This article deals with the protection of consumers when they enter e-commerce transactions with foreign companies. Most states reacted to the growing importance of e-commerce by enacting data protection and consumer protection legislation and by requiring registration of e-businesses. Companies have found a way to circumvent the consumer legislation by offering the consumers to agree to a choice of foreign courts and laws which are included in their terms and conditions. Consumers give away the protection of their home state simply by clicking to accept the general terms and conditions on the company’s website. The purpose of this article is to examine if the solutions and the experience from the United States and the European Union could serve as a model for transnational protection of consumers in e-commerce. The authors discuss the different levels of protection offered in the United States and the European Union and consider unification of the standards by a multilateral convention.

With the International Criminal Court (ICC) losing not only its chance of incorporating the same great powers that decided not to support it at the very start – out of fear of losing dominance – but also about to lose long-time members such as the ones from the African Union, its chances of being a mean of institutionalized punishment against the worst individual crimes of international concern are trembling. Would the ICC obtain better outcomes if it discarded entirely its authority against member governments, and restricted its jurisdiction to cases suggested by the same countries where the crimes had been allegedly committed? The ICC could hence maintain an important role in the canalization of local jurisdictions through common, global rules: this way, even if through selective jurisdiction, it could at least limit and moderate the intentions of member States when dealing with inconvenient local enemies or oppositions. Through an analysis of the jurisdictional past of this institution and a contextualization of its controversial relationship with the United Nations (UN) Security Council, this paper aims to furnish a comparison of available outcomes, and elucidate the aforementioned possibility as an advantageous framework, although less ambitious. An eventual last focus will be put on the risks of the opposite trend, an ambitious but inefficient institution, possibly leading to the legitimization of its failures.

The paper covers unlawful use of force in international law by states to explore the general concept and definition of aggression in the law of state responsibility and for criminal responsibility of individuals. The genesis of the concept of aggression in the XX century is analyzed. The paper describes problems that arose in defining the aggression that accompanied the efforts to ban any threat of force and the use of force by international law provisions, which was over with adopting the United Nations Charter in 1945. The responsibility of a State for the internationally wrongful act in question was accompanied by the criminal responsibility of individuals for the same international crime. The analysis of cases before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and the analysis of the work of the United Nations Security Council, reveal their practice in terms of which of the above authorities has priority in finding State responsibility? Equally, we seek to identify the weaknesses concerning the definition of aggression adopted as an expression of political compromise in Annex to the 1974 UN General Assembly Resolution, and whether the 2010 Kampala definition contained in the amendments to the Rome Statute may be considered inadequate in trying of the International Criminal Court to fight impunity and to participate in the prevention of future crimes of aggression through its work and actions. Ultimately, is the aggression any threat or violation of international peace and security by the state? If aggression is a true-crime of a State, does that mean that only the state's highest officials will be criminally responsible for the crime in question?

No abstract

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development builds upon the Millennium Development Goals while at the same time reaffirming the conclusions of the leading instruments in the field of human rights and international law. The 17 integrated and indivisible sustainable development goals (SDGs) require innovation through digitalization and legal activities. Digitalization and new technologies are crucial for SDG 8, 9, and 16. SDG 16: Peace, justice, and strong institutions directly focus on law. While SDG 16 does not directly mention it, digitalization is essential in achieving its specific targets. Examples include concepts of e-government (including data protection and public access to information), e-commerce, equal access to dispute resolution mechanisms in cyberspace, and enforcement of non-discriminatory laws for sustainable development. The right to a healthy and sustainable environment encompasses economic, social, and environmental aspects that SDGs capture. To achieve these goals, the 2030 Agenda relies on international law instruments. The right to a healthy and sustainable environment is developing towards an internationally recognized human right. As environmental goals do not recognize national borders, international law plays a key role. International environmental law should facilitate a broader application of existing clean technologies through the transfer of technology and examine the development of new technologies as to its compatibility with a sustainable environment. Moreover, the human right to share in scientific advancement and enjoy its benefits embodies equal access to technology. The legal enforcement of sustainable goals in the private and governmental sectors remains one of the main concerns of climate change.