This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

Legislation as we know it is a recent phenomenon, and its quality has been under debate for 40 years. It is not surprising or problematic that the place and function of legislation evolve under the influence of societal changes. It is, however, important to change the mechanistic view of legislation. Instead of viewing it as an instrument of policy, we must search for structures and institutions that create room for diversity without breaking the unity of law. In our dealings with inevitable risks and damage to society, rules too often take the place of ethics or professional judgment. Rules are essential, but they should leave room to dissent from them if justified: rules as a point of departure, not rules that must be respected on pain of sanctions.

It is well known that the role of the national legislator in setting legally relevant norms is rapidly changing under the influence of increasing Europeanization, globalization and privatization. Today the national legislator is only one of the relevant norm-setters. This contribution considers the role that the Dutch legislator sees for itself in this emerging multilevel legal order. To this end, six themes of fundamental importance in a multilevel order are explored: (1) the question of when government regulation is to be preferred over private regulation; (2) the question of at which level of government (national, European, sub-national or supranational) a topic is preferably dealt with; (3) the role of the national legislator in realizing the cognoscibility and coherence of law; (4) the preferred way of implementing EU directives; (5) the question of whether the national legislator must refer to codes of conduct, certification and norms of standards bodies, and if so how; (6) the question of whether the national legislator must position its own national law on the international ‘law market.’

In this article Bart Schermer, describes the difficulties in regulating the internet. The global reach of the internet, the fact that it is for the most part owned by private actors and creates opportunities for anonymity challenge regulators. The article describes issues related to sovereignty and jurisdiction, ambiguity in legal texts and dependence on private sector actors. Possible solutions lie in global internet governance, institutional innovation and the internet’s architecture itself.

A second empirical revolution in law is in full swing: legal big data have made their entrance and will play an increasingly important role in the legal field. Legal big data, for example, increase the accessibility and transparency of files. They make it easier for legislators to find out how society views proposed legislation. Using big data, all jurisprudence can be processed very easily and judicial decisions can be predicted with a high degree of certainty. The contribution concludes with a number of legal and ethical issues and methodological challenges in relation to legal big data, such as ownership, privacy and representativeness.