In criminal law scholarship, punishment is commonly examined through several fundamental characteristics, such as the most severe form of state coercion, strict legal nature, individualization, and humanity. However, an essential characteristic that has not been sufficiently studied is the practicality of punishment. Punishment must not only be correct in terms of theory and normative regulation, but also be capable of effective application and enforcement in socio-legal practice. Therefore, based on theoretical analysis and a review of the 2015 Criminal Code of Vietnam, as amended and supplemented in 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Criminal Code), this article clarifies that practicality is an inherent characteristic constituting the value of punishment, and on that basis proposes orientations and solutions to further refine legislative provisions on penalties, aiming to ensure that the imposition and execution of punishment in practice achieve high effectiveness.

The death of a Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs) student allegedly linked to police action raises significant legal issues concerning the limits of the use of force and the construction of criminal liability. This study aims to reformulate the elements of assault resulting in death by integrating the objective element (actus reus) and the subjective element (mens rea) within the framework of the doctrines of dolus and culpa. It also seeks to develop a model of criminal liability analysis that is more transparent, accountable, and oriented toward the protection of a child’s right to life. This research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, supported by a literature review of legislation, court decisions, and criminal law scholarship. Data are analyzed qualitatively through grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation. The findings indicate that proving the act and the resulting death alone is insufficient without clearly establishing the form of fault. The distinction between dolus eventualis and culpa lata constitutes a decisive factor in determining the classification of the offense and the degree of criminal liability. Ambiguity in identifying the spectrum of fault may lead to sentencing disparities and weaken the principle of geen straf zonder schuld (no punishment without fault). Therefore, this study proposes a reconstruction of the elements of the offense that places proof of mens rea at the center of assessing police accountability while ensuring the protection of the child’s right to life.

Firearm-related suicides have increased substantially in the USA, but a growing body of research identifies safety policies that may reduce risk. These policies can raise Second Amendment concerns, however, especially given recent Supreme Court opinions (ie, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) & United States v. Rahimi (2024)) that redefined constitutional standards. Specifically, modern firearm restrictions must now be analogous to historical regulation. Given uncertainty about how Bruen and Rahimi will be applied by courts, we argue that injury prevention researchers should collaborate with scholars in history, law and communication science to develop and defend policies that prevent firearm suicides. We outline four areas for interdisciplinary collaboration.First, developing a nuanced understanding of characteristics that enhance the effectiveness of existing policies can guide policymaking if courts take issue with some policy features but not others. Second, highlighting ways in which firearm policies link to historical suicide prevention efforts can demonstrate how modern policies are consistent with past practices. Meanwhile, exposing historical misunderstandings regarding mental health and suicide can explain differences between modern and historical policies. Third, educating the public about firearm suicide and the efficacy of policies to prevent suicide can increase support for these policies, especially if informed by dissemination research. Fourth, interdisciplinary researchers can work with stakeholders to develop policy solutions garnering broad support that are resilient to Second Amendment challenges. As Second Amendment law evolves, interdisciplinary research into suicide prevention policies, their historical context and strategies for disseminating this information is essential.

Abstract Large grant-making philanthropic foundations in the UK and the EU can have a significant influence over environmental law and as such are worthy of more attention from environmental law scholars. Through analysis of publicly available documents, we identify in this paper an absence of consistent transparency by these foundations. This makes their influence hard to understand, hard to research, hard even to see at work in the world. Transparency is complex and challenging, however. And so, rather than berating problematic approaches, we explore through interviews with actors in the field, as well as the academic literature, both the difficulties that foundations experience in pursuing transparent practices and the benefits of transparency. We conclude by identifying some principles for improved visibility of foundation work.

This study analyzes the legal status of Palilah Griya Pasiten Letter in the Baluwarti area of Surakarta within Indonesia's national agrarian law framework. Surat Palilah, issued by the Surakarta Palace as an authorization to occupy and use palace land, has no clear position under the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA), creating legal uncertainty, particularly in land registration and certification. This research applies normative legal methods, drawing on statutory, historical, and conceptual approaches, and is supported by empirical interviews as complementary data. The study examines the legal standing of Palilah land, available forms of legal protection, and obstacles in the registration process. The findings show that Palilah land cannot be certified as ownership or building use rights and may only be recognized as a Right of Use with Palace approval. The study contributes to agrarian law scholarship by clarifying the normative gap between traditional palace land governance and the national land law system and by providing a conceptual basis for strengthening legal protection within a pluralistic agrarian framework.

