Background: Bulgaria has had a statutory mediation framework for over two decades, yet mediation remains underused compared with court adjudication. In the context of judicial reform and caseload reduction, Bulgaria adopted rules in 2023 that introduced mandatory judicial mediation pursuant to which parties to pending court proceedings are required to attend a free-of-charge mediation information session of up to three hours before the first open hearing. The provision was scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2024. On that date, however, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court (Decision No. 11 of 1 July 2024, Constitutional Case No. 11/2024) declared the core provisions of the reform unconstitutional, reviving the question of how far the legislature can require a mediation step without impairing access to justice. In July 2025, Bulgaria adopted a revised model centred on mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting during pending proceedings for specified categories of disputes subject to additional referral by judges. This article analyses the new model, positions it within European approaches, and identifies design requirements for legislation that can stimulate mediation uptake without creating procedural barriers. Method: The article employs doctrinal and comparative legal analysis. It examines the 2025 amendments to the Bulgarian Civil Procedure Code and the Mediation Act, introducing mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting, and considers them in light of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court’s reasoning on proportionality and effective access to court. It situates Bulgaria’s approach within European standards, particularly the interpretation of mandatory ADR/mediation models by the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the mandatory mediation models applicable in Italy, Lithuania, Spain, Greece, and Cyprus. The analysis also draws on international discussions on the design features of effective mandatory mediation models, including incentives, costs, procedural safeguards, and protections in cases involving violence or risks to children, to offer suggestions regarding the features an effective mandatory mediation approach should adopt. Results and Conclusions: The 2025 Bulgarian mandatory mediation model is best characterised as a hybrid: it combines a legislatively defined set of case types with broad judicial discretion and multiple statutory exceptions. It compels attendance at an information meeting (not mediation itself), does not require settlement, does not automatically stay the court case, and limits adverse costs consequences to a modest fee, all features aimed at meeting constitutional proportionality requirements. At the same time, its effectiveness will depend on implementation choices (funding, quality control of mediators, clear referral criteria, and workable incentives). The Bulgarian trajectory confirms the broader European trend: mandatory or semi-mandatory mediation mechanisms can be compatible with the right to effective judicial protection, but only when designed to avoid turning ADR into a procedural barrier and when safeguards for vulnerable parties are robust. The ultimate conclusion is that it may be advisable to adopt uniform, mandatory mediation procedures that apply across the EU and form the backbone of an efficient mediation ecosystem across the Union that truly promotes out-of-court dispute settlement.

Background: The study looks at the criminal implications for the death of a woman undergoing an abortion in the context of Islamic Sharia and the legal frameworks of Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Europe. The main concern of this study is how to preserve the mother's life while protecting the fetus, which raises sensitive questions about the legal definition of abortion that causes death. The study problem stems from the lack of explicit provisions in Emirati law and in the legislation of France and Poland that criminalize this composite conduct, in contrast to the explicit regulation found in Jordanian law. The study aims to clarify the Islamic Sharia's perspective on abortion crimes and the consequential death of the pregnant woman. Method: The study uses a comprehensive comparative analytical methodology that systematically contrasts relevant Islamic Sharia rulings with the Jordanian, Emirati, French, and Polish legal frameworks governing abortion and the legal consequences of death resulting from it. The study's objectives are to identify similarities and differences between religious and positive law, assess their impact on criminal liability, and assess how well each legal system balances the protection of fetal life with consideration for individual rights and medical necessity. It accomplishes this by critically examining judicial interpretations, statutory provisions, and doctrinal sources. Results and Conclusions: The study draws several important conclusions, chief among them being that both Jordanian and Emirati laws are in line with Islamic Sharia in that they forbid abortion unless necessary, and criminalize both abortion and the killing of a pregnant woman while imposing penalties for both. In contrast to Jordanian law, which specifically forbids abortion that results in death, Emirati and European laws permit abortion in cases of fetal malformation. The study also identifies shortcomings in Emirati law concerning the escalation of penalties. Therefore, in accordance with the Jordanian legislative approach, the study suggests adding a specific clause to Emirati law that criminalizes abortion that results in death and imposes harsher penalties. It also addresses circumstances where criminal liability increases following the issuance of a final judgment for abortion.

Background: This paper analyses the proposed Directive of the European Parliament and the Council aimed at combating corruption, within the context of Romanian legislation, with special focus placed on the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the proposed Directive. Even if this phenomenon still lacks a unanimously accepted definition, corruption remains a pervasive challenge across various sectors in Romania, necessitating a comprehensive legislative framework to strengthen anti-corruption measures and fortify the rule of law. The proposed directive reflects the European Union (EU)’s proactive stance in addressing systemic corruption, with a particular focus on the Romanian legal landscape. The research delves into the substantive changes outlined by the proposed provisions of the directive in reference to the phenomenon of bribery, analyzing its potential implications for the existing anti-corruption framework in Romania in view of the interplay between anti-corruption efforts and the broader legal framework, assessing how the proposed changes may contribute to a more transparent, accountable, and resilient legal system. Method: Using a comparative approach, the authors analyze the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the proposed Directive in light of the relevant provisions of Romanian criminal law. At the same time, the authors argue that, given the institutional framework of Romanian anti-corruption efforts, the aforementioned regulation does not provide a clear advantage. Results and conclusions: While acknowledging the multifaceted nature of anti-corruption endeavors, the authors conclude that the proposed versions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Anticorruption Directive will not have a significant impact on the corresponding norms of the Romanian Criminal law, while explaining why this could be viewed as both a positive and a negative fact.

