Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics

The Political Life of Constitutional Amendments: Legal Change in Populist Regimes

Bálint Tóth

; Aleksandra Nowak *

; Ayşe Demir

, Rafael González

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.2.27

This article aims to explore how populist regimes strategically employ constitutional amendments to reshape legal and political systems in ways that consolidate power and undermine democratic governance. Using a narrative review approach grounded in descriptive analysis, this study synthesizes academic literature, constitutional texts, and comparative legal developments published between 2021 and 2024. The analysis focuses on selected case studies, including Hungary, Poland, Turkey, and Venezuela, chosen for their significant experiences with constitutional change under populist leadership. Key themes were identified through thematic coding of scholarly sources, legal provisions, and political discourse related to constitutional amendments. The analysis reveals four recurring patterns in how populist regimes utilize constitutional amendments. First, amendments are politicized and presented as expressions of the popular will, often through referendums that mask undemocratic intentions. Second, executive powers are expanded by weakening checks and balances, abolishing term limits, and controlling judicial appointments. Third, constitutional language is manipulated to curtail civil liberties, restrict opposition, and codify exclusionary ideologies. Finally, populist leaders frequently rely on informal mechanisms and legal reinterpretation to bypass formal amendment processes, resulting in a deconstitutionalization of governance. These strategies erode judicial independence, diminish public accountability, and foster an environment where the rule of law is subordinated to political objectives. Populist constitutional amendments present a serious challenge to democratic institutions by weaponizing legal reform to entrench authoritarian practices. Understanding these amendments in their broader political context is essential for recognizing and resisting democratic erosion. While courts, international organizations, and civil society can serve as counterweights, their effectiveness depends on institutional resilience and sustained civic engagement. This study underscores the urgent need for vigilance and normative clarity in defending constitutional democracy against populist distortion.

Disinformation and Legal Responsibility: Regulating Digital Speech Without Curtailing Dissent

Ivan Petrov

; Rajeev Kumar *

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.2.26

This study aims to explore how legal systems and digital platforms can regulate disinformation in online environments without infringing upon the right to dissent and freedom of expression. A narrative review design using a descriptive analysis method was employed to examine international human rights instruments, national legal frameworks, landmark case law, and platform governance models related to disinformation regulation. Academic journal articles, legal documents, institutional reports, and policy papers published between 2020 and 2024 were selected through targeted database searches. The analysis focused on key themes such as the misuse of disinformation laws to suppress dissent, the role of digital platforms in moderating speech, and the legal ambiguities surrounding definitions of harm and intent. The study found that while many jurisdictions have developed legal tools to counteract disinformation, these tools often suffer from vagueness and overbreadth, creating risks for democratic dissent. International legal standards provide foundational protections for freedom of speech, but their domestic implementation varies, sometimes resulting in overregulation or abuse. Case studies reveal that anti-disinformation laws have been used in several countries to target journalists, activists, and political opponents. Moreover, global digital platforms play a central role in moderating content but often operate with insufficient transparency and accountability. The analysis also highlights the challenges of jurisdictional conflicts, definitional ambiguities, and the complexities of establishing legal responsibility in a decentralized digital space. Effective regulation of disinformation must strike a balance between mitigating informational harm and preserving democratic freedoms. Legal and platform-based approaches must be rooted in clear definitions, proportional measures, and independent oversight to prevent misuse and ensure accountability. Enhancing media literacy and civic engagement is also essential to building public resilience against disinformation while protecting the legitimacy of dissenting voices.

Smart Contracts and Legal Enforceability: Decoding the Political Philosophy of Code as Law

Amina Yusuf

; Robert Martinez *

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.2.25

To explore the legal and philosophical implications of smart contracts, with a focus on their enforceability and the political significance of the “code as law” paradigm. This study adopts a narrative review approach using a descriptive analytical method to examine the intersection of law, technology, and political theory. Sources were selected from academic databases published between 2020 and 2024, encompassing legal scholarship, computer science literature, and political philosophy. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key ideas related to legal enforceability, algorithmic governance, and the transformation of legal subjectivity in coded systems. The review highlights significant tensions between traditional legal norms and the deterministic nature of smart contracts. While smart contracts offer advantages in terms of automation and efficiency, they also lack the capacity to address ambiguity, context, and moral judgment. These contracts challenge core principles of legal theory, including consent, due process, and equitable remedies. Jurisdictions differ in their responses, ranging from proactive legal recognition to cautious regulatory experimentation. Hybrid models of enforcement and reliance on oracles demonstrate emerging attempts to bridge the gap between code and law. Smart contracts represent a disruptive force in the legal domain, necessitating critical reflection on the philosophical and institutional foundations of modern legal systems. Their adoption must be guided by a commitment to justice, democratic governance, and interdisciplinary oversight to ensure that legal innovation aligns with human values and ethical responsibility.

