Office of the Attorney General

<bold>ABSTRACT</bold> This paper proposes the creation of an international Rapid Response Mechanism for Hostage Crises. Specifically, this proposal: (i) provides factual background on global hostage issues, (ii) outlines relevant international and national law proscribing the practice of hostage taking, (iii) assesses the current unilateral approach in response to hostage crises and (iv) proposes a multilateral Mechanism to facilitate effective action against hostage-taking. The Mechanism would, among other things: – coordinate targeted, sequential diplomatic and economic sanctions to ensure that when one individual or entity is sanctioned by a Member State in response to hostage taking, it is subject to sanctions by all Mechanism Members, and encourage secondary sanctions; – establish national law enforcement teams to respond to hostage taking – modelled on present and prior hostage response taskforces – that regularly meet with their Mechanism Member State counterparts and coordinate joint operations and charges against hostage takers and their funders and enablers; – coordinate diplomatic responses to address hostage crises as they arise and issue joint statements clearly condemning the hostage takers and demanding the immediate release of the hostages; and – conduct regular meetings to share best practices, spotlight current hostages and offer training to foreign service professionals.

In the contemporary marketing landscape, the integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles has transitioned from a niche differentiator to a mainstream corporate imperative. However, this proliferation of ESG-focused marketing communications has been paralleled by a significant challenge: rising consumer skepticism and the pervasive threat of greenwashing. This paper provides a critical review of the complex interplay between these communications, the cultivation of consumer trust, and the perception of brand authenticity. It posits a conceptual framework wherein substantive ESG actions, aligned with stakeholder expectations, form the foundational prerequisite for authenticity. This authenticity is then communicated through radical transparency and stakeholder engagement, which in turn fosters the consumer trust essential for long-term brand loyalty. The review identifies the various forms of greenwashing—from claim-materiality mismatches to selective disclosure —as critical barriers that sever this chain by creating perceptions of corporate hypocrisy and undermining attributions of sincere motive. The findings underscore that in an era of heightened scrutiny, the efficacy of ESG marketing is contingent not on persuasive communication alone, but on the verifiable alignment of corporate actions, communications, and core values. This synthesis has profound implications for marketing theory, urging a deeper integration of legitimacy and commitment-trust theories, and for practice, advocating for a strategic shift from telling a sustainable story to demonstrably being a sustainable enterprise.

Abstract The article discusses deputies’ information-related rights and obligations. It also analyses administrative courts’ judgments in cases concerning access to public information, in which deputies were requesters or addressees of requests. Administrative courts admit the possibility of exercising the right of access to public information by deputies, but without invoking the performance of the mandate. At the same time, deputies are not classified as entities obliged to provide public information. The article presents two theses. Firstly, deputies may exercise their right of access to public information, revealing their special status. Secondly, deputies are entities obliged to provide public information, because they exercise public authority, perform public tasks and manage public property. The theses are justified by the linguistic and functional interpretation of constitutional provisions, as well as the Act on Access to Public Information and the Act on the Performance of the Mandate of the Deputy and the Senator. The paper uses the method of dogmatic and legal analysis and the analysis of Polish administrative courts’ case law, and it presents de lege lata comments and de lege ferenda proposals.

The ineffectiveness of the criminal system in addressing collusion and nepotism in Indonesia stem form from normative inequality, multiple interpretations of the law, and a repressive approach that does not address the complexity of power crimes. This research aims to reconstruct the national legal system to combat the lack of norms and weak regulations related to collusion and nepotism as an operational criminal offense. It employs a normative approach with a statute analysis and a comparative study of the United States legal system to enhance normative recommendations. This research shows, first, that there are fundamental differences in legal policies regarding the criminalisation of collusion and nepotism. The United States addresses these issues implicitly through various criminal statutes, while Indonesia integrates them into its anti-corruption regime as a historical response to the abuse of power. Second, normative imbalances in Indonesia, such as the non-operational formulation of the crime of collusion and limited sanctions against nepotism, have led to weak enforcement and created loopholes for the abuse of authority. Therefore, third, it is imperative to reconstruct the law to encompass the aspects of substance, structure, and legal culture, thereby strengthening the effectiveness of criminalisation and addressing collusion and nepotism.

Abstract This article tackles the emergence and progressive acceptance of third-party funding (TPF) in arbitration across Arab countries within the MENA region, where civil law systems and Islamic Shariaa principles converge. While legislative regulation of TPF remains largely absent, notable arbitral institutions – including the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) in Egypt, the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) in the United Arab Emirates, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Qatar International Center for Conciliation and Arbitration (QICCA) in Qatar – have revised their arbitration rules to include express provisions governing TPF. These developments reflect a regional trend towards procedural transparency, primarily through the disclosure of funding arrangements and funders’ identities, in order to avoid conflicts of interest and preserve the arbitrators’ impartiality and independence. Furthermore, the article sheds light on the nature of TPF agreements and assesses their compatibility with the principles of Islamic Shariaa, concluding that when properly structured, TPF agreements align with the overarching Islamic Shariaa principles of justice and fairness. Accordingly, the reliance on TPF in the MENA region is likely to play an increasingly significant role in the region’s dispute resolution landscape, and particularly in arbitration.

