<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>TalTech Journal of European Studies Feed</title>
        <link>https://reference-global.com/journal/BJES</link>
        <description>Reference Global RSS Feed for TalTech Journal of European Studies</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2026 07:27:15 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        <docs>https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html</docs>
        <generator>https://github.com/jpmonette/feed</generator>
        
        <copyright>All rights reserved 2026, Tallinn University of Technology</copyright>
        <atom:link href="https://reference-global.com/2/rss/journal/BJES" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Law at the edge of code]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0001</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0001</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Evolution without revolution: crypto-assets as a stress test for the flexibility of the common law of England and Wales]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0006</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0006</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This article explores the legal treatment of crypto-assets under the law of England and Wales, examining both private-law and regulatory approaches. It analyses the recognition of crypto-assets as property, the challenges of categorisation and the implications of tokenisation for real-world and digital assets, drawing on key cases such as ‘AA v. Persons Unknown’ and ‘Tulip Trading v. van der Laan’. On the regulatory front, it reviews developments including the 2025 draft Financial Services and Markets Act Order and the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) initiatives on tokenised securities, illustrating the UK’s move towards a more structured and stricter regulatory framework.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Regulatory evolution, private-law challenges and future legal pathways for crypto-assets in Türkiye]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0011</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0011</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Türkiye enacted a major transformation in its legal framework on crypto-assets through the enactment of Law No. 7518 amending the Capital Markets Law in 2024. While this reform introduced the first comprehensive regulatory structure governing crypto-asset service providers and trading platforms, fundamental questions concerning the legal nature of crypto-assets remain unresolved within Turkish private law. This article examines the evolving legal landscape governing crypto-assets in Türkiye by analysing regulatory developments, scholarly debates and comparative perspectives. It argues that Türkiye has adopted a regulatory model that combines strong financial market supervision with reliance on traditional private-law doctrines to address unresolved issues. While this approach provides regulatory stability in the short run, it also produces structural inconsistencies and uncertainties, particularly in relation to property law, payment systems and taxation. The article concludes by assessing future projections for the regulation of crypto-assets in Türkiye.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[MiCAR and beyond: regulating DLT-based assets, services and infrastructure in the EU]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0008</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0008</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This article examines the evolving European Union regulatory framework for distributed ledger technology (DLT)-based assets, services and market infrastructures, focusing on the Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCAR) and the DLT Pilot Regime. These instruments represent the most comprehensive effort to integrate crypto-assets and DLT-based financial activities into the EU’s financial regulatory system. This framework functions through new asset classifications, harmonised licensing regimes, and tailored supervisory requirements. The article argues that, despite significant harmonisation in the regulation of crypto-assets and market actors, the EU framework remains ill-equipped to address the risks arising from on-chain infrastructures that enable the issuance and transfer of such assets. It highlights the structural limits of the current approach in responding to the decentralised nature of DLT-based financial ecosystems.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Crypto-assets and French law: a progressive normalisation]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0007</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0007</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The French crypto-asset landscape is rather unsettled. Only part of this new economic reality is apprehended by formal legal rules. This is the case for financial instruments pursuant to the MiFID II Directive and crypto-assets pursuant to the MiCA Regulation. Some crypto-assets, however, qualify neither as financial instruments nor as ‘MiCA crypto-assets’. In this case, general rules of property law and contract law would probably apply, but not without significant legal uncertainty. France, as part of the EU, is trying to keep pace with the rapid tokenisation of the economy and is on the path of progressive normalisation of the status of crypto-assets. There is at least one domain in which crypto-assets are fully recognised in French law—taxation.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Legal treatment of crypto-assets in Dutch law]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0003</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0003</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This article describes the state of Dutch law following the Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCAR) in terms of regulatory aspects and the private-law status of crypto-assets. The regulatory framework is quite elaborate, with a few intentional exceptions. Crypto-assets are currently in a legal limbo in Dutch law, which complicates the requirement of segregating client assets from service provider assets. In practice, Dutch private law can mostly deal with crypto-assets despite the lack of explicit regulation by allowing damages and actions that amount to liens. Nonetheless, further legislative action might be advisable.