Editorial 92:1

As we begin a new volume, we are pleased to announce the implementation of our new policy on artificial intelligence (AI).As you will see on the journal website, Arbitration seeks to protect and promote the integrity of the scholarship it publishes by outlining both permissible and impermissible uses of AI by authors.Not only do we now require authors to make disclosures to the editorial team about the use of AI to research and draft submissions, we also provide a starred footnote to advise readers of the nature and extent to which AI has been used on a particular piece.In so doing, Arbitration hopes to increase reader confidence in the quality of research featured in these pages while also encouraging other publications in our field to adopt AI policies of their own.While AI can be a useful tool when used properly, we as a profession must protect against practices that would diminish the quality of practical and academic research in the law.Volume 92 also marks the initiation of a new substantive initiative.Cognizant of our readers' need to keep abreast of recent developments around the world, Arbitration has decided to publish annual updates of events in different regions of the world in each issue.We hope that this new project will provide both a deep and broad understanding of global developments in our field.Turning to the current issue, our first article is based on a research project recently undertaken by the Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Université concerning the possibility of a European Union (EU) law on international commercial arbitration.One of the research team members, Nima Nashrollahi Shahri, has provided an analysis highlighting the key findings from the study.The next article, by Gabriel Melchiorre, provides an interesting countervailing perspective to the findings reported by Shahri.Melchiorre considers whether and to what extent it is possible to harmonize the enforcement foreign arbitral awards in the EU and offers a tangible proposal on how to achieve those ends.Whereas the first two articles in this issue provide forward-looking analyses, the third piece, by Markos Kostantinidis, creates a cohesive conceptual framework of existing EU jurisprudence.In his article, Kostantinidis proposes an intriguing taxonomy of arbitration cases that have been brought before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).The issue then shifts from an exclusively EU focus to a comparative one.In her article, Alexandra Goetz-Charlier compares the EU approach to data