Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics

This article explores how citizenship laws in Eastern Europe are employed as legal instruments to construct and reinforce nationalist ideologies and identity politics. Using a narrative review methodology with a descriptive analytical approach, this study examines legal documents, policy reports, and scholarly literature published between 2020 and 2024. Selected countries include Hungary, Poland, Romania, Latvia, and Estonia, offering diverse case studies on legal nationalism and citizenship regimes. The review reveals that citizenship laws across Eastern Europe are predominantly shaped by ethnic nationalism, with a strong reliance on jus sanguinis principles. Legal mechanisms are used to institutionalize ethnic majorities while systematically excluding minorities through restrictive naturalization policies, language requirements, and diaspora-focused repatriation laws. Populist political movements further entrench these exclusionary frameworks, while European legal institutions struggle to enforce more inclusive standards. Courts at both national and supranational levels play a variable role in either reinforcing or moderating identity-based legal norms. Citizenship laws in Eastern Europe function as central tools in legal nationalism, reinforcing ethno-centric visions of the nation-state. Despite the influence of European integration, exclusionary legal practices persist, posing challenges to democratic inclusivity and minority rights. Reimagining citizenship through pluralistic legal reforms will be essential for fostering regional stability and inclusive national identities.

The objective of this article is to examine the political dynamics of legal pluralism by exploring how customary, religious, and state legal systems intersect in multicultural societies. This study adopts a narrative review methodology grounded in a descriptive analytical approach. Sources were collected from academic publications, peer-reviewed journals, and monographs published between 2018 and 2024, covering law, political science, anthropology, and sociology. The analysis involved identifying patterns and thematic discussions related to the coexistence and contestations among different legal orders. Key topics investigated include the historical evolution of legal pluralism, comparative state engagement with multiple legal frameworks, and the intersections of custom and religion with statutory law. The review reveals that legal pluralism is deeply influenced by colonial legacies, postcolonial nation-building, and the pursuit of inclusive governance. States navigate diverse strategies of integration, accommodation, and hybrid legal structures to manage conflicting or overlapping authorities. Common challenges include conflicts of jurisdiction, forum shopping, gender inequities, and human rights tensions affecting women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ communities. Despite these complications, legal pluralism can serve as a vehicle for cultural recognition and legal innovation, provided that careful oversight and inclusive policy processes are adopted. The evidence underscores that legal pluralism is a dynamic and politically charged phenomenon, reflecting broader debates over power, legitimacy, and social cohesion. Effective governance of multiple legal orders requires balancing respect for communal autonomy with the imperative to uphold universal rights. Future trajectories will likely hinge on the ability of policymakers, legal actors, and communities to craft context-sensitive reforms that enhance both diversity and equity.

This study aims to examine and compare the legal protections available to whistleblowers in national security contexts across diverse legal systems. Using a scientific narrative review design and a descriptive analysis method, this article explores whistleblower protection frameworks in selected common law and civil law jurisdictions. Legal sources including statutory provisions, case law, and policy documents published between 2018 and 2024 were analyzed to assess the scope, effectiveness, and limitations of existing legal protections. Countries were selected to represent a range of legal traditions and national security climates, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, and South Korea. The review also considered the role of civil society and media in supporting whistleblower disclosures. The comparative analysis reveals significant disparities in how national legal systems address whistleblower protections related to national security. Common challenges include broad national security exemptions, ambiguous legal language, limited enforcement mechanisms, and procedural complexity. Even in jurisdictions with formal protection regimes, individuals disclosing classified information often face criminal prosecution or institutional retaliation. While some countries have made progress in aligning their domestic laws with international standards, national security disclosures remain a legal grey area. The presence of independent oversight bodies and supportive civil society actors contributes to more robust whistleblower frameworks, but these mechanisms are not uniformly available or effective. There is a critical need to harmonize national whistleblower protection laws with international human rights standards, particularly in the domain of national security. Legal reforms must address gaps in immunity, clarify reporting procedures, and ensure independent institutional oversight. Strengthening protections for national security whistleblowers is essential to promoting transparency, preventing abuse of power, and reinforcing democratic accountability on a global scale.

This article explores the legal implications of crypto-anarchy and stateless economies in the context of decentralized political and technological systems. Using a scientific narrative review approach with a descriptive analysis method, the study synthesizes interdisciplinary literature published between 2020 and 2024. Sources were drawn from peer-reviewed journals, legal commentaries, and policy papers focusing on decentralization, blockchain governance, and emerging legal frameworks. Data collection included scholarly databases and keyword-based searches targeting crypto-anarchy, decentralized law, DAOs, and blockchain regulation. The review thematically analyzed technological infrastructures, ideological foundations, comparative legal responses, and theoretical frameworks relevant to decentralized systems. The study finds that blockchain technologies—particularly cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, and DAOs—enable stateless governance by embedding legal and organizational functions into code. These systems undermine traditional legal concepts such as jurisdiction, enforcement, and sovereignty. Comparative analysis shows wide variation in national responses, ranging from legal adoption to regulatory resistance. Legal conflicts emerge around identity, liability, contract enforceability, and regulatory evasion. Emerging legal paradigms like code-as-law, lex cryptographia, and polycentric legal orders offer alternative models, but they also challenge conventional legal theory. Decentralized political and economic systems are reshaping the legal landscape, demanding a reevaluation of how law is defined, enforced, and legitimized. The evolution of legal thought must align with technological realities, balancing innovation with accountability in a borderless digital world.

