Nigeria is facing significant security challenges arising from terrorism, particularly from groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (IWAP). In response, Nigerian government has adopted various counterterrorism strategies, such as military operations, emergency security regulations and intelligence gathering. While these measures intend to protect national security and maintain public order, they equally raise concerns in respect of violations of fundamental human rights. The aim of this paper is to examine the relationship between counterterrorism measures and human rights in Nigeria, with particular reference to the implementation of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. The paper argues that although combating terrorism is a legitimate state objective, counterterrorism strategies must comply with human rights obligations under domestic and international law. the paper uses doctrinal and analytical methodology, relying on primary and secondary sources of information. The paper finds that despite the existence of legal safeguards, some of the counterterrorism strategies adopted by Nigerian government undermine the rule of law and due process. The paper concludes that although counterterrorism remains important component of Nigeria’s national security, efforts to combat terrorism ought not to undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). It recommends reforms aimed at ensuring that counterterrorism operations are conducted in strict compliance with national and international human rights obligations.

ABSTRACT This article examines how Blackness operates as a structural negation in Management and Organization Studies (MOS), rendering Africans invisible and unintelligible within its theoretical frameworks. Drawing on Afropessimist theory and empirical work done in Kenya, we argue that the invisibility is not accidental but inherent to MOS as a field. Through an analysis of both theoretical literature and the authors’ encounters in Mwingi, Kenya, we explore how Anti-Blackness manifests as what we term ‘negated being’ – a condition wherein Africans cannot be recognized as legitimate objects of study. We employ the typographic convention Black and/or being to denote crucial existential negation. While the applicability of Afropessimism remains contested, it reveals how MOS reproduces negative ideation through seemingly neutral academic practices. Our collaboration – between a Black Kenyan development coordinator and a white European evaluator – illustrates how these structural relations persist despite intentions toward participatory accountability. The article contributes to critical discussions of race in organization studies by revealing how Anti-Blackness operates through onto-epistemological erasure that blocks change.

Abstract In its 2021 Model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement , Canada has sought to preserve regulatory flexibility by using terms like “legitimate policy objectives,” “legitimate public policy objectives,” and “legitimate public welfare objectives.” How can this threefold distinction of “legitimate objectives” impact the interpretation of international investment obligations? Through an analysis of the content of international investment agreements and awards from tribunals that have expressly referred to these terms, this article argues that various forms of “legitimate objectives” do not encapsulate distinct legally significant terms and could lead to unintended consequences.

The Mandatory green building certification has emerged as a central policy tool to advance sustainable development and reduce the environmental impacts of the construction sector, yet in Indonesia, it operates within a hybrid regulatory framework that combines statutory rules with non-state technical standards. This study examines whether such mandatory certification is legally sound, economically rational, and proportionate in relation to the burdens it imposes on regulated actors. Using a juridical–economic approach, the research integrates doctrinal legal analysis with public policy economics by examining national statutes, ministerial and regional regulations, and private certification standards, alongside academic literature and international policy reports. The analysis is conducted qualitatively through legal interpretation, cost–benefit reasoning, and a proportionality test based on the criteria of legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and proportionality stricto sensu. The findings show that mandatory green building certification clearly pursues a legitimate public objective, environmental protection and sustainable development, but its implementation raises concerns about legal certainty and distributive justice. Reliance on non-state standards without explicit statutory delegation creates normative ambiguity, while significant upfront compliance costs for design, technology, and certification disproportionately affect small and medium-sized enterprises. As a result, the policy satisfies the requirement of a legitimate aim but does not fully meet the elements of necessity and proportionality in the strict sense, since it is not always the least restrictive or most balanced means of achieving environmental goals. The study’s novelty lies in its integrated legal–economic assessment of green building certification through the principle of proportionality, offering a holistic framework that evaluates environmental regulation not only as a matter of legal validity but also as an instrument of economic rationality and fair burden-sharing in public policy.

