the established principles and practices of corporate governance, necessitating a comprehensive re-evaluation of fiduciary duties and oversight responsibilities at the highest echelons of corporate leadership.

The core dilemma confronting corporate boards stems from the inherent characteristics of AI systems, which often operate with a degree of autonomy and complexity that can obscure decision-making processes, thereby challenging traditional notions of accountability and transparency. The strategic imperative to leverage AI for commercial advantage must be meticulously balanced against the attendant legal, ethical and operational risks, including algorithmic bias, data security vulnerabilities, regulatory non-compliance and potential liabilities arising from autonomous actions. Consequently, existing corporate governance frameworks, designed largely for a pre-AI era, demonstrate inherent limitations in adequately addressing the unique oversight demands posed by this technology.

This article posits that effective corporate stewardship in the age of AI mandates a fundamental adaptation of current governance structures and a substantive evolution in board responsibilities. It argues for the proactive development of robust frameworks that enable boards to not only comprehend the strategic value of AI but also to rigorously assess and mitigate its inherent risks, thereby ensuring responsible innovation and sustainable corporate value creation. The ensuing analysis will first delineate the various manifestations of AI relevant to corporate operations, followed by an exhaustive examination of the principal challenges it poses to conventional governance paradigms. Subsequent sections propose concrete adaptations to board responsibilities, focusing on areas such as risk management, ethical policy formulation, expertise integration and compliance oversight. The article concludes by synthesising these imperatives, underscoring the critical necessity for boards to evolve proactively to safeguard corporate interests and stakeholder trust in an increasingly AI-driven world.

Read this article online     

Presented together are a series of articles examining approaches to cybersecurity, with each providing a snapshot of the approach taken and challenges encountered in three different countries: Argentina, Spain and Chile, respectively.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the current legal landscape governing cybersecurity and cryptoassets in Argentina. The authors examine Argentina’s fragmented regulatory framework, which combines data protection requirements under Law No 25,326, criminal provisions in the National Criminal Code targeting technology-based conduct and sector-specific regulations issued by the Central Bank and the National Securities Commission. The article analyses pending legislative bills addressing digital fraud activities such as phishing, smishing, vishing and subscriber identity module swapping, alongside recent case law establishing the liability of banking institutions for unauthorised account access.

Regarding cryptoassets, the article details the regulatory regime introduced by Law No 27,739, which amended Argentina’s anti-money laundering (AML)/counter-terrorist financing/proliferation of weapons of mass destruction framework by defining virtual assets and establishing obligations for virtual asset service providers. The authors explain the registration requirements, operational categories, minimum net worth thresholds and compliance duties imposed by CNV General Resolutions No 994/2024 and No 1058/2025, as well as Unidad de Información Financiera Resolution No 49/2024 concerning AML reporting obligations.

Read this article online     

Cybersecurity has emerged as a critical concern for organisations in Spain. According to statistical data published by the Spanish National Cybersecurity Institute, cyberattacks increased by 26 per cent in 2025 compared to the previous year. The sectors most significantly affected by such incidents included banking, transportation, energy, financial services, insurance and supply chain operations.

In this context, cybersecurity has been established as a board-level function, driven by regulatory pressure and the recognition that cyber risk constitutes enterprise risk. According to Deloitte’s report titled ‘El estado de la ciberseguridad en España 2026’, AI has emerged as the primary challenge for 77 per cent of chief information security officers. Ransomware remains the most critical threat, followed by data exfiltration and third-party exposure.

Regulation functions as a structural driver of transformation. Compliance concerns increased from 53 per cent in 2025 to 69 per cent in 2026, driven by the transposition of the NIS2 Directive and sectoral instruments such as the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). Spain’s legislative responses orientate the regulatory system towards codified accountability, centralised coordination and the establishment of infrastructure for notification and oversight.

Parallel to these organisational developments, Spain has witnessed a significant surge in cyber scams and cyber fraud affecting citizens and enterprises alike. This phenomenon constitutes an increasingly prominent dimension of the national cybersecurity threat landscape, warranting comprehensive legal analysis.