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the normative legal implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 on the legal framework governing general elections and regional head elections in Indonesia, particularly in relation to the regulation of simultaneous elections and broader electoral reform. Research Methodology: This research employs a normative legal research method with a qualitative approach. The analysis is conducted through an examination of statutory regulations, Constitutional Court decisions, and relevant legal doctrines and scholarly literature in the fields of constitutional and election law. Results: The findings indicate that Constitutional Court Decision Number 135/PUU-XXII/2024 has significant implications for the structure of electoral regulation in Indonesia. The decision redefines the legal relationship between general elections and regional head elections by emphasizing their institutional separation to ensure constitutional consistency and strengthen legal certainty within the electoral system. Conclusions: The study concludes that the Constitutional Court reaffirmed its constitutional role as the guardian of the Constitution by providing clear normative direction regarding the design and implementation of elections within the framework of constitutional democracy. Limitations: This study is limited to normative legal analysis and does not incorporate empirical or socio-political data concerning the practical implementation of the decision. Contributions: This research contributes to the development of constitutional and election law scholarship by clarifying the normative legal implications of a recent Constitutional Court decision and offering a conceptual foundation for future electoral reform and electoral law policy formulation in Indonesia.

This is the absence of accountability between massive carbon emissions by industrial activities and the reported climate damage, which is one of the most impactful governance failures of modern times. Although the scientific evidence of most anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to a few identifiable producers of fossil fuels, the so-called carbon majors have theoretically immature and practically inadequate legal mechanisms through which the afflicted communities could seek redress, and have been fragmented. The article fills a key theoretical gap in the current body of literature: the literature on attribution science, climate litigation, corporate accountability, and climate governance has proceeded to develop individually, but no single theoretical model has ever brought together these four strands into a consistent accountability structure of emitter accountability. This article creates such a framework by relying on a systematic conceptual review of peer-reviewed scholarship in environmental law, climate science, governance theory, and tort doctrine. It is theorized that, when incorporated with the changing legal standards in causation and corporate knowledge-liability theory and climate governance theory, climate attribution science facilitates the creation of a plausible and analytically sound attribution chain between large emitters and reported climate damage and actionable claims to remedy. The article connotes four conceptual findings: causal-legal accountability chain; the typology of legal barriers and the theoretical resolutions; the nexus of corporate knowledge-deception-liability; and the reparative architecture in loss and damage with legal redress. These results are pulled together into a coherent and multi-strand theoretical model of emitter accountability arranged into four analytically separate strands of scientific accountability based on attribution, legal accountability based on tort and human rights, moral accountability based on the knowledge-deception nexus, and governance accountability based on litigation as a regulatory tool. With the rising development of attribution science and increasing judicial faith in probabilistic causal evidence, attribution litigation targeting climate change has an opportunity to rapidly become not just a fringe enforcement tool, but a structural-level implementative instrument of climate accountability with implications to both legal science and climate justice movement, and global regulation design.

This article examines legal liability and professional accountability in the medical profession within the framework of Regulation of the Minister of Health Number 3 of 2025, with particular emphasis on the establishment and authority of the Medical Professional Disciplinary Council (Majelis Disiplin Profesi/MDP). This study employs a normative legal approach by analyzing statutory regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant scholarly literature in the fields of health law and professional discipline. The findings indicate that Regulation of the Minister of Health Number 3 of 2025 has normatively established a more structured regime of medical professional discipline through a clear separation between disciplinary mechanisms and criminal as well as civil liability mechanisms. The MDP is positioned as a specialized administrative body tasked with safeguarding professional standards and ensuring the accountability of medical practitioners, supported by procedural rules and types of sanctions designed to guarantee procedural justice. This regulatory framework is consistent with theories of professional accountability and legal certainty with , although it continues to present normative challenges, particularly concerning appeal mechanisms and inter-institutional coordination among law enforcement bodies. This article contributes to the development of health law scholarship by offering an institutional and systemic analysis of medical professional discipline and by providing a conceptual foundation for policy refinement and future research on the implementation of medical professional accountability in Indonesia.

ABSTRACT Amending the Companies Act 1956 in India, the Companies (Amendment) Act 1960 represented an abrupt departure from the free-market policy of the colonial-era towards greater state control. It also extensively criminalised the Act, leading to a dramatic expansion of penal control over companies, the focus of this study. Relying on popular characterisations of post-colonial Indian economic history, company law scholarship attributes this policy shift to the state's intensifying socialist and dirigiste tendencies. Despite the Amendment's significance, this reliance has led to a limited analysis of its legislative history and the political-economic factors that triggered the shift. By contextualising the Companies (Amendment) Act 1960 within debates on post-colonial economic historiography, this study reinterprets the existing narrative in company law. It argues that while ideological considerations played a role, the expansion of penal control in 1960 was largely politically driven, particularly in response to the Mundhra Scandal that erupted in 1957.

