The genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stems from concerns over the escalation of violence in Gaza following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which allegedly involved serious violations of the Genocide Convention as a jus cogens norm. This study aims to analyze the legal and political significance of the lawsuit, including its implications for Israel's international responsibility and the global response to its military operations. The methods used include a descriptive legal approach to describe the application of international legal norms in practice, as well as a normative approach to assess the legal obligations that should be complied with under the Genocide Convention. The two approaches are combined through case study analysis and comparison with the practices of other countries. The results of the study show that Israel's actions potentially fulfill the elements of genocide and that the ICJ's Provisional Measures have had a major political impact, as evidenced by Israel's increasing international isolation and the suspension of military aid by a number of countries. In conclusion, this case is not only important in upholding international law, but also plays a strategic role in encouraging Israel's compliance with humanitarian law and strengthening global accountability mechanisms.

This article advances the thesis that algorithmic subordination should operate as a legally cognisable indicator of employment status within European labour law. Building upon the Court of Justice’s autonomous concept of the “worker” and the Union legislature’s recent intervention in Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work (OJ L 2024/2831, hereinafter referred to as: “the Directive”), the argument proceeds in three steps. First, it reconstructs subordination as a functional criterion that can be revealed through digital control measures, in particular the allocation of tasks, monitoring, price setting, evaluation and deactivation effected by algorithms. Secondly, it examines how this control reconfigures both sides of the personal work relation, by sharpening tests for employee status and by pressing toward a re‑specification of the employer concept, including scenarios of joint or indirect employer responsibility. Thirdly, it draws on Member State practice, notably Spain and Italy, to show how rebuttable presumptions, transparency obligations and data‑protection enforcement can be linedup to evidence and to constrain algorithmic power in the workplace. The article concludes that algorithmic subordination, when bounded by appropriate procedural and substantive safeguards, warrants recognition as a criterion for classifying work performed in atypical arrangements as employment. It recommends legislative and judicial techniques to ensure the effective implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/2831, while preserving the distinction between genuine self‑employment and employment.

The elaboration is dedicated to current developments of European Union labour law on protection against pay discrimination based on gender. The contribution introduces EU legal framework on equal treatment of men and women. Recent case‑law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the notion of pay and indirect discrimination based on gender have been extensively presented. The potential impact of the Directive 2023/970 to strengthen the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women through pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms has been analysed.

Abstract This report analyzes the EUIPO’s 2025 Copyright Conference in Alicante, marking the launch of the new Copyright Knowledge Center. Bringing together over 3,000 stakeholders, the event addressed the urgent need for a unified EU paradigm following contradictory 2025 rulings in Getty Images v. Stability AI (UK) and GEMA v. OpenAI (Germany), which underscored the growing legal fragmentation regarding Generative AI. The overview details the EUIPOs strategic evolution into a ‘home for copyright,’ focusing on practical infrastructure such as Copyright VIEW and a centralized TDM opt-out registry. Key discussions – featuring the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), European Parliament, and leading legal scholars – explored the shift toward secondary liability for AI providers, the ‘public good’ nature of creative works, and the necessity of mandatory collective licensing to prevent cultural erasure. By balancing high-level policy with vivid testimonials from creators and tech leaders, the report highlights the Knowledge Center’s role as a ‘trusted third party.’ It concludes that establishing a transparent, interoperable infrastructure is essential for maintaining European digital sovereignty and ensuring that the AI-driven future remains fundamentally grounded in human dignity and fair remuneration.

International sporting federations (IFs) occupy a unique regulatory position within the transnational legal landscape. Benefiting from a high degree of autonomy, they have historically exercised near-exclusive authority over the governance of sport, including the specific regulatory question of technology development. This autonomy has enabled IFs to frame technological innovation according to internal principles – such as fairness, safety, and the preservation of the “spirit of sport” – thus creating a specific sub-classification of the lex sportiva as well as a distinct sociotechnical ordering. However, this autonomy is increasingly challenged by external forces: market interests promoting technological visibility and sponsorship, judicial scrutiny by bodies like the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) of the Court of justice of the EU (CJEU), and the growing intersection with national and supranational regulations, notably in areas such as data protection and intellectual property. These tensions reveal that technological regulation in sport is not merely technical but profoundly normative, influencing the evolution of the lex sportiva itself. This presentation analyses how IFs construct, justify, and adapt their regulatory frameworks for technology development in sport. It aims to identify the underlying legal and ethical principles shaping these decisions and to question whether the current lex sportiva can still sustain its coherence amid accelerating technological change.

