History demonstrates that in the efforts to harmonize Private International Law (PIL) rules, the Americas, through the first processes of international codification developed between the 19th and 20th centuries, and the new American republics were protagonists of the initial challenges in this field. This article analyzes the historical background of the codification movement, particularly from the perspective of International Civil Procedural Law (ICPL), an area that evidenced complex and dynamic interactions between agreements, reservations, objections, and abstentions of the involved States. In this context, the need arises to examine and describe the historical, legal, and political factors that explain both the convergences and divergences in relations between countries, as well as how these factors conditioned the evolution and separation of Private International Law codification during this period. Following the timeline of the American congresses and the adoption of their treaties, it will be demonstrated whether the region became an "authentic legal laboratory" or the comparatist's dream. Finally, the role of Brazil will be observed, whose stance characterized by prudent and moderate participation notably influenced the regional dynamics of American legal codification.

Liberal legalism is under attack from authoritarian movements worldwide. Legal anthropology must respond by studying both: alternative legal orders and how liberal law itself is being transformed and weaponised.

Following the February 17, 2011 revolution that overthrew the Libyan regime, the country entered a complex and bitter conflict involving multiple actors and instruments. This conflict has resulted in a profound rupture in social stability. By examining the internal environmental variables that hinder the achievement of societal stability—such as the absence of a unified authority, the fragmentation of state institutions, the proliferation of armed groups, the lack of rule of law, and the repeated failure to conduct regular elections—the study seeks to understand the deeper roots of the ongoing crisis. The research concludes that the continued struggle for power and the multiplicity of decision-making centers have weakened the state and entrenched divisions, thus necessitating a comprehensive political solution. The study aims to provide an analytical perspective that contributes to state-building efforts and promotes stability through institutional unification, activation of the electoral process, and the establishment of an effective legal and security framework that upholds state sovereignty and serves the public interest. Libya has experienced numerous internal variables that have negatively impacted social stability, the most significant of which include the delayed development of democratic institutions, military divisions, economic challenges, the influence of armed groups, the resurgence of tribalism, and ongoing security threats. Collectively, these variables have led to a state of social instability and fragmentation in Libya.

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in ensuring the rule of law, which is the foundation of a democratic and constitutional state. In Pakistan, the judiciary serves as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that all branches of government operate within their legal limits. The rule of law upholds equality before the law, accountability, and justice for all citizens, regardless of status or influence. However, Pakistan’s judiciary has faced persistent challenges such as political interference, corruption, executive dominance, and delayed justice. These issues have weakened the people’s trust in judicial institutions. To reinforce the rule of law, the judiciary must function independently, transparently, and effectively. Judicial reforms, technological modernization, and enhanced accountability mechanisms are essential for strengthening institutional credibility. This study analyzes the judiciary’s contribution to maintaining the rule of law in Pakistan and identifies the obstacles that hinder its performance. It concludes that an empowered, impartial, and independent judiciary is indispensable for promoting justice, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring good governance.

Relevance . The need for this study predetermined the presence of a number of negative factors that do not contribute to the development of jurisprudence in the direction of a uniform approach to the concept and types of regulatory legal acts. Such factors are: the lack of normative consolidation of the species difference between the NPA and their ratio among themselves; continuing discussion about the forms of law equal or higher in terms of legal force (according to some authors) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation; Numerous judicial practices in disputes about the priority of the use of various types of NPA. This article is the first part of the planned study in this area. The purpose gives a doctrinal characteristic the concepts of “types” and “forms” of NPA, argue the difference between the concepts of “legal force” and “level of legal force” and argue the hierarchy of the laws of the Russian Federation. Objectives : give a comparative characteristic of the types and forms of the NPA; develop definitions of scientific concepts “legal force” and “level of legal force” of the NPA; argue the existing hierarchy of the laws of the Russian Federation. Methodology . When writing the article, formal-logical, systematic, historical, historical-right methods, as well as methods of synthesis and analysis of expert assessments were used. Results . During the study, the differences between the types and forms of the NPA were revealed; Definitions of the scientific concepts of “legal force” and “level of legal force” of the NPA were developed; The hierarchy of the laws of the Russian Federation, as well as the insufficient argumentation of scientific positions on equality in terms of legal force of the Russian Constitution of various legal acts, was argued. Conclusion . To increase the effectiveness of legal regulation of social relations and law enforcement practice, it is advisable to consolidate such concepts as: “types”, “forms” of the NPA; their "level of legal force"; the ratio of the level of legal force of federal laws and federal constitutional laws; The procedure for amendments and changes in Ch. 1.2 and 9 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which the authors proposed in this article.

