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.