Issue 2/2026

1. Introduction. – 2. General issues concerning the transfer of children. – 3. Analysis of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights. – 4. Criteria for determining the «permanent residence of a child». – 5. Problems of Jurisdictional Determination in Ukrainian Judicial Practice. – 6. Conclusion.

1. Introduction. – 2. On Judicial Independence: Foundational Principles. – 3. Historical Evolution of Judicial Independence. – 4. Judicial Independence in the European Legal Landscape. – 5. The AI Act and Risks to Judicial Independence. – 6. Human Rights Implications of AI in Judicial Systems. – 7. Contemporary Issues: The UN Report on AI in Judicial Systems. – 8. AI in the Courtroom: Emerging Issues. – 9. The stress on Judicial Independence in the AI era. – 10. Balancing Independence and Evaluation. – 11. The Case for Institutional Control of AI in Justice. – 12. Redefining Independence for the Algorithmic Age. – 13. The Evolving Role of the Judge: From Adjudicator to Manager and Auditor. – 14. The Inequality Risk. – 15. Bias Amplification and the Erosion of Due Process. – 16. Psychological Dimensions: Overreliance on AI. – 17. The Rule of Law and Algorithmic Consistency. – 18. The Managerial Judge in the Digital Era. – 19. New Public Management: AI as a Managerial Reform Tool. – 20. Control Over AI Implementation: The Core of Independence. – 21. Dataset Development and Control: of Paramount Importance. – 22. Reworking Biased Datasets in Judicial AI Systems. – 23. Liability for Faulty Dataset. – 24. Reassessing Cases Judged Under a Faulty Dataset. – 25. Canadian Judicial Council Guidelines: A Model Approach. – 26. Conclusion: Towards Algorithmic Sovereignty.

1. Introduction. – 2. Research Methodology. – 3. The Difference Between an Undercover Agent and an Instigator. – 4. Legal Framework in the European Union and the UAE. – 5. Research Results and Discussion. – 6. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. The Family in Archaic Rome and under the Kanun. – 4. The Role of Family Justice (Domestic Courts). – 5. Procedures before Domestic Courts in Ancient Rome and under Albanian Customary Law. – 6. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Legal Gaps in the Copyright Protection of AI-Generated Works. – 3.1. The Distinction Between AI-Generated Works and AI-Assisted Works. – 3.2. Legal and Regulatory Gaps in the Copyright Protection of AI-Generated Works in Selected Jurisdictions. – 3.2.1. Legal and Judicial Practice in the United States. – 3.2.2. Legal and Judicial Practice in the European Union. – 3.2.3. Legal and Judicial Practice in the United Kingdom. – 4. Judicial Practice of China’s Internet Courts in Copyright Disputes Involving AI-Generated Works. – 4.1. “Spring Breeze Brings Tenderness” Case (Li v. Liu, 2023). – 4.2. “Cat Crystal Diamond Pendant” Case (2025). – 5. Shifts in the Perception of Copyright in AI-Generated Works. – 5.1. Originality and Ethical Concerns in Art. – 5.2. The Subject of Copyright. – 5.3. Policy Recommendations. – 6. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Theoretical framework and methodology approach to TPF disclosure. 3. Arbitration in Saudi Arabia: Update of the SCCA Rules (2023). 4. The disclosure duty in third‑party funding agreements. - 4.1. TPF: Legal Foundations and Evolution. - 4.2. An approach to the definition of third‑party funding. - 4.3. TPF disclosure obligation: under Article 17.6 of the SCCA Arbitration Rules (2023). Generic disclosure or selective disclosure? - 4.4. The boundary between disclosure obligations and confidentiality. - 5. Transparency disclosure and procedural risks associated with TPF. – 6. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. State of Play: Existing Procedures and Their Limitations. – 4. Scope, Jurisdiction, and Procedure of the Proposed Hub. – 5. Design Outputs. –6. Discussion and Implications. – 7. Conclusion.

