Trouble by Design? – Weaponized Interdependence as Economic Coercion Under International Law

In: Springer Studies in Law & Geoeconomics, Springer, 2026

Abstract

In recent years states seem to have awoken to perceived threats of economic coercion enabled by ‘Weaponized Interdependence’ (WI) – a phenomenon popularized in international relations but has yet to gain traction in public international law. WI describes how states can weaponize economic ties to exploit other states’ vulnerabilities arising out of mutual interdependence in a globalized economy. This WI framing may help elucidate the unresolved question on the lawfulness of economic coercion under public international law. In keeping with the ICJ’s holding in Nicaragua, the prohibition of economic coercion is coupled with the principle of non-intervention, leading to a de jure narrow and de facto inoperable notion of unlawful economic coercion as a form of prohibited intervention. Thus, there is no ‘stand-alone’ prohibition of economic coercion. However, states’ increasing opposition to economic coercion enabled by WI (‘network-based’ coercion), for instance expressed in the G7 Statement on Economic Resilience and Economic Security, EU Anti-Coercion Instrument and European Economic Security Strategy, could reflect evidence of emerging customary rules on economic coercion. Further, WI in crucial economic networks, such as critical technology value chains, illustrates how the principle of non-intervention alone may be inadequate to address the corrosive effects of WI on interdependent economic networks binding together the international community of states. Ultimately, WI provides an opening to rethink the rules of international law governing states’ exercise of their economic (coercive) powers in a world where chokepoints in vital economic networks are concentrated in the hands of a few or even one state.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Concept of Lawful Access and Its Implications for User Freedoms in the EU Copyright Acquis: Opinion of the European Copyright Society external link

Margoni, T., Kretschmer, M., Metzger, A., Quintais, J. & Synodinou, T.
JIPITEC, vol. 17, iss. : 2, pp: 203-215, 2026

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Ruslands hybride oorlog external link

Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), iss. : 33, num: 1872, pp: 2787, 2026

Abstract

De hybride oorlog van Rusland wordt niet alleen via hacks en cyberaanvallen gevoerd; de Russen zijn ook bijzonder behendig in het verspreiden van desinformatie en propaganda via sociale media.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

A Human Right to AI Remuneration? What Human Rights Law Tells Us Copyright Owes Creators external link

Abstract

AI remuneration may be defended in the name of creators' human rights while leaving creators themselves with little or nothing. This article examines that tension through international human rights law, which protects creators' material interests without equating them with the transferable economic rights under copyright law. It argues that the current EU framework, based on the text and data mining exception and the possibility of licensing following rights reservations, cannot be assumed to protect original creators merely because it allows copyright owners to obtain remuneration. Proposed alternative remuneration mechanisms seek to address this problem by directing economic benefits more closely towards creators. But whether these alternatives genuinely protect creators' material interests is itself a question of human rights law, one that cannot be answered simply by pointing to the benefits they provide. Output-based levies may support the creative community without necessarily protecting the material interests of individual creators whose works were used in AI training; statutory or residual remuneration rights may yield individual payments too small to provide meaningful material protection. Human rights law offers no "magic" remuneration model, but calls for examining whose interests different mechanisms protect, how effectively, and whether individual and collective approaches can complement one another.

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Human rights, remuneration

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Human Rights and IP before the European Courts: What Four Decades of Case Law Reveal about European Copyright Law external link

Izyumenko, E. & Geiger, C.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Copyright, Human rights, Intellectual property

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Mapping Data Work: A workshop on datawork held in Bengaluru, India. March 2025 download

Chandhiramowuli, S., Ausloos, J., Carraro, V. & Singh, A.
pp: 59, 2026

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Reconciling EU Copyright Protection With the Right to Research : Why We Need a General Research Exemption (Now!) download

In: Enabling Access, Fostering Innovation - Towards a Digital Knowledge Agenda in Europe, C. Geiger & B.J. Jütte, Verfassungsbooks, 2026, Berlin, pp: 45-57, ISBN: 9783565427789

Copyright, right to research

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Transforming Copyright Exceptions Into User Rights download

In: Flexibilities in Copyright Law, C. Sgange & T.E. Synodinou (eds.), Routledge, 2026, London, pp: 35-62, ISBN: 9781003466390

Abstract

In EU copyright law, the protection of the right to intellectual property is the rule, and breathing space for competing fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, is the exception. While formally recognizing the need to balance protection interests against other fundamental rights and values, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) fails to give users relying on competing fundamental rights a robust position in the copyright system. The Court has developed a meaningless “user rights” rhetoric that produces the false impression of affording users – in line with the equal rank of their rights in the Charter – the chance of meeting right holders as equals. In practice, however, the Court insists on the reconciliation of competing rights within the confines of copyright legislation. As a result, the specific requirements for invoking exceptions and the open-ended three-step test become stumbling blocks that can easily thwart the assertion of competing fundamental rights. To develop meaningful user rights, it would be necessary to introduce upfront gatekeeper requirements that prevent illegitimate infringement claims from the outset when competing fundamental rights are at stake.

Copyright, exceptions, user rights

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The AI Act and Author Remuneration – A Model for Other Regions? download

In: Artificial Intelligence and Creativity, G. Westkamp & N. Shemtov (eds), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar , 2026, pp: 176-212, ISBN: 9781035355600

AI Act, Copyright, remuneration

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

EU copyright law roundup – third trimester of 2026 external link

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib