Contemporary Issues in Law, Culture, and Globalization

Governing Cultural Bias in Artificial Intelligence: Legal Accountability for Algorithmic Decision-Making in a Globalized Digital Society

Zahra Sadat Hosseini , Mohammad Ali Karimi ^*

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into public administration, employment, financial services, education, migration control, and criminal justice has transformed algorithmic decision-making into an important problem of law and global governance. Although contemporary regulatory frameworks increasingly emphasize transparency, accountability, fairness, and human oversight, considerably less attention has been devoted to the cultural assumptions embedded in artificial intelligence systems. Algorithms developed using datasets, classifications, linguistic structures, and behavioral norms originating in particular societies may reproduce culturally specific understandings of identity, risk, merit, family, gender, social behavior, and acceptable conduct when deployed across different jurisdictions. This article examines the legal implications of cultural bias in artificial intelligence from the perspective of globalization and comparative regulatory governance. It asks whether existing principles of equality, non-discrimination, data protection, due process, and algorithmic accountability adequately address harms arising not merely from statistical discrimination but from the transnational transfer of culturally embedded computational models. Using a comparative doctrinal methodology, the study analyzes emerging approaches in the European Union, the United States, and selected Asian and Middle Eastern jurisdictions, while situating these regulatory developments within broader debates concerning cultural pluralism and digital globalization. The article argues that conventional technical definitions of algorithmic fairness are insufficient where artificial intelligence operates across culturally heterogeneous populations. It proposes a model of culturally responsive algorithmic governance based on contextual impact assessment, participatory design, explainability adapted to affected communities, localization safeguards, and enhanced obligations for high-risk cross-border AI systems. The study contributes to contemporary debates by connecting artificial intelligence regulation with cultural rights and legal pluralism rather than treating algorithmic bias exclusively as a technological or anti-discrimination problem. It concludes that effective global AI governance requires a shift from universalized technical fairness toward context-sensitive legal accountability capable of recognizing legitimate cultural diversity while preserving universal human rights standards.

Digital Platforms as Transnational Regulators of Culture: Freedom of Expression, Content Moderation, and the Privatization of Global Norm-Making

Amir Reza Ahmadi ^*

Global digital platforms increasingly exercise regulatory authority over speech, cultural representation, political communication, artistic expression, and social participation across national borders. Decisions concerning content removal, account suspension, recommendation systems, misinformation, hate speech, nudity, religious expression, and politically sensitive material are frequently determined by private platform rules that operate simultaneously across culturally and legally diverse societies. This article investigates whether large digital platforms should be understood not merely as commercial intermediaries but as emerging transnational regulators whose governance practices contribute to the formation of global cultural norms. The study examines the tension between private content moderation, national constitutional traditions, international human rights standards, and culturally differentiated understandings of acceptable expression. Employing a comparative legal and socio-legal methodology, the article analyzes platform governance alongside regulatory approaches developed in the European Union, the United States, and selected non-Western jurisdictions. Particular attention is given to conflicts between freedom of expression and competing interests such as human dignity, religious sensitivity, minority protection, national security, and cultural autonomy. The article argues that globalization has produced a significant redistribution of normative authority from states toward private technology corporations whose community standards increasingly function as quasi-legal frameworks. Yet these systems frequently lack the democratic legitimacy, procedural safeguards, contextual sensitivity, and accountability traditionally associated with public regulation. To address this legitimacy deficit, the article develops a framework of procedural platform constitutionalism based on transparent rulemaking, culturally informed moderation, meaningful notice, independent appeal mechanisms, proportionality, and human rights due diligence. Rather than advocating uniform global speech standards, the proposed model distinguishes universal procedural guarantees from legitimate substantive cultural variation. The study therefore contributes to scholarship on digital constitutionalism, globalization, and cultural governance by explaining how private technological infrastructures are reshaping the relationship between law, culture, sovereignty, and freedom of expression in contemporary transnational society.

