The use of amnesties in transitional justice remains a contentious issue. The fight against impunity at the international level has left little room for the application of amnesties for international crimes and human rights abuses. Nevertheless, amnesty measures continue to be applied in many jurisdictions and the permissibility of conditional amnesties enacted as part of wider processes of reconciliation remains under debate. This paper argues that the judicial discussion of amnesties under international law has followed dynamics of path dependence, where initial decisions adopted in very specific contexts have strongly determined the subsequent treatment of amnesties in completely different situations. The influence of early decisions rejecting blanket amnesties in the aftermath of autocratic regimes in Latin America pulled domestic and international courts towards a general rejection of amnesties. However, in more recent years, transitional justice ideas have influenced the trajectory of the discussion on amnesties, opening courts to the permissibility of conditional and negotiated amnesties accompanied by alternative mechanisms of accountability. Mapping the judicial dialogue on amnesties, this paper shows a cautious shift in the approach to conditional amnesties. This is significant because international courts have mostly engaged with the most problematic amnesties, leaving some uncertainty around the way conditional amnesties enacted as part of complex transitional frameworks will be evaluated. Reading a significant number of decisions from different jurisdictions, this essay aims to shed some light on the way domestic courts have addressed the discussion of amnesties when they are part of wider efforts to bring peace, reconciliation, and democracy.

One of the most pressing regulatory issues of our time is whether, when, and how short selling should be regulated. Short selling facilitates the dissemination of negative information that is otherwise not available to the marketplace, thereby improving market efficiency. However, it may also disrupt market stability, particularly during times of stress. Therefore, regulators seek to regulate this market practice in a balanced manner. This paper examines the Korean short selling regime, the world’s longest ban, instituted following the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that the regulatory system is run on archaic methods. In particular, our analysis demonstrates that the rules are overly restrictive and complex compared to those in other major jurisdictions. Also, critical decisions are entirely at the government’s discretion, rendering it vulnerable to political interference. Stressing the need for a revamp of the current short selling system, we call for a thorough revision of law and regulations. Market authorities must set out clear standards for regulatory intervention to avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions. In doing so, they can enhance transparency and accountability in law enforcement. Regulators should be aware that it is the most effective way to protect themselves from undue political influences and to restore regulatory trust.

This article addresses how air services agreements (ASAs) are starting to be used to regulate carbon emissions from international aviation. International aviation is regulated by a combination of multilateral aviation-specific conventions and bilateral ASAs. The Chicago Convention of 1944 and annexes that contain the Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) are the primary multilateral sources of international aviation law. These SARPs mainly cover the technical requirements of aviation safety with the notable exception of Annex 16: Environmental Protection. With the goal of reducing the climate impact of aviation-related carbon emissions, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) was adopted as SARPs. However, the legal status of SARPs remains controversial. Since they are not an integral part of the Chicago Convention, they do not have the same legal force as the convention itself. Although the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopts and manages SARPs, it lacks a way to enforce compliance. Despite this limitation, however, bilateral ASAs give SARPs legal force. ASAs determine the level of aviation market access between states, and most ASAs permit the imposition of operational bans in case of non-compliance with SARPs on safety standards. From exclusively dealing with the exchange of commercial rights for international air transport, a new generation of ASAs has started to cover environmental protection. Based on a review of 620 publicly available ASAs, this article assesses how SARPs on aviation safety are effectively enforced by ASAs and anticipates how SARPs on carbon emissions will gradually follow suit.

This article investigates the role of European Union regulation in shaping EU companies’ resilience when their supply chains encounter risks in the EU internal market, focusing on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) as a representative case. In light of increasing global disruptions, the EU has adopted regulatory measures that embed sustainability, human rights, and environmental protection into corporate governance. Through doctrinal analysis and structured coding of legal provisions, the article examines how the CSDDD influences EU companies’ capacity to anticipate, absorb and adapt to supply chain shocks. It argues that while integrating multiple policy objectives within a single legal framework is both necessary and inevitable, doing so requires legal flexibility and institutional design that account for EU companies’ interdependent resilience capabilities. The analysis highlights the importance of adaptive regulatory mechanisms in ensuring that EU law remains effective and coherent in a rapidly changing global environment.

The display of ancestral human remains in museums is a contentious ethical issue, raising concerns around the dignity and respect for ancestral lived lives versus the role of remains for education and scientific enquiry. Against the backdrop of recent debates sparked by the deinstallation of ancestral remains at several museums (e.g., the removal of the Shuar tsantsas at the Pitt Rivers Museum) and revisions of national and international ethics codes, this essay explores the role of two methodologies – a trial and interactive workshop – in producing inclusive spaces to support ethical decision making and practice. Digital participation technologies were used to support an accessible mode of participation that was anonymous – allowing attendees to express opinions about emotive and challenging subjects, such as ancestral human remains. For both examples, attendees and participants identified key priority and action areas for the sector and within their places of work. The activities will contribute to a wider research project that is investigating value and ethical disagreements and polarization within museums.

