The present study seeks to analyse the application of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle to evaluate state intervention through abortion laws over women’s reproductive autonomy. The principle given by Mill argues that intervention by the state over individual liberty is justified only when it is to prevent harm to others. The study explores whether abortion laws infringe upon or protect individual autonomy in the guise of state regulation to prevent harm to others. The study adopts a normative comparative legal analysis and reviews harm-based arguments in the development of law and policy concerning abortion rights. The application of Mill’s Harm Principle to abortion laws clarifies whether existing abortion laws infringe upon or uphold individual liberty. The analysis shows how states adopt different approaches to abortion regulation, demonstrating different interpretations of the status of prenatal life, individual liberty and harm. While some jurisdictions adopt restrictive frameworks grounded in the moral interests of the society and protection of potential life, other jurisdictions limit interference by the state and prioritise reproductive autonomy. The present study adds to the legal scholarship by applying a classical liberal theory to contemporary abortion debates, offering policy recommendations to lawmakers for a balanced legal framework which respects reproductive autonomy while addressing state concerns. Keywords: Abortion Laws, Reproductive Autonomy, Harm Principle, State Regulation, John Stuart Mill, Human Rights.
This article provides a comprehensive analysis of recent reforms aimed at abolishing gender discrimination in nationality laws in Liberia and Madagascar. Historically, both countries’ citizenship laws contained patriarchal provisions that prevented women from conferring nationality on the same terms as men, leading to human rights concerns and risk of statelessness. Drawing on feminist legal theory and international norms, the study examines the distinct legal and political contexts that shaped these discriminatory laws and the subsequent reform processes. Liberia’s amendment in 2022, intertwined with debates on dual citizenship and a longstanding “Negro descent” clause, and Madagascar’s amendment in 2016–2017, emerging from post-colonial legal legacies, are compared to highlight how different domestic pathways converged toward a common goal of gender-equal citizenship. The influence of international human rights frameworks CEDAW and norm diffusion is assessed in driving these changes. Implementation challenges – from administrative capacity to social attitudes – are critically discussed through the lens of state capacity and gender equality theory. While both nations have significantly improved compliance with international standards by enabling mothers to pass citizenship to their children, gaps remain (such as Liberia’s racial restriction and Madagascar’s inequality in spousal transmission). The article concludes with recommendations for further legal and policy measures to consolidate equal nationality rights, emphasizing that legal reform must be complemented by broader societal change to achieve substantive gender equality in citizenship. Keywords: Nationality Law, Gender Discrimination, Citizenship Reform, Liberia, Madagascar.
This paper discusses the importance of revisiting Sharia principles collateral to partnership-based financing in Islamic banking in Indonesia and Malaysia. This paper aims to show how banks often abuse collateral practices in partnership-based financing. Furthermore, this paper specifically aims to provide recommendations for redefining the meaning of collateral in the Indonesian legal system. To achieve this aim, this paper focuses on identifying current legal regulations, reviewing partnership-based financing practices, and assessing the experiences of several countries in adapting to developments in the banking world, particularly those related to partnership-based financing. This study used a juridical normative method with a conceptual and regulatory approach. The results indicate that Indonesia faces a mismatch between national law collateral requirements and Sharia principles in the context of partnership-based financing in banking. Currently, Indonesia does not have strict Sharia provisions prohibiting the use of collateral to generate profits, although authorized institutions have legitimized it. This contrasts with European practice, which has developed a partnership-based financing model that emphasizes contractual consensus among the parties rather than rigid legal regulation. Malaysia strictly prohibits the use of collateral for capital recovery or profit. The findings of this study could serve as a starting point for Sharia-compliant collateral law reform in Indonesia. Keywords: Collateral, Islamic Bank, Partnership-based Financing, Indonesia, Malaysia.
Employee stock option plans are increasingly common within multinational enterprises (MNE), used as tools to attract and retain talent. In many cases, the shares granted to the employees are not from the employer itself, but rather from another entity in the group, usually the parent. The paper aims to assess such employee stock option plans (ESOP) arm’s length nature (or rationale), as this is perceived by the authors to be a fundamental step towards determining if (and how) any intra-group compensation is due. This aim is explored through the accurate delineation of the transaction and through the subsequent impact of this exercise on the frame of an eventual separate or aggregated compensation for an employee stock option plan. The paper is based on a comparative law assessment and especially focuses on the OECD, particularly Latvian and Lithuanian perspectives, and contributes to increased tax and legal certainty to MNEs operating in the selected jurisdictions, and to the overall operators of the tax systems therein. The analysis carried out indicates that such an ESOP is likely to be framed either as a form of service provision (priceable condition) or as a mere shareholder activity (non-priceable circumstance). Keywords: Employee Stock Option Plans; Arm’s Length Standard; Transfer Pricing; Accurate Delineation of the Transaction; Benefits Test.
The aim of this article is a comparative-critical analysis of Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law and "Pancasila Positivism" as two models of legal philosophy. Employing a normative legal research method with philosophical and comparative-conceptual approaches, this study analyses Kelsen's primary works and literature on Pancasila legal philosophy through philosophical interpretation and critical synthesis. The analysis reveals fundamental differences across three dimensions: (1) Ontological: Kelsen's law is a "pure" order of norms (Sollen) separate from morality (Sein), while Pancasila's law is an embodiment of inherent moral values. (2) Epistemological: Kelsenian validity is procedural, culminating in a hypothetical, a priori Grundnorm. In contrast, Pancasila's validity is twofold (procedural and substantive), functioning as a formalised, value-laden Staatsfundamentalnorm that serves as a substantive touchstone. (3) Axiological: Kelsen dismisses justice as an irrational domain, whereas Pancasila posits substantive justice (social justice) as the law's raison d'être. The research articulates "Pancasila Positivism" as a theoretical synthesis of "moral positivism": a model where law remains positive (state-enacted), yet its validity is inherently bound to the substantive moral values of Pancasila, offering an alternative to the moral vacuum of pure positivism. Keywords: Pancasila Positivism, Pure Theory of Law, Hans Kelsen, Grundnorm, Legal Validity, Legal Philosophy.
