In response to Serbia’s request, the United Nations General Assembly sought an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of Kosovo’s 2008 unilateral declaration of independence. Employing a conceptual framework grounded in judicial activism and restraint, this analysis critically examines the Court’s inconsistent exercise of its discretionary powers, applied in stretching and retracting both the scope of the question posed, as well as its own judicial propriety. The Court’s selective engagement with these legal questions reveals an underlying judicial strategy: one that avoids unresolved ambiguities, reflects implicit views on statehood, and navigates the uneasy space international law occupies between norm entrepreneurship and the Court’s commitment to apolitical neutrality and political restraint. Tracing the Court’s reasoning through this lens offers insight into the multifaceted drivers of its interpretive approach to politically sensitive issues, and ultimately, to the evolution of international law.

The increasing accessibility of the internet through various digital devices has significantly changed children’s online experiences. While internet access offers children opportunities for learning and social interaction, it also exposes them to potentially harmful content. In response, many parents impose access restrictions. This paper examines how such parental restrictions impact the personality rights of children from a comparative legal perspective, focusing on Turkish and German law. The study discusses the legal balance between parental authority and the rights of children to digital participation, privacy, and development. It argues that the German legal approach may serve as a model for Turkish regulatory efforts. By bridging child protection, internet freedom, and digital media regulation, the paper offers recommendations for legal frameworks that prioritize the best interests of the child.

The increasing complexity of service delivery and infrastructure development is making it difficult for governments to meet these growing demands independently. In Saudi Arabia, public–private partnerships (PPPs) have emerged as a vital mechanism to address this gap. This study explores the legal aspects of arbitration in PPP and privatization contracts, examining the inclusion of arbitration clauses under the Saudi Private Sector Participation Law and associated regulations. The study delves into the necessary legal conditions for valid arbitration agreements, the implementation procedures, and the consequences of noncompliance, addressing the role of arbitration as a preferred method for dispute resolution. It offers a comparative analysis of international norms and legal frameworks, assessing the unique constraints on arbitration in Saudi privatization contracts. Addressing the scarcity of literature on this topic in Saudi Arabia, this study provides critical insights and recommendations to strengthen the legal framework for arbitration in PPP and privatization contracts.

The article examines the sexual offences enumerated in title 17 of the early Byzantine legal code Ecloga (726 or 741). While several offences, such as adultery, rape, abduction, incest, and homosexual intercourse, were already addressed in the codification of Justinian and in the Novels, the Ecloga introduced additional crimes, including fornication, incest involving spiritual kins, and bestiality. These innovations are attributed to the incorporation of Old Testament precepts and the conclusions of the Synod of Trullo, reflecting Christian ideals of sexual abstinence outside marriage and the elimination of sexual pollution. Although the Ecloga generally aimed to provide fair treatment for offenders of both sexes and all socio-economic classes, its legal framework largely aligns with post-classical Roman law. A notable reform was the replacement of capital punishment with mutilating corporal penalties, demonstrating a vision of justice that emphasized prevention and rehabilitation over extermination of the offender.

The authors examine the ethical foundations of humanity’s responsibilities toward nonhuman animals, emphasizing the intuition that special duties arise toward beings unable to protect or provide for themselves. Contemporary variants of traditional theories, such as utilitarianism and deontology, have made notable progress in extending moral concern to animals by recognizing their sentience, interests, and inherent worth. The authors argue that such theories still fall short of fully capturing the relational and context-sensitive obligations humans feel toward vulnerable beings: utilitarianism reduces moral claims to aggregate calculations that risk justifying exploitation, while deontological and rights-based approaches often frame duties in abstract or hierarchical terms. The authors contend that care ethics provides a stronger foundation, by foregrounding dependence and empathetic responsibility. By integrating rational reflection with moral emotions and imagination, care ethics better aligns with human moral sentiments and offers a framework of guardianship that extends duties of care beyond merely proximate relationships.

The emergence of autonomous weapon systems (AWS) has raised a number of concerns. In addition to issues related to the capability of these weapons to conform to the principles of international humanitarian law, primarily the principles of distinction and proportionality, concerns have also emerged regarding their compliance with human rights law. In this context, respect for human dignity has been cited as one of the major arguments against the use of AWS. The paper examines arguments for and against using the concept of human dignity as a rationale for prohibiting AWS. It demonstrates that those who oppose completely banning AWS do not necessarily believe that AWS conform to human dignity; rather, they offer different reasons why solutions other than total prohibition may be more appropriate. Finally, the paper explores whether implementing “meaningful human control” could bridge the gap between opposing standpoints on AWS and help resolve the human dignity dilemma.

The EU Member States have accepted the principle of supremacy of EU law over national legislation – but not over national constitutions. The discussion in this paper reveals that: (1) the use of constitutional identity to control the penetration of EU law into national legal systems serves to preserve the importance of the national constitution and/or strengthen/expand the jurisdiction of the national constitutional judiciary; (2) relying on constitutional identity for these purposes has not threatened the constitutional pluralism on which the relationship between the legal orders of the EU and the Member States rests; (3) the abuse of constitutional identity by the constitutional courts of Poland and Hungary, aiming to support the resistance of populist regimes to European integrations, has broken the link between constitutionalism and constitutional identity, and as such, has managed to threaten the further functioning of constitutional pluralism within the EU.

This article examines the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) approach to the exhaustion of extraordinary legal remedies and constitutional complaints in civil cases against Serbia. It explores when an applicant, alleging a human rights violation based on facts considered in civil proceedings, must exhaust such remedies to satisfy admissibility requirements. While it is generally accepted that an ordinary appeal must be used, the obligation to pursue extraordinary legal remedies – such as requests for revision or reopening of proceedings – and the constitutional complaint is less clear. The article highlights that the necessity of exhausting these remedies depends on the specific circumstances of each case and whether the remedy is considered effective. Through an analysis of ECtHR case law, the authors seek to clarify the conditions under which the Court expects applicants to exhaust these legal avenues before filing an application, aiming to identify consistent patterns in the Court’s admissibility decisions.

In this paper, the author examines the extent to which the actual gender ratio in the Serbian judiciary is a consequence of deep-rooted stereotypes about the roles that women and men should play in the family and society. This dilemma is considered through multiple perspectives, including by analysing statistical data on gender distribution and the parity of men and women in leadership positions. Finally, the author compares gender structure in the Serbian judiciary with corresponding data from a representative sample of European judicial systems. Taking into account that in a number of countries the proportion of women in the Supreme Court is significantly higher (feminisation of the judiciary), while in others this percentage is lower (‘masculinisation’ of the judiciary), the author aims to determine the position of the Serbia in this context, highlighting that the Serbian judiciary is well ahead in terms of ‘feminisation’ compared to EU member states.

The Livre au roi is the oldest of all the treatises that make up the Assizes of Jerusalem. The enactment of this codification was associated with the reign of King Amalric of Lusignan. The subject of research in this paper is an attempt to determine the moment of its adoption more precisely. Firstly, the legal features of the Livre au roi are pointed out. Then, it is indicated to the conflict between King Amalric and Ralph of Tiberias, which had a decisive influence on the enactment and on the content of this codification. Finally, the moment of the Livre au roi’s enactment is sharpened by pointing the peace treaties which King Amalric concluded with Sultan Al-Malik Al-Adil and the provisions of the codification which regulated the regency. The Livre au roi could have been enacted in 1200, 1204, or it was created in both of the mentioned years.