Objectives: This paper aims to examine the price and welfare effects of traditional non-tariff measures (NTMs) and emerging digital trade regulations in Morocco and the wider MENA region. It places particular emphasis on their implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Theoretical Framework: The study is grounded in international trade theory concerning non-tariff barriers and welfare analysis. It builds on the concept that regulatory measures—such as Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs), Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures, and digital regulations—can generate price distortions that affect consumer welfare. The framework extends traditional price-gap models by incorporating digital regulatory barriers related to data privacy and network security, reflecting the evolving nature of trade policy in the digital economy. Method: Using HS6-level panel data from 2000 to 2019, the study estimates ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) for TBTs, SPS measures, and selected digital trade regulations. The analysis combines CEPII trade data with customs and NTM statistics from WITS. In a second stage, the paper focuses on Morocco and evaluates welfare impacts by linking TBT-induced price increases to household consumption data from the ENCDM 2013–2014 survey. Simulation techniques are employed to assess changes in the cost of living across income quintiles. Results and Discussion: The results indicate that TBTs are the most significant contributors to price increases across product categories, with maximum effects of 294% for footwear, 212% for clothing, and 161% for meat and poultry. Welfare simulations show that easing TBTs could reduce the cost of living for the poorest income quintile by up to 37.6%. These findings highlight the disproportionate burden of regulatory-induced price increases on low-income households. Research Implications: The study provides important policy insights for trade and regulatory reform in Morocco and the MENA region. It suggests that simplifying technical and digital regulations—while preserving their legitimate policy objectives—can substantially enhance consumer welfare, improve trade competitiveness, and reduce poverty. The results support the integration of regulatory reform into broader strategies for inclusive and sustainable economic development. Originality/Value: This paper contributes to the literature by jointly analyzing traditional NTMs and emerging digital trade regulations within a unified empirical framework. By extending the price-gap approach to account for digital regulatory barriers and linking trade costs to household-level welfare outcomes, the study offers novel evidence on how regulatory policies shape inclusive growth and sustainability in an increasingly digitalized trade environment.

The concept of the «soul» originates in ancient philosophy and mythology, yet retains indirect relevance in contemporary scientific discourse. Although modern science often treats it as an epiphenomenon or conceptual atavism, the soul remains foundational for key psychological constructs and is linguistically embedded in disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry, and neuropsychology. This duality reflects a broader disciplinary divergence: while philosophy continues to engage with the soul as a legitimate object of inquiry, psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience explicitly exclude it from their conceptual frameworks. However, emerging trends in post non classical science and neo classical philosophy suggest a reconsideration of ancient insights in light of new empirical data. Advances in cognitive science and neuroscience have reignited interest in the relationship between brain processes and subjective experience. This has prompted a gradual shift away from the classical Cartesian understanding of the psyche toward novel conceptualizations grounded in: • behavioral neurobiology; • cognitive neuroscience; • integrative neurobiological approaches. These developments are increasingly engaging with pre scientific conceptions of the soul, reevaluating them through the lens of contemporary brain research. The present article traces the evolution of the soul concept across historical and disciplinary boundaries — from mythological origins and ancient philosophical systems to modern cognitive and neuroscientific paradigms. It demonstrates how contemporary neuroscience is fostering a renewed, evidence based dialogue with age old questions about the nature of subjective experience and consciousness, particularly through advances in human brain research.

This paper examines the European Central Bank's evolving interpretation and application of the principle of proportionality regarding national legislation limiting cash payments within the EU. Through a comprehensive analysis of ECB opinions issued over the past decade, the study traces how the ECB's assessment framework has developed from general considerations of compatibility with legal tender status to a more nuanced evaluation encompassing the appropriateness, necessity, and proportionality stricto sensu of proposed measures. It contributes to the understanding of how the principle of proportionality operates as a crucial legal standard in balancing legitimate public policy objectives with the preservation of cash as legal tender in the European monetary system in the view of ECB.

