The provisions of international documents that guarantee the fundamental right to freedom and security are transposed into Romanian legislation both in the Constitution and in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, the present study aims to analyze the national standard of protection of individual freedom in judicial proceedings compared to the standard established by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Through documentation, interpretation, and scientific analysis as the main research methods, this paper emphasizes the possibility of establishing, through domestic legislation, a level of protection higher than that imposed by the conventional standard. From this perspective, by regulating a right to repair the damage suffered in the situation of unjust deprivation of liberty as a result of ordering a preventive measure, the national standard of protection established by the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure is higher than the European standard. This study concludes with a proposal to expand the current procedural framework configured by the provisions of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (with the amendments made in 2023) regarding the special procedure for repairing the damage suffered as a result of the illegal or unjust deprivation of liberty during the criminal process.

Recent developments within American politics have witnessed an increase in the use of history to highlight the need for social justice and civic engagement. Yet, on its own, history is an altogether impotent means of doing so, for it fails to provide the public with the moral framework necessary for evaluating past injustices on an objective basis. To remedy this problem, this essay suggests that historians and other scholars and activists who are interested in civic engagement and social justice should look to the classical and common law traditions; the answer to the theoretical need for a solution to problems within presentist activism has, in other words, been the law. Doing so would provide a more universal and shared conception of past injustices and help increase a polity’s moral consciousness. Practically, this strategy can be implemented through a classical or liberal education, with the additional help of state legislatures. In all, this essay argues that history on its own is insufficient for moral education, that the best moral education is offered through the classical model, and that, as a practical matter, it is necessary for a legislative solution to mandate that education, if it will ever be possible to find an objective basis for civic engagement and social justice.

South Africa’s democracy turned 30 years old in 2024. At the same time, its constitutional order and jurisprudence marked three decades since the Interim Constitution and its successor, the 1996 Constitution, came into operation. Coincidentally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) turned 75 years old in the previous year, 2023. The confluence of these facts is quite poignant in the context of a constitutional text that is often lauded for its commitment to the protection of human rights and the eradication of the injustices of the past, which were firmly entrenched by the segregationist policies of the apartheid regime. At the centre of this hype about South African constitutional jurisprudence is the centrality of international law to the interpretation of the Bill of Rights as well as the development of the common law, customary law, and statutory law. With the UDHR being such a central pillar in the human rights sector, this study set out to determine the extent to which the Constitutional Court of South Africa relied on the UDHR and other international instruments in carrying out the mandate set out above. The study analysed cases delivered by the Court in two separate years, spaced ten years apart. The study did not necessarily attempt to determine a correlation, but simply to use descriptive statistics to determine how often, in those two years, the Court relied on international law in general, and on the UDHR in particular, in its interpretive and legal development mandate.

The right to the portability of personal data guarantees the interested party the right to receive personal data that concern themselves. Specifically, data which a person has provided to a ‘data collector’ in a structured format can currently be transmitted to another ‘data collector’ without any legal consequences as long as the original ‘collector’ has received consent either derived via a contract or other means. This data transaction from one ‘collector’ to another is often carried out by automated means; it is easily technically possible and is therefore considered to not negatively affect the rights and freedoms of others. This right to data transfer is guaranteed when it comes to data collected in the public interest or in the exercise of public powers conferred on the ‘collector’. The main precedent to the right to data portability is the EU Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016, regarding the protection of natural persons with respect to the processing of personal data and their free circulation, which repeals Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). In Article 20, this regulation discusses the right to data portability, establishing the basic guidelines for this right. Thus, a new personal right is guaranteed, given the context of the general protection of data. In order to strengthen control over their own data, a natural person must also be allowed to receive data in the same structured way.

Across the globe, national parks are frequently described in terms of their diverse wildlife, spectacular scenery, and cultural heritage. These extraordinary land (and sea) scapes are known to be important for the health and mental wellbeing of the people who visit them, but for many, they are also the place where they live and work. The COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 witnessed the importance of being in nature and exercising in green spaces, and part of the COVID-19 inheritance has been the rise of the so-called “staycation”, which has seen people becoming less inclined to travel overseas and more inclined to the explore nature and landscapes closer to home. While this has undoubtedly meant economic benefits to National Parks, it has also brought challenges that are yet to be fully realised and dealt with. This paper considers the laws and regulations in place to protect these special places in two jurisdictions, France and the United Kingdom, through the lens of two of those countries’ National Parks—the New Forest and the Calanques.