Abstract Charitable Oversight : Insight from Regulators and Enforcers , examines the critical role of state charity officials in oversight of the nonprofit sector within the United States, including current and anticipated challenges to their regulatory authority. As charitable giving and the number of nonprofit organizations in the U.S. continue to grow, effective regulation is essential to ensuring that donations to charity are used appropriately and for their intended charitable purposes. State charity regulators, who often operate with limited resources, are at the forefront of these efforts, working to detect and prevent fraud, mismanagement, and other violations of law. The article begins with a discussion of the educational initiatives undertaken by state regulators to address potential compliance issues within the charitable sector. By providing training and guidance to nonprofit boards and donors, regulators help ensure that nonprofit leaders are aware of their fiduciary responsibilities and that donors are informed about how to donate wisely. These educational efforts are essential tools in preventing fraud and enhancing accountability, particularly given the limited resources available for enforcement in many states. Enforcement strategies are another central focus of the article. Charity regulators often employ a blend of progressive-enforcement methods, such as inquiry letters or informal resolutions, and more formal actions, including lawsuits and multistate enforcement initiatives. The paper highlights the importance of multistate collaboration, which has enabled state charity regulators to leverage their combined resources to target wide-spread fraud and pursue comprehensive actions that might not be possible if each state acts alone. For example, enforcement cases, brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and multiple states against fraudulent charities and deceptive solicitations, have had broad, nationwide impact. The paper raises concerns about the limited capacity of the IRS to serve as an effective gatekeeper. The IRS’s adoption of Form 1023-EZ in 2014, intended to streamline the tax-exempt application process, has led to a sharp increase in the number of organizations granted tax-exempt status, yet with fewer controls to verify their eligibility. For example, a substantial percentage of organizations using Form 1023-EZ may not actually qualify for the tax-exempt status they receive, creating added regulatory burdens for state charity officials who must monitor compliance with their limited resources. The article also addresses how technological advancements are reshaping the landscape of charitable giving and regulation. Digital platforms, crowdfunding sites, social media, and the growing popularity of online donation portals have made fundraising more accessible but also present new regulatory challenges. Regulators are increasingly faced with questions about the applicability of traditional laws to digital fundraising methods, the risks associated with online payment platforms, and the potential for AI-driven fraudulent solicitations that can manipulate donors with personalized, deceptive messages. Future challenges in the regulatory environment include the expected increase in the number of charitable organizations, an increasingly globalized solicitation landscape and social and environmental factors that result in more frequent disaster-related giving. The article argues that these changes will require regulators to expand multistate collaboration and develop more efficient systems for information sharing, cross-jurisdictional investigations, and collective enforcement actions. In conclusion, the authors advocate for expanded educational outreach and a strengthened network of collaboration among state charity regulators as essential to sustaining effective oversight of the nonprofit sector. By fostering a culture of compliance through education and leveraging collective resources for enforcement, state charity regulators can better protect donors, ensure transparency, and promote the health and integrity of the charitable sector in the United States. The article suggests that, with continued adaptation to technological and societal changes and more collaboration, charity regulators can effectively navigate the future challenges facing nonprofit oversight, safeguarding both public trust and charitable missions in an evolving landscape.

Abstract During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide invoked the ‘precautionary principle’ to justify policies designed to protect public health. This principle holds that the state may act proactively to avert harm where there is factual uncertainty about that harm and the efficacy of policies proposed to mitigate it. Many of the policies introduced during the pandemic limited citizens’ constitutional rights. This article accordingly analyzes how the precautionary principle can be integrated into the proportionality doctrine courts use to assess the validity of rights limitations. As our case study, we take the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada and its globally influential Oakes proportionality test. When articulating the test in the past, the Court has grappled with the need to defer to laws that pursue important public objectives when the evidence underlying those policies is indeterminate. However, it has been criticized for not creating detailed guidelines for when judges should defer, which is said to breed arbitrary, results-oriented decision-making. We update this criticism by showing that it continues to apply to judgments of lower courts in Canada that have followed the Court’s proclamations to evaluate laws that limit constitutional rights to combat COVID-19. We then construct the requisite guidelines by drawing analogies with existing legal principles found in tort and criminal law. We argue that in contexts of factual uncertainty, the degree of judicial deference should vary according to the gravity and likelihood of the harm the government seeks to prevent. This risk-based framework restrains judicial subjectivity and illuminates how precaution should operate at each stage of the proportionality test. We further argue that it can assist courts across jurisdictions when incorporating precaution within proportionality because, unlike approaches to this problem offered by other comparative constitutional scholars, it is suitably modest and avoids excessive revision of accepted proportionality principles.

This article considers the problems of legal regulation in the era of digital transformation to be dealt with in the sphere of the legal system of the state and social relations. The inevitability of increasing legal regulation of digitalization requires the search for the most optimal models of data regulation both at the international and domestic levels. This will entail the implementation of new information and legal standards and modification of existing ones. It is shown that the key problem of legal support for digitalization is the lack of guarantees. It is necessary to develop a comprehensive approach to the legal support of digitalization, including the development and implementation of relevant legislative acts, supervision and control mechanisms, as well as mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the rights and freedoms of all participants in the digital economy.