The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) remains one of the most contested legislative instruments within India’s constitutional framework. Enacted as an exceptional measure to address internal security challenges in conflict-affected regions, the Act confers extensive operational powers upon the armed forces in areas notified as “disturbed.” While its stated purpose is the maintenance of public order and territorial integrity, the prolonged enforcement of AFSPA has generated sustained concern regarding its implications for constitutional rights, accountability, and democratic governance. This paper examines AFSPA from a legal and constitutional perspective by analysing its legislative evolution, statutory framework, and judicial interpretation. It engages with key judicial pronouncements, including Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India and Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association v. Union of India, as well as the findings of expert committees that have reviewed the Act’s operation. The study contends that although national security constitutes a legitimate state objective, the continued operation of AFSPA without effective safeguards risks undermining fundamental rights and the rule of law. It concludes by advocating context-specific reforms aimed at reconciling security imperatives with constitutional accountability and human rights protection.

This study examines Indonesia’s halal certification as both a legal instrument and an economic policy with direct implications for international trade. Using a normative juridical approach combined with qualitative economic analysis, it explores Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance (UUJPH) and its application to meat import policies, particularly in the aftermath of WTO disputes DS477/478. Halal certification is framed as a fundamental necessity for Indonesia’s Muslim majority and as a legitimate objective under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, which protects public morals. The findings highlight two strategic dimensions of the policy: first, consumer protection and the enforcement of maqāṣid al-sharīʿah through traceable ingredients and production processes; second, its role as an economic tool to enhance product competitiveness, expand international market access, and strengthen Indonesia’s position within the global halal supply chain. However, significant challenges persist. Domestically, limited legal literacy, certification costs, and the constrained capacity of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) hinder certification uptake. Internationally, mandatory halal certification is sometimes perceived as an additional technical barrier to trade, sparking trade disputes. Analysis of GATT 1994 Articles III and XI and TBT Agreement Articles 2.2 and 2.4 underscores the need for Indonesia’s policy to avoid unjustifiable discrimination and unnecessary trade restrictions. The study concludes that harmonizing the protection of public morals with multilateral trade commitments is essential. Policy recommendations include revising the UUJPH to align with international standards, strengthening the Halal Product Assurance Agency’s capacity, providing incentives and support for MSMEs, and expanding mutual recognition agreements with key trading partners. With evidence-based, transparent, and inclusive policies, Indonesia can reinforce its role as a global halal industry hub while safeguarding its trade reputation and balancing religious values with international trade obligations.

Attendance bonus systems present a complex challenge in contemporary employment law, balancing legitimate business interests in workforce reliability against fundamental anti-discrimination principles. This article examines the evolving legal landscape through comparative analysis of two European jurisdictions representing distinct enforcement approaches: the Czech Republic, where administrative authorities identify discriminatory practices despite the absence of binding judicial precedent; and Slovenia, where landmark Supreme Court and Administrative Court decisions have established clear precedents distinguishing business performance bonuses from individual performance bonuses and prohibiting attendance-based reductions to collective rewards. The analysis, grounded in CJEU principles from HK Danmark and the recent Pauni judgment, reveals that both jurisdictions recognise that blanket attendance bonus policies without appropriate accommodations constitute unlawful indirect discrimination, particularly affecting disabled employees, pregnant women, and parents. Furthermore, emerging research demonstrates that attendance bonus systems often encourage dysfunctional presenteeism, undermining the productivity objectives such policies seek to achieve. The article argues that while operational efficiency represents a legitimate business objective, courts and regulatory authorities increasingly require employers to demonstrate that attendance-based reward systems are proportionate, necessary, and cannot be achieved through less discriminatory means.

