This contribution examines the legal status of Hamas and the prospects for post-war governance in the Gaza Strip, arguing that although the international community seeks Hamas’s disarmament and the transfer of public authority, Hamas might likely to continue governing Gaza. The study demonstrates that Hamas constitutes a sui generis actor, exercising de facto political, administrative, and military control without seeking to establish an independent state. Its classification is assessed against categories such as national liberation movements, insurgents, belligerents, and terrorist organizations, highlighting its partial legitimacy, territorial control, and limited international engagement. The paper further analyses Palestinian reconciliation efforts, including the Beijing Declaration (2024), and President Abbas’s 2025 UN statements, as well as Israeli population-concentration plans and the 20-point White House peace proposal, considering international humanitarian law, governance feasibility, and security considerations. While initial ceasefire measures and humanitarian interventions produced success, uncertainty remains regarding Hamas’s willingness to disarm and transfer authority, as well as the establishment of a unified Palestinian administration. The paper concludes that these uncertainties challenge the full implementation of the peace plan, and that ongoing Hamas governance in Gaza may hinder Palestinian statehood and regional security, making the long-term success of post-war settlement contingent on political developments and compliance by all parties.
This article addresses the legal challenges surrounding the compatibility of Article 15(2) of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) with Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In particular, it examines whether the “Service Fee Caps” contained in Article 15(2) FFAR constitute a restriction of competition “by object”. The methodology employed combines a systematic examination of legal doctrine with a comparative evaluation of the relevant case law. The research findings indicate that Article 15(2) FFAR constitutes a restriction of competition “by object”, given that it has the effect of substantially harming competition. The “Service Fee Caps”, set at an unreasonably low level, have the effect of distorting competition in the relevant market for football agent services by disproportionately restricting the ability of agents to negotiate fees freely. This is further compounded by FIFA’s dominant regulatory and control position and agents’ inability to avoid applying the FFAR. The principal conclusion is that although FIFA’s regulatory intervention is justified, the “Service Fee Caps”, as currently structured, are incompatible with EU competition law. The analysis highlights the need for FIFA to reformulate its regulations in accordance with EU legal standards, ensuring proportionality and safeguarding competition while fulfilling its governance role. This article contributes to the broader discussion on the intersection of sports governance and EU law, offering insights into the delicate balance between regulatory autonomy and compliance with legal principles.
For two decades, the EU has been attempting to reduce its carbon emissions, lower the concentration of GHGs and reverse the global climate change and other negative consequences. Since the EU opted for an emissions trading system (“EU ETS”) as the principal strategy and mechanism to achieve it, the ongoing and massively amended Directive 2003/87/EC is the legislative backbone in this arena. The EU Policy Guidelines 2019-2024 set as the top priority the European Green Deal, which led to a set of legislative proposals reforming the EU climate and energy policy in 2021 (“Fit for 55”). Six of these proposals were approved in 2023 and reformed the EU ETS. Due to its massive importance and multi-dimensional impact, the newly reformed EU ETS has been exposed to both laudatory and disparaging assessments which are further magnified due to international political events in 2025. In this context, it is highly relevant to map the development and status quo of the EU ETS legal regime and assess its legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency.
This contribution traces the evolution of international legal protection for foreign-owned property from the late nineteenth century to the present. It begins by examining the pre-1900 era, when private property was largely deemed inviolable and disputes were governed by host-state treatment, before turning to the principal justifications states have invoked for takings-chiefly claims of rectifying past injustice (war, colonialism) and the pursuit of legitimate public policy. The main part of the analysis charts four successive protection standards: the Minimum Standard Treatment developed in the aftermath of the Mexican and Russian revolutions; the Hull Doctrine’s demand for “prompt, adequate and effective” compensation; the compromise standard of “appropriate compensation” that emerged during decolonization; and the “fair and equitable treatment” standard that has dominated bilateral investment treaties since the 1990s. Each standard is situated within its historical and political context, alongside the principal criticisms it attracted. The contribution concludes that, while debates over the fundamental legitimacy of investment protection and the quantum of compensation have largely subsided, contestation persists over indeterminate treaty language and the balance between investor protection and states’ regulatory autonomy-a tension the article identifies as structurally irreducible.
This article examines the legal contours of disability-based discrimination in employment, with particular emphasis on the employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation under European and Czech law. It undertakes a doctrinal analysis of the relevant legal framework, drawing upon the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. The study subsequently narrows its focus to a specific institutional context—namely, the position of headmasters within public schools operating under the Czech regional education system. This focus is justified by the distinctive legal status of headmasters, who occupy a dual role vis-à-vis the employing legal entity and the school’s founding authority. The article seeks to determine whether Czech legislation clearly delineates the entity responsible for implementing reasonable accommodation in such cases. It further assesses the compatibility of the national legal framework with international and EU standards on non-discrimination and equal treatment. Particular attention is paid to the procedural and substantive dimensions of the accommodation obligation, including its scope, limits, and enforceability. The analysis also explores the potential forms that reasonable accommodation may take, considering the managerial and pedagogical functions of school headmasters. The article argues that the current legal regulation lacks sufficient clarity and may give rise to legal uncertainty and inconsistent application. It concludes by proposing interpretative and legislative recommendations aimed at enhancing legal certainty and ensuring effective protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in educational leadership roles.