sharing the same generic legal object, on the territory of several Member States of the European Union, the question has arisen as to how these offences should be interpreted within a new criminal proceeding. The difficulty in determining the effects of prior convictions stems not only from the differing legal regulations governing offences in each Member State, but also from the category into which each state places the violations of legal provisions, namely criminal or administrative. An important role in identifying appropriate solutions to the legal issue examined in this study is played by the use of instruments concerning mutual legal assistance, without which Member States would be unable to determine whether those prior convictions handed down in another Member State would constitute offences under national law. In addition to analyzing the relevant European legislation, the paper also considers aspects addressed in recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The study aims to highlight the importance that the national court must attach to the sentencing process, ensuring that it does not give prior convictions handed down in other Member States harsher legal effects than if those convictions had been issued by the national court itself, and, at the same time, that it does not reclassify the offence underlying the conviction delivered in another Member State.

ABSTRACT This paper explores the recent public discourse on release from prison in England and Wales as a prism through which to view the wider justice system. There is much we can learn by looking at this pivotal point in someone’s justice journey as it tells us not only about individual experiences on losing and regaining one’s freedom but about fundamental values on liberty and the rule of law as well as a society’s stance on justice. This paper confronts the question of how the spaces through which release is negotiated and takes place serve to shape attitudes towards justice. We are interested here to build connections between different geographies of court, carceral spaces and theoretical dimensions of justice. This paper raises important questions about how current public perceptions of failures to enforce the rule of law and erroneously releasing prisoners prematurely are connected to longstanding implications of debates around safety. Here we want to reflect on the endurance of the concept of a fixed border between prison and the outside world by looking at the significance of release.

The foundation of European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), has played a pivotal role in regulating rapid digitalization of global commerce, bringing in the necessary model shift in digital data governance. The article explores in depth GDPR as a transnational regulatory instrument crucial in enforcing extraterritorial reach of its provisions. Further the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have through judicial activism and expansive interpretation defined corporate digital responsibility. The article highlights how transcontinental regulation, especially through the ‘Brussels Effect’, GDPR has transformed privacy into a competitive differentiator, through play in market dynamics rather than being enforced through stringent legislations. The article then moves to study the pressure of GDPR’s requirement for autonomous consumer consent and corporate dark patterns that slyly bypasses the regulatory hammer of data sovereignty. The celebrated cases against Meta and Amazon are analysed to illustrate the transition of privacy policies from symbolic disclosures to enforceable legal instruments. Furthermore, the article provides a comparative evaluation of India’s Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, highlighting the normative convergence between the ‘rights-based’ European model and India’s ‘sovereignty-driven’ framework. The cross-national development on the regulation of privacy is emerging, though structural divergences regarding state exemptions and regulatory independence remain the persistent challenges. The article suggests a ‘highest common denominator’ compliance strategy and a shift toward ‘privacy by design’ to navigate this increasingly fragmented international legal landscape.

Abstract In a ruling delivered on 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice upheld a General Court judgment annulling the classification as a suspected carcinogen of titanium dioxide in powder form containing at least 1% of particles of a diameter equal to or below 10 μm. Both EU Courts criticise the scientific assessment underlying that classification, but the Court of Justice relies on conceptual distinctions that reveal its reluctance to perform a genuine “manifest error of assessment” review. While these issues are not addressed by the Court of Justice, the case also raises thorny questions regarding the meaning of “intrinsic properties” of a substance.

This scientific article provides a comprehensive analysis of one of the most acute contradictions in modern international law — the collision between a state’s right to self-defence and a people’s right to self-determination. The research traces the evolution of the right to self-defence from the classic “Caroline” precedent (1837), which established the criteria of necessity and proportionality, through the “Nicaragua” case (1986), which introduced a strict “effective control” criterion for attributing the actions of nonstate actors to a state, up to the contemporary Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The article argues that the prolonged Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, deemed illegal in the 2024 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, creates a legal paradox: an occupying power cannot legitimately invoke self-defence (Article 51 of the UN Charter) in a territory it itself controls. Simultaneously, the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, repeatedly affirmed by UN resolutions, includes, under conditions of occupation, a right to resistance, which, however, must be exercised within the strict framework of international humanitarian law. The key conclusion of the work is that resolving this fundamental duality and achieving a sustainable peace is only possible through the termination of the occupation and the full realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, which forms the foundation for genuine security for all parties to the conflict.