Abstract This article considers the relationship between the ideal of the rule of law and the problem of political polarization. Political disagreements should be handled by way of a fair political process that culminates in acts of lawmaking and government that display the self-discipline that characterizes the ideal of the rule of law. Political polarization is an excess of partisanship and an absence of the spirit of moderation, which threatens political unity and friendship amongst citizens. The rule of law should be a source of mutual assurance and a common project shared by all citizens, but is too often misunderstood – inflated – and weaponized for political advantage, which makes it much harder for citizens to trust one another. Recent controversy in Britain about international law and the rule of law illustrates the point. The rule of law is distinct from the rule of courts and over-mighty courts fuel political polarization, giving an unfair advantage to one side or the other, and letting slip the discipline that courts should publicly display. The article considers the relationship between constitutional adjudication and political polarization, focusing on the two landmark Brexit judgments in Britain in 2017 and 2019. The article concludes by reflecting on the relationship between constitutional reform and polarization, in which reforms to restore the rule of law may often be warranted but are liable to be misunderstood or blocked by abuse of judicial power.

Recent literature emphasizes that if export composition consists mostly of high-tech exports, increasing international competitiveness encourages the production of high-value-added goods and supports productivity enhancements within the country. This study aims to contribute by analyzing this literature by examining the effect of economic freedom, its sub-components, and interactions on high-tech exports for top high-tech exporters by focusing R&D. We calculated the average of high-tech exports from 2009-2023 and then selected the countries whose average high-tech exports are at least the world average. Our analysis reveals two important findings: (i) The aggregated Economic Freedom Index (EFI) and its sub-components—namely, regulatory efficiency, market openness, and the rule of law—have positive and statistically significant effects on HTE. (ii) While R&D and EFI individually contribute positively to HTE, their interaction often yields a counterintuitive negative effect. This suggests that the positive impact of R&D on export performance may be constrained or diluted in highly liberalized institutional settings. Therefore, we provide important implications for policy makers.

The treatment of discrimination cases in judicial practice and the relationship between normative acts represent the implementation of the principle of non-discrimination. The relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights and the legal acts of the Republic of Kosovo are the main basis for resolving discrimination cases. The European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo as an international instrument, while regarding the rule of law on the issue of discrimination, Kosovo also applies other laws that enable the guarantee and respect of the principle of non-discrimination. Our study emphasizes the treatment of discrimination cases in practice in the Republic of Kosovo, and how such cases are resolved on the basis of the ECHR and the legal framework. But, is there a relationship between the relationship between the ECHR and other laws in the Republic of Kosovo?! To what extent is the principle of non-discrimination truly established as a constitutional principle? The well-integrated relationship between international acts and local laws reflects the path to achieving solutions to discrimination cases.

"An expert is an ordinary fellow from another town." (Mark Twain) Expert evidence in medical claims will be required to commence almost any case involving professional negligence, and as modern medical practice, in all of its guises, becomes increasingly more litigious, expert medical witnesses are required more frequently. Expert evidence is an essential element of advancing, or defending, a clinical negligence claim. There is a lack of guidance for physicians in this jurisdiction in how to prepare and act as an expert witness, to such an extent that the Medical Protection Society (MPS) has called for a wider pool of expert medical witnesses in the Irish courts system (1). This follows a recent warning from Mr. Justice Collins in a Court of Appeal judgement (2) that a significant change of culture on expert evidence was needed. The MPS has called on the Health Service Executive to support doctors in undertaking expert-witness training and to maintain a central list of experts (1). The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role and duties of the expert witness, by using guidance from various jurisdictions, while also discussing the penalties that may ensue if they are not fulfilled. Flawed evidence can lead to miscarriages of justice (3) and, in turn, to a lack of confidence in justice and a degradation of the rule of law. This is why expert evidence is absolutely fundamental to the rule of law, as flawed expert evidence can lead to a court acting in good faith but reaching an unsound decision. Physicians serving as expert witnesses must therefore fully grasp the scope and significance of their role-not only to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of their profession but, most importantly, to fulfil their duty to patients.