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Crypto-assets and blockchain-based legal infrastructure under Swiss law: regulatory framework, private-law treatment and emerging challenges]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0004</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0004</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This contribution examines the legal and regulatory framework governing crypto-assets and blockchain-based legal infrastructure under Swiss law. Switzerland follows a technology-neutral and functional regulatory approach that seeks to accommodate innovation while preserving legal certainty, consumer protection, financial stability and market integrity. Against this background, this article first analyses the legal status of crypto-assets in Switzerland, focusing on token classifications under the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) guidelines and their treatment under Swiss banking and financial market law. Particular attention is paid to the qualification of tokens as securities, applicable licensing requirements and anti-money-laundering obligations affecting crypto-related activities. The contribution then describes current regulatory developments relating to stablecoins and central bank digital currencies, including the prospects of a Swiss wholesale CBDC, and examines their systemic implications for the broader crypto ecosystem.Beyond financial regulation, this article explores the emergence of blockchain as a legal infrastructure, addressing the evidentiary value of on-chain records, the legal treatment of DAOs and the rise of blockchain-based dispute resolution mechanisms. A further section is devoted to the tokenisation of real-world assets, analysing both its private-law implications and the private international law challenges arising from cross-border tokenised transactions. The contribution then turns to the legal treatment of smart contracts and automated contracting under Swiss law, highlighting the limits of code-based execution and the continued relevance of traditional contract law requirements. Finally, the article briefly considers the limited role of regulatory sandboxes and experimental frameworks in Switzerland as instruments of innovation policy. Overall, the contribution argues that the Swiss approach offers a coherent and adaptable model while underscoring the need for continued adjustment of the legal framework as technology evolves.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Crypto landscapes in China and Hong Kong]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0012</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0012</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This paper examines the legal and regulatory treatment of crypto-assets in China and Hong Kong, challenging the common perception of a strict ban in China and a permissive regime in Hong Kong. While the two jurisdictions adopt different approaches, both reject the decentralised ethos of crypto-assets and prioritise financial stability, monetary sovereignty and state control. In China, a complex framework of administrative notices—particularly those issued in 2021 and 2026—effectively prohibits most crypto-related activities while leaving limited space for private ownership. The legal status of crypto-assets remains inconsistent, especially across contract, property and criminal law. At the same time, China is promoting its central bank digital currency, the e-CNY, as a state-controlled alternative. In contrast, Hong Kong recognises crypto-assets as property and regulates them through existing financial frameworks under a technology-neutral approach. Its dual-licensing regime and stablecoin regulations provide greater clarity but remain cautious and highly centralised. Despite their differences, both jurisdictions ultimately subordinate crypto innovation to regulatory control and broader policy objectives.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Managing risk and novelty in nascent markets: an overview of the regulation of digital assets, smart contracting, tokenisation and legaltech in Brazil]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0010</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0010</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Blockchain technology has become a transformative force in the global digital economy, redefining transactional architecture through decentralisation, immutability and transparency. In Brazil, this innovation has progressed beyond niche adoption to influence institutional frameworks, regulatory strategies and contractual practices. Central to this evolution are tokenisation and smart contracts, which introduce new possibilities for fractional ownership, liquidity and automated performance. Brazil’s regulatory approach is technology-neutral and functional, ensuring that the legal nature of an underlying asset determines applicable rules. Tokens representing securities fall under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s oversight, while non-security virtual assets are governed by Law No. 14,478/2022 and forthcoming Central Bank resolutions, which impose stringent operational as well as anti-money laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism (AML/ CFT) requirements on virtual asset service providers. The Central Bank of Brazil’s Drex project, a tokenised version of the Brazilian Real, exemplifies this commitment to modernising financial infrastructure. Smart contracts, recognised under the Civil Code’s principle of freedom of form, promise efficiency and certainty but raise complex questions regarding their enforceability and the need for judicial intervention. Tokenisation of real-world assets such as real estate and commodities remains subject to substantive private law and official registration systems. This article highlights how Brazil reconciles cutting-edge automation with established legal doctrines, positioning itself as a leader in the global digital asset ecosystem.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Vietnam’s evolving crypto-asset landscape: legal challenges, regulatory first crypto sandbox and market implications]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0005</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0005</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Vietnam is undertaking transformative policy initiatives aimed at shaping the crypto-asset market and advancing blockchain applications. For the first time, the Vietnamese government has authorised the implementation of the country’s inaugural crypto-asset sandbox project, introducing a controlled platform designed to streamline crypto-to-fiat transactions. This regulatory sandbox operates as a pilot mechanism intended to reduce legal and regulatory barriers associated with crypto-assets and related transactions in Vietnam, while allowing regulators to observe and manage potential risks. This paper examines the current landscape of crypto-assets in Vietnam and analyses the challenges faced by stakeholders engaged in crypto-asset transactions. It further explores the implications of the country’s first crypto-asset sandbox project in shaping the crypto-asset market. Through this comprehensive approach, the study offers insights of practical relevance to policymakers, legal practitioners and industry participants navigating the rapidly evolving crypto-asset environment in Vietnam.