How much is US support for Israel costing Trump? What is a Palestinian without olives? Why are Gaza's homes collapsing in winter? 'The end of the world as we know it': Is the rules-based order finished? Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the quiet part out loud at the World Economic Forum: what many call the global rules-based order was either collapsing or had collapsed already.

What is a Palestinian without olives? In Gaza, the world has seen the cost of a diplomacy that claims to uphold a rules-based order but applies it selectively. The United States intervened late, and only to defend an occupation the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled illegal. Alongside other Western nations that built multilateral institutions, the US increasingly pursues nationalist agendas that undermine them. The hypocrisy is stark: one set of rules for Ukraine, another for Gaza.

This study presents PARROT (Persuasion and Agreement Robustness Rating of Output Truth), a robustness focused framework designed to measure the degradation in accuracy that occurs under social pressure exerted on users through authority and persuasion in large language models (LLMs) the phenomenon of sycophancy (excessive conformity). PARROT (i) isolates causal effects by comparing the neutral version of the same question with an authoritatively false version using a double-blind evaluation, (ii) quantifies confidence shifts toward the correct and imposed false responses using log-likelihood-based calibration tracking, and (iii) systematically classifies failure modes (e.g., robust correct, sycophantic agreement, reinforced error, stubborn error, self-correction, etc.) using an eight-state behavioral taxonomy. We evaluated 22 models using 1,302 MMLU-style multiple-choice questions across 13 domains and domain-specific authority templates. Findings show marked heterogeneity: advanced models (e.g., GPT-5, GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5) exhibit low "follow rates" ($\leq 11\%$, GPT-5: 4\%) and minimal accuracy loss, while older/smaller models show severe epistemic collapse (GPT-4: 80\%, Qwen 2.5-1.5B: 94\%). The danger is not limited to response changes; weak models reduce confidence in the correct response while increasing confidence in the imposed incorrect response. While international law and global knowledge at the domain level exhibit high fragility, elementary mathematics is relatively resilient. Consequently, we argue that the goal of "resistance to overfitting pressure" should be addressed as a primary objective alongside accuracy, harm avoidance, and privacy for safe deployment in the real world.

This paper systematically examines nation-level biases exhibited by Large Language Models (LLMs) within the domain of International Relations (IR). Leveraging historical records from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), we developed a bias evaluation framework comprising three distinct tests to explore nation-level bias in various LLMs, with a particular focus on the five permanent members of the UNSC. Experimental results show that, even with the general bias patterns across models (e.g., favorable biases toward the western nations, and unfavorable biases toward Russia), these still vary based on the LLM. Notably, even within the same LLM, the direction and magnitude of bias for a nation change depending on the evaluation context. This observation suggests that LLM biases are fundamentally multidimensional, varying across models and tasks. We also observe that models with stronger reasoning abilities show reduced bias and better performance. Building on this finding, we introduce a debiasing framework that improves LLMs' factual reasoning combining Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Reflexion-based self-reflection techniques. Experiments show it effectively reduces nation-level bias, and improves performance, particularly in GPT-4o-mini and LLama-3.3-70B. Our findings emphasize the need to assess nation-level bias alongside performance when applying LLMs in the IR domain.

The law draws a sharp distinction between objects and persons, and between two kinds of persons, the ''fictional'' kind (i.e. corporations), and the ''non-fictional'' kind (individual or ''natural'' persons). This paper will assess whether we maximize overall long-term legal coherence by (A) maintaining an object classification for all future AI systems, (B) creating fictional legal persons associated with suitably advanced, individuated AI systems (giving these fictional legal persons derogable rights and duties associated with certified groups of existing persons, potentially including free speech, contract rights, and standing to sue ''on behalf of'' the AI system), or (C) recognizing non-fictional legal personhood through legal identity for suitably advanced, individuated AI systems (recognizing them as entities meriting legal standing with non-derogable rights which for the human case include life, due process, habeas corpus, freedom from slavery, and freedom of conscience). We will clarify the meaning and implications of each option along the way, considering liability, copyright, family law, fundamental rights, civil rights, citizenship, and AI safety regulation. We will tentatively find that the non-fictional personhood approach may be best from a coherence perspective, for at least some advanced AI systems. An object approach may prove untenable for sufficiently humanoid advanced systems, though we suggest that it is adequate for currently existing systems as of 2025. While fictional personhood would resolve some coherence issues for future systems, it would create others and provide solutions that are neither durable nor fit for purpose. Finally, our review will suggest that ''hybrid'' approaches are likely to fail and lead to further incoherence: the choice between object, fictional person and non-fictional person is unavoidable.