Taxation represents one of the most fundamental expressions of state sovereignty, an inalienable power that underpins governance, welfare provision, and democratic legitimacy. In contemporary globalisation, however, states increasingly enter into bilateral and multilateral investment treaties that empower foreign investors to challenge domestic measures—including tax legislation—before international arbitral tribunals. Initially conceived as a protection against direct expropriation, investor–state arbitration (ISA) has evolved into a powerful mechanism through which investors contest a wide range of regulatory and fiscal decisions. The rise of ISA has thus brought the exercise of taxation—a quintessential sovereign function—into tension with international commitments designed to protect foreign investment. This article critically examines who truly controls cross-border tax disputes: sovereign states or international arbitral tribunals. It contends that ISA increasingly encroaches upon tax sovereignty, despite treaty drafters’ attempts to carve out taxation from arbitration or restrict tribunal jurisdiction. Arbitral bodies frequently interpret these provisions narrowly, invoking doctrines such as fair and equitable treatment (FET), indirect expropriation, and most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses to assert jurisdiction over tax-related disputes. Drawing on landmark cases such as Occidental v. Ecuador, Yukos v. Russia, and Vodafone v. India, the article illustrates how tribunals shape fiscal space, constrain democratic decision-making, and influence domestic economic policy. It explores constitutional implications, including the separation of powers, legitimacy, and the rule of law. Through comparative analysis encompassing the United States, the European Union, India, Latin America, and Africa, it evaluates the efficacy of emerging treaty models and global tax reforms in safeguarding sovereignty. Ultimately, the paper proposes a framework balancing investor protection with fiscal autonomy through clearer treaty drafting, specialized adjudicatory mechanisms, and harmonization with global tax initiatives. Without reform, ISA risks transforming taxation from a sovereign prerogative into an adjudicated privilege, undermining both democratic legitimacy and the integrity of international investment law.

A large literature on regulation highlights the many different methods of policy-making: command-and-control rulemaking, informational disclosures, tort liability, taxes, and more. But the literature overlooks a powerful method to achieve policy objectives: data. The state can provide (or suppress) data as a regulatory tool to solve policy problems. For administrations with expansive views of government’s purpose, government-provided data can serve as infrastructure for innovation and push innovation in socially desirable directions; for administrations with deregulatory ambitions, suppressing or choosing not to collect data can reduce regulatory power or serve as a back-door mechanism to subvert statutory or common law rules. Government-provided data is particularly powerful for data-driven technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) where it is sometimes more effective than traditional methods of regulation. But government-provided data is a policy tool beyond AI and can influence policy in any field. We illustrate why government-provided data is a compelling tool for both positive regulation and deregulation in contexts ranging from addressing health-care discrimination, automating legal practice, smart power generation, and others. We then consider objections and limitations to the role of government-provided data as policy instrument, with a substantial focus on privacy concerns and the possibility for autocratic abuse. We build on the broad literature on regulation by introducing data as a regulatory tool. We also join—and diverge from—the growing literature on data by showing that while data can be privately produced purely for private gain, they do not need to be. Rather, government can be deeply involved in the generation and sharing of data, taking a much more publicly oriented view. Ultimately, while government-provided data are not a panacea for either regulatory or data problems, governments should view data provision as an understudied but useful tool in the innovation and governance toolbox.