This paper examines the balance between state sovereignty and the subordination of states to non-national jurisdictions. It explores jurisprudential and legal perspectives on arbitration in state contracts and highlights its implications for the legal framework governing such contracts (Alanzi, 2021a; Abbas, 2020). The analysis focuses on Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), assessing the legitimacy of arbitration in state contracts within both jurisdictions. A descriptive-analytical method is applied to investigate the debates among public law scholars regarding the admissibility of arbitration in disputes involving state contracts, as well as the arguments underpinning their positions. In parallel, a comparative analytical approach is used to examine the legal frameworks regulating arbitration, state contracts, and public–private partnership agreements in Egypt and the UAE. The findings reveal that the legitimacy of arbitration in both jurisdictions is conditional, subject to specific controls, and requires prior approval from the competent authorities, such as the Minister or the Council of Ministers.

Criminal law scholars have agreed that the principle of criminal legality is one of the foundations of criminal systems in a way that leaves no room to say that there is no guarantee of the rights and freedoms of individuals without it. This came about by giving it a political character, which it acquired as a result of the concentration of the authority of legitimate coercion in the hands of the state, and thus giving it a constitutional character that made those in charge of state affairs deal with it as one of the constants and axioms that cannot be debated or disagreed upon. Or to reconsider its content or change its pillars as if it were something assumed and taken for granted, considering that its source is limited to legislation in its formal sense, i.e. issued by the authority constitutionally authorized to legislate and no other, thus expressing the political goal and consecrating the role it plays as the sole source of criminal law, as it is the cornerstone of the structure of criminal law based on assumptions that support the deterrent force of the criminal legislative rule and its legitimacy and validity to protect essential social values and interests. Thus, the criminal text became the only source of criminalization and punishment, and it is the tool used by the state to maintain its security and stability. It emerged as a result of intellectual conflicts and cognitive enlightenment based on the fact that authorities should not be absolute without controls that restrict them and clarify their limits. It is known that this principle came as a reaction to the control of judges and the concentration of all authorities in their hands, which resulted in the violation of the rights and freedoms of individuals and their surroundings with danger. Perhaps this is what justifies its stagnation and cruelty, to the extent that its founders did not even think about its decline or decline under any circumstances, and they did not take into account the change in the nature of crime from national to cross-border. However, its immortality and stability have become a kind of impossibility in the face of the development that the world is witnessing from one moment to the next and in the face of what is required by effective criminal justice. There is nothing constant or eternal except the Holy Quran. Accordingly, the main question under investigation is: To what extent is the principle of criminal legitimacy susceptible to decline and decline? What is the impact of criminal transformation and internationalization on establishing its foundations in its current situation?

Cannabis rescheduling from Schedule I to Schedule III under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act would be the most significant federal cannabis policy shift in more than five decades, yet its legal and practical consequences are widely misunderstood. This policy analysis clarifies what Schedule III rescheduling would change-and what it would not-by synthesizing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 2023 scientific and medical recommendation and its two-part inquiry into "currently accepted medical use," Congressional Research Service legal guidance on rescheduling consequences, administrative law scholarship on Drug Enforcement Administration rulemaking and deference to expert scientific findings, and interdisciplinary research on cannabis regulation, product development, and public health. We examine implications for federal-state conflict, criminal liability and collateral consequences, research access and scientific infrastructure, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evidentiary standards for therapeutic claims, taxation and capital flows (including relief from Internal Revenue Code §280E), and uneven effects on regulated state markets and owner-operators. Drawing on scholarship documenting Schedule I research barriers, constrained access to representative research materials, and the growing role of real-world evidence alongside clinical trials, we argue that rescheduling may expand research capacity and strengthen incentives for FDA-compliant development without legalizing cannabis, approving dispensary products, authorizing interstate commerce, or resolving conflicts between federal and state law. We further assess equity implications, emphasizing that rescheduling does not expunge records, repair past harms, or ensure equitable participation and may accelerate consolidation absent protective safeguards. We conclude that Schedule III should be treated as a transitional status, with agencies prioritizing research access and public health surveillance while Congress addresses banking, interstate commerce, and durable criminal justice and equity reforms.