Relations between human beings and non-human fauna have assumed increasing centrality in contemporary legal and political agendas, driven by the intensification of global ecological crises, the accelerated loss of biodiversity and the expansion of ethical debates concerning the protection of sentient beings. In this context, this article undertakes a comparative analysis of the normative models and public policies aimed at the protection of fauna and nature developed in South America and in the European Union, seeking to identify convergences, divergences and structural limits within these experiences. The study adopts a functional comparative law approach, combining normative, jurisprudential and institutional analysis. On the one hand, it examines the consolidation, within the European Union, of a highly institutionalised regulatory model centred on animal welfare and the legal recognition of animal sentience, structured through supranational legislation and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. On the other hand, it analyses the emergence, in South American countries, of constitutional and jurisprudential innovations incorporating ecocentric perspectives, particularly through the recognition of the rights of nature and the expansion of legal protection for fauna as an integral component of ecological systems. The findings indicate that, although the European model presents greater normative uniformity and institutional capacity for implementation, it remains constrained by a predominantly instrumental and anthropocentric logic. By contrast, South American experiences offer significant conceptual advances by extending legal protection beyond the human sphere yet face substantial challenges of practical effectiveness. It is concluded that these distinct normative trajectories may be understood as complementary in the construction of more coherent and effective public policies capable of addressing contemporary global socio-environmental challenges.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine exemplifies many of the challenges that humanity has faced throughout modern history, including religious differences, nationalism, economic inequality, colonialism and totalitarianism. The legal context of this conflict is extremely complex and encompasses issues relating to self-determination, human rights, international humanitarian law and the jurisdiction of international organizations. The International Court of Justice has issued three advisory opinions on the Palestinian issue. This article examines the most recent of these: the Opinion on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations in the occupied Palestinian territory, dated 22 October 2025. After reviewing the Court’s main conclusions, the article examines the positions of the judges who issued dissenting opinions and provides the author’s comments. In the author’s view, the Opinion differs from others in terms of its tone (the Court attempted to avoid criticizing Israel), the narrow formulation of the question (the UN General Assembly requested that the Court determine Israel’s obligations rather than the consequences of their violation) and the Court’s refusal to interpret the question more broadly. However, the main problem is that the Opinion is unlikely to be taken into account by Israel and is unlikely to help the UN General Assembly determine its own course of action. Thus, the opinion reflects the broader trend of international judicial proceedings increasingly taking on the character of lawfare.

The recent advisory opinions on climate change by the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, alongside the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Klimaseniorinnen, extend their legal implications to international tax law. These implications reach well beyond tax measures that directly impact mitigation, such as exemptions for fossil fuels. According to these pronouncements, the obligations under the Paris Agreement, the customary duty to prevent significant environmental harm and other applicable law, oblige states to undertake tax reforms within their national circumstances when necessary to ensure the fiscal adequacy of domestic climate measures. Also, the duty to cooperate requires states to better align international tax rules with climate objectives. Amending tax treaties to reflect climate objectives – such as introducing variable withholding tax rates or capital gains taxing rights based on environmental concerns – deserves consideration. Through the prism of climate legal obligations, the influence of international law – including customary international law previously considered of limited efficacy in constraining tax sovereignty – is substantially strengthened within the tax domain.

The 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Climate Change is seen as part of a coordinated effort by the Global South to hold Western countries accountable for their "historical" contributions to climate change, which are directly linked to their colonial past. Despite the apparent pressure on the court, it has been cautious in its conclusions about the responsibility of one group of states towards another, emphasizing that all states, albeit to varying degrees, contribute to global warming. Given the caution of international courts in matters of state responsibility, it seems more promising for applicants to file lawsuits against major Western companiesemitters of greenhouse gases. In this case, the real steps taken by states to reduce the rate of global warming take a backseat, and the main focus of the lawsuits is on compensation.

Contemporary doctrine and practice of international law remain subject-centred: the answer to the question of the subjects of international law still serves as an explanation of what international law is and to whom it is accessible. Another constant of the system is its state-centrism, whereby sovereign States retain a privileged position as the creators and primary appliers of law. The departure from pure statism during the beginning of the twentieth century, nevertheless did not bring about any radical change. The derivative personality theory (the so-called recognition theory), which replaced the statism, not only maintained the monopoly of the State within the international legal system but, in a certain sense, reinforced it by recognising the State as a social necessity and as the exclusive creator of any new subjects of international law (international legal persons). Despite the alternative approaches to personality, the recognition theory proved to be a convenient tool for proponents of the exclusiveness of States under international law and prevails today. Relying on the methodology of critical genealogy and on a case-study of the 1949 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, the historical and philosophical origins of the derivative personality theory are traced. The theory is shown to represent, on the one hand, a revisionist and, on the other, a reactionary and restorative approach in the broader context of the sociological renewal of law. Ultimately, in light of the critique of analytical jurisprudence and its focus on the mechanics of legal regulation, the tautological nature of personality — defined through legal rights and obligations — is demonstrated.