Against the backdrop of the rapid development of the global digital economy, the free cross-border flow of data has become the core issue of digital trade rules. However, unrestricted data flows may endanger national public interests. The Digital Economy Partnership Agreement establishes a “legitimate public policy objective” exception clause, which allows contracting parties to adopt restrictive measures under necessary circumstances, but requires that such measures shall not constitute “arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade” or excessive “restrictions”. This provision has sparked controversy in practice, highlighting the urgent need to construct a scientific interpretive framework. This article introduces the principle of proportionality and analyzes the rationality of interpreting exceptions clauses through proportionality from both formal and substantive perspectives, and focuses on the sub-principles of proportionality—“suitability”, “necessity”, and “balancing”, to examine how restrictions on data flows may be reconciled with public policy objectives under the premise of non-discrimination and minimum impairment, as well as how to weigh the benefits and costs of restrictive measures in achieving policy goals, with the aim of optimizing China’s data governance system and facilitating effective alignment with rule frameworks.

This article examines the interplay between economic sanctions and the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard under international investment agreements (IIAs). Sanctions, whether unilateral or multilateral, can disrupt the stability and predictability expected by foreign investors, raising claims of FET breaches. Key issues include violations of due process, frustration of legitimate expectations, and discriminatory treatment. The article explores how sanctions, such as Russia’s countersanctions or secondary sanctions impacting third-party investors, may interfere with investors’ rights. It also highlights notable cases, including Fridman v. Luxembourg, Kadi v. EU, Dayyani v. South Korea, and Stabil LLC v. Russia, which illustrate the challenges sanctions pose to procedural fairness and investment protections. Additionally, the article evaluates state defences such as nonprecluded measures (NPM), countermeasures, and force majeure, and their applicability in sanctions-related disputes. As sanctions regimes evolve, the article underscores the need for arbitral tribunals to balance investor protections with state sovereignty and legitimate policy objectives.

Malaysia’s adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) necessitates the use of biopesticides, specifically Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), alongside chemical pesticides to combat bagworms in oil palm plantations. However, there are fragmented policy and legal frameworks governing the use of Bt within IPM, which incurs higher costs than traditional chemical pesticides. In light of the fiscal constraints faced by the Malaysian Government, this article explores both public and private funding models in this context and examines the policy and legal implications of these models, particularly in balancing accountability, financial sustainability, and related socio-economic considerations. This article employs a doctrinal/black letter approach to analyse Malaysia’s policy and legal documents concerning the palm oil industry, plant protection, pesticide regulations, and public funding. It finds a necessity for Public-Private Partnerships (PPP), but notes that the current scope of PPP policy, law, and practice in Malaysia is limited to project contracts rather than service and goods contracts. The most recent PPP policy document suggests a broader framework for PPP implementation in Malaysia. In response, national farmers’ organisations could play an active role alongside other relevant stakeholders in the oil palm bagworm sector to ensure that PPP implementation aligns with the legitimate objectives of funding initiatives for biopesticide use.

The integration of artificial intelligence technologies into network intelligence systems presents unprecedented opportunities for operational enhancement while simultaneously introducing significant ethical challenges that require comprehensive governance frameworks. Modern organizations face increasing pressure to balance technological innovation with responsible deployment practices as AI-driven network surveillance capabilities become increasingly sophisticated and autonomous. This paper examines critical issues in responsible AI implementation, including bias mitigation measures essential for ensuring equitable treatment across diverse network segments and user populations. Network data contains historical patterns that may perpetuate discriminatory decisions when processed by machine learning algorithms without adequate safeguards. Transparency mechanisms constitute fundamental requirements for establishing stakeholder trust and enabling effective human oversight of automated decision-making processes within complex network environments. Explainable AI methodologies become crucial for empowering network administrators to understand algorithmic rationales behind security alerts, configuration recommendations, and traffic prioritization decisions. Privacy protection represents another critical challenge, requiring technical, procedural, and governance controls that preserve individual privacy while supporting legitimate security objectives. Privacy-preserving technologies such as differential privacy, homomorphic encryption, and federated learning offer significant potential for enabling robust monitoring without exposing sensitive user information. Comprehensive governance structures are essential to address end-to-end lifecycle management from initial development to final system decommissioning, incorporating risk assessment protocols, stakeholder engagement mechanisms, and continuous monitoring systems that track ethical performance alongside technical metrics.