Outside the conventional scope of national security, States characterize a plethora of issues as security concerns in present-day international affairs. While the securitization of unconventional issues has been studied extensively in relation to national security exceptions under economic treaties, States’ use of unconventional security claims in invoking public policy exceptions, where the legal text contains no security-related terms, has attracted less academic attention. This article investigates the WTO judiciary’s approach to unconventional security claims raised under the GATT/GATS general exceptions, focusing on energy security as a case study. It demonstrates how the WTO judiciary has used two ‘old’ legal techniques from well-established general exceptions jurisprudence to examine ‘new’ energy security claims: framing regulatory objectives and identifying origin-based discriminations. The article finds that the WTO judiciary tends to be more permissive with energy security claims that are more closely related to the conventional, defence-oriented security notion; claims that are more distant from the conventional conception are also given substantial regard, but subject to more cautious scrutiny.

Scholars trained in disciplines like anthropology, history, law, political science, and sociology helped to give rise to the field of law and society over the past two generations. What theories does law and society offer those disciplines in return, and are scholars in those fields looking back to law and society? To answer these questions, this article, which introduces a symposium celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Law & Society Review, brings together scholarship across disciplines to share the possible future influence of law and society on the disciplines. This theoretical and forward-looking inquiry invites us all to reflect upon law and society’s contributions over the past two generations and to consider what law and society will contribute to the next generation of interdisciplinary – and disciplinary – scholarship.

Bribery by the pharmaceutical industry is one common manifestation of corruption that can be found in a pharmaceutical system. This study analyzes patterns of bribery in the global pharmaceutical industry through a systematic review of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery Phase Reports published between 1999 and February 2025. These reports document investigations and enforcement actions related to bribery across jurisdictions. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key patterns in cases implicating pharmaceutical firms. We found patterns across many of the cases we studied. For example, bribery was often approved by high-ranking managers. Also, the use of intermediaries and complicated corporate structures to obscure bribes. Multiple cases revealed the involvement of subsidiaries, third-party vendors, or shell companies that processed payments disguised as legitimate transaction. Reported bribes amounted to about US$12.6 million, with sanctions exceeding US$1.1 billion. Government officials, regulatory authorities, and healthcare providers were bribed through cash, gifts, luxury travel, and fraudulent research to gain market access, increase sales, or influence prescribing. These findings underscore the systemic nature of bribery in the pharmaceutical sector and call for stronger oversight and accountability to protect public trust and equitable medicine access.

This article examines the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (Directive) and its proposed amendment, especially from a Third World view. It establishes that, practically, the Directive has a limited value for Africans because it cannot stop corporate human rights abuses and economic exploitation in Africa. In contrast, the Directive entrenches neocolonial norms in the Business and Human Rights (BHR) field. This article also argues that it is futile for Third World Peoples to look to international law, given its capitalist history and the growing EU dominance in the BHR treaty discussions. Instead of looking to Europe or international law to save Africans from corporate abuses and economic exploitation, African states must look inward to create subsidiary norms that challenge and resist neocolonialism in the BHR field. To achieve this, it discusses the normative agency of the African Union in leading an Africanization agenda.

In the third chapter of his book, Reciprocal Freedom, Ernest Weinrib lucidly lays out a Kantian conception of ownership, and deftly lays to rest a series of questions to which that conception might be thought to give rise. Here I explore two issues lying at the root of the Kantian account of ownership as elaborated by Weinrib: The first is how it is that acquired rights to external things are possible in the first place; the second is why, once the possibility of acquired rights is established, the form that they take should be that of a traditional right of ownership, rather than, for instance, a more limited right to use. Ultimately, Weinrib’s discussion leaves me more favorably disposed toward the Kantian view of the possibility of acquired rights, but it seems to leave some important questions about the form of those rights unanswered.

This editorial considers how scholars interested in issues of global constitutionalism should approach the questions that have concerned those interested in enlightenment. Reflecting on the relocation of the journal’s editorial offices to Edinburgh, we foreground discussions from the historiography of the long eighteenth century that should be of interest to scholars of international relations, international law and political theory. Two main contributions are emphasized. First, a contextualist and political approach to enlightenment invites us to see global constitutionalism as a strategic response to crisis, aiming to combat fanaticism. Second, a global approach to enlightenment invites us to continue enlarging the world of global constitutionalism. Taken together, the contributions support the journal’s ongoing efforts to decolonize global constitutionalism by enjoining readers and contributors to attend to neglected sides and sites of global constitutional processes.

