Structural Legal Aid is an advocacy approach that not only focuses on individual defense but also seeks to address the structural roots of social and legal inequality. Within the sociocultural framework of West Sumatra, characterized by the Nagari system and customary communities, the Padang Legal Aid Institute adopts this approach in handling structural cases that reflect systemic injustice. This research aims to analyze the forms of Structural Legal Aid implementation by the Padang Legal Aid Institute and to identify the opportunities and challenges that affect its sustainability. Using a juridical-empirical method, this study is based on an inventory of data comprising the 2024 Annual Report of the Padang Legal Aid Institute, in-depth interviews with the Director and the Structural Legal Aid Division of the Padang Legal Aid Institute, as well as an examination of relevant legislation, legal literature, and scholarly journals. The research findings indicate that the implementation of Structural Legal Aid is carried out through an integration of litigation and non-litigation strategies that create an advocacy ecosystem bridging judicial processes and community movements. Opportunities for strengthening Structural Legal Aid arise from social capital, national advocacy networks, and the presence of paralegals at the nagari level, while the main obstacles include limited funding, the criminalization of human rights defenders, and weak policy support. This study contributes to the development of a contextual model of structural legal aid within Indonesia’s socio-legal framework and provides both conceptual and empirical insights for formulating community-based legal aid policies supported by the state

Earthquakes cause severe losses and can raise complex questions about legal responsibility. To establish liability, legal approaches must demonstrate a causal link between the hazard and the resulting losses, while accounting for the decisive role that stakeholders decisions play in shaping that link. Here we present a conceptual model that predicts when liability of stakeholders may be triggered by linking consequence severity and stakeholder preparedness with decisions, resource allocation, and governing laws. The method adapts attribution science applied to extreme climate events, which examines how actions or inactions amplify impacts, to earthquake scenarios. By quantifying these relationships, the model offers a structured way to assess responsibility for losses and damages. Evaluating the influence of actions and inactions on consequences can inform litigation strategies and prevention policies. This evaluation may require broader legal obligations and policy adjustments, ultimately strengthening disaster risk reduction and providing a foundation for clearer frameworks to address loss and damage. Legal responsibility in natural disasters such as earthquakes can be quantified by linking consequence severity and stakeholder preparedness to decisions, resources, laws, and judicial precedents, using a liability prediction model

The development of the Sharia-based financial and business industry in Indonesia has driven an increase in economic transactions using Sharia contracts. On the other hand, this dynamic has also given rise to various disputes related to breach of contract, contract enforcement, and differences in interpretation of Sharia contracts. In certain circumstances, these disputes cannot be resolved through non-litigation channels and must be pursued through litigation in the courts. Therefore, the role of advocates is crucial in formulating litigation strategies that are not only based on positive law but also consider the principles of Sharia economics. This study aims to analyze the strategies and practices of advocates in handling Sharia economic dispute litigation, specifically the advocacy practices carried out by advocates at the Karimata Law Firm. This study uses a qualitative approach with a case study design. Data were obtained through in-depth interviews with advocates experienced in handling Sharia economic cases, observations of advocates' work processes in handling cases, and documentation and literature review related to Sharia economic law and litigation practices. The collected data was then analyzed qualitatively through data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion drawing to gain a comprehensive understanding of advocacy strategies for resolving Sharia economic disputes through litigation. The research findings indicate that the practice of Sharia economic dispute litigation has unique characteristics that require advocates to integrate an understanding of positive law with Sharia economic principles. An effective litigation strategy begins with an in-depth case analysis, including examining contract documents, identifying potential breaches of contract, and mapping the parties' legal positions. Furthermore, the success of a case is greatly influenced by the advocate's ability to develop systematic and evidence-based legal arguments. The research findings also indicate that an advocate's practical experience plays a crucial role in understanding trial dynamics and formulating appropriate strategies during the litigation process. Furthermore, good communication between the advocate and the client is a supporting factor in maintaining information consistency and strengthening the legal position in court. Therefore, the success of Sharia economic dispute litigation is determined not only by the normative aspects of the law but also by the advocate's professional competence in managing a structured advocacy strategy aligned with the values ​​of justice in Sharia principles.