Prosecuting Ecological Destruction: Comparative Legal Perspectives on the Crime of Ecocide

Li Wei

; Mariana Oliveira *

; Camila Rodríguez

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.2.24

This article aims to analyze and compare legal frameworks addressing the crime of ecocide across various jurisdictions and assess the prospects for its codification and enforcement at the international level. A scientific narrative review method was employed using a descriptive analytical approach. The study examined legal documents, policy papers, legislative reforms, and scholarly literature published between 2018 and 2024, focusing on national and international efforts to define and operationalize ecocide. Materials were selected based on relevance to legal recognition, procedural challenges, and implementation strategies. Comparative analysis was used to highlight regional developments, legal models, and conceptual trends across European, Latin American, Asia-Pacific, African, and Anglo-American legal systems. The review reveals that while several jurisdictions have initiated legislative efforts to criminalize ecocide, there is significant variation in definitions, legal scope, and prosecutorial mechanisms. European states, particularly France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, show growing support for ecocide through national reforms and backing for international initiatives. Latin American and indigenous legal systems emphasize ecocentric values and recognize the rights of nature, providing a philosophical foundation for ecocide legislation. In contrast, Asia-Pacific and African countries face enforcement limitations due to economic dependency and institutional gaps, although some constitutional and regional frameworks offer supportive structures. Common law jurisdictions exhibit cautious progress, with civil society playing a pivotal role in advancing the discourse. At the international level, efforts to include ecocide in the Rome Statute face procedural and political barriers, yet continue to shape global environmental law debates. Ecocide is emerging as a crucial legal response to large-scale environmental destruction, but its successful implementation requires harmonized legal definitions, international cooperation, and integration into both public and corporate accountability frameworks.

Climate Reparations and Legal Accountability: Bridging International Law and Environmental Justice

Sophie Chenier

; Daniel Tremblay *

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.2.23

This study aims to explore the legal, ethical, and institutional dimensions of climate reparations within international law, proposing an integrated framework that bridges legal accountability, environmental justice, and equitable redistribution. Employing a narrative review methodology with a descriptive analytical approach, the article synthesizes academic literature, international legal documents, and policy frameworks published between 2019 and 2024. Sources were selected from legal databases, climate governance archives, and peer-reviewed journals, focusing on themes such as state responsibility, loss and damage mechanisms, and human rights-based approaches. The analysis was structured thematically to trace the evolution of reparations discourse, assess the strengths and limitations of existing legal instruments, and identify key challenges and opportunities for institutional innovation. The review reveals that while existing international frameworks—such as the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and human rights conventions—acknowledge the need for support to climate-vulnerable nations, they fall short in delivering enforceable reparative justice. Legal barriers including jurisdictional constraints, attribution of harm, and sovereignty concerns hinder the establishment of binding accountability mechanisms. Politically, tensions between high-emission and low-emission states and resistance to the notion of liability obstruct progress. Ethically, there is continued disagreement over responsibility, eligibility, and the scope of reparations. Practically, current funding mechanisms are inadequate, under-resourced, and lack transparency. The findings support the development of a holistic reparations model that integrates legal liability, climate finance, and restorative justice, emphasizing multilateralism, civil society engagement, and youth participation. Achieving climate reparations requires moving beyond fragmented and voluntary systems toward a globally coordinated, legally grounded, and ethically robust framework that centers the rights and needs of those most affected by climate change.

Legislating Memory: The Use of Law to Shape Historical Consciousness in Divided Societies

Andrei Ionescu

; Li Wei *

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.1.28

This article explores how laws are used to shape historical memory in post-conflict and ideologically divided societies, examining their impact on national identity and collective remembrance. A scientific narrative review using a descriptive analysis method was conducted. Academic literature, legal texts, and policy documents published between 2020 and 2025 were analyzed to identify typologies, functions, and impacts of memory laws across diverse geopolitical contexts. Comparative case studies from Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia were used to illustrate the global application of legal memory politics. The analysis revealed several key types of memory laws, including genocide denial statutes, truth and reconciliation frameworks, heroization or criminalization of historical figures, and heritage protection laws. These laws serve multiple functions, such as promoting national unity, facilitating reconciliation, or entrenching dominant political narratives. Comparative cases demonstrated that memory laws can aid transitional justice efforts but also risk backfiring by silencing dissent, marginalizing minorities, or politicizing history. Their success largely depends on inclusivity, transparency, and alignment with broader justice initiatives. Memory laws are powerful tools that can either support or undermine democratic values, depending on how they are designed and implemented. When grounded in pluralism and historical accountability, they can contribute meaningfully to reconciliation and civic trust. However, when used to enforce rigid or exclusionary narratives, they threaten to deepen societal divides and restrict critical engagement with the past.