The American university has been guided by classical liberalism in its defense of the freedom of speech and academic freedom. The idea is that a university is a place where all ideas and perspectives can be debated. However, this idea is increasingly being challenged by those who want the secular university to be a place that advances a social philosophy that promises to transform society by dismantling structural racism and providing for greater equity. In this article, I will argue that both of these models have been shaped by democratic legal ideals and both share a common skeptical assumption about the basic questions of meaning that each person must answer. The legal structures developed by Westphalian modernity attempt neutrality on questions about meaning. This can be seen even in recent Supreme Court decisions affirming the individual’s right to determine meaning for themselves. This skeptical root has produced the conflict between classical liberals and the social transformation that we are witnessing at our universities. I argue for a third option that I find in the Declaration of Independence, which affirms that we can and should know the answers to basic questions which then provide the foundation for education and law.

The Directive 2008/52/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 21 May 2008, regarding certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, does not seem to have been designed for online mediation since it does not expressly include rules in this regard, though it does not prohibit it either. The Portuguese legislator, through Law 29/2013, of 19 April 2013 regulated mediation in an autonomous and systematic way in Portugal, covering internal and cross-border conflicts, and went beyond the EU requirements prescribed by the 2008 Directive, which only specified regulation to cross-border conflict mediation. Like the EU Directive, the Portuguese law does not explicitly address online mediation, but it neither prohibits nor excludes its application. In this article, we intend to present and conceptualize online mediation within the scope of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) procedures. We will present the specific features and principles of online mediation, thus enhancing the main challenges and potentialities of its use as an adequate means of resolving conflicts.

The quality of healthcare varies significantly from one country to another. This variation can be attributed to several factors, including the level of healthcare professionals’ professionalism, which is closely linked to the quality of their education. Medical and healthcare education is unique in its need for students to learn and practice various clinical skills, algorithms, and behaviours for clinical situations. However, it is challenging to ensure these educational experiences do not compromise the quality of healthcare and patient safety. A simulation-based educational (SBE) approach offers a solution to these challenges. However, despite the widespread adoption of the SBE approach in medical and healthcare education curricula; its recognition for its high value among students, educators, and healthcare professionals; and evidence showing its positive impact on reducing risks to both patients and healthcare professionals, there is still an absence of a standardized approach and guidelines for integrating simulations, which includes determining when, how, and to what ex-tent they should be implemented. Currently, there is no regulation on the need for SBE integration in medical and healthcare curricula. However, the framework of this article, based on the results of the analysis of the legal framework, which includes a set of laws, regulations, principles, and standards set by various government, administrations, and authoritative institutions, will determine the fundamental aspects of the integration of the SBE approach that justify and argue the need to (1) incorporate simulation-based education across all levels of medical and healthcare education programs and (2) adhere to certain standards when integrating the SBE approach into medical and healthcare programs. This is an area that needs to be developed with the involvement of legal, health, and education experts.

Saudi Arabia boasts a diverse and abundant cultural heritage that reflects a fusion of pre-Islamic and Islamic civilizations, serving as a precious legacy for future generations. Confronted with the challenges arising from globalization and rapid development, preserving intangible cultural heritage has become increasingly challenging, particularly in the absence of comprehensive heritage policies. The initial steps toward conservation were taken in 1972 when legislation was enacted to protect historical and cultural sites. However, it was not until 2014 that a new law was introduced to address the gaps left by the 1972 law. Unfortunately, this legal protection predominantly centered on tangible aspects of cultural heritage, leaving the equally important intangible cultural heritage neglected and unprotected. This study aims to evaluate the existing legal mechanisms in Saudi Arabia for the preservation and protection of intangible cultural heritage. It identifies the existing deficiencies and obstacles in the current cultural heritage framework regarding the preservation of intangible cultural heritage in Saudi Arabia. Our analysis focuses on how Saudi Arabia aligns with the principles and guidelines established by the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

When it is realised meaningfully, barrier-free access enables pedestrians with disabilities to use streets without being impeded by non-existent or poorly maintained sidewalks, inaccessible overpasses or underpasses, crowded sidewalks, lack of traffic controls, lack of aids at street crossings, unsafe motorist behaviour, and poor signage and lighting. While Kenya has laws in place that are intended to facilitate barrier-free access, in reality, these laws are not implemented, resulting in the violations of rights of pedestrians in general, and pedestrians with disabilities in particular. Using the lived experiences of pedestrians with disabilities, this article reflects on the policy, legislative, and practical contexts which undermine access. It shows that despite the range of policy and legal instruments which Kenya has adopted or enacted to ensure the public in general can access streets, pedestrians with disabilities enjoy arising benefits only marginally. The article’s thesis is that continental policy and normative instruments and institutions may impel Kenya towards ensuring that pedestrians with disabilities have meaningful barrier-free access.