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[The digital dawn of German law: from code to courtroom, tokenisation, case-law and the future]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0002</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0002</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Germany’s legal system is currently undergoing a profound digital transformation that tests the adaptability of a traditionally codif ed and conceptually rigorous civil-law order. This article explores how German law responds to technological innovation not by allowing technology to redefine legal concepts, but by integrating new digital realities within established legal frameworks. The central argument is that the digitalisation of law in Germany follows an evolutionary, system-preserving approach, at least in the realm of private law: Rather than constructing a parallel digital code, legislators, courts and legal scholars reinterpret existing doctrines of contract, property and corporate law to accommodate blockchain, tokenisation and artificial intelligence. At the same time, the transformation of regulatory law has been far more dynamic, marked by the creation of new legal regimes governing financial markets, data and digital infrastructures. Together, these developments illustrate an approach of constructing a ‘hybrid legal infrastructure’ in which digital technologies are embedded under, rather than above, the rule of law, thereby preserving legal certainty while enabling technological progress.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Digital assets in the United States: a legal and institutional overview]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0009</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2026-0009</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[U.S. digital asset regulation operates through a functionally structured framework grounded in legal classification, multi-agency oversight and enforcement practice. The applicable rules depend on how digital assets are categorized across securities, commodities, payments and tax regimes. Regulatory authority is distributed among federal and state institutions that exercise overlapping jurisdictions based on the type of activity involved. Courts and enforcement actions play a central role in shaping legal interpretation and regulatory application. This article provides a systematic analysis of the U.S. framework by integrating doctrinal classification, institutional design and enforcement dynamics. It synthesizes key regulatory approaches and brings together relevant case-law to illustrate how legal standards are applied in practice. Particular attention is given to the role of securities law and the interpretation of investment contracts, as well as to the evolving regulatory treatment of stablecoins and digital asset intermediaries. The analysis shows how the U.S. framework structures digital asset markets through existing legal categories while enabling regulatory adaptation to technological developments.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Understanding the manifold approaches that shape research, development and innovation policies]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0029</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0029</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This study examines the intersection of intellectual property (IP) law, social systems theory and ethical considerations in shaping sustainable research, development and innovation (RDI) policies. It highlights how IP rights incentivize innovation while simultaneously raising ethical concerns and issues of distributive justice, particularly in the context of access to technology and essential goods. The research explores the role of ethical frameworks—including utilitarian, deontological and Rawlsian perspectives—in addressing these tensions and argues for a balanced approach that aligns private incentives with societal welfare. Social systems theory provides a valuable lens for analyzing how cultural, economic, social, and strategic capitals interact to influence RDI sustainability. Case studies in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and digital innovation illustrate the real-world implications of these interactions. The study further considers regulatory mechanisms, such as compulsory licensing and ethical constraints in patent law, as tools to mitigate inequities in access to innovation. Ultimately, the research underscores the need for an integrated, ethically grounded legal framework that fosters both technological advancement and social justice in global RDI policies.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[From theory to practice: implementing European legal education paradigms and digital innovations in Georgia]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0030</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0030</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[European legal education is undergoing a rapid transformation, driven by the need to prepare lawyers for a globalized and digital society. This study critically examines how the core elements of the European legal education paradigm— technological integration, practical skills development and internationalization—can be realistically adapted in Georgian law faculties.The Bologna Process promotes harmonization of higher legal education standards, interdisciplinary approaches and the development of critical and analytical skills. Equally important is the integration of practical skills and technological competencies through innovative teaching methods such as case analyses, simulations and problem-based learning. The research analyzes how these methods, alongside increased internationalization and collaboration with European universities, contribute to modernizing legal education in Georgia.The study sets out three specific objectives: to analyze the implementation of European educational models in Georgian universities, to assess the technological capacity and practical readiness of Georgian law faculties and to develop targeted recommendations based on empirical findings within the Georgian context.The analysis draws on recent academic sources and practical examples, ensuring that the recommendations are grounded in the realities of Georgian higher education. The findings demonstrate that while the formal adoption of European standards is underway, significant gaps remain in practical training, technological infrastructure and institutional collaboration. The proposed recommendations directly address these gaps, providing actionable steps for policymakers and educators to enhance both the quality and relevance of legal education in Georgia.Modern higher education must adapt to technological advances, using contemporary methods to prepare youth for the current labor market. Integrating multidisciplinary components (economics, medicine and technology) alongside professional expertise cultivates versatile skills that are resistant to technological replacement. A lawyer with diverse abilities is less likely to be automated out of practice. To explore these aspects, this article employs normative, dogmatic, analytical, synthetic and general sociological methods.