Background: International nuclear liability conventions, particularly the Paris Convention of 1960 and the Vienna Convention of 1963, as amended in 1997, establish the principle of exclusive operator liability, under which the licensed nuclear operator bears sole responsibility for compensating for damage resulting from a nuclear incident. In practice, however, this principle encounters significant limitations in situations where operator liability cannot be effectively enforced, such as insolvency, armed conflict, force majeure, or insufficient financial guarantees. These exceptional circumstances raise questions regarding the role of the state in ensuring adequate compensation for victims of nuclear damage. Methods: The study employs a combination of doctrinal, analytical, comparative, descriptive, and statistical research methods. International nuclear liability treaties are examined alongside national legislation, particularly Ukrainian Law No. 2893 of 2001 and Saudi Law No. M/81 of 2018. The comparative method is used to assess how each legal system addresses exceptional state intervention and compensation mechanisms, while descriptive and statistical analyses draw on international practice and comparative data on operator liability limits and financial security arrangements. Results and Conclusions: The analysis demonstrates that both Ukraine and Saudi Arabia recognise the possibility of state intervention when operator-based compensation proves inadequate. However, Ukraine provides a more explicit and structured statutory framework for governmental liability and supplementary compensation mechanisms, whereas Saudi Arabia adopts a more conditional and subsidiary approach. The study concludes that clearer institutional arrangements and designated state compensation mechanisms are necessary, particularly in Saudi Arabia, to enhance alignment with international standards and ensure effective protection of victims of nuclear incidents.

Background: This study examines legitimacy and legitimation under Islamic law (Sharīʿah) and how they relate to social justice and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In Islamic jurisprudence, legitimacy flows from divine sovereignty expressed through the Qur’an, Sunnah, and scholarly consensus (ijmāʿ). This includes legal validity, moral authority, and spiritual accountability. Legitimation, by contrast, is a socio-legal process. Authority and institutions gain communal recognition through ijtihād, fatwas, and social practices. Understanding this relationship is crucial. It helps explain how Islamic law preserves justice, promotes accountability, and sustains institutional legitimacy within changing socio-political contexts. Building on this conceptual foundation, the study adopts a systematic methodology to examine these dynamics in greater detail. Methods: The study employs a qualitative, doctrinal, and comparative legal research methodology. Primary Islamic sources—the Qur’an, Hadith, and classical fiqh manuals —are analysed alongside modern constitutions, international legal frameworks, and institutional reports. The maqāṣid al-sharīʿah (higher objectives of Islamic law) framework guides the analysis, emphasising justice, dignity, and social welfare. Comparative perspectives are drawn from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Council of Europe’s principles, and the United Nations SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) to identify areas of convergence, divergence, and mutual reinforcement. This comprehensive approach enables the study to produce findings relevant to both Islamic and international legal frameworks, as elaborated in the results and conclusions. Results and Conclusions: Findings reveal that legitimacy in Islamic law provides a transcendental and normative foundation rooted in divine command and moral accountability, while legitimation functions as its operational dimension through communal validation and interpretative flexibility. This duality enables Islamic law to preserve doctrinal consistency while accommodating evolving social realities. Interpreted through the maqāṣid al-sharīʿah, Islamic notions of legitimacy and justice align closely with SDGs 5 (Gender Equality), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and 16, demonstrating Islam’s intrinsic commitment to fairness, institutional integrity, and social inclusion. The study concludes that distinguishing between textual legitimacy and contextual legitimation enhances the coherence and adaptability of Islamic legal processes. Integrating maqāṣid-based reasoning into global justice and governance frameworks complements international norms of accountability, transparency, and participatory governance. This synthesis reinforces Islam’s enduring relevance to contemporary legal and ethical discourse, offering a model of legitimacy that is both divinely grounded and socially responsive.