Engagement in shadow economy activities double as a survival strategy against distortional government interventions resulting in unfavourable socioeconomic conditions and as an impediment to socioeconomic development in developing economies. This study provides scientific evidence of the aspects of governance which minimize the size of the shadow economies of 15 West African countries from 1996 to 2019 using panel autoregressive distributed lag model (pooled mean group estimator). Shadow economy (% of GDP) was used as the dependent variable while control of corruption; government effectiveness; voice and accountability; regulatory quality, rule of law and political stability were the used as measures of governance. The result revealed significant long run effect of all the measures of governance (except government effectiveness) on the growth of shadow economy in West Africa. However, only control of corruption and rule of law were found to have significant negative effect on the size of shadow economy in West Africa. The study concluded that sincere and non-selective anti-corruption mechanism, strict adherence to the rule of law and reduction of bureaucracy are important for contraction of shadow economy.

This article presents a critical and comparative analysis of the fit and proper test conducted by the Indonesian House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR) for candidates of Supreme Court justices. The study argues that the DPR systematically exceeds its constitutional mandate by transforming its confirmation authority into a substantive re-selection process—an ultra vires act that endangers judicial independence and has been explicitly recognized by the Constitutional Court. Using the frameworks of separation of powers and comparative constitutional law, this research contextualizes Indonesia’s challenges within broader Southeast Asian patterns. The findings reveal that the tension between political and judicial branches is structural and recurrent across the region, observable in the integrity crises of the Philippine Judicial and Bar Council, executive dominance in Malaysia, and the extreme politicization of the judiciary in Thailand under “rule by law.” Conversely, Singapore offers a model of centralized meritocracy. The study concludes that Indonesia’s reform failure stems from procedural loopholes that allow political actors to prioritize political legitimacy over constitutional supremacy. It recommends legislative amendments limiting the DPR’s role to formal consent only and strengthening the Judicial Commission to preserve a healthy rule of law.

Organised crime poses a serious threat to the rule of law, both nationally and internationally and is characterised by planned criminal activity aimed at financial gain. This comment considers the extent and challenges posed by organised crime in the UK and elsewhere, and the methods used to tackle such crime both nationally and internationally.

The rapid rise of digital currencies, including cryptocurrencies and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), creates both strategic opportunities and systemic risks for the global economy. This study investigates the impact of digital currency adoption on financial stability, with a particular emphasis on the moderating role of governance quality. Using panel data from 70 countries between 2015 and 2024, we apply Fixed Effects (FE) and System Generalized Method of Moments (System GMM) to capture the dynamic relationship between digital currency adoption, governance, and financial stability. The findings confirm that digital currency adoption significantly increases financial volatility, especially in economies with weaker governance structures. However, robust governance—characterized by effective regulation, rule of law, and cybersecurity readiness—reduces these risks and strengthens financial resilience. Furthermore, the results highlight that developing countries are more vulnerable to destabilizing effects compared to developed nations, underscoring the urgent need for international support and harmonized global standards. This study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence on the governance–stability nexus in the era of financial digitalization and offers concrete policy implications for regulators and international organizations.

