Omri Ben-Shahar and Ariel Porat examine the challenges and opportunities of a new legal paradigm—one where rules vary person by person—in light of their recent book, Personalized Law.
Sandra G. Mayson aims to clarify the concept of personalized law by considering the nature of legal rules, which must all generalize on some dimension.
Hans Christoph Grigoleit takes a look at personalized law's procedural consequences for the allocation of functions between the legislature and judiciary.
Gregory Klass argues that personalized law imagines an alternative form of lawmaking, one that presupposes abilities that human lawmakers do not possess.
Catherine M. Sharkey explores the issues which arise in tort law from applying personalized law to standards of care but not damages.
Jared I. Mayer proposes feedback mechanisms as a way to overcome the limitations of personalized standards of care in tort law.
Adam Davidson warns that personalized commands could be shaped and abused by the moral and political judgements of bad actors.
Netta Barak-Corren addresses the effects of personalized law on constitutional rights, personal autonomy, and choice.
Peter N. Salib previews the problems that could arise if personalized law is powered by cutting-edge, artificial intelligence algorithms.
Lauren Henry Scholz contends that a cyborg system of law, one that relies on human-machine collaboration, can achieve the benefits of personalized law with more limited technology.