Fakultetsnytt uke 16

• Sen, Ilker G?khan (2026). OAR@UM: Comparing decolonisation referendums in US and French Overseas Territories. Small States & Territories Journal (SST). 9(1), s. 71¨C86. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  This article examines the legal design and practice of decolonisation referendums in the overseas territories of the United States (US) and France. It highlights the tension between international law, which since the 1960s has favoured self-determination and independence, and the constitutional frameworks of administering states that tend to preserve the colonial status quo. The analysis compares two contrasting models: France, a unitary republic emphasising territorial indivisibility, and the US, a federal republic. The comparison focuses on recent referendums in New Caledonia and Puerto Rico, and prospective votes in Guam and the US Virgin Islands. Four recurring challenges structure the comparison: who has authority to initiate referendums; how voter eligibility is defined to balance self-determination with equal suffrage; how questions are framed to ensure clarity; and how campaign conditions affect the integrity of the vote. The article argues that weaknesses in these areas have entrenched a condition of colonial limbo. It concludes that reasserting international law¡¯s primacy in guiding decolonisation is essential to move beyond this impasse.

• Sj?fjell, Beate & Gullhagen-Revling, Morten Andre (2026). Sustainability and the Company¡¯s Interest in Norwegian Company Law: Tensions Between Company Law and Shareholder Primacy. I Mittwoch, Anne-Christin & Weber, Anne-Marie (Red.), The Interest of the Company ¨C A Driving Concept for Sustainable Business? - 978-3-7560-3103-0 | Nomos. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. ISSN 9783756031030. s. 305¨C343. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5426498. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The board of the company has a duty to promote the interests of the company. The interests of the company, or the ¡®company's interest¡¯, as it often is referred to in Continental Europe and the Nordics, is a core company law concept. The concept is crucial to understanding the scope of action for the board and other corporate decision-makers. In this chapter, we analyse the company¡¯s interest based on Norwegian legal sources, and, as Norwegian company law does not operate in a vacuum, we also draw on international and EU law and policy developments. As we show, the company's interest in Norwegian company law is pluralistic and includes sustainability aspects. This gives the board plenty of room for integrating sustainability into corporate governance and decision making. Yet, this room is still under-communicated and often misunderstood. This underlines the importance of this analysis, with revitalised interest in ¡®company's interest¡¯ having the potential to be a key company law element in the fundamental transformation of business towards sustainability.

• Sj?fjell, Beate & M?h?nen, Jukka Tapio (2026). Reimagining Corporate Purpose for a Safe and Just World. I Bowman, Megan & Mai, Laura (Red.), A Research Agenda for Law, Finance and the Environment. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISSN 9781035313860. s. 169¨C189. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5255480. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  After decades of a rather instrumental and narrow focus on business, with the dominant view identifying the corporation with its shareholders, we are seeing a reawakening of the debate on corporate purpose. However, the debate remains constrained by the Anglo-American shareholder vs stakeholder dichotomy. In our approach to corporate purpose, we draw on over a decade of multi-jurisdictional comparative corporate law analyses. We posit that companies as ¡®creatures of national law¡¯ cannot be understood through an analysis that does not engage with the rich variety of corporate law approaches and corporate law theories. Further, in our research aiming to contribute to sustainability, we undertake interdisciplinary analyses, drawing on legal theory, law and economics, and sustainability science and research. That gives us a basis for reimagining corporate purpose for a safe and just world, in a way that transcends limiting dichotomies and national differences.

Se alle arbeider i NVA

• Hillion, Christophe (24). Leading by example? Strengthening the fundamentals of membership within the EU and in accession countries. doi: https:/www.stiftung-genshagen.de/en/publikationen/enlarging-the-union-consolidating-democracy-which-role-for-the-weimar-triangle/. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• R?s?g, Erik (2052). Pantsettelse og kreditorbeslag av klimakvoter. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Janmyr, Maja (2026). The Architecture of the International Refugee Protection Regime and Protection Beyond Signatory States. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Janmyr, Maja (2026). Non-signatory States in International Refugee Law. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Lintvedt, Mona Naomi (2026). Does regulating AI also regulate robots? What AI law misses about embodiment. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Lintvedt, Mona Naomi (2026). EUs KI-forordning og arbeidslivet. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  EUs KI-forordning peker ut bruk av KI i arbeidslivet som et omr?de som krever s?rskilt regulering. Dette er begrunnet i at det foreligger h?y risiko for at KI brukes p? en m?te som p?virker adgangen til arbeidsmarkedet, f?rer til diskriminering og forsterker det skjeve maktforholdet mellom arbeidsgiver og arbeidstaker. Enkelte typer KI er derfor forbudt eller klassifisert som h?yrisiko KI.

• Stokke, Sander (2026). EFTA-landenes spesielle forhold (?special relationship?) med EU. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  EU-domstolen beskriver Norge og Islands forhold til EU som et ?special relationship?. Med henvisning til dette forholdet, tolker EU-domstolen Norge og Islands avtaler med EU annerledes enn tilsvarende bestemmelser i avtaler med andre nabostater. Som EU-domstolen uttrykker i Alchaster, Storbritannias forhold til EU er ikke ?as special as? Norge sitt. EU-domstolen avsl?r normalt ? tolke bestemmelser i avtaler med nabostater likt som i EU-retten. I E?S-retten er vi godt kjent med homogenitetsprinsippets betydning for tolkningen av like bestemmelser i EU- og E?S-retten. I sakene hvor EU-domstolen viser til ?special relationship? oppn?r EU-domstolen homogenitet i forholdet til Norge og Island ogs? utover E?S-avtalen. Ved Norge og Islands parallellavtaler til EU-rett innenfor omr?det for frihet, sikkerhet og rettferdighet, inneb?rer dette bruk av prinsippet om gjensidig tillit, som normalt karakteriserer forholdet mellom EUs medlemsstater. Presentasjonen vil handle om hva som er grunnlaget for dette forholdet, hvilken rettslig betydning det har, og hvorfor Norge og Islands forhold til EU er mer spesielt enn andre nabostaters.

• Eikeseth, Unni & Sandvik, Kristin (2026). ¨C Vi treng fredsvisjonar for Noreg. [Journal]. Forskerforum. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Styresmaktene vil at norske forskarar skal bidra meir til forsvaret. Men forskarar b?r ogs? bidra meir til fred, meiner jusprofessor.

• Irgens-Jensen, Harald & Oprysk, Liliia (2026). Nyheter p? opphavsrettsomr?det siden sist. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Ikdahl, Ingunn (2026). Begrepet om kritikk - kommentar. doi: https:/www.uio.no/om/aktuelt/universitetsplassen/domus-bibliotheca/arrangementer/2026/eos-sentrum-kritisk-juss. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Ikdahl, Ingunn (2026). Trygderett og metode. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Trygsland, Sindre & Johansen, Stian ?by (2026). Vant mot Facebook og Youtube. [Journal]. Aftenposten Junior. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  En kvinne sa hun ble avhengig av sosiale medier som barn. N? f?r hun flere millioner i erstatning.

Se alle arbeider i NVA