Technological innovations are crucial drivers of economic, social, and environmental progress. While innovations lead the evolution of our societies and permeate all domains of human life, they also pose significant risks both to humans and the environment. Law and regulation are expected to enable innovation, while at the same time protecting society from unintended consequences. However, assessing new technological risks confronts deep uncertainty and limited knowledge. In contrast to simple risks (e.g. car accidents), technological risks (such as risks stemming from new health technologies, nanotechnology, biotechnology, or robotics as discussed in this special issue) cannot be calculated according to traditional technocratic models, namely as a statistically foreseeable function of probability and effects. It is widely recognised that regulating new and emerging technologies is challenging for law due to problems of uncertainty and limited knowledge in the assessment and management of technological risks. To address this challenge it is crucial to study the ways in which law and regulation can successfully respond and adapt to technological progress.

Once upon a time, in an era where the states defined themselves as 'sovereign', there was a border point. The border point was a place where a guard or a police-like officer used to ask to check a document called passport, which entitled a person to cross the border. States' ambitions to enhance controls over the flux of non-citizens entering their territories led them to raise the requirements and ask for an extra document, the visa, a form of permission required before arriving at a state's port or entry. 1 Nowadays the social physiognomy of the border has radically changed for a wide range of reasons. First, we name the context where the border performs its function. Looking at the European region, the internal market project and its freedom of movement rationale have deprived member states' (hereinafter: MS) borders of most of their meanings. Lately, the Schengen process has removed controls at internal frontiers and required the strengthening of external borders for the benefit of European citizens. 2 The ambitious project of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (hereinafter: AFSJ), 'without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border control, asylum, immigration, and the prevention and combating of crime' 3 has consolidated these milestones into something aimed at being a more coherent and comprehensive project. 4

The article examines the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the issues which have emerged in its first 10 years of practice. After a first section explaining the choice for the principle of mutual recognition as expression of effectiveness and subsidiarity in judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the articles discusses questions such as (ab)uses of the EAW as a mutual legal assistance instrument, the question of petty crimes and the proportionality test, the relation between mutual trust, fundamental rights and judicial review, and, lastly, nationality and residence clauses. It concludes on the importance of addressing these issues in the appropriate legal setting, be it legislative or judicial, with the aim of strengthening the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EAW.

Few studies in Colombia have explored and compared students’ reading comprehension processes in EFL, in different modalities ofinstruction. This article reports on some findings of a larger study in which two groups of graduate Law students took a reading comprehensioncourse in English, delivered in two different modalities of instruction: face-to-face and web-based. Both courses were served by an English teacherfrom the School of Languages at Universidad de Antioquia. The data gathered from class observations, in-depth interviews, questionnaires, tests,the teacher’s journal and data records in the platform provided insights about the students’ use of reading and language learning strategies inboth modalities. Findings suggest that students applied the reading strategies explicitly taught during the courses and some language learningstrategies for which they did not receive any instruction.

No abstract