1. Introduction. – 2. EU and National Frameworks. – 2.1. Contextual Background and National Framework. – 2.2. Legal and Theoretical Framework. – 3. Methodology. – 3.1. Analytical Approach. – 3.2. Comparative Scope and Criteria. – 3.3. Selection of Jurisdictions. – 4. Analysis and Results. – 4.1. Legal Uncertainty in the Slovenian Framework. – 4.2. Comparative Analysis of Selected Member States. – 4.3. Discussion. – 5. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3 Results and Discussion with Analysis of Legal Issues. – 3.1. Possession of Digital Objects. – 3.2. Interim Protection of Possession and Provisional Regulation of Status. – 3.3. The Boundaries Between Self-Help and Provisional Judicial Protection. – 3.4. Cross-Border Effect and Enforcement of Orders for Possessory or Detentive Provisional Measures. – 4. Conclusion.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. An Overview of Big Data-Driven Predictive Policing. – 3.1. Definition and Conceptual Foundations. – 3.2. Classification of BDPP Models. – 4. Global Practice of Big Data-Driven Predictive Policing. – 4.1. Implementation of Big Data-Driven Predictive Policing in Practice. – 4.2. Problems and Limitations. – 5. Recommendations for ASEAN countries. – 5.1. ASEAN’s Institutional and Regulatory Landscape. – 5.2. Policy Framework for ASEAN BDPP Adoption. – 6. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology and Analytical Framework. – 3. Evolution of Criminal Law Protection of the Environment in Europe: A Brief Overview. – 4. New Normative Trends in European Environmental Criminal Law. – 4.1. European Union: Directive (EU) 2024/1203 On the Protection of the Environment Through Criminal Law as a Shift from “Minimum Criminalisation” to an Enforcement-Oriented Model. – 4.2. Council of Europe: Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law as a Standards-Based Framework with “Ecological Seriousness” and Procedural Modernisation. – 4.3. Converging Normative Trajectories: Coordinated Advancement of Environmental Criminal Law in Europe. – 5. Implications for National Legal Orders and Legislative Approximation. – 6. Future Perspectives and Institutional Reflections on Environmental Criminal Law in Europe. – 7. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. The Historical Evolution. – 3. The International Legal Subjectivity of Multinational Corporations: Evolving Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. – 3.1. Terminological Diversity. – 3.2. The Question of Status. – 3.3. Conceptual Clarification: Subjectivity, Personality, and Participation. – 4. Three Main Paradigms. – 4.1. The Object Paradigm. – 4.2. The Partial Subject Paradigm. – 4.3. The Participant Paradigm. – 5. Towards Greater Recognition of MNCS. – 6. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology section and selection criteria. – 3. Perception of 'ownership' of an asset under the Dutch & Islamic (Sharia) property laws. – 4. Key Legal Pitfalls of Joint Ownership. – 4.1. Joint Ownership and the Principles of Social Justice. – 4.2. The Use and Administration of a Joint Property. – 4.3. The Exit Rights Outside the Joint Ownership. – 4.3.1. Disposal of a Joint Property. – 4.3.2. Termination of Joint Ownership Through Partition. – 5. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Literature Review. – 3. Methodology. – 4. Results and Discussion. – 4.1. Abortion Regulation in Jordan, the UAE, Europe, and Sharia Islamic Law. – 4.2. Islamic Perspective on Abortion Causing the Death of a Pregnant Woman. – 4.2.1. – Penalties of Intentional Abortion in Islamic Sharia. – 4.2.2. Penalties for the Unintentional Death of a Pregnant Woman in Islamic Sharia. – 4.3. The Concept of Abortion Resulting in Death under Jordanian and Emirati Law. – 4.3.1. The Presumed Element (Existence of Pregnancy). – 4.3.2. The Actus Reus Element. – 4.3.3. The Mens Rea Element. – 4.3.4. Penalties for the Offense of Abortion Resulting in Death. – 5. Problematic Aspects of Abortion Resulting in Death under Jordanian and Emirati Law. – 5.1. Maternal Death in Cases of Nonexistent Pregnancy. – 5.2. Conflicting Legal Classifications of Fatal Abortion. – 6. Analyzing Abortion and Maternal Deaths in Europe: France and Poland Comparative Perspective. – 7. Philosophical Basis and Criminal Policy of the Proposed Penalties. – 8. Conclusions.

