Legal Studies Research Paper Series Vol. 17, No. 2

The Faculty has distributed Volume 17 Number 2 of the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series on SSRN.

This issue includes the following articles:

Timo Minssen, Mateo Aboy & Effy Vayena: Navigating the EU AI Act: Implications for Regulated Digital Medical Products (25/2025)

The newly adopted EU AI Act represents a pivotal milestone that heralds a new era of AI regulation across industries. With its broad territorial scope and applicability, this comprehensive legislation establishes stringent requirements for AI systems. In this article, we analyze the AI Act’s impact on digital medical products, such as medical devices: How does the AI Act apply to AI/ML-enabled medical devices? How are they classified? What are the compliance requirements? And, what are the obligations of ‘providers’ of these AI systems? After addressing these foundational questions, we discuss the AI Act’s broader implications for the future of regulated digital medical products.

Ira Chadha-Sridhar: Why do we Owe Duties to Care? (2/2026)

We are often responsible for the care of others – we find ourselves accepting these responsibilities, and in turn, holding others accountable for fulfilling theirs. Yet while it is clear that we sometimes owe such duties, it is less clear why we owe them. What explains our duties to care? It is this question that I take up. This is a question about normative grounding: it asks why, or in virtue of what, these duties exist. Though not expressly framed in terms of grounding, care ethicists have paid considerable attention to this question – offering either voluntarist or non-voluntarist accounts of grounds. I argue that voluntarist accounts are misguided and turn to non-voluntarist alternatives, which are, in turn, divided between views that trace grounds to (a) certain relational facts or (b) a natural duty. Arguing that neither (a) nor (b) is individually correct, this paper offers a new account: ’hybrid non-voluntarism’. On this view, our duties to care are grounded in a relational moral principle: they exist in virtue of natural duties but are ‘triggered’ only by specific relational ties. Through this account, I aim to resolve existing tensions within care ethics and elucidate the grounds of our duties to care.

David Erdos: UK Data Protection Post-Brexit: The Evolving Landscape (3/2026)

Post-Brexit, the UK has clearly shifted to a more business and government-friendly data protection approach. Nevertheless, although wider changes have eliminated data protection as a fundamental right and deprived the UK GDPR of primacy vis-à-vis exemptions from the regime, the specific substantive reforms of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 are modest. Although limitations on automated individual decision-making rights do go further, almost all its substantive changes merely gloss prior law or could have found justification within the UK (and EU) GDPR's restrictions clause. Of more significance is the attempt, partly on the back of DUAA itself, to further entrench a very limited and selective approach to regulatory enforcement. This approach seriously diverges not only from the exacting standards of the Court of Justice of the EU but also from the EU's practical norm. For example, whereas the EU issued 1,396 data protection fines of €1,254m or around £1,062m in 2024, the 2024/25 ICO figures are only 2 and around £4m respectively. Given that the UK GDPR's legal enforcement duties also remain largely intact, the extent to which this attempt at limitation will succeed remains uncertain. It should nevertheless lead to some questioning of whether UK data protection regulatory supervision is truly grounded in a rule of law which systematically safeguards data subjects' rights.

Markus Gehring, Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger & Matheus Garcia: Fulfilling Climate Change Pledges of Commonwealth Countries by Leveraging Investment and Trade Agreements (4/2026)

Trade policy has significant potential to drive climate ambition and support countries in achieving their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. As a key engine of economic growth and development, trade offers pathways to incentivize climate-conscious behavior, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Strategic calibration of trade policy can help leverage trade flows toward both environmental and sustainable development objectives. This paper underscores the importance of proactive measures to address the diverse scenarios connecting trade and climate change. This study pays particular attention to the 56 members of the Commonwealth, exploring how their trade arrangements can support SDGs and NDCs. By examining the reciprocal integration of trade and climate goals—incorporating NDCs within Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and referencing trade in NDCs—the paper aims to deepen the understanding of this relationship. The clear recommendation is to take trade seriously in the elaboration of new NDCs to foster the mutual supportiveness of climate NDCs and trade policy and to ensure that FTA commitments foster rather than frustrate the achievement of their NDCs.

Interested readers can browse the Working Paper Series at SSRN, or sign up to subscribe to distributions of the the e-journal.