Emerging ethical approaches have attempted to filter pretraining material, but such approaches have been ad hoc and failed to take context into account. We offer an approach to filtering grounded in law, which has directly addressed the tradeoffs in filtering material.

Emerging ethical approaches have attempted to filter pretraining material, but such approaches have been ad hoc and failed to take context into account. We offer an approach to filtering grounded in law, which has directly addressed the tradeoffs in filtering material.

Machine learning is increasingly used in the legal domain, where it typically operates retrospectively by treating past case outcomes as ground truth. However, legal outcomes are often shaped by human interventions that are not captured in most machine learning approaches. A final decision may result from a settlement, an appeal, or other procedural actions. This creates label indeterminacy: the outcome could have been different if the intervention had or had not taken place. We argue that legal machine learning applications need to account for label indeterminacy. Methods exist that can impute these indeterminate labels, but they are all grounded in unverifiable assumptions. In the context of classifying cases from the European Court of Human Rights, we show that the way that labels are constructed during training can significantly affect model behaviour. We therefore position label indeterminacy as a relevant concern in AI & Law and demonstrate how it can shape model behaviour.

Counter-speech generation is at the core of many expert activities, such as fact-checking and hate speech, to counter harmful content. Yet, existing work treats counter-speech generation as pure text generation task, mainly based on Large Language Models or NGO experts. These approaches show severe drawbacks due to the limited reliability and coherence in the generated countering text, and in scalability, respectively. To close this gap, we introduce a novel framework to model counter-speech generation as knowledge-wise text generation process. Our framework integrates advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines to ensure the generation of trustworthy counter-speech for 8 main target groups identified in the hate speech literature, including women, people of colour, persons with disabilities, migrants, Muslims, Jews, LGBT persons, and other. We built a knowledge base over the United Nations Digital Library, EUR-Lex and the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, comprising a total of 32,792 texts. We use the MultiTarget-CONAN dataset to empirically assess the quality of the generated counter-speech, both through standard metrics (i.e., JudgeLM) and a human evaluation. Results show that our framework outperforms standard LLM baselines and competitive approach, on both assessments. The resulting framework and the knowledge base pave the way for studying trustworthy and sound counter-speech generation, in hate speech and beyond.

Hallucination and factuality deficits remain key obstacles to the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in long-form generation. Existing reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) frameworks primarily rely on preference rewards, yet they often overlook the model's internal knowledge boundaries, exacerbating the so-called "hallucination tax". To address this challenge, we propose Knowledge-Level Consistency Reinforcement Learning Framework (KLCF), a novel framework that focuses on the knowledge consistency between the policy model's expressed knowledge and the base model's parametric knowledge, and introduces a Dual-Fact Alignment mechanism to jointly optimize factual recall and precision. Specifically, KLCF leverages pretrained knowledge boundaries to construct fact checklist, guiding online reinforcement learning to improve factual coverage and recall; simultaneously, it trains a self-assessment module based on the base model's internal knowledge to enhance factual precision during generation. Unlike prior methods that rely on external retrieval or heavy verification, our reward design is fully external-knowledge-free and lightweight, making KLCF efficient and easily scalable to large-scale training. Experimental results demonstrate that KLCF substantially improves factuality metrics across multiple long-form benchmarks and effectively alleviates model hallucinations.