1. Introduction. – 2. Approach and Research Methodology. – 3. Restriction of Human Rights in International Law. – 3.1. The Accused and the Rights of the Accused. – 3.2. International Principles and Standards on Restricting the Rights of the Accused. – 3.2.1 The Principle of Legality. – 3.2.2 The Principles of Necessity. – 3.2.3 The Principle of Proportionality – 3.2.4 European Debates on Rights-Limitation Principles. – 4. Assessment of the Compatibility of Vietnamese Law with International Standards on Restricting the Rights of the Accused. – 4.1 Vietnam’s Political-Legal Context. – 4.2. Assessment of Vietnam’s Legal Framework on Restrictions of the Rights of the Accused. – 4.2.1 Legality. – 4.2.2 Legitimate Aim in Vietnam’s Arrest and Pre-Trial Detention Regime. – 4.2.3 Necessity in Vietnam’s Arrest and Pre-Trial Detention Regime. – 4.2.4 A Cumulative Assessment of Proportionality. – 5. Conclusion and Recommendations.

1. Introduction. – 2. The Concept of Mandatory Mediation. – 3. Mandatory Mediation in the European Union Context. – 4. Bulgaria and the Constitutional Court as a Positive Legislator in the Field of Mediation. – 5. The Nature of the Newly Adopted Model of Judicial Mediation in Bulgaria after the Constitutional Court’s Decision of 1 July 2024. – 6. Conclusions and Recommendations.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Theoretical Foundations of the Right to Remain Offline. – 3.1. Defining the ‘Right to Remain Offline’. – 3.2. Relationship with Fundamental Rights. – 3.2.1. Autonomy and Freedom of Choice. – 3.2.2. Access to Public Services and Participation. – 3.2.3. Equality and Non-Discrimination. – 3.2.4. Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights. – 4. Vietnamese Policy, Law and Practice. – 4.1. Digital Transformation and the Emerging Legal Architecture. – 4.2. Implementation and Inclusion Challenges for Older People. – 5. The EU Legal Framework and Member State Implementation. - 5.1 Digital Strategy and Legal Norms at the EU Level. – 5.2. Implementation Realities in Member States. – 6. Comparative Analysis and Discussion. – 7. Conclusion and Recommendations. – 7.1. Key Findings. – 7.2. Consolidated Recommendations.

1. Introduction. – 1.1. Degree of scientific development of the problem. - 1.2. Scientific novelty and research contribution. – 2. Literature review. – 3. Methodology. – 3.1. Research design. – 3.2. Case selection and scope conditions. – 3.3. Data sources and time window. – 3.4. Key concepts and operational definitions. – 3.5. Operationalization: Integrity Matrix and observable indicators. – 3.6. Coding protocol and triangulation rule. – 3.7. Measurement caveats and limitations. – 4. Results – corruption and access to justice: institutional integrity as a condition of fair trial guarantees. – 4.1. Comparative analysis of anti-corruption systems in Kazakhstan and Eastern Europe. – 4.2. Legal consciousness and anti-corruption behavior of citizens. – 4.3. Legal precedents and judicial practice. – 4.4. Judicial practice and integrity outcomes. – 4.5. Authors’ model of anti-corruption legal consciousness formation. – 5. Discussion. - 5.1. Corruption as a socio-legal constraint on access to justice. - 5.2. Procedural justice, predictability, and the citizen’s willingness to litigate. - 5.3. Comparative implications: integrity safeguards and institutional credibility. - 5.4. Judicial ethics and human-rights standards as interpretative anchors. - 5.5. Kazakhstan: the implementation gap and its consequences for legal consciousness. - 5.6 Policy implications: integrating law, education, and transparency instruments. - 5.7. Prospects for further research. – 6. Conclusion.

1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Evaluating the Kazakhstan AI Law through the Prism of the EU AI Act. – 3.1. Comparative Analysis of AI Definitions and Risk-Based Regulation. – 3.2. The Doctrine of ‘Electronic personhood’ and Algorithmic Accountability. – 3.3. Global Trends and Institutional Adaptation. – 4. Conclusions