Cultural Heritage in the Global Marketplace: Rethinking Intellectual Property Protection for Traditional Cultural Expressions

Sara Moradi Nasab , Fatemeh Akbari Nia , Seyed Hossein Mousavi ^*

The globalization of cultural industries has dramatically expanded the commercial circulation of traditional designs, indigenous symbols, folklore, music, artistic motifs, rituals, and community-based cultural expressions. Fashion companies, entertainment industries, digital platforms, tourism enterprises, and global brands increasingly incorporate culturally distinctive materials into commercial products, frequently without authorization, attribution, consultation, or benefit-sharing with the communities from which those expressions originate. This article examines whether conventional intellectual property law provides an adequate legal framework for protecting traditional cultural expressions in a globalized economy. Existing copyright, trademark, design, and unfair competition regimes generally privilege identifiable authorship, originality, limited duration, individual ownership, and market-oriented creativity. These assumptions often conflict with cultural expressions characterized by collective creation, intergenerational transmission, spiritual significance, customary ownership, and indefinite community affiliation. Through comparative doctrinal analysis and engagement with international legal developments, the article evaluates competing approaches to cultural appropriation, community rights, moral rights, collective trademarks, geographical indications, sui generis protection, and benefit-sharing. It argues that the contemporary debate should move beyond the binary choice between unrestricted cultural exchange and absolute cultural ownership. Instead, the study proposes a differentiated legal framework based on the nature of the cultural expression, its sacred or restricted status, the commercial character of its use, the likelihood of cultural distortion, and the existence of identifiable custodial communities. Particular emphasis is placed on prior informed consultation, attribution, equitable benefit-sharing, and remedies against derogatory or deceptive commercial use. The article further considers how digital reproduction and global e-commerce intensify enforcement difficulties by separating cultural products from their geographical and social contexts. It concludes that protecting cultural heritage within globalization requires a pluralistic model of intellectual property capable of recognizing collective cultural interests without eliminating legitimate intercultural creativity, artistic dialogue, or public access to cultural knowledge.

Migration, Family Law, and Cultural Pluralism: Reconciling Transnational Family Practices with Human Rights Standards

Roya Sadat Hashemi ^*

International migration has transformed family law from a predominantly domestic field into an increasingly transnational arena in which multiple legal systems, religious traditions, cultural practices, and personal identities interact. Questions concerning marriage, divorce, child custody, guardianship, inheritance, religious family norms, and recognition of foreign judgments regularly require courts to determine how far culturally distinctive family practices should be accommodated within the legal order of the receiving state. This article examines the tension between cultural pluralism and universal human rights in contemporary transnational family law. It focuses particularly on situations in which recognition of foreign or religiously informed family arrangements may conflict with equality, individual autonomy, the best interests of the child, or fundamental principles of the forum state. Using comparative doctrinal analysis, the study evaluates approaches based on private international law, public policy exceptions, human rights review, legal pluralism, and multicultural accommodation. It argues that both unconditional recognition and categorical rejection of culturally distinctive family practices are normatively problematic. The first may legitimize serious rights violations, whereas the second may reproduce cultural domination and undermine the legal security of migrant families. The article therefore proposes a proportionality-based framework for adjudicating transnational family disputes. Under this model, courts should distinguish between cultural difference itself and demonstrable rights-based harm while assessing consent, vulnerability, gender equality, child welfare, legitimate expectations, and the intensity of the connection between the family arrangement and competing legal systems. The study also examines how globalization complicates conventional understandings of citizenship and legal belonging by allowing family relationships to remain simultaneously connected to several jurisdictions. It concludes that contemporary family law requires a form of rights-sensitive legal pluralism that neither romanticizes cultural practices nor treats dominant domestic norms as culturally neutral. Such an approach can better reconcile diversity, legal certainty, and fundamental rights within increasingly multicultural societies.

Globalization, Cultural Identity, and the Right to Privacy: Regulating Cross-Border Biometric Surveillance

