Submit to Laws Review for Laws

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

Laws, Volume 14, Issue 5 (October 2025) – 6 articles

Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Reader to open them.

Order results

Result details

Section

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

19 pages, 768 KB

Open AccessArticle

From National Rules to Global Norms: Aligning China’s L2 Autonomous Ship Regulations with the IMO MASS Code

by Yu Peng, Xinyi Han, Yanglian Ye and Rongyu Fan

Laws 2025, 14(5), 65; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14050065 - 11 Sep 2025

Abstract

The advent of remote control and autonomous technologies is fundamentally transforming ship manning models, necessitating adaptations in seafarer standards for L2-class autonomous vessels. To address these challenges, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) is developing a non-mandatory Code for Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). This paper first conducts an in-depth analysis of the immutable legal obligations and variable technical standards governing seafarer manning for L2 autonomous ships, drawing on the China Classification Society’s (CCS) Rules for Intelligent Ships. It then scrutinizes the international legal barriers confronting CCS manning requirements, particularly concerning remote operator qualifications. The study focuses on aligning China’s regulatory framework with emerging IMO standards and proposes four targeted reforms to facilitate this alignment for L2 vessels: broadening the “seafarer” definition, updating minimum manning principles and procedures, modernizing competency standards, and establishing inclusive operational testing systems. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 297 KB

Open AccessArticle

The Shifting Sands of Legal Aid Deserts: Access to Justice for Asylum in 2022–24

by Jo Wilding

Laws 2025, 14(5), 64; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14050064 - 4 Sep 2025

Viewed by 283

Abstract

In this article, I argue that the state creates legal advice deserts in immigration and asylum by designing law and policy which drive up legal need, driving down provision through unfavourable conditions for providers, and by placing people in need into areas from which they have no realistic prospect of accessing legal advice and representation. I draw on frameworks of spatial justice and of demand to analyse the impact of the legislative and policy developments in the Special Issue’s focal period of 2022–24 on legal aid in each of the UK’s three legal aid systems: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The legislative changes included introducing new stages into asylum law, which created new legal needs. Policy changes drove a wholesale geographical shift in demand as all local authorities in the UK (except Scilly) now host people in the asylum process. The changes depended upon the involvement of legal aid lawyers in order to be workable, but the marketised model of legal aid provision in England and Wales, and the low-paid laissez faire model in Northern Ireland, are fundamentally incompatible with that demand. I conclude by arguing that legal aid cannot be an afterthought. Asylum policy should be shaped to reduce failure demand, while legal aid policy should be funded and designed so as to pay for the necessary provision, with interventions to remove the spatial inequalities in access to (legal) justice. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Shifting Sands of Refugee Protection: Normativity, Crisis, and Contemporary UK Asylum)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 339 KB

Open AccessArticle

From Solidarity to Exclusion: The ‘Safe Country’ Concept in UK Asylum Law and the Irony of Borders

by Rossella Pulvirenti

Laws 2025, 14(5), 63; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14050063 - 3 Sep 2025

Viewed by 464

Abstract

This article argues that the asylum policy and legislative changes introduced by the UK government in the years 2022–2024 altered the original meaning of the concept ‘safe country’ as understood in international and EU law. The UK modified this concept, which from a solidarity concept became a means of exclusion, and which negatively affects the lives and rights of people seeking asylum in the UK. Using a doctrinal approach, the first part of this article sets the legal and historical context of the concept ‘safe country’. Departing from the analysis of the Refugee Convention, the article discusses how this mechanism was used by the EU legislation. From an idea of solidarity among EU Member States, it shifted from responsibility-sharing to burden-sharing while still allowing some guarantees to people seeking asylum. Using content analysis, the second part of this article evaluates the legal requirements set by the UK legislation together with implications of applying the ‘safe country’ concept to the asylum claims. It argues that, in recent years, the UK Government used the term ‘safe country’ as synonym of two (possibly three) different concepts, such as ‘first safe country’ and ‘safe third country’. It also shifted and pushed its meaning beyond the current commonly agreed interpretation of the term because it eroded the requirement of a link between the person seeking asylum and the ‘safe country’. Thus, the UK legislation deviated even further from the rationale underlying the Refugee Convention, international human rights standards and EU legislation because it passed the obligation to assess asylum claims to states with no link to people seeking asylum and without adequate risk assessment. The final part of this article discusses the limit to this policy and analyses the legal battle between the UK Parliament, the Government’s executive power, the UK Supreme Court and the Belfast High Court, which barred the UK Government from deporting people seeking asylum to a third country. This article concludes that there is some irony in the fact the term ‘safe country’ has been weaponised as a bordering tool by the UK Government, but ‘a border’ between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is limiting the negative effect of the concept ‘safe country’ on the very same people that is attempting to exclude from protection. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Shifting Sands of Refugee Protection: Normativity, Crisis, and Contemporary UK Asylum)

