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.
H. Javier Kordi details how personalized law, by avoiding arbitrary age cutoffs, could result in true universal suffrage.
Catalina Goanta argues that personalized law is the modern application of the centuries-old, open-ended norm of good faith.
Cary Coglianese proposes custom and competence as solutions to overcome the challenges facing the implementation of personalized law.
Horst Eidenmüller argues that the best normative justification for personalized law, utility maximization, supports a limited role for personalization in lawmaking.
Felipe Ford Cole details how race played a role in the development of international investment law during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Tony Leyh argues that aesthetic injuries suffered by humans provides a legal pathway for granting animals Article III standing.