The increasing prevalence of cross-border marriages necessitates robust legal frameworks governing matrimonial property rights, particularly regarding post-nuptial agreements. Indonesia's Constitutional Court Decision No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 marked a significant departure from traditional restrictions by permitting post-nuptial agreements, a development with profound implications for mixed marriages involving Indonesian nationals and foreign spouses. This research examines the legal consequences of post-nuptial agreements in cross-border marriages under Indonesian law, analyzing how this constitutional development interacts with property ownership restrictions, citizenship regulations, and private international law principles. Employing normative legal research methodology with comparative, statutory, and case-law approaches, this study analyzes Indonesian marriage law (Law No. 1/1974 as amended by Law No. 16/2019), citizenship law (Law No. 12/2006), and agrarian restrictions, comparing these with the Netherlands, Singapore, and Australia. The research reveals that while Constitutional Court Decision 69/2015 expanded spousal autonomy by permitting agreements to be concluded at any time during the subsistence of marriage rather than exclusively before marriage, implementation challenges persist due to inadequate harmonization between marriage law, property law, and immigration regulations. The findings demonstrate critical gaps in legal certainty regarding the retroactive application of post-nuptial agreements, recognition across jurisdictions, and their effectiveness in navigating foreign ownership restrictions on Indonesian land. This study contributes to international family law scholarship by providing a comprehensive English-language analysis of Indonesia's post-nuptial agreement framework in cross-border contexts, offering recommendations for legislative reform aligned with private international law standards.

The concept of «first-time offender» is enshrined in law but not defined in the Russian Criminal Code.This lack of definition creates a gap that is being addressed by judicial practice through the interpretationof norms. A discourse has emerged in criminal law scholarship on the essence of the concept: the factual(biographical) versus the legal definition of “first-time offender.” Resolving this issue is methodologicallysignificant for the adequate application of criminal law measures and requires the systematization ofapproaches and the development of uniform methodological criteria. While noting the differences in theuse of this concept in law, it is important to correlate this information with a general understanding of themechanism of criminal law regulation. Analysis shows that where mandatory legislative differentiation ofcriminal punishment is involved, only the fact of committing a crime for the first time is significant; When itcomes to the discretionary grounds for differentiating and individualizing criminal liability, or establishingthe grounds and conditions for implementing liability, the fact of committing a crime loses its self-sufficiency,becoming part of a system of other circumstances taken into account by law enforcement officials when making a decision on the case. Based on the conducted research, the author concludes that the starting point ofthe theoretical construct of “first-time offender” is to: a) separate the “fact” and its meaning from the “person”and its meaning; b) recognize that the fact of committing a crime for the first time does not predetermine thelevel of danger posed by the person who committed it and is not a defining characteristic in the structure ofdata on a first-time offender.

The Jordanian Cybercrime Law No. 17 of 2013 has been controversial largely because of its vague wording—most notably, articles related to "false news" and other online content that is said to harm national unity or propagate depravity. These ambiguities have alarmed stakeholders as to what it could mean for free speech and the ability of journalists or activists to work unfettered within digital confines. Jordanian law to combat misinformation — fake news that undermines national unity and sparks discord, which has generated much controversy about human rights and freedom of expression. Amnesty International criticized the law as "draconian", which warned against its inclusive definitions and how individuals could be prosecuted even if nobody files a formal complaint. The legislation has been condemned by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which said it threatens the security of Jordan's digital infrastructure and tarnishes Amman's record as a moderate, reform-conscious state. Local law scholars also question whether the rule will be a political weapon and won't achieve all of what it intends. The paper shows how the 2023 law has politicized fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, digital anonymity, and civic engagement. Finally, it underlines how the tension between state security narratives and international human rights obligations is reflected.

Abstract Rosa Luxemburg’s relationship with feminism is widely known to be multifaceted and contested. In this contribution, I examine her radical reflections, particularly on self-determination, by focusing on her critique of political economy, anti-imperialism, and national self-determination, and its link with contemporary critical feminist scholarship in international law.

Purpose The study aims to assess the legal compatibility of Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, addressing gaps in the existing literature by systematically analyzing trade law implications of its carbon offset mechanisms, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) mandates and differentiated obligations. It proposes reforms to reconcile climate action with equitable trade governance. Design/methodology/approach This interdisciplinary study uses textual analysis of WTO agreements and CORSIA resolutions, conceptual interpretation of trade-climate norms and comparative case analysis. A novel legal–policy interface framework evaluates CORSIA’s governance against WTO principles, supplemented by a Trade Restrictiveness Index (TRI) to quantify compliance cost disparities. Findings CORSIA’s exemptions for least-developed countries and their credit eligibility criteria risk violating WTO nondiscrimination principles. SAF mandates may breach the Technical Barriers to Trade and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreements. Ambiguities in baseline adjustments and certification standards threaten market fragmentation. Reforms include harmonized SAF standards, capacity-building for carbon credit producers and transitional exemptions aligned with WTO jurisprudence. Practical implications Policymakers must align CORSIA’s exemption frameworks with WTO equity principles, adopt technology-neutral SAF standards and establish multilateral carbon credit equivalency mechanisms. Institutional reforms, such as ICAO–WTO joint committees, can preempt trade disputes while advancing aviation decarbonization. Social implications Balancing climate urgency with developing states’ economic growth needs is critical. Equitable access to SAF technologies and carbon markets can mitigate Global North–South disparities, fostering inclusive multilateralism in green transitions. Originality/value This study pioneers a systematic legal analysis of CORSIA-WTO interactions, introducing a novel framework and TRI. It bridges climate governance and trade law scholarship, offering actionable reforms to strengthen the coherence of sustainable aviation policies within the rules-based trading system.

