مطالب

The protection of victims’ rights has long attracted significant academic and legal interest, finding expression in both international instruments and national legislation. Among these rights, the right to information occupies a central position, serving as a prerequisite for the meaningful exercise of all other entitlements within any justice system. Modern instruments such as the European Union Directive 2012/29/EU Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support, and Protection of Victims of Crime 2012 (‘Victims’ Rights Directive’), and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights 2015, explicitly enshrine this right as foundational to effective victim participation and access to justice. Within this context, this article employs a qualitative methodology to examine how contemporary international instruments conceptualise and operationalise the victims’ right to information, and to identify the core legal and institutional requirements for its effective implementation across jurisdictions. Following an introduction, literature review, and theoretical framework, the study traces the historical evolution of this right, analyses mainstream international approaches, and outlines the key elements necessary for its adequate realisation in national legal systems. The analysis concludes that while international norms increasingly promote a more expansive and structured approach to victims’ right to information, several domestic frameworks - particularly in developing jurisdictions - frequently remain underdeveloped or inconsistent in their application. The article consequently argues that aligning national legislation, judicial procedures, and institutional support mechanisms with emergent international standards is essential to ensuring the full and effective enjoyment of this right by all victims of crime.

Despite the universal recognition of the right to food, global hunger remains a persistent crisis. Paradoxically, many of the world’s major religions incorporate fasting as a central practice, seemingly at odds with the fundamental need for sustenance. This essay explores this apparent contradiction, focusing on major religious traditions to examine the nuanced relationship between the right to food and the duty of fasting. It argues that religious fasting, far from undermining food security, can cultivate values such as self-abstinence, communal responsibility, and empathy for the hungry, indirectly supporting efforts to ensure more equitable access to food resources. Religious rules on fasting, in fact, can be instruments for managing the challenges of food insecurity. This paper analyses different meanings of fasting in religious laws, summarizing the altruistic view that underpins them. Moreover, this matter could be a point of the “strategy of dialogue” that is currently being developed in the EU under the umbrella of the Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate that religious duties can be considered as valuable legal resources in achieving global food security.

Independence and impartiality are essential indicators for qualified arbitrators. However, the criteria for assessing these indicators differ among competent authorities when addressing challenges to arbitrators. One contentious aspect is the nationality of the arbitrators. By examining arbitration rules and issued decisions, a distinction was made between commercial arbitration and investment arbitration. The ICSID rules of arbitration explicitly mention common nationality with the parties as a criterion for challenging an arbitrator. The ICSID practice has also influenced investment arbitration outside of ICSID, given the significant role of nationality throughout investment law. Conversely, in commercial arbitration, the role of nationality is less pronounced, to the extent that the international character of arbitration in various legal systems is determined by the differences in the parties' places of business rather than their nationalities. Consequently, the nationality of arbitrators in commercial arbitration cannot solely serve as a basis for challenging an arbitrator without other supporting factors.