Technology changes laws because new gadgets create new problems. For example, phones and the internet make privacy issues and cybercrime more common, so laws need to catch up. Technology also helps the law work better: police can use cameras and databases to find people. But often the law is slower than tech, so there is a gap.

Technology affects the law in two big ways: it creates new kinds of behaviour that need regulation, and it provides tools for enforcing rules. Think about smartphones, social media and AI — they raise questions about privacy, misinformation and algorithmic bias that existing statutes didn't foresee. At the same time, courts and police now use digital evidence, bodycams and data analytics, which changes how cases are proved and investigated. That combination makes the legal system more technically complex, and it calls for adaptable, principle-based regulation rather than rigid, device-specific rules.

Schools in China usually have strict rules. Students often wear uniforms, must be on time, and generally are expected to respect teachers. Many schools limit the use of mobile phones during lessons. There are also rules about homework and exams, and sometimes rules about hairstyles or dress.

Chinese schools typically operate with a fairly structured set of rules: uniforms and punctuality are emphasised, mobile phones are often banned in lessons, and academic discipline is taken seriously, especially around exam periods. There are also codes on behaviour, hygiene and sometimes appearance, because schools see these as important for collective order and focus. At the same time, many schools encourage extra-curricular activities and moral education, so rules can also cover teamwork and community service.

I don't think there will be a law that everyone likes. Different countries have different values and priorities, so what is acceptable in one place may be rejected in another. Even international agreements often have exceptions.

A universally accepted law is unlikely because legal norms reflect cultural values, economic realities and political systems, which vary widely. Even on issues with near-global concern, like climate change, countries negotiate compromises rather than identical rules, and enforcement differs. We do see soft consensus in international treaties and human-rights instruments, but turning those into a single, universally accepted domestic law would be extremely difficult.

In my country we have several environmental laws. There are rules to control air and water pollution, laws about waste disposal and protected areas for wildlife. There are also limits on emissions for factories and cars. These laws aim to reduce pollution and protect nature.

My country already has a range of environmental laws: statutory limits on air and water pollution, waste-management regulations, protected-area designations for important habitats, and vehicle emissions standards. There are also planning rules that require environmental impact assessments for big projects, and incentives for renewable energy. Enforcement can be patchy, but these laws provide a framework that has helped improve air quality in towns and increase the amount of land under formal protection.