Ali Akbar Rezaei ^* , Mahsa Kamali Pour

The global expansion of biometric surveillance technologies has created new tensions between security, privacy, cultural identity, and individual autonomy. Facial recognition, gait analysis, voice identification, fingerprint databases, emotion recognition, and other biometric systems are increasingly deployed by governments and private actors in airports, public spaces, workplaces, educational institutions, border zones, and commercial environments. Although legal debates generally focus on data protection and informational privacy, biometric surveillance also raises important cultural questions because bodily appearance, clothing, religious practices, facial coverings, behavioral conventions, and social understandings of public exposure vary considerably across communities. This article examines the regulation of biometric surveillance through an integrated framework of privacy law, cultural rights, and globalization. Using comparative legal analysis, it investigates how different jurisdictions regulate biometric technologies and how transnational technology providers export surveillance infrastructures across societies with different constitutional and cultural traditions. The study argues that the globalization of biometric systems risks normalizing surveillance standards developed within particular political and cultural environments while obscuring their unequal consequences for minorities, migrants, religious communities, and culturally distinctive groups. Existing notice-and-consent approaches are especially inadequate in public environments where individuals cannot meaningfully avoid biometric capture. The article proposes a rights-based governance framework centered on necessity, proportionality, purpose limitation, algorithmic accuracy, independent authorization, anti-discrimination safeguards, and culturally sensitive biometric impact assessments. It further distinguishes between identification, verification, categorization, and inferential biometric technologies, arguing that each should be subject to different levels of legal scrutiny. By connecting biometric privacy with cultural autonomy, the study expands conventional privacy scholarship beyond individual data control toward the collective implications of surveillance infrastructures. It concludes that cross-border biometric governance requires internationally compatible minimum safeguards while preserving the capacity of societies to impose stronger restrictions according to their constitutional traditions and culturally grounded expectations of privacy.

Climate Displacement and Cultural Survival: Toward Legal Recognition of Collective Cultural Rights in International Migration Governance

Omid Ali Taheri , Neda Sadat Ebrahimi ^* , Kian Radmanesh

Climate change is increasingly altering patterns of human mobility through sea-level rise, drought, desertification, extreme weather, ecosystem degradation, and the loss of economically sustainable living conditions. Existing legal debates concerning climate displacement primarily concentrate on refugee status, humanitarian protection, state responsibility, and migration governance. Yet displacement may also cause profound cultural harm by separating communities from ancestral territories, sacred landscapes, traditional livelihoods, linguistic environments, and social institutions essential to collective identity. This article examines climate displacement through the underdeveloped concept of cultural survival. It asks whether contemporary international law adequately protects communities whose physical relocation may preserve individual life while simultaneously threatening collective cultural continuity. The study combines doctrinal analysis of international human rights law, refugee and migration law, indigenous rights, and climate governance with a normative examination of cultural rights. Particular attention is given to small island communities, indigenous peoples, and territorially rooted populations whose cultural practices depend upon specific ecological and geographical environments. The article argues that existing protection frameworks remain excessively individualized and therefore fail to capture the collective dimensions of climate-related cultural loss. It proposes a cultural continuity framework for planned relocation and cross-border climate mobility based on community participation, collective relocation where desired, preservation of political and social institutions, linguistic rights, access to culturally significant territory where feasible, heritage documentation, and legal mechanisms protecting communal identity following resettlement. Such protections should supplement rather than replace individual human rights and should not be used to restrict individuals who prefer integration or independent migration. By integrating environmental displacement with cultural rights, the article reframes climate mobility as more than a humanitarian or territorial problem. It concludes that a legitimate global response to climate displacement must protect not only the physical survival of affected populations but also their capacity to maintain and transform their cultures through processes determined substantially by the communities themselves.

The Globalization of Cancel Culture: Legal Boundaries Between Social Accountability, Reputation, and Freedom of Expression

Majid Ghasem Zadeh ^*

Digital communication has transformed reputational accountability by enabling allegations, criticism, boycotts, public denunciations, and collective campaigns to circulate instantaneously across national borders. The phenomenon commonly described as “cancel culture” occupies a legally ambiguous space between protected expression, legitimate social accountability, reputational harm, harassment, economic exclusion, and digitally amplified punishment. Despite extensive cultural and political debate, its legal dimensions remain comparatively underdeveloped, particularly from a transnational perspective. This article examines how contemporary law should distinguish legitimate collective criticism from disproportionate forms of digital reputational sanction. It analyzes the interaction between freedom of expression, defamation, privacy, employment law, platform governance, due process values, and the emerging social power of networked publics. Using comparative doctrinal and socio-legal analysis, the study investigates how different legal traditions balance reputation and speech, while considering the difficulties created when online controversies involve speakers, platforms, audiences, employers, and alleged victims located in different jurisdictions. The article rejects both the view that digital cancellation is merely protected speech and the opposing tendency to conceptualize all intense online criticism as unlawful persecution. Instead, it proposes a contextual legal framework that considers truth or falsity, public interest, power imbalance, coordinated harassment, foreseeability of harm, proportionality, permanence of digital records, procedural opportunities to respond, and the distinction between criticism and coercive intimidation. Particular attention is given to private institutions and employers whose responses to viral controversies may transform social condemnation into material sanctions without meaningful procedures. The study argues that globalization has produced informal systems of transnational reputational enforcement that can operate more rapidly and extensively than formal legal institutions. It concludes that contemporary law should protect robust public criticism while developing more precise safeguards against defamatory, threatening, discriminatory, or procedurally arbitrary forms of networked punishment.