This article examines the legal framework and regulatory responses to cybersecurity challenges in Spain, structured as follows: (1) first, this article analyses cyber fraud and cyber scams from a legal perspective, examining criminal and civil liability frameworks, institutional enforcement capacity and the impact on Spanish citizens, before (2) providing a comprehensive review of Spain’s 2025 cybersecurity legal landscape, covering the transposition of NIS2, the new National Cybersecurity Strategy, DORA and the Cyber Resilience Act.

Read this article online     

In response to a sustained increase in digital fraud, Chile has developed a framework that combines criminal prosecution with consumer protection mechanisms. However, as the author examines in this article, finding the balance between these two objectives has not been without its challenges. On the criminal law front, the classification of offences faces interpretive challenges and practical obstacles arising from the anonymity of perpetrators and their frequent extraterritorial location. On the civil law front, a regime that significantly shifts risk towards payment instrument issuers protects consumers but raises questions about loss distribution and incentives among the different actors in the system. Finally, the recent establishment of a cybersecurity institutional framework poses challenges regarding potential regulatory overlaps.

The magnitude of the phenomenon warrants this analysis. According to data from the Payments System Report of the Central Bank of Chile, the amounts involved in fraud reached approximately $276m during 2023, with a 119 per cent increase in the number of complaints compared to the previous year. During the same period, fraud per transaction reached 11.8 cents per $100 in cases of complaints for unrecognised card transactions, nearly double the international average of 6.8 cents. Following the entry into force of legislative reforms in May 2024, indicators showed a downward trend; however, data from the first half of 2025 shows a reversal of this tendency, suggesting that the structural tensions of the model persist.

The central hypothesis of this analysis is that Chile’s legal framework for combatting digital fraud, despite its apparent sophistication, generates a suboptimal equilibrium characterised by misaligned incentives among the various actors in the payment ecosystem. This article also analyses the regulatory convergence phenomenon, whereby financial institutions face simultaneous exposure across multiple legal regimes – civil, criminal, corporate criminal liability and cybersecurity – where the same security deficiencies can ground liability under different normative frameworks. This creates an apparent paradox: the victim of a cybercrime may simultaneously face criminal liability for organisational defects that facilitated its commission.

By examining this intersection of legal regimes, this analysis demonstrates that successive legislative reforms have addressed symptoms (eg, first-party fraud) without resolving the fundamental structural inefficiency – that is, a risk distribution model that concentrates losses on issuers while failing to generate adequate prevention incentives for users or effective deterrence against perpetrators.

Read this article online     

The Supreme Court of Victoria’s ruling in Downer Utilities Australia Pty Ltd v Murra Warra Asset Co Pty Ltd [2026] VSC 48 is Australia’s first judgment considering a hybrid arbitration clause. The Court considered which of two arbitrations had been properly commenced under a hybrid arbitration clause providing for arbitration to be ‘conducted by the Resolution Institute in accordance with the ICC Rules of Arbitration’. Despite the practical challenges associated with the hybrid nature of the clause, the Court endorsed party autonomy and upheld the clause. The judgment is currently the leading Australian authority on the enforceability of hybrid arbitration clauses.

Read this article online     

• Volume 27 Number 2, May 2026
• Volume 27 Number 1, January 2026
• Volume 26 Number 3, September 2025
• Volume 26 Number 2, June 2025
• Volume 26 Number 1, January 2025
• Volume 25 Number 3, September 2024
• Volume 25 Number 2, May 2024
• Volume 25 Number 1, January 2024
• Volume 24 Number 3, September 2023
• Volume 24 Number 2, May 2023
• Volume 24 Number 1, January 2023
• Volume 23 Number 3, September 2022
• Volume 23 Number 2, May 2022
• Volume 23 Number 1, January 2022
• Volume 22 Number 3, September 2021
• Volume 22 Number 2, May 2021
• Volume 22 Number 1, January 2021
• Volume 21 Number 3, September 2020
• Volume 21 Number 2, May 2020
• Volume 21 Number 1, January 2020
• Volume 20 Number 3, September 2019
• Volume 20 Number 2, May 2019
• Volume 20 Number 1, January 2019