In spring 2024, the European Union formally adopted the AI Act, aimed at creating a comprehensive legal regime to regulate AI systems. In so doing, the Union sought to maintain a harmonized and competitive single market for AI in Europe while demonstrating its commitment to protect core EU values against AI’s adverse effects. In this chapter, we question whether this new regulation will succeed in translating its noble aspirations into meaningful and effective protection for people whose lives are affected by AI systems. By critically examining the proposed conceptual vehicles and regulatory architecture upon which the AI Act relies, we argue there are good reasons for skepticism, as many of its key operative provisions delegate critical regulatory tasks to AI providers themselves, without adequate oversight or redress mechanisms. Despite its laudable intentions, the AI Act may deliver far less than it promises.

The Taxonomy Regulation establishes common and science-based definitions to determine whether an economic activity is environmentally sustainable. It aims to make sustainable finance more accessible to investors, while also protecting them from false or misleading claims about a financial product’s sustainability. In doing so it shifts a large part of the burden to prevent greenwashing onto the legislator. This chapter therefore critically analyses the Taxonomy’s ability to protect investors from greenwashing and identifies a number of pitfalls. The market for sustainable financial products is rapidly growing, yet the Taxonomy so far only covers environmental sustainability in selected sectors. Gathering and disclosing the necessary environmental data can be challenging and costly and may discourage companies and financial market participants to offer Taxonomy-aligned products, possibly turning it into a niche product. The Taxonomy’s binary approach makes it difficult for investors to assess the sustainability of complex financial products and limits incentives for non-aligned companies to improve their performance. This chapter therefore argues for an extension of the Taxonomy that distinguishes between positive, intermediary and harmful activities and provides definitions for social and governance aspects of sustainability

This chapter considers standardization in molecular communication. Two IEEE standards, 1906.1 and 1906.1.1, have been developed for nanonetworks, in general, and molecular communication, in particular; these standards and their development are described.

Chapter 2 delves into the intricate interactional dynamics of administering cognitive assessments, with a focus on the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III). The chapter critically examines the standardisation challenges faced by clinicians in specialised memory assessment services, highlighting the nuanced reasons for non-standardized practices. While cognitive assessments play a pivotal role in diagnosing cognitive impairments, the study questions the assumed standardization of the testing process. Drawing on Conversation Analysis (CA), the authors analyse 40 video-recordings of the ACE-III being administered in clinical practice to reveal variations from standardized procedures. The chapter expands on earlier findings to show how clinicians employ recipient-design strategies during the assessment. It introduces new analyses of practitioner utterances in the third turn, suggesting deviations could be associated with practitioners’ working diagnoses. The chapter contends that non-standard administration is a nuanced response to the interactional and social challenges inherent in cognitive assessments. It argues that clinicians navigate a delicate balance between adhering to standardized procedures and tailoring interactions to individual patient needs, highlighting the complex interplay between clinical demands and recipient design. Ultimately, the chapter emphasizes the importance of understanding the social nature of cognitive assessments and provides insights into the valuable reasons for non-standardized practices in clinical settings.

Many academic and media accounts of the massive spread of English across the globe since the mid-twentieth century rely on simplistic notions of globalization mostly driven by technology and economic developments. Such approaches neglect the role of states across the globe in the increased usage of English and even declare individual choice as a key factor (e.g., De Swaan, 2001; Crystal, 2003; Van Parijs, 2011; Northrup, 2013). This chapter challenges these accounts by using and extending the state traditions and language regimes framework, STLR (Cardinal & Sonntag, 2015). Presenting empirical findings that 142 countries in the world mandate English language education as part of their national education systems, it is suggested there are important similarities with the standardization of national language at the nation-state level especially in the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries. This work reveals severe limitations of other approaches in political science to global English, including linguistic justice. It is shown how in the case of global English the convergence of diverse language regimes must be distinguished from state traditions but cannot be separated from them. With the severe challenges to global liberal cosmopolitanism, the role of individual state language education policies will become increasingly important.

The question of how to balance free data flows and national policy objectives, especially data privacy and security, is key to advancing the benefits of the digital economy. After establishing that new digital technologies have further integrated physical and digital activities, and thus, more and more of our social interactions are being sensed and datafied, Chapter 6 argues that innovative regulatory approaches are needed to respond to the impact of big data analytics on existing privacy and cybersecurity regimes. At the crossroads, where multistakeholderism meets multilateralism, the roles of the public and private sectors should be reconfigured for a datafied world. Looking to the future, rapid technological developments and market changes call for further public–private convergence in data governance, allowing both public authorities and private actors to jointly reshape the norms of cross-border data flows. Under such an umbrella, the appropriate role of multilateral, state-based norm-setting in Internet governance includes the oversight of the balance between the free flow of data and other legitimate public policies, as well as engagement in the coordination of international standards.

This chapter examines how ethical frameworks for education have been displaced through processes of standardization both historically and contemporarily. Before turning to current examples, the chapter begins with an analysis of twentieth-century movements in philosophy of education and curriculum to illustrate how processes of standardization and educational “narrowing” emerged as the dominant educational vision for American schooling, corresponding with the push for accountability and neoliberal reform in the last few decades of the twentieth century. How this narrowing exists in today’s K-12 and higher education environment, as well as its impact on historically marginalized groups, is then explored. The chapter then turns to how the contemporary emphasis on educational technology, datafication, and digitalization reinforces educational standardization to the detriment of ethical educational possibilities. The chapter concludes with considerations of how ethical educational visions might be revived in our current era.

The myth that only one kind of writing is correct is the foundation for all the myths that follow. It starts with early spelling standardization and continues with early usage guides. Its consequences include making enemies of formal and informal writing, and making people think correct writing means one thing – and means a capable and good person. Closer to the truth? Terrible writers can be good people, good writers can be terrible people, and all shared writing includes some fundamental similarities, and some differences. Formal writing fancies nouns more than verbs, for instance, and it likes informational subjects. Informal writing has more equal affection for nouns, verbs, pronouns, and adverbs, and it favors interpersonal subjects.

This chapter examines whether the patterns observed for political regimes and Chinese infrastructure spending are also manifested by foreign aid and exports of Chinese digital technologies that promote the adoption of Chinese standards. Analysis of several different datasets consistently show electoral autocracies are the major recipients. The datasets include Chinese smart cities technologies exports, foreign aid in the information and communications technology sector, and foreign deals for Huawei’s cloud infrastructure and e-government services. These quantitative findings are supplemented by case studies of Malaysia (electoral autocracy) and Greece (liberal democracy).

To explain what drives the demand for Chinese infrastructure spending and the adoption of its digital standards among low- and middle-income countries, we must begin by considering how they effectively address market failures. A first set of market failures regards impediments to private investment for building infrastructure. Western multilateral development banks such as the World Bank commonly impose liberalizing conditionalities on recipient states. These can be politically problematic for rulers of autocratic countries that rely on state controls to retain their hold on power. China, by contrast, has an explicit policy of noninterference in the domestic politics of foreign nations. China’s own political motivations coupled with huge dollar reserves have enabled it to effectively address the market failures of autocracies in a politically palatable way. A second type of market failure regards transaction costs and coordination failures. These can be addressed via the adoption of digital technologies. China can leverage its preferential access to autocracies for infrastructure spending in order to promote the adoption of its digital and related technical standards.