This study examines the constitutional validity of the Sekolah Rakyat program as a state mechanism for fulfilling the right to education under Articles 31 and 34 of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia. Despite the formal guarantee of tuition-free education, structural barriers—including subsistence costs, transportation expenses, and opportunity loss—continue to prevent economically marginalized groups from accessing education. This research employs a qualitative descriptive-analytical method using a constitutional law approach, supported by statutory, doctrinal, and jurisprudential analysis, including Constitutional Court Decision Number 3/PUU-XXII/2024. The findings reveal that Sekolah Rakyat, through its fully funded boarding school model, transforms abstract constitutional guarantees into substantive educational access by eliminating structural resource barriers that conventional free education policies fail to address. This study advances constitutional law scholarship by conceptualizing state-funded boarding education as an enforceable constitutional obligation rather than a discretionary social policy. However, the research also identifies critical risks related to institutional fragmentation, governance incoherence, and fiscal sustainability, which may undermine its constitutional function. Therefore, the study argues that comprehensive legal institutionalization, integrated governance, and sustainable public financing are essential to ensure the program’s permanence and effectiveness. This research provides theoretical and policy contributions by strengthening the legal framework for socio-economic rights protection and offering a model for embedding transformative education policies within binding constitutional obligations to achieve substantive equality and sustainable human capital development.

This article examines the legal protection of minority shareholders through a comparative analysis of the corporate law frameworks of the United States and the Republic of Uzbekistan. Focusing on fiduciary duties, derivative litigation, and enforcement mechanisms, the study highlights how minority shareholder rights operate not only as formal legal entitlements but as practical tools of corporate governance. The U.S. model, particularly as developed under Delaware corporate law, demonstrates how judicially elaborated fiduciary standards and clearly defined procedural mechanisms empower minority shareholders to act as private enforcers of corporate accountability. By contrast, while Uzbekistan’s corporate legislation formally recognizes shareholder rights and reflects ongoing reform efforts aligned with international standards, practical enforcement remains constrained by procedural uncertainty and limited judicial development. Drawing on statutory analysis, case law, and international governance principles, the article identifies structural and institutional factors affecting minority shareholder protection and offers targeted legal recommendations aimed at strengthening enforcement without undermining domestic legal coherence. The study contributes to comparative business law scholarship by illustrating how enforcement-oriented reforms can enhance investor confidence and corporate accountability in emerging legal systems.

Judicial review of regulations below statutes by the Supreme Court of Indonesia plays a crucial role in safeguarding the hierarchy of laws and controlling executive regulations that have broad public impact. However, the procedural design of such judicial review has long been characterized by closed, document-based mechanisms with limited participation and transparency, raising concerns regarding the fulfillment of open justice and due process of law as minimum requirements for the legitimacy of erga omnes decisions. This study aims to examine whether the procedural design and practice of judicial review at the Supreme Court have met these principles and to formulate rational and constitutional procedural reforms without altering the Court’s authority. This research employs normative legal research methods using statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches, supported by content analysis of selected judicial review decisions. The findings reveal that although procedural requirements are formally satisfied, judicial review at the Supreme Court remains procedurally minimalistic, non-deliberative, and insufficiently transparent, resulting in limited procedural justice and weakened normative legitimacy. To address this deficit, the study proposes procedural reforms consisting of limited open hearings, mandatory written and selective oral hearings, and minimum standards of legal reasoning, which can be implemented through amendments to Supreme Court Regulations and internal institutional policies. This study contributes to constitutional law scholarship by shifting the focus of judicial review discourse from authority-based debates to procedural legitimacy and demonstrates that strengthening due process and procedural openness is essential to enhancing the accountability and rationality of judicial review without expanding judicial power. Future research is encouraged to integrate empirical approaches to assess the effectiveness of procedural reforms and their impact on public trust in the judiciary.