22 pages, 339 KB

Open AccessArticle

Socially Distancing the ‘Irregular’ Migrant: An Arendtian Political Analysis of Contemporary UK Asylum Law

by Joel Platt

Laws 2025, 14(5), 62; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14050062 - 27 Aug 2025

Viewed by 551

Abstract

Utilising Arendt’s ‘right to have rights’ thesis not only as an observation on citizenship but as an intrinsic eligibility and political opportunity for the stateless, this paper outlines how the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and Illegal Migration Act 2023 do not merely continue the general trend of criminalising migrants but take the further step of socially distancing the securitised migrant object. The recent legislation provides that those who arrive in the UK via ‘irregular means’ (i.e., small boats) will likely have their asylum claims deemed ‘inadmissible’. The lack of a ‘negotiated settlement’ in the asylum complex has been well noted; however, the systematic prejudgement and consequent bureaucratic social distancing inherent in the new legislation now threatens to remove even the prospect of negotiation. The means of arrival instantly proving decisive precludes the possibility for asylum seekers to present evidence that they are genuine refugees, and, with it, the politico-legal space and opportunity for the ‘irregular’ person to generally make themselves seen and heard is maliciously obstructed. The result is not just the denial of humanity and concomitant human dues (rights), but a distinct move towards denial of even the possibility of humanity (the right to have rights). Such works to distance system administrators from issues of vulnerability, assuredly direful consequences, and humanness itself, as is essential for the expansion of a system where basic human rights are so lacking. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Shifting Sands of Refugee Protection: Normativity, Crisis, and Contemporary UK Asylum)

27 pages, 666 KB

Open AccessArticle

The Regulation of Market Manipulation in the EU Energy Sector: Doctrinal Analysis of REMIT II’s Sanctioning Framework

by Ionuț Bogdan Berceanu, Mihaela Victorița Cărăușan and Alina Zorzoană

Laws 2025, 14(5), 61; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14050061 - 25 Aug 2025

Viewed by 719

Abstract

This study examines the evolution of the European Union’s regulatory framework addressing energy market manipulation, focusing on recent amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/1106 (REMIT II) to the original REMIT—Regulation on Market Integrity and Transparency (EU) No. 1227/2011. Employing logical interpretation and comparative legal analysis, the paper explores the rationale and challenges of developing a proportionate yet dissuasive sanctioning regime for acts of market manipulation. The study commences with a comprehensive overview of manipulative practices within energy markets and the legal thresholds they must meet to fall under REMIT. A critical evaluation of the role of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) is conducted, with particular attention to its updated guidelines following the revision of the REMIT regulation. A particular emphasis is placed on the evidentiary standard that is required to establish manipulation, a matter of particular significance in the context of enforcement. The comparative section analyses REMIT and REMIT II, identifying significant legal innovations and the regulatory intent behind them. The study highlights the need for enhanced legislative harmonization among Member States and strengthened coordination among national regulators under ACER. It is noteworthy that Romania has proactively aligned its policies with those of REMIT II, a development that is presented as a case study and a call for more widespread implementation. This analysis contributes to the existing body of knowledge in academic discourse since this topic has not been widely covered in the literature, despite the heightened relevance of energy market regulation in the current European context. Full article

23 pages, 909 KB

Open AccessArticle

Enhancing Marine Environmental Protection Enforcement in Taiwan: Legal and Policy Reforms in the Context of International Conventions

by Shu-Hong Lin and Yu-Cheng Wang

Laws 2025, 14(5), 60; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14050060 - 22 Aug 2025

Viewed by 609

Abstract

The Marine Pollution Control Act (MPCA) in Taiwan aims to align with international conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (FUNDs), and the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM). However, Taiwan’s particular international status prevents formal participation in these treaties. This