Despite hundreds of guides, frameworks, and principles intended to make artificial intelligence (AI) ‘ethical’ or ‘responsible’, ever more powerful applications continue to be released ever more quickly. Safety and security teams are being downsized or sidelined to bring AI products to market. And a significant portion of AI developers apparently believe there is a real risk that their work poses an existential threat to humanity.
What methodological implications should follow if we are to adopt a truly pluralist institutional approach to studying constitutional interpretation? This is the question we sought to address in our award-winning article ‘What would a pluralist institutional approach to constitutional interpretation look like? Some methodological implications’ published in the International Journal of Constitutional Law (I-CON). In this article, we first advanced the argument that there is a need to take on a broader pluralist perspective when studying constitutional interpretation.
Little has been written in the legal literature about hedge fund activism in major East Asian markets. To fill this literature gap, my chapter entitled ‘Shareholder Engagement in East Asia’, forthcoming in Board-Shareholder Dialogue: Policy Debate, Legal Constraints and Best Practices (Luca Enriques and Giovanni Strampelli eds, Cambridge University Press), aims to take an empirical and comparative approach to examining hedge fund activism in the three major East Asian markets of mainland China, South Korea and Japan.