Background The relationship between military necessity and the protection of cultural heritage under international humanitarian law has been and continues to be governed by a constant tension that has shaped both doctrine and practice. While the principle of military necessity, rooted in and derived from the 1863 Lieber Code and codified in later instruments such as the 1907 Hague Conventions, remains one of the most fundamental principles permitting the adoption of measures necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives, it has also been used to justify the destruction of cultural property. Conversely, cultural heritage, deserving special protection under instruments such as the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols, represents the collective memory and identity of societies. Methods To evaluate the role of military necessity in the prosecution of crimes against cultural heritage, this paper uses a critical doctrinal and analytical approach, looking at both treaty law and international jurisprudence. It asks whether military necessity is a valid practical safeguard or a legal pretext for destruction. Results The paper contends that the incorporation of “imperative military necessity” has engendered critical legal loopholes resulting from warring parties’ exploitation of the prioritization of military interests over the preservation of cultural heritage, rendering cultural heritage vulnerable in armed conflicts. International tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have endeavoured to restrict these justifications by criminalizing deliberate attacks and applying standards of necessity and proportionality. Conclusions The paper concludes that, despite treaties and jurisprudence limiting the scope of military necessity, the ongoing recognition of the necessity exception reveals structural weaknesses in international humanitarian law, thereby rendering cultural heritage vulnerable in armed conflict. Accordingly, it advocates for the strict limitation of the ‘imperative military necessity’ exception to provide better protection for cultural heritage during armed conflict.

BackgroundThe relationship between military necessity and the protection of cultural heritage under international humanitarian law has been and continues to be governed by a constant tension that has shaped both doctrine and practice. While the principle of military necessity, rooted in and derived from the 1863 Lieber Code and codified in later instruments such as the 1907 Hague Conventions, remains one of the most fundamental principles permitting the adoption of measures necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives, it has also been used to justify the destruction of cultural property. Conversely, cultural heritage, deserving special protection under instruments such as the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols, represents the collective memory and identity of societies.MethodsTo evaluate the role of military necessity in the prosecution of crimes against cultural heritage, this paper uses a critical doctrinal and analytical approach, looking at both treaty law and international jurisprudence. It asks whether military necessity is a valid practical safeguard or a legal pretext for destruction.ResultsThe paper contends that the incorporation of “imperative military necessity” has engendered critical legal loopholes resulting from warring parties’ exploitation of the prioritization of military interests over the preservation of cultural heritage, rendering cultural heritage vulnerable in armed conflicts. International tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have endeavoured to restrict these justifications by criminalizing deliberate attacks and applying standards of necessity and proportionality.ConclusionsThe paper concludes that, despite treaties and jurisprudence limiting the scope of military necessity, the ongoing recognition of the necessity exception reveals structural weaknesses in international humanitarian law, thereby rendering cultural heritage vulnerable in armed conflict. Accordingly, it advocates for the strict limitation of the ‘imperative military necessity’ exception to provide better protection for cultural heritage during armed conflict.

Background The relationship between military necessity and the protection of cultural heritage under international humanitarian law has been and continues to be governed by a constant tension that has shaped both doctrine and practice. While the principle of military necessity, rooted in and derived from the 1863 Lieber Code and codified in later instruments such as the 1907 Hague Conventions, remains one of the most fundamental principles permitting the adoption of measures necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives, it has also been used to justify the destruction of cultural property. Conversely, cultural heritage, deserving special protection under instruments such as the 1954 Hague Convention and its Protocols, represents the collective memory and identity of societies. Methods To evaluate the role of military necessity in the prosecution of crimes against cultural heritage, this paper uses a critical doctrinal and analytical approach, looking at both treaty law and international jurisprudence. It asks whether military necessity is a valid practical safeguard or a legal pretext for destruction. Results The paper contends that the incorporation of “imperative military necessity” has engendered critical legal loopholes resulting from warring parties’ exploitation of the prioritization of military interests over the preservation of cultural heritage, rendering cultural heritage vulnerable in armed conflicts. International tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have endeavoured to restrict these justifications by criminalizing deliberate attacks and applying standards of necessity and proportionality. Conclusions The paper concludes that, despite treaties and jurisprudence limiting the scope of military necessity, the ongoing recognition of the necessity exception reveals structural weaknesses in international humanitarian law, thereby rendering cultural heritage vulnerable in armed conflict. Accordingly, it advocates for the strict limitation of the ‘imperative military necessity’ exception to provide better protection for cultural heritage during armed conflict.