ABSTRACT This article explores the history of the Spanish ‘pro-life’ movement during the final decades of the twentieth century. While recent sociological scholarship has characterised the Spanish ‘pro-life’ movement of the 1980s as being dominated by uncoordinated and inexperienced organisations that were dependent on the Catholic Church, our analysis of primary sources, such as legal documents and media accounts, seeks to provide a more nuanced interpretation by examining the impact of Spanish ‘pro-life’ activism on access to abortion following the partial decriminalisation of 1985. To analyse this impact, we focus on Acción Familiar, an organisation that played a leading role in deploying strategic litigation against both abortion regulations and providers. We examine two examples of this strategic litigation: administrative litigation against the Royal Decree that liberalised the abortion marketplace in 1986, and criminal litigation against doctors who performed therapeutic abortions in a public hospital in Pamplona in 1986. Our case study shows that Acción Familiar employed a ‘conventional’ litigation strategy to achieve objectives typically associated with ‘direct action’: the harassment and intimidation of doctors. In doing so, the organisation created symbolic and material barriers to abortion, restricting access to the procedure in Spain within the legal framework of partial decriminalisation (1985–2010), a time when abortion was permitted in certain circumstances.

Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and its reformulation as parental alienation (PA) have gained traction in family courts despite persistent scientific controversy. This review synthesizes peer-reviewed research across psychology, law, and family studies from 1985 to 2025 to examine the empirical foundations and professional acceptance of PA/PAS. The analysis suggests that Gardner's original formulation and subsequent iterations fail to meet basic validity requirements for psychological constructs and are unsupported by research. Major medical, psychiatric, and psychological professional organizations have rejected PA/PAS as a legitimate concept. Empirical data shows a troubling correlation between PA allegations and documented domestic violence, with such claims frequently functioning as litigation strategies that redirect attention from abuse allegations. When courts credit PA claims, children face measurable harms including placement with abusive parents and subjection to unvalidated reunification interventions. These findings suggest that PA allegations often represent a form of post-separation coercive control and call for heightened judicial skepticism when such claims arise alongside safety concerns.

ABSTRACT After the Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), raucous national debates broke out between Protestants, Catholics, and Jews about the constitutionality of government aid to parochial schools. This article offers the first account of how these interconfessional hostilities shaped the Catholic Church’s parochial school litigation strategy after Everson . To undercut claims that government aid to parochial schools would perniciously enrich the (Roman) Catholic hierarchy, the Church’s public spokesmen increasingly framed debates about parochial school aid after Everson as implicating the constitutional rights of American parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. In so doing, these figures eschewed arguments made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the government has an obligation to fund institutional religion. Moreover, to prevent anti-Catholic prejudice from impacting the disposition of discrete church–state disputes, lawyers associated with the Catholic bishops’ official episcopal organization sometimes refrained from publicly involving themselves in local litigation, all while privately supplying litigants with strategic counsel. In concluding, this article suggests that the Church’s post- Everson approach to defending the constitutionality of parochial school aid was motivated by a consistent conviction that parents who sent their children to Catholic schools ought to be treated in the same manner as parents who sent their children to other nonpublic (but non-Catholic) schools. When the scope of government aid to nonpublic schools grew in later years, this argument could therefore be invoked to support parochial schools’ equal inclusion in more robust aid programs.

<p><b><span>Motor Accident Law in India: Liability, Compensation, and Litigation Realities  </span></b></p>

<p><b><span>Matrimonial Law in India: Doctrine, Strategy, and Litigation Realities</span></b></p>

Can Federal Courts Strike Down Regulations That Turned Expired Patents into Permanent Monopolies?

<p><b><span>Criminal Law in India: Doctrine, Procedure, and Litigation Realities</span></b></p>

COURT IS NOT HERE TO CORRECT FAILED LITIGATION STRATEGY: The Bohra Principle as a Unifying Maxim of Procedural Law

ABSTRACT There are 21,999 China utility model patents with existing decisions of invalidation reexamination from 2000 to 2021 to explore application of support vector machine (SVM) with Gaussian radial basis function (RBF) kernel. This study identified significant patent indicators using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal–Wallis test, and Jonckheere–Terpstra ordered‐alternatives test and employed SVM incorporating significant patent indicators to forecast decision of invalidation reexamination with highest accuracy for patents with fully invalid claims. The study confirmed SVM with RBF to forecast patent sustainability and providing support for due diligence in mergers and acquisitions and litigation strategies.