The article focuses on the fundamental principles of EU law – legality, legal certainty, legitimate expectations, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights - which are essential for the functioning of the EU legal system. It substantiates the necessity of applying these principles in both the law-making and law-enforcement practices of Ukraine as a prerequisite for safeguarding human and civil rights and freedoms in Ukraine and for accelerating the country’s accession to the European Union. Given Ukraine’s European integration trajectory, as emphasized by the Supreme Court and the commencement of the Association Agreement, the legal positions formulated in the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) may be taken into account by Ukrainian administrative courts as persuasive arguments for the harmonious interpretation of national legislation in accordance with the established standards of the EU legal system. The article highlights CJEU decisions aimed at ensuring legality, legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, and the safeguarding of human and civil rights and freedoms within the EU. The importance of applying the Court’s jurisprudence in this context is emphasized. Particular attention is paid to the protection of personal data within the EU as a fundamental element of the functioning of the Union’s single market, which is based on the free movement of goods, persons, and services. The role and significance of the Union’s values are emphasized, as these values ensure the protection and respect for human rights within the EU and must be consistently upheld by Ukraine in its pursuit of EU membership. This, in turn, will guarantee the protection of human rights and freedoms in Ukraine, contribute to the acceleration of EU accession, and provide an additional safeguard for individual rights and liberties. According to the Treaty on European Union, the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to all Member States in a society characterized by pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity, and equality between women and men. Following Ukraine’s accession to the EU, national courts will be obliged, when necessary, to refer questions of EU law interpretation to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore, as has been noted, knowledge of CJEU case law and the evolving content of its decisions – which complement and adapt the normative substance of EU law principles and values in response to changing social relations – is essential in: (a) the process of implementing EU legal norms into Ukrainian legislation; (b) the adjudication of disputes arising from the application of EU law and requiring reference to existing judgments interpreting EU legal principles; and (c) the submission of preliminary references by Ukrainian courts to the CJEU in accordance with the preliminary ruling procedure, where interpretation of EU law is necessary (after Ukraine’s accession to the EU).

The article examines the current state of the legal framework of the United States’ internal security system, which serves as an example of a state that has developed one of the most complex and, at the same time, most effective models of internal security –capable of adapting to the dynamic challenges of the 21st century. It is noted that the formation of the modern American system of internal security began after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when national security institutions faced significant criticism for the lack of coordination among federal agencies. It establishes that the development of the regulatory and legal foundations of U.S. internal security is complex and multi-level, combining legal, organizational, and democratic mechanisms for the protection of the state and society. The fundamental legal act in this sphere is The Homeland Security Act of 2002, under which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established – an integrated body that united 22 federal agencies to coordinate activities in counterterrorism, border control, protection of critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, emergency response, and risk management. The content of The Stafford Act is revealed as the legislative basis for crisis response and intergovernmental cooperation. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the United States, a defining element of the legal balance between the state’s security activities and the observance of democratic principles is the restriction on the use of the armed forces in domestic affairs. The Posse Comitatus Act and Insurrection Act are defined as essential safeguards ensuring civilian control over the military and limiting the domestic use of force. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act of 1974 are examined as key instruments of governmental transparency, accountability, and protection of human rights. It is argued that the American model of internal security operates under the rule of law and a democratic system of checks and balances that prevent power abuse while maintaining national resilience. The study concludes that the U.S. experience is of high practical relevance for Ukraine under conditions of full-scale war, particularly for developing a unified internal security system, improving crisis legislation, enhancing civilian oversight, and strengthening the legal responsibility of the state toward its citizens as a foundation of democratic stability and public trust.

The article examines problematic aspects of the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, taking into account the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the practice of national courts, and international legal standards. The correlation of admissibility with such categories as relevance and reliability is revealed, and the formal nature of this legal institution is emphasized. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the criteria that determine the legality of obtaining evidence, in particular the source of information, the powers of participants in criminal proceedings, compliance with procedural form, and the guarantees of human rights and freedoms. It is demonstrated that substantial violations of these requirements automatically lead to the inadmissibility of evidence in accordance with Articles 87-88 of the CPC of Ukraine. The article addresses controversial issues regarding the application of the «fruit of the poisonous tree» doctrine and approaches concerning the absolute or differentiated exclusion of inadmissible evidence. In this context, judicial practice is analyzed, where procedural errors during the recording of searches, interrogations, or covert investigative actions played a decisive role. Of particular importance in ensuring the admissibility of evidence during the pre-trial investigation is the institution of the investigating judge. It is this figure who is entrusted with the function of judicial control over the observance of human rights and freedoms during investigative (search) actions that restrict a person’s constitutional rights, such as a search of a home or the granting of permission for temporary access to items and documents. The legality and validity of the investigating judge’s rulings are the primary prerequisite for recognizing the evidence obtained on their basis as admissible. At the same time, practice indicates the existence of problems related both to the formal approach of some investigating judges to the consideration of motions and to the subsequent assessment by courts of the consequences of violations committed at this stage. A current challenge for the institution of admissibility is the development of digital technologies and the use of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. The problems of obtaining, recording, and examining such evidence give rise to disputes about its admissibility. Key issues include the authenticity of digital data, the proper procedural order for its seizure (for example, from computer equipment or cloud storage), the integrity of the information, and respect for the right to privacy. Insufficient legislative regulation of these aspects creates risks that important evidence in a case may be deemed inadmissible due to formal violations. Considerable attention is devoted to the analysis of the Supreme Court’s decisions and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which establish guidelines for national judicial practice. It is emphasized that the admissibility of evidence has not only a procedural and legal dimension but also a constitutional one, as it is linked to the implementation of the right to a fair trial and the rule of law. In conclusion, the author substantiates the need to improve the criminal procedural legislation by clarifying definitions, consolidating the system of evidence properties, and regulating the rules of procedural recording. This will ensure consistency in judicial practice and an appropriate balance between the efficiency of criminal prosecution and the protection of human rights.

