Towards a Global Model for Adjudicating Personal Injury Damages: Bridging Europe and the United States

Techniques for awarding personal injury damages assume an increasing interest in times of frequent mobility of individuals. Assessing non-economic damages might require more harmonized answers to provide justice and equal treatment across the world. Indeed, in most countries a lasting debate surrounds noneconomic damages for personal injury. Specifically, an alleged constant increase in awards and the difficulties linked to the subjectivity of their assessment, and the selection of the institution that is best suited to award these damages and how it should do so are but a few problems that are addressed by contemporary scholarship. However, this extensive debate has not sufficiently explored the techniques for awarding intangible loss damages in personal injury by using a comparative law methodology. Filling this gap, this article explores the latest developments in awarding non-economic damages. It proposes an analysis of the American and European experiences that aims to bridge the two legal cultures for mutual benefit. By way of comparative and historical analysis, Part I highlights the significant trend in American and European jurisdictions, which consists of distinguishing non-economic damages based on objective criteria stemming from an ascertainable medical condition. Building on these results, Parts II and III develop a more efficient conceptual framework and further propose better assessment tools in awarding these damages. This method demonstrates the benefits the United States could gain by introducing innovative judicial scheduling, without triggering either constitutional concerns or statutory intervention while building upon the existing strengths of the European experience and the American judicial system. For instance, Normalized Value Scheduling would endow actual judges and jurors with the necessary expertise, increasing horizontal and vertical equality without necessarily impeding an inevitable variability of awards among different jurisdictions

The European Approach to Artificial Intelligence across Geo-political Models of Digital Governance

Digital technologies are crucial in many high-stakes fields and should follow the principle of transparency. At the same time, technologies are inescapably value-laden. In fact, values are built into algorithms, technical standards, and protocols. Adopting a geo-political perspective, this paper aims to investigate how the main state actors (i.e., Russia, China, the USA, and Europe) further the advancement of digital technologies in ways that mirror their political, cultural, and societal structures. We propose a comprehensive analysis that encompasses a legal, ethical, and technical assessment. Furthermore, we consider a case within the SoBigData++ research infrastructure as an example of successful synergy of digital technologies and fundamental ethical and legal principles underpinning the European society

Il diritto del lavoro al “plurale” (Regioni e modelli regolativi differenziati dell’apprendistato professionalizzante) = The right to work in the "plural" (Regions and differentiated regulatory models of professionalising apprenticeships). WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .IT - 64/2007

N

Towards a Digital Ecosystem of Trust: Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications

The European vision of a digital ecosystem of trust rests on innovation, powerful technological solutions, a comprehensive regulatory framework and respect for the core values and principles of ethics. Innovation in the digital domain strongly relies on data, as has become obvious during the current pandemic. Successful data science, especially where health data are concerned, necessitates establishing a framework where data subjects can feel safe to share their data. In this paper, methods for facilitating data sharing, privacy-preserving technologies, decentralization, data altruism, as well as the interplay between the Data Governance Act and the GDPR, are presented and discussed by reference to use cases from the largest pan-European social science data research project, SoBigData++. In doing so, we argue that innovation can be turned into responsible innovation and Europe can make its ethics work in digital practice

Maternal and neonatal data collection systems in low- and middle-income countries: Scoping review protocol

Background: Pregnant women and neonates represent one of the most vulnerable groups, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A recent analysis reported that most vaccine pharmacovigilance systems in LMICs consist of spontaneous (passive) adverse event reporting. Thus, LMICs need effective active surveillance approaches, such as pregnancy registries. We intend to identify currently active maternal and neonatal data collection systems in LMICs, with the potential to inform active safety electronic surveillance for novel vaccines using standardized definitions. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted based on established methodology. Multiple databases of indexed and grey literature will be searched with a specific focus on existing electronic and paper-electronic systems in LMICs that collect continuous, prospective, and individual-level data from antenatal care, delivery, neonatal care (up to 28 days), and postpartum (up to 42 days) at the facility and community level, at the national and district level, and at large hospitals. Also, experts will be contacted to identify unpublished information on relevant data collection systems. General and specific descriptions of Health Information Systems (HIS) extracted from the different sources will be combined and duplicated HIS will be removed, producing a list of unique statements. We will present a final list of Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health systems considered flexible enough to be updated with necessary improvements to detect, assess and respond to safety concerns during the introduction of vaccines and other maternal health interventions. Selected experts will participate in an in-person consultation meeting to select up to three systems to be further explored in situ. Results and knowledge gaps will be synthesized after expert consultation.Fil: Berrueta, Mabel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; ArgentinaFil: Xiong, Xu. University of Tulane; Estados UnidosFil: Stergachis, Andy. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Zaraa, Sabra. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Buekens, Pierre. University of Tulane; Estados UnidosFil: Absalon, Judith. No especifíca;Fil: Anderson, Steve. No especifíca;Fil: Althabe, Fernando. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Madhi, Shabir A.. No especifíca;Fil: McClure, Elizabeth. No especifíca;Fil: Munoz, Flor M.. No especifíca;Fil: Mwamwitwa, Kissa W.. No especifíca;Fil: Nakimuli, Annettee. No especifíca;Fil: Clark Nelson, Jennifer. No especifíca;Fil: Noguchi, Lisa. No especifíca;Fil: Panagiotakopoulos, Lakshmi. No especifíca;Fil: Sevene, Esperanca. No especifíca;Fil: Zuber, Patrick. No especifíca;Fil: Belizan, Maria. No especifíca;Fil: Bergel, Eduardo. No especifíca;Fil: Rodriguez Cairoli, Federico. No especifíca;Fil: Castellanos, Fabricio. No especifíca;Fil: Ciganda, Alvaro. No especifíca;Fil: Comande, Daniel. No especifíca;Fil: Pingray, Veronica. No especifíca