This study discusses mediation strategies as a legal instrument in overcoming the obstacles of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in international lawsuits for compensation due to aircraft accidents, especially in product defect cases against aircraft manufacturers in the United States. Non-conveniens forums are often an obstacle for victims from other countries to access justice through the U.S. legal system, as courts may dismiss lawsuits if alternative forums are deemed more appropriate. In this context, mediation serves as an efficient, flexible, and more humane dispute resolution mechanism. The Lion Air JT 610 accident case study is used as a prime illustration, where the victim's family managed to obtain compensation through mediation with Boeing, despite the potential lawsuit being dismissed based on a non-conveniens forum. This research shows that mediation can be an effective litigation strategy to speed up settlement, avoid complex litigation processes, and strengthen the victim's position in cross-jurisdictional negotiations. The research method used is normative juridical with a case approach and legal comparison. Data were obtained through literature review, analysis of legal documents, and review of court decisions and mediation practices in U.S. federal courts. The results of the study recommend the need to harmonize cross-border mediation procedures and strengthen access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for victims from developing countries.

Abstract: This article discusses the dynamics of GERATIS in fighting for the abolition of the Land Use Permit (“Surat Ijo”/IPT) scheme in Surabaya during the period 1970–2010. Using a historical method, this study relies on primary sources such as local regulations, court decisions, National Land Agency documents, and media reports, which are critically analyzed both internally and externally to ensure validity and reduce bias. The findings reveal that the combination of litigation strategies and post-reform mass mobilization successfully introduced new legal discourse regarding the status of the “Surat Ijo,” but its implementation was hindered by organizational fragmentation and resistance from city government policies. This study highlights the limitations of legal victories without comprehensive bureaucratic reform and provides policy recommendations for improving land asset management at the local government level. Keywords: GERATIS, Land, Surat Ijo, Reform

The cassation legal effort has a high urgency in the Indonesian civil justice system as a corrective mechanism for errors in the application of law and an instrument to ensure uniformity of national law. The relevance of this topic is increasing along with the large number of cassation cases submitted to the Supreme Court (MA) and has the potential to hamper the legal function of the highest judicial institution. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of the application of cassation in civil cases and identify various obstacles that affect its implementation. This study uses a normative legal method with a regulatory approach and case studies supported by a literature study of laws and regulations, court decisions, and appropriate legal literature. The research findings indicate that the effectiveness of cassation is hampered by a combination of internal factors, such as excessive caseloads and limitations of the MA information system, as well as external factors such as weak legal understanding of the parties, declining quality of previous court decisions, and misuse of cassation as a litigation strategy. This study concludes that structural reform and increased capacity of judicial actors are needed, as well as strengthening of civil procedural law norms in order to clarify the role of cassation as a tester of the application of law, not a forum for objections to facts. This study contributes to the discourse on judicial reform and opens up opportunities for further research with empirical and comparative legal system approaches.

ABSTRACT The capture of the Burgundian galley called San Matteo in 1473 resulted in one of the most well-known legal cases of the late fifteenth century. For over twenty years, the victim, the flamboyant Tommaso Portinari, attempted to obtain compensation from the Hanse or its Kontor, while the alliance of cities and traders adamantly refused to accept any responsibility and evaded accountability. According to many historians, Tommaso Portinari bears the blame for foolishly challenging Hanseatic privileges. However, this article presents a new interpretation of the case, highlighting how both parties employed litigation strategies based on their respective networks and in order to protect their interests. In doing so, the case illustrates the contextual significance of conflict resolution in late medieval Flanders and illuminates how different litigants played the different courts and options available to them.

Abstract This paper analyzes the impact of imitation and court efficiency on firms’ licensing and litigation strategies regarding patented technologies. It examines imperfect imitation and the limitations of patent protection, which is not absolute. The findings suggest that a high-cost firm should buy a license from a low-cost firm in the same industry before pursuing imitation for a minor technological innovation when the firms compete in quantities a la Cournot. Conversely, if the innovation is substantial, licensing after imitation becomes the dominant strategy. Furthermore, whether litigation goes to trial depends on the size of the damage award and the extent to which the litigants can influence the court. Interestingly, a patent holder may benefit from choosing not to act against a highly imperfect imitation.