Language, Law, and Power: The Politics of Official Languages in Multilingual States

Thabo Mokoena

; Andrew De Smet *

; Sophie Chenier

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.1.27

This study aims to explore the interplay between language, law, and political power in multilingual states, with a focus on how official language policies influence inclusion, governance, and identity. The article employs a scientific narrative review method combined with descriptive analysis to examine recent scholarly work, legal documents, and policy analyses published between 2021 and 2025. It synthesizes interdisciplinary perspectives from legal studies, sociolinguistics, and political science to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal and political dimensions of language policy. The review finds that language policies often function as tools of both inclusion and exclusion, reflecting underlying power dynamics and historical legacies. In many multilingual states, official language frameworks privilege dominant linguistic groups while marginalizing minority languages in areas such as education, legal access, and public services. Political elites play a central role in shaping these policies, often using language to consolidate national identity or assert control. Successful multilingual governance models—such as those in South Africa, Belgium, and Canada—demonstrate that legal mechanisms rooted in constitutional protections, decentralized policymaking, and robust institutional support can help balance unity with linguistic diversity. However, many states continue to struggle with implementation gaps and socio-political resistance to full linguistic inclusion. The study concludes that language policy is a core component of legal and political design in multilingual states. For linguistic equity to be achieved, legal frameworks must move beyond symbolic recognition and commit to substantive institutional change, ensuring that all linguistic communities are afforded equal rights and access.

Legal Infrastructures of Mass Incarceration: Political Economy and Penal Expansion

Georgios Nikolaidis *

; Eleni Papadopoulou

https://doi.org/10.61838/kman.isslp.4.1.26

This article explores how legal infrastructures, shaped by political economy, structurally support and legitimize mass incarceration in the United States. Using a scientific narrative review and descriptive analysis method, this study examines scholarly literature, legal documents, and policy texts published between 2021 and 2025. Sources were selected for their focus on the intersection of legal systems, carceral expansion, and economic incentives. The study draws from interdisciplinary fields including critical legal studies, criminology, and economic sociology to analyze how legal frameworks have evolved to sustain mass incarceration. The review identifies a complex legal architecture—including statutes, court decisions, administrative routines, and bureaucratic procedures—that facilitates the growth of incarceration. Key findings reveal that legal mechanisms such as mandatory minimums, plea bargaining, parole revocation, and risk assessments operate systematically to entrench penal expansion. Moreover, public-private partnerships, lobbying, campaign financing, and procurement laws embed profit motives within legal frameworks, turning punishment into a commodified enterprise. While reform efforts such as bail reform and sentencing revisions have emerged, they often remain constrained by the broader legal and political-economic system. Legal infrastructures are not merely reactive to crime but are central instruments in the construction and maintenance of the carceral state. Addressing mass incarceration requires dismantling these legal foundations and reimagining justice systems that prioritize equity, dignity, and social well-being over punishment.

About the Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Prof Nahide Konak
Owner: KMAN Research Institute
Publisher: KMAN Publication Inc. (KMANPUB)
Contact emails:
journalisslp@kmanpub.com
journalisslp@gmail.com
Open access: YES
Peer-review: Yes (Open Peer-review)

Interdisciplinary Studies in Society, Law, and Politics (ISSLP) is a forward-thinking academic journal published by KMAN Publication Inc. (Dubai Office) and supported by the Iranian Association for Sociology of Education. It operates on an innovative, open-access platform, offering a peer-reviewed space dedicated to exploring the intricate connections among society, law, and politics.

ISSLP is committed to cultivating a holistic comprehension of how these realms intersect and influence one another. Our objective is to provide a dynamic forum for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers from diverse backgrounds to exchange research findings, theoretical insights, and practical knowledge. Through this exchange, we aim to enrich our collective understanding of societal structures, political dynamics, and legal principles.

Embracing a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary methodologies, ISSLP seeks to foster a robust discourse that transcends conventional academic boundaries. We welcome contributions that are intellectually rigorous yet accessible to a wide audience, thereby promoting a vibrant dialogue that advances scholarly inquiry and societal discourse.