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Twin transition across Central and Eastern European innovation ecosystems in times of multi-crises: the quintuple-helix perspective]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0031</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0031</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The issue of twin transition is gaining momentum and attracting increasing attention from policymakers, practitioners and researchers, particularly in Western economies. In contrast, Central and Eastern European (CEE) stakeholders have— paradoxically—just started to tackle this issue in very recent years, while comprehensive research on this phenomenon is rather scarce. As such, policy and practitioners’ information are lacking, threatening the attainment of strategic sustainability goals at international and local levels. In times of multi-crises, this situation can be amplified by unexpected events. In response, this study provides a topical contribution to the current knowledge by analyzing the state of the art on the issues of green and digital transformation within CEE innovation ecosystems. Grounded in the quintuple-helix theory perspective and using a qualitative literature review-based approach, we show that CEE countries currently face several structural barriers limiting their twin transitions. These include, for example, high dependency on external knowledge and technologies, weak entrepreneurial initiative, limited absorptive capacity and low eco-awareness. Our findings offer several practical implications for businesses and policymakers, especially in the areas of supporting multi-helix cooperation, preparing more tailored policy initiatives and implementing circular economy practices for higher business resilience. In turn, we highlight the need for circular economy action plans, hubs and living labs based on the different maturity levels of CEE innovation ecosystems.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Intelligent AML systems: using deep learning to detect financial fraud]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0032</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0032</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Financial fraud involving drop accounts is a major challenge for banking institutions and anti-money laundering (AML) systems. Fraudsters exploit weaknesses in transaction monitoring, making illicit fund transfers difficult to detect. Traditional methods struggle with the complexity and speed of financial flows, especially in cryptocurrency transactions, highlighting the need for advanced analytical approaches. This study proposes a graph neural network (GNN) approach that models financial transactions as a structured graph, allowing the detection of hidden fraudulent patterns. Unlike rule-based and conventional machine learning methods, GNNs effectively capture relational dependencies between entities, thereby improving fraud detection. The proposed graph convolutional network (GCN) was tested on the Elliptic Data Set of over 200,000 cryptocurrency transactions and achieved a 93% accuracy rate, outperforming traditional models.Our findings demonstrate that GNNs significantly improve the identification of suspicious transactions and can be integrated into modern AML systems for real-time monitoring and thus strengthen financial security.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Internationalization, research expenditures and ICT exports in the EU]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0033</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0033</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The ICT sector belongs among the most dynamic and innovative branches of economy. This study aims to focus on the ICT sector in the internationalization process in the European Union, in line with our earlier research on this topic. Our analysis employs GERD and BERD as key indicators of high value-added exports. To capture the output indicator of internationalization, we considered the ICT share of total exports. Two hypotheses were tested: (H1) the higher share of GERD positively correlates with ICT export volumes of goods and services within the EU and (H2) the higher share of BERD positively correlates with ICT export volumes of goods and services within the EU. The overall aim of the paper is to determine whether rising R&amp;D expenditures contribute to greater internationalization via ICT exports within the EU.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Enhancing the EU AI Act with CSR: the role of corporate social responsibility in AI regulation]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0034</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0034</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[This paper uses the lenses of law and ethics to identify limitations in existing regulatory approaches to artificial intelligence (AI). Regulation is an incomplete solution to the ethical challenges posed by AI. Instead, businesses should take initiative and observe company- and industry-specific self-regulation. In particular, businesses should utilize corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles in anticipatory compliance of future AI regulation. CSR provides a framework capable of addressing inherent AI challenges such as bias, ethics and privacy. This paper discusses the rapid emergence of AI, and lays out the regulatory landscape and the multiple regulatory gaps that include information asymmetry, jurisdiction, cross-border regulation, enforcement, data control, black-box AI, risk classification, accountability and regulatory overreach. After explaining the theoretical underpinnings of CSR, this paper identifies four families of CSR theories and three core CSR concepts found across the four theoretical families: transparency, accountability and sustainability. The paper discusses how CSR principles can enhance the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. It further proposes that businesses should adopt a proactive, CSR-oriented approach to AI policy and practice.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[Legal limitations and justifications in the training and deployment of generative AI models under copyright law]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0035</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0035</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[The article investigates the legal limitations and exceptions relevant to the training and deployment of generative AI models under EU copyright law. It analyzes whether existing copyright exceptions, such as those for temporary reproduction, scientific text and data mining (TDM) and commercial TDM, can be applied to AI training processes. These exceptions generally do not apply due to fundamental technological and conceptual diff erences between traditional TDM and AI model training. The authors also evaluate the applicability of other exceptions (e.g., quotation, parody or private use) to the public use and output of generative AI. Ultimately, the article argues that current legal frameworks inadequately address the unique challenges posed by generative AI technologies.]]></description>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[In memoriam: Tanel Kerikmäe]]></title>
            <link>https://reference-global.com/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0041</link>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">/article/10.2478/bjes-2025-0041</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <category>ARTICLE</category>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>