Abstract Today, two touchstones of the conservative legal movement are support for the unitary executive theory and skepticism of affirmative action policies. This article reveals a connection between these two positions, demonstrating how policy disputes over civil rights contributed to conservative efforts to increase and legitimize presidential control over the bureaucracy through the controversial claim that the president possesses the whole executive power under Article II. Specifically, I examine two intertwined controversies from 1983, which pit the Reagan White House and Department of Justice (DOJ) against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), two agencies that Reagan officials viewed as obstacles to pursuing its preferred civil rights agenda. Conflicts between the DOJ and EEOC led the administration to deploy the unitary executive theory to help centralize control over its civil rights litigation strategy, while clashes with the USCCR spurred the administration to assert the theory's tenets amid battles over that agency's reauthorization. While these episodes yielded mixed political and legal outcomes, the early articulations of the unitary executive theory that emerged helped to elaborate and advance a controversial constitutional doctrine about presidential power that has become increasingly consequential over time.

本文透過《淡新檔案》關於不同族群之間的訴訟案件，說明其將族群做為訴訟策略的原因、使用時機，以及其所反映出竹南地區的族群關係。族群做為訴訟策略的目的在於將對方拉上談判桌或是將衝突明朗化的手段，同時用以塑造對方強勢的形象，而自己弱勢含冤的形象。此一策略之所以看似有效，是因為清代臺灣族群衝突的方式已經從械鬥到訴訟策略，從暴力行為到成本較低的訴訟行為，平時相安無事，在衝突發生時，族群便成為一種區分彼我的標準。但即使閩粵兩造發生糾紛，閩人還是會委託粵籍代書，反之亦然，也說明了族群的彼我之分並非如此涇渭分明，而是一種可資利用的策略性手段。This article analyzes the reasons and timing for using ethnicity as a litigation strategy, and the ethnic relations in the Zhunan region as reflected in the Dan-Xin Archives. The disputes between Fujian and Guangdong, or between Zhangzhou and Quanzhou, were often topic on the issue of land oc-cupation. Although ethnic was not necessarily the most important litigation strategy in land occupation cases, these cases illustrate the legacy of ethnic conflicts in Taiwan during the Qing Dynasty. The Dan-Xin Archives reflect that the purpose of the ethnic strategy is twofold: first, it is a means of bring-ing the other side to the negotiation table or making the conflict clear, and second, it is used to portray a strong image of the oppressed side, even if it has a disadvantage, still has a certain chance of gaining benefits, and how to create the image of being weak and aggrieved by presenting the case is the key point of the strategy. The reason why this strategy seems to be effective is because of the influence of ethnic politics in Taiwan during the Qing Dynasty, whereby ethnicity became a line between the alliance and enemy. In normal times they may have lived peacefully, buying and selling lands or living in a mixed community, when conflicts arose they could quickly stand on different side. Therefore, even in the case of disputes between Fujian and Guangdong, the Fujian people would still hire the Cantonese lawyer, and vice versa. It shows that the division between the two ethnic groups was not such a clear line, but rather a tactical device that could be utilized. In Qing Dynasty Tai¬wan, ethnic strategy was a key factor, and it also reflected the complexity of ethnic relations. Although sometimes the disadvantaged groups in the local society used this as a way to portray themselves as the victims of injustice, the county officials did not necessarily believe them, but rather based on the reasonableness of the facts and the actual evidence. It can also be ob¬served that the way of ethnic conflict in Taiwan during the Qing Dynasty has changed from armament to litigation strategy, from violent behavior to less costly litigation behavior.

This case study examines the application of distributive negotiation strategies in labor litigation, focusing on a Brazilian case involving 12 clients who hired a lawyer to file a labor complaint against their employer. The negotiating process—which resulted in a favorable agreement for seven clients—emphasizes the importance of utilizing the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA), exploring alternatives, and maintaining effective communication to achieve positive results. A successful agreement was primarily dependent on the lawyer's capacity to examine the company's original bid, and bargain for a better offer. Analysis of findings provides insight into the negotiating process and its implications for future labor conflict settlements. The results of this research may guide the creation of successful negotiation plans in labor lawsuits, thereby helping both companies and workers. Understanding the complexity of labor negotiations enables attorneys and other professionals to negotiate more effectively and achieve more favorable results.