Disciplinary liability is the main form of control over judges in European countries. The article analyses the procedural and legal status of bodies authorised to consider disciplinary complaints regarding the activities of judges in various European countries. It highlights the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Some countries provide guarantees of independence for all institutions after the initial stage, including the investigating body and the decision-making body. Other countries point to certain risks of a particular form of politicisation of the judiciary. Some council systems have an appeal procedure before the Council of Judges. In contrast, in others, appeals are lodged with a higher court or the constitutional Court in certain circumstances. In several countries, court presidents can take disciplinary decisions in cases of warnings or a greater number of minor reprimands. In several countries, disciplinary proceedings are heard by a parliamentary committee on judicial discipline, the chief judge, the head of the appeals division, or a government disciplinary council for senior officials. In other cases, the ombudsperson and the chancellor of justice may initiate disciplinary proceedings. In most countries, there are guarantees to protect the independence and impartiality of institutions involved in disciplinary proceedings, particularly the decision-making body. The disciplinary responsibility of judges is important for ensuring the proper administration of justice in accordance with the rule of law and is necessary to maintain confidence in the judiciary. The procedural bodies involved in disciplinary proceedings must respect the separation of powers and the proper administration of justice. The disciplinary regime for magistrates is undoubtedly an area where we are witnessing a marked and rapid evolution of legal systems. Everyone knows the inadequacy of disciplinary control exercised over judges. All emphasize the necessary transparency of prosecutions and disciplinary decisions, the guarantee of trust in the judicial institution.

It is indicated that the right to liberty and personal integrity is one of the basic principles of a democratic state based on the rule of law, which is directly related to the recognition and protection of human dignity. The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the right to freedom and personal integrity as one of the fundamental constitutional human rights enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine. It emphasizes that this right constitutes the foundation of human dignity, autonomy, and the ability to freely exercise other rights and freedoms. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to comprehend the modern constitutional doctrine of Ukraine in light of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, which establish the standards of permissible limitations on freedom, the principles of judicial control, and guarantees of protection against state arbitrariness. The article clarifies the content, essence, and mechanisms for the implementation of the right to freedom and personal integrity through the prism of the Constitutional Court’s practice, identifies the stages of the formation of the national constitutional doctrine, and determines its correlation with international legal standards. The methodological basis of the study comprises formal-legal, systemic, comparative- legal, and analytical methods, which made it possible to comprehensively examine the evolution of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s approaches to interpreting Article 29 of the Constitution. As a result, it is established that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine consistently upholds the rule of law, the principle of proportionality, the prohibition of arbitrariness, and the mandatory nature of judicial control as the central mechanism for guaranteeing personal freedom. The Court’s case law demonstrates the integration of European standards into the national legal framework, particularly in the context of ensuring the legality of arrest, detention, and hospitalization of incapacitated persons. It is proven that even during martial law, the state remains obliged to observe constitutional guarantees that prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the systematization of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine concerning the realization of the right to freedom and personal integrity and in revealing their significance for shaping national standards of legal protection of the individual.