Background: The collapse of the communist regime in Romania in December 1989 triggered a stage of profound and complex legislative changes aimed at repairing abuses, discrimination and violations of rights, with challenges for the justice reform process and for institutional and social governance. The reform of the state and the process of European integration have engaged in social debates and legal initiatives aimed at guaranteeing citizens' rights and freedoms and promoting social reconciliation. In this context, the condemnation of communist crimes, the recognition of abuses, the restitution of property, and the lustration attempts represented two central levels of political and judicial reform in post-communist Romania. This study aims to investigate how these legislative initiatives, as well as other associated regulatory approaches, have been legislated in accordance with the standards and commitments for European and Euro-Atlantic integration. Methods: The study proposes a qualitative approach, which addresses both the documentary analysis of legislative proposals and initiatives, grouping three main themes: (1) transitional justice, recognition and granting of rights to politically persecuted persons and honouring the memory of the heroes-martyrs in the December 1989 Revolution; (2) legislative initiatives on the restitution of properties, the legal situation of residential buildings previously transferred to state property, the regulation of the status of judges and prosecutors; and (3) legislative preparations on integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures and initiatives for the establishment of institutional structures on the investigation of communist crimes and the analysis of the communist dictatorship. For the research of these topics, the research will use methods specific to the legal study such as: (a) normative analysis and examination of the texts of laws, decree-laws and ordinances of the executive adopted and issued during the communist period; (b) the analysis of the jurisprudence by studying the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the analysis of the exceptions of unconstitutionality raised by the Constitutional Court of Romania in the matter of property restitution and the application of the law in the field and (c) the historical-legal analysis necessary for correlating the legislative reforms and initiatives with the political and historical context by conforming to three chronological frameworks of analysis: the fall of the regime, political transition and integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. Results and conclusions: The research indicates an uneven evolution of the normative framework, marked by fragmentation challenges in the legislative reform process regarding the recognition of victims, the restitution of property, and social reconciliation. Despite these legal, political and social contexts, the research highlights both the legislative progress and the societal benefits for transitional justice in Romania, but also the opportunity of such an analysis carried out thirty-five years after the December 1989 Revolution for the development of a legal culture focused on respect for human rights and the consolidation of the rule of law in societies in transition.

Background: The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence has profoundly transformed various aspects of social life, including the criminal justice system. In criminal proceedings, the collection and processing of biometric, behavioral, and emotional data may threaten the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial. This study examines the intersection between technological innovation and personal data protection in criminal justice through a comparative legal analysis of the European Union and Vietnam. By analyzing the EU’s GDPR, Law Enforcement Directive, and AI Act 2024 alongside Vietnam’s legal framework, the paper identifies key areas of convergence, divergence, and regulatory gaps. Methods: The study employs comparative legal analysis, combined with a human rights–based approach, to clarify the relationship between technological innovation and the right to personal data protection in criminal justice. The sources of reference include the legal frameworks of the European Union and Vietnam, case law and reports from bodies of EU and United Nations. Results and Conclusions: The study aims to establish fundamental legal principles that balance technological innovation with the protection of the right to personal data in criminal justice—an approach that has received limited attention in Vietnam. Based on this foundation, it proposes legal reforms toward a framework of “human rights–oriented digital justice”, ensuring that the digitalization and application of AI in the justice system not only enhance operational efficiency but also strengthen the rule of law and protect people.

Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Results and Discussion. – 3.1. AI’s Transformative Potential in the Judicial Sector. – 3.2. Ethical Guidelines for AI in the Justice System. – 3.3. Assistive AI in Judicial Decision-Making. – 3.4. Procedural AI in Court Administration. – 3.5. Fully Autonomous AI (“Robot Judges”). – 3.6. EU AI Act (2024) and Soft Laws. – 3.7. International Legal Instruments. – 4. Conclusions.

Background: This research paper examines the legality of espionage during peacetime under the rules of international law. To address this issue, the paper focuses on several relevant international law rules, including the obligation to respect the sovereignty of other states and the prohibition on intervention. Although espionage is a longstanding instrument of statecraft essential for safeguarding national security, it occupies an uncertain legal position. International legal frameworks, including the UN Charter and customary international law, establish obligations such as the respect for state sovereignty and the prohibition of intervention, which espionage activities frequently challenge. The growth of modern surveillance capabilities, especially in the cyber domain, further complicates the legal and ethical boundaries of espionage. Methods: The study draws upon relevant international rules, such as the UN Charter and customary international law, as well as recent rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which can serve as a foundation for developing regulatory frameworks for espionage operations and surveillance activities. The study adopts a doctrinal legal research approach by systematically analysing primary sources of international law, including treaties, customary law principles, and jurisprudence from the ICJ and the ECtHR. It also incorporates a comparative review of state practice and relevant academic commentary to assess whether existing legal norms adequately regulate espionage activities during peacetime. Results and Conclusions: The findings indicate that espionage occupies a legally ambiguous space, particularly concerning the applicability of core principles of non-intervention and state sovereignty—especially in the cyber domain. In parallel, privacy has become enshrined in emerging human rights law, and legal safeguards around state surveillance have been introduced, emphasising proportionality, accountability, and supervision. Still, espionage operates in a highly nuanced legal and ethical territory that is neither wholly abhorrent nor entirely permissible. This contradiction reflects the ongoing tension between the challenges of balancing national security and the protection of individual rights. While espionage is widely acknowledged as vital to state security, international law does not explicitly ban it despite its potential to violate sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention. However, international law—through its emphasis on territorial integrity and sovereign equality—does not impose certain restraints on espionage activities. The study concludes that although espionage remains a multifaceted and indispensable component of state actions, it should not violate the principles and laws of sovereignty, human rights, or the broader framework of international law during peacetime. Legal and ethical ambiguity persists, necessitating the development of clearer regulatory frameworks that strike a balance between legitimate intelligence gathering and respect for sovereignty and individual rights. Ultimately, the research underscores that intelligence activities should not be permitted to undermine the stability of the international legal order or erode fundamental human rights protections.