Who is recognised within the concept of ‘European Society’, and, more importantly, who or what remains unseen? This article critically examines European Society through a decolonial lens, arguing that EU law is detached from the lived and diverse realities of European Society. Drawing on the work of sociologist Manuela Boatcă, the authors propose a decolonial approach that excavates coloniality of power, knowledge and, especially, belonging within EU law to reimagine European Society. Analysing cases in migration and the rule of law, the article reveals how EU law perpetuates hierarchical structures of inclusion and exclusion, and invisibilises the liminal—often deploying “Western” norms, values, and lifestyles as gatekeeping tools, especially in post-colonial contexts. At the heart of this argument is the necessity to move beyond Eurocentric assumptions of universality, neutrality, and totality in legal scholarship, instead embracing plurality of perspective, creolisation, and reflexivity. The authors contend that European Society should not be treated as a rigid legal construct but rather as a dynamic and inclusive one that amplifies marginalised voices, acknowledges and accounts for the liminal, and critically examines the law’s inherent limitations. Ultimately, the article calls for a radical reimagining of European Society through its decolonisation—one that confronts historical injustices, disrupts entrenched power structures, and steers EU law toward a more just, equitable, accountable and reconstructive future.

Cet article examine la problématique de la grossophobie en discutant de ses racines comme de ses impacts sur les personnes qui en sont victimes ainsi que sa manifestation au sein du droit. Il explore plus précisément comment le droit et les politiques publiques peuvent perpétuer la stigmatisation des corps, notamment à travers les interventions en matière de saine alimentation. L’étude se concentre sur l’approche environnementale adoptée au Québec pour promouvoir une alimentation saine, en interrogeant sa capacité à éviter la stigmatisation individuelle. S’appuyant sur le cadre théorique des Fat Studies, l’article expose l’argumentation politique des Fat Studies, présente le cadre normatif québécois destiné à la création d’environnements favorables à la saine alimentation, et examine la place accordée au poids corporel dans les politiques publiques québécoises liées à la saine alimentation dans le but d’offrir une perspective critique sur les approches actuelles en santé publique ainsi que leurs impacts sur la perception sociétale de la grosseur.

This article challenges the Weberian view that modernization stems from the rational legal system, wherein legal-rational authority displaces traditional and charismatic authority as the transformative agent. We contend instead that, in key instances at the forefront of Asian development, monarchy has orchestrated economic and built-environment modernisation. In Thailand and Malaysia, royal interventions have operated outside or behind formal laws governing planning and development, producing significant outcomes for cities and economies. Two case studies illustrate this claim. In Bangkok, the King has played a leading role in shaping urban development. In Johor, the Sultan—later Malaysia’s Yang di-Pertuan Agong—has similarly directed the Iskandar Malaysia development region. These interventions exceed the expectations of constitutional monarchy, relying not on legal-rational authority but on traditional notions of royal power. Thus, monarchy emerges as a decisive agent of modernisation, complicating conventional theories of rationalisation and authority in Southeast Asia.

It has long since been accepted that where a defendant induces a primary wrongdoer to commit a tort against a claimant, the procurer may be held liable for the losses and harm thereby caused. Typically, the existence of such liability has been asserted rather than rigorously demonstrated both by judges and jurists. And while some detailed scholarly engagement with this form of liability has been proffered, the explanations on offer have tended to rely less on established principles of law, than on certain theoretical pre-commitments held by the authors in question. The Supreme Court’s decision in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed has injected some much-needed clarity into this conspicuously underexplored area of law. Yet even now, as this article seeks to show, there is much that remains uncertain concerning the nature and scope of such liability. It therefore seeks to shed light on those matters.

A ‘dialogue model’ of a bill of human rights has been enacted under Australian Human Rights Acts in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Queensland. This model includes obligations imposed on public authorities or public entities to act compatibly with human rights (substantive obligation) and to give proper consideration to relevant human rights (procedural obligation). Reviews of compliance with these ‘conduct obligations’ have proven the most successful avenue in human rights litigation to date. This article examines the conduct obligations through the lens of four recent significant judicial review cases – Thompson v Minogue (2021) 294 A Crim R 216, Davidson v Director-General, Justice and Community Safety Directorate (2022) 18 ACTLR 1, Owen-D’Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services (2021) 9 QR 250, and Johnston v Carroll; Witthahn v Wakefield; Sutton v Carroll [2024] QSC 2. The article critiques two issues: (1) the substantive obligation and judicial rejection of the concept of weight and latitude being granted to a decision-maker; and (2) the procedural obligation and judicial rejection of proportionality factors as mandatory relevant considerations. It concludes that, despite these contestable issues, the jurisprudence has reached a certain level of maturity and relative consistency.