This article examines digital services taxes (DSTs) from an international trade law and policy perspective, challenging prevailing narratives about their protectionist nature and offering alternative frameworks for their evaluation. The analysis begins by establishing that tariffs and discriminatory taxes on cross-border trade in goods and services remain permissible absent specific trade commitments, with many governments actively using these tools to advance a variety of policies. The article demonstrates that DSTs can serve legitimate policy objectives, and contrary to critics’ assertions, neither platform market characteristics nor implementation contexts support claims of protectionist intent. While acknowledging that digital platform markets often exhibit monopolistic tendencies, the article argues that DSTs’ structural features and inherent information asymmetries typically preclude their effective use as rent-snatching or profit-shifting instruments. Drawing on terms-of-trade theory, the analysis reveals why most nations would likely not benefit from a multilateral prohibition of DSTs, and how DSTs applied to digital platforms may enhance national welfare. The article proposes that, similar to the development of international rules relating to tariffs, rules will naturally evolve to coordinate DSTs, which may also reduce the risk of excessive taxation. Finally, the analysis introduces a novel perspective by examining DSTs through the lens of subsidy regulation, offering an alternative theoretical foundation for their implementation. This comprehensive analysis contributes to the scholarly discourse by providing a nuanced understanding of DSTs within the broader context of international trade and international tax regimes.

The article examines the legal principles governing the participation of foreigners in the agricultural land market within the context of Ukraine’s European integration course. It explores the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which enshrines the principle of free movement of capital as it directly relates to land sale and purchase transactions. It has been established that EU member states may impose certain restrictions on foreign land ownership only if they pursue a legitimate objective—such as ensuring food security, preventing speculation, preserving land use designation, and supporting local farmers—and if such restrictions comply with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. A comparative analysis of the regulation of foreign participation in land markets across EU countries has identified three main models: the liberal model (Netherlands, Belgium), characterized by an open market for all EU residents; the balanced model (Lithuania, Czech Republic, Croatia), which combines openness with professional or environmental requirements; and the protectionist model (Poland, Hungary), focused on safeguarding national farmers and preventing excessive land concentration. The study describes existing EU regulatory mechanisms, including qualification requirements for buyers, land area limits, pre-emptive purchase rights, the reciprocity principle, and the obligation to cultivate land. The article summarizes key aspects of implementing European experience in the third stage of Ukraine’s land reform, such as the gradual opening of the market to foreigners, transitional periods, qualification and professional standards for buyers, control over land concentration, state price monitoring, improvement of lease regulations, and cadastral transparency. It substantiates that adopting these instruments will harmonize Ukrainian land legislation with EU law, protect national interests, and create the foundation for a fair, transparent, and competitive land market in Ukraine. Keywords: land reform, foreign investors, property rights, European Union, land turnover, legal regulation, European integration.

Although generating increasing debate in the media and in society, meaningful work has only recently become a legitimate research object in labour economics. The authors theoretically ground the concept of meaningful work by drawing on the theory of the psychodynamics of work. This leads to three dimensions of the meaning of work: social usefulness, ethical coherence and development capacity. Then, they propose an empirical measure of this concept using the French Working Conditions surveys. Exploiting the surveys’ longitudinal nature (2013–2016), they assess how workers react to meaningless work (exit or voice). Using instrumental variable techniques to alleviate endogeneity biases that may affect estimations, they conclude that meaningless work favours job quits and, to a lesser degree, unionization.