A Rights Revolution in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the IACtHR Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency

Both awaited and criticized, the Court of Justice's judgment in Commission v. Malta reflects a broader disquiet surrounding citizenship and its delicate task of sorting the ‘us’ and ‘them’. Amid this disquiet, the judgment delivers a seemingly straightforward message: money cannot ground the bonds of citizenship. The message however rests on shaky foundations. The Court deploys a vast array of concepts but leaves many underused or overstretched. In the haste to conclude that the Maltese investor citizenship scheme is in breach of the Treaties, the judgment ultimately misses two opportunities: first, to engage with the value of agency in the construction of citizenship; and second, to clarify how the relationship between citizenship and mobility has evolved in the penumbra of European citizenship.

The article explores the global experience of building the organizational and legal foundations for greening the economy against the backdrop of intensifying climate change and environmental degradation. It stresses that the exhaustion of the traditional fossil-fuel–based growth model necessitates the adoption of new development trajectories in which economic progress is inseparable from ecological sustainability. The green economy is defined not only as a technological transition but also as a structural transformation of institutions, policies, and business practices, where economic growth is aligned with the principles of environmental safety and social equity.The study identifies a dual set of instruments driving this transformation. Economic tools include eco-taxes, subsidies, and feed-in tariffs designed to encourage investment in renewable energy and circular production. Legal mechanisms encompass binding environmental standards, licensing procedures, and corporate liability frameworks, which ensure enforceability and accountability. In the European Union, a holistic approach is demonstrated through strategic initiatives such as the European Green Deal and “Fit for 55,” reinforced by market mechanisms like the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). These are complemented by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU, which secures uniform enforcement across member states.North America illustrates a different trajectory, combining federal legislation (Clean Air Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act), powerful regulatory agencies (EPA), and voluntary private standards (Energy Star, ISO 14000). Asia, by contrast, exemplifies state-led strategies: China through five-year plans and green finance policies, Japan via its Green Growth Strategy 2050 and circular economy laws, and South Korea through the Green New Deal, which merges ecological and digital innovation.At the global level, international legal frameworks such as the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals provide the overarching context, embedding principles like “polluter pays” and the precautionary approach into the international order. The findings indicate that greening the economy is effective only when economic incentives are firmly anchored in legal and institutional guarantees. For Ukraine, this implies not only harmonization with EU climate standards and strengthening environmental institutions but also active engagement in international mechanisms, which can unlock access to green finance and elevate competitiveness in the global transition toward climate neutrality.

This study examines the process of harmonizing criminal legislation on human trafficking within the European Union and its implications for the Romanian criminal justice system. The research aims to identify the degree of convergence between EU directives—particularly Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings—and the national provisions of the Romanian Criminal Code, while also assessing the persistent gaps that hinder full normative alignment. The objective is to analyze the extent to which the Romanian legal framework ensures compliance with European standards regarding victim protection, proportionality of sanctions, and cross-border judicial cooperation. Methodologically, the paper employs a comparative and analytical approach, integrating doctrinal analysis with an examination of relevant jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The findings highlight both progress and challenges: while Romania has largely transposed the European acquis, inconsistencies remain in the implementation of victim-centered approaches and the balance between repression and prevention. The study argues that genuine harmonization requires not only legislative compatibility but also institutional coordination, procedural guarantees, and a shared European legal culture that transcends national boundaries. These results contribute to the broader discussion on European criminal integration and the modernization of national penal systems in light of supranational human rights standards.

Abstract This article interrogates the national courts' pre‐emptive opinions expressed in the Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preliminary reference procedure from both theoretical and analytical angles. First, we theorise about the variety of factors influencing national courts' decision to supply the Court of Justice of the European Union with their views on EU law issues, categorising them into four groups: legalist , strategic , personal and institutional . In that way, we construct a sound theoretical framework for a more systemic study of the mobilisation of judicial voices in the process of European integration. Subsequently, we conduct a case study of Czechia. Utilising a new dataset of all preliminary references submitted by Czech courts (2004–2024, n = 131), we demonstrate that Czech judges openly articulate their positions more frequently than some of their colleagues from older member states. Dissimilar to existing research, our evidence also indicates that Czech supreme court judges frequently express their opinions explicitly, more so than lower level court judges, and that at some instances, such praxis is steady in time.