Cultural Globalization and the Legal Protection of Linguistic Diversity in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Leila Sadat Niazi , Mohammad Javad Safari ^*

Generative artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming a major infrastructure for communication, education, knowledge production, translation, journalism, professional services, and digital cultural participation. However, contemporary language models are characterized by substantial inequalities in the availability, quality, and representativeness of linguistic data. While globally dominant languages benefit from extensive digital resources, many minority, indigenous, regional, and low-resource languages remain underrepresented. This disparity raises questions extending beyond technological performance to cultural rights, linguistic equality, and the distribution of opportunities within globalization. This article investigates whether the emerging governance of generative artificial intelligence should incorporate positive obligations concerning linguistic diversity. Drawing on international human rights law, cultural rights, minority protections, intellectual property principles, and emerging artificial intelligence regulation, the study examines the legal implications of language-based algorithmic exclusion. It argues that unequal linguistic representation can limit access to public information, digital education, automated services, political participation, and cultural production, thereby reinforcing existing patterns of global linguistic hierarchy. At the same time, large-scale collection of minority-language materials for AI training may generate concerns regarding community consent, cultural appropriation, copyright, sacred knowledge, and exploitation of linguistic resources. The article therefore proposes a framework of linguistic justice for generative AI based on meaningful accessibility, dataset transparency, community participation, culturally appropriate data governance, support for low-resource language development, and special safeguards for restricted cultural knowledge. Rather than requiring identical technological performance across all languages, the framework imposes differentiated obligations according to the social importance and risk profile of the AI application concerned. The study demonstrates that linguistic diversity should not be treated merely as a question of technological localization or market expansion. It is increasingly a legal issue concerning equality, cultural participation, and access to the institutional infrastructures of contemporary society. Protecting linguistic pluralism should consequently become an integral component of global AI governance.

Contemporary Issues in Law, Culture, and Globalization

About the Journal

Current Issue

Articles

Governing Cultural Bias in Artificial Intelligence: Legal Accountability for Algorithmic Decision-Making in a Globalized Digital Society

Digital Platforms as Transnational Regulators of Culture: Freedom of Expression, Content Moderation, and the Privatization of Global Norm-Making

Cultural Heritage in the Global Marketplace: Rethinking Intellectual Property Protection for Traditional Cultural Expressions

Migration, Family Law, and Cultural Pluralism: Reconciling Transnational Family Practices with Human Rights Standards

Globalization, Cultural Identity, and the Right to Privacy: Regulating Cross-Border Biometric Surveillance

Climate Displacement and Cultural Survival: Toward Legal Recognition of Collective Cultural Rights in International Migration Governance

The Globalization of Cancel Culture: Legal Boundaries Between Social Accountability, Reputation, and Freedom of Expression

Cultural Globalization and the Legal Protection of Linguistic Diversity in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Language

Issues

Time from submission to

Indexing & Abstracting

Make a Submission

Editorial Board

Journal Statistics

Keywords

Governing Cultural Bias in Artificial Intelligence: Legal Accountability for Algorithmic Decision-Making in a Globalized Digital Society

Digital Platforms as Transnational Regulators of Culture: Freedom of Expression, Content Moderation, and the Privatization of Global Norm-Making

Cultural Heritage in the Global Marketplace: Rethinking Intellectual Property Protection for Traditional Cultural Expressions

Migration, Family Law, and Cultural Pluralism: Reconciling Transnational Family Practices with Human Rights Standards

Globalization, Cultural Identity, and the Right to Privacy: Regulating Cross-Border Biometric Surveillance

Climate Displacement and Cultural Survival: Toward Legal Recognition of Collective Cultural Rights in International Migration Governance

The Globalization of Cancel Culture: Legal Boundaries Between Social Accountability, Reputation, and Freedom of Expression

Cultural Globalization and the Legal Protection of Linguistic Diversity in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence