The commitment of the EU to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is projected in the EU law about annual reporting by businesses. Since EU member states further develop this framework by their own domestic laws, annual reporting with CSR information is not unified and just partially mandatory in the EU. Do all European businesses report CSR information and what public declaration to society do they provide with it? The main dual purpose of this paper is identifying the parameters of this annual reporting duty and studying the CSR information provided by the ten largest Czech companies in their annual statements for 2013-2017. Based on legislative research and the teleological interpretation, the current EU legislative framework with Czech particularities is presented and, via a case study exploring 50 annual reports, the data about the type, extent and depth of the CSR is dynamically and comparatively assessed. It appears that, at a minimum, large Czech businesses satisfy their legal duty and e-report on CSR in a similar extent, but in dramatically different quality. Employee matters and adherence to international standards are used as a public declaration to society more than the data on environmental protection, while social matters and R&D are played down.

This paper sets out to reconsider the Hohfeldian framework of rights in celebration of the centenary anniversary of Hohfeld's death. It begins by conceptualising each of the Hohfeldian incidents or rights before outlining the molecular or complex structure of rights to ‘things’. I adopt a broad use of the term of ‘right’ and apply it to Legal, Moral, Equitable and Human conceptions and constructions. It sets out an argument in favour of a further definitional model - in addition to Hohfeld’s scheme of opposites and correlatives – which focuses on the function of these conceptual rights. Finally, it will consider the broader implications of how rights are held and the relationships which these rights govern. Ultimately, this paper seeks to demonstrate the benefit, and indeed necessity, of the Hohfeldian model in any discussion of rights. Without it ‘rights talk’ is debased and impoverished.

Over the years, artificial intelligence (AI) is spreading its roots in different areas by utilizing the concept of making the computers learn and handle complex tasks that previously require substantial laborious tasks by human beings. With better accuracy and speed, AI is helping lawyers to streamline work processing. New legal AI software tools like Catalyst, Ross intelligence, and Matlab along with natural language processing provide effective quarrel resolution, better legal clearness, and superior admittance to justice and fresh challenges to conventional law firms providing legal services using leveraged cohort correlate model. This paper discusses current applications of legal AI and suggests deep learning and machine learning techniques that can be applied in future to simplify the cumbersome legal tasks.

The protection of Geographic Indications (GIs) is part of the intellectual property (IP) rights described in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) after the Uruguay Round (1986-1994). The members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), including Mozambique, have adopted it. This country legislated GI under Decree 18/99 (04/05/1999, title II, chapter VI) of the national Industrial Property Code, harmonised with TRIPS. However, there is little information about its enforcement and impact in the industry. This review analyses the possibility of protecting the Mozambican cashew nuts industry under the GI act. The industry, with major participation of smallholders and employing mostly women, produces one of the most profitable export commodities, though it has suffered colossal losses over the last thirty-five years. The analysis has shown that it is suitable and probably advantageous to protect the cashew nuts under the Decree 18/99. On the other hand, other local trade policies from 1991 are negatively impacting the entire industry and these might create the illusion of inefficacy of the new IP rights including the protection of GIs.

In order to ensure the sustainability of the shipping industry and marine ecosystem of Montenegro, it is necessary that Montenegro becomes a full member of the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MoU) on Port State Control. The reasons for doing so are numerous: the full adoption of standards stipulated by the Memorandum in relation to ship control; continuous keeping the pace with and development of new standards in compliance with turbulent changes in the maritime industry and operation (including the increasing scope of maritime transport); decrease in the number of detained ships which meet the requirements stipulated in international conventions and elimination of substandard ships in perspective; prevention of environmental pollution, sea and port incidents. This justified endeavour is supported by the fact that Montenegro is one out of two countries in Europe that are not the full members of the Paris MoU. Additionally, in this context it is necessary to emphasise the fact that the marine ecosystem of Montenegro makes an integral part of the world ocean. Accordingly, the improvement of the quality of national legislation which is compliant with international requirements is an imperative which has positive implications on the regional and global sustainability.

The International tax regime (ITR) has been transformed after the Great Recession of 2008–2009. The G20/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project (2013–2015) has fundamentally changed the ITR, giving new life to the single tax principle (income should be taxed once, i.e., no double taxation and no double non taxation). Reaction to BEPS has varied dramatically between the EU and the US, the two largest markets in the world. In the EU BEPS is taken very seriously, as shown for example by the new Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives that implement the single tax principle. In the US BEPS is almost invisible; while the US model tax treaty has been amended to incorporate it the US has refused to sign the Multilateral Instrument to implement BEPS in its treaties and the only other BEPS action that the US has taken is country by country reporting. It thus appears that the future of BEPS and the ITR depends on whether the EU or the US view prevails, i.e., whether multinationals can be forced to pay significant tax on the 160–240 billion that are currently not taxed annually because of BEPS. While US multinationals as well as EU multinationals are exposed to the EU ATAD and related measures while operating in Europe, they are less subject to EU anti BEPS measures elsewhere in the world. It therefore is crucial to assess the reaction to BEPS in the other large economy that was involved in its development, namely China. This article attempts to assess China’s reaction to BEPS based on Chinese sources. It shows that China takes BEPS seriously. Therefore, given the reactions of China (as well as India, which is even more aggressive than China for example in taxing the digital economy) it seems likely that eventually the EU view of BEPS will prevail and US based multinationals will eventually be forced to pay tax on the over 100 billion they shift offshore each year.

Constitutions as supreme legal authorities enshrine the principles of taxation which are often used as the guidance to the legislations related to fiscal aspect, requires to be explored critically so as to provide clear understanding on taxation. This article has explored the tax provisions in the constitutions of Ethiopia and Turkey from comparative perspective through the method of doctrinal legal analysis. Both the latest constitution of Turkey and Ethiopia comprise relatively related principles regarding taxation in spite of the disparities of taxation system in these two countries due to the fact that Turkey is a unitary state whereas Ethiopia is federal. In-fact, there are some disparities within these constitutions. For instance, the 1982 Constitution of Turkey specifies the citizens' duties to pay tax and the adjudication system of tax in different way than the Ethiopian 1995 constitution. The Ethiopian constitution enshrines the taxation power in detail among other things in line with the federal system of government.

An entrepreneur is a business-able physical person who performs activities to gain the profit and who is registered according to law. Starting from the national and theoretical and legal solutions and court practice from comparative law, the authors analyze the concept and the legal position of an individual entrepreneur noticing the problems and inconsistencies in legal regulations. The authors of the work make a few conclusions and suggestions: 1) terminology is not coordinated with legal terminology from comparative law. In our law, the legal term is “entrepreneur”, which is a too wide and unspecified term because in economic profession this term represents the genus term for individual and collective entrepreneurship; 2) analyze all forbidden activities for entrepreneurs, judge the reasons pro et contra and work on eliminating prohibitions and favouring legal entities; 3) set by law the bankruptcy of an individual entrepreneur i.e. the individual bankruptcy of a physical person; 4) work on passing a separate legislation in the field of the individual entrepreneurship, especially on passing and changing the laws which would regulate handicrafts (including old crafts and jobs of home industry), free professions as well as agricultural activity.

This paper advances privacy theory through examination of online shaming, focusing in particular on persecution by internet mobs. While shaming is nothing new, the technology used for modern shaming is new and evolving, making it a revealing lens through which to analyze points of analytical friction within and between traditional conceptions of privacy. To that end, this paper first explores the narrative and structure of online shaming, identifying broad categories of shaming of vigilantism, bullying, bigotry and gossiping, which are then used throughout the paper to evaluate different angles to the privacy problems raised. Second, this paper examines shaming through three dominant debates concerning privacy - privacy’s link with dignity, the right to privacy in public places and the social dimension of privacy. Certain themes emerged from this analysis. A common feature of online shaming is public humiliation. A challenge is to differentiate between a humbling (rightly knocking someone down a peg for a social transgression) and a humiliation that is an affront to dignity (wrongly knocking someone down a peg). In addition, the privacy concern of shamed individuals is not necessarily about intrusion on seclusion or revelation of embarrassing information, but rather about the disruption in their ability to continue to participate in online spaces free from attack. The privacy interest therefore becomes more about enabling participation in social spaces, enabling connections and relationships to form, and about enabling identity-making. Public humiliation through shaming can disrupt all of these inviting closer scrutiny concerning how law can be used as an enabling rather than secluding tool.

“De-[Constructing] Growth” is offered as a deeper and more useful conceptualization that avoids the negative connotations of, and resistance to, “degrowth” by decoupling profit from unsustainable consumption, production, and inequality.