This article investigates how postcolonial theory has influenced the formation of legal norms in international law and examines the implications of these theoretical contributions for the legitimacy, inclusivity, and epistemic foundations of global legal governance. Using a scientific narrative review and descriptive analysis method, this study synthesizes academic literature published between 2019 and 2024. Peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and legal commentaries were selected through systematic searches across major academic databases. The analysis is guided by key postcolonial concepts such as subalternity, hybridity, and epistemic violence, with thematic attention to international law’s colonial legacy and contemporary challenges in legal norm formation. The review reveals that international law continues to reflect Eurocentric assumptions rooted in its colonial past. Postcolonial theory challenges these assumptions by exposing structural inequalities in the development and enforcement of legal norms. Case studies such as the New International Economic Order, the Declaration on the Right to Development, and the international recognition of Indigenous rights illustrate how postcolonial actors have shaped normative agendas despite institutional limitations. The analysis also identifies growing demands for epistemic decolonization, South-South legal solidarities, and pluralistic models of norm-building. Postcolonial theory has significantly reshaped the discourse of international law by foregrounding issues of power, voice, and legitimacy. While challenges remain in translating critique into enforceable legal change, the theoretical and normative contributions of postcolonial scholarship have created critical openings for a more inclusive and equitable global legal order.

This article aims to explore the philosophical and political foundations for recognizing artificial intelligence (AI) as a potential juridical subject within contemporary legal systems. The study employs a narrative review design based on a descriptive analysis method to examine theoretical and legal literature published between 2021 and 2024. Scholarly sources were selected from academic databases, focusing on legal theory, philosophy of personhood, political implications, and AI governance. The analysis was organized thematically across legal history, philosophical debates, political frameworks, and proposed legal models for AI personhood. The findings highlight that classical theories of personhood, including rationality, autonomy, and recognition, form the conceptual basis for legal personhood but pose significant challenges when applied to AI. Contemporary debates suggest that AI lacks consciousness and moral autonomy but may still be integrated into legal frameworks through functional or hybrid models. These include proposals for partial personhood, relational legal theories, and distributed agency models, which offer ways to assign legal status to AI based on their roles and capacities. The study also reveals that extending legal personhood to AI could disrupt liberal democratic principles, create accountability gaps, and generate ethical risks if not carefully regulated. Nevertheless, emerging models from various jurisdictions indicate a growing interest in redefining legal subjectivity to accommodate non-human actors. Recognizing AI as a juridical subject requires cautious, interdisciplinary deliberation. While traditional legal categories are being challenged by technological advances, any transformation in the legal status of AI must preserve human accountability, democratic values, and ethical coherence. Future research should focus on refining hybrid legal models and developing safeguards to prevent misuse or unintended legal consequences.

This study aims to examine the legal responses and democratic implications of digital disinformation in the context of electoral integrity. This study uses a narrative review approach combined with a descriptive analysis method to synthesize findings from scholarly articles, legal documents, and policy reports published between 2020 and 2024. Sources were selected from academic databases and institutional publications based on relevance, credibility, and analytical depth. The reviewed materials were thematically categorized into key areas including disinformation mechanisms, regulatory frameworks, and democratic impacts. A cross-jurisdictional lens was applied to compare international and national responses to disinformation, while legal, technological, and theoretical perspectives were integrated to analyze normative tensions. Digital disinformation poses a growing threat to electoral integrity through mechanisms such as algorithmic amplification, bot networks, and deepfakes. Regulatory responses vary across jurisdictions, with some prioritizing platform self-regulation and others implementing co-regulatory or statutory frameworks. Challenges include balancing freedom of expression with electoral protection, ensuring platform accountability, and addressing cross-border disinformation. Technological tools like AI detection systems and fact-checking services offer partial mitigation, while digital literacy efforts play a crucial long-term role in strengthening public resilience. Safeguarding electoral integrity in the digital age requires a multi-pronged strategy that combines legal, technological, and educational measures. Ensuring democratic resilience demands both proactive governance and citizen engagement to counter the evolving landscape of digital disinformation.

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of hybrid courts in post-conflict states through a political-legal lens, examining their role in delivering justice and promoting legitimacy. This study employs a scientific narrative review using a descriptive analysis method. A wide range of sources published between 2018 and 2024—including peer-reviewed journal articles, legal documents, and institutional reports—were systematically reviewed. Four key hybrid court models were selected for comparative analysis: the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers. Data analysis was conducted thematically through a political-legal framework that integrated legal outcomes and political environments. Hybrid courts have shown mixed results in achieving justice and fostering legitimacy. Legal successes include high-profile convictions and the development of international jurisprudence. However, challenges such as limited local ownership, political interference, narrow mandates, and weak institutional legacies have hindered broader impact. Courts embedded in cooperative political environments demonstrated stronger performance, while those facing elite resistance or low public trust struggled to gain legitimacy or produce long-term reforms. Hybrid courts can serve as valuable transitional justice tools when carefully tailored to local political and legal contexts. Their future efficacy depends on increased public engagement, improved integration with domestic legal systems, and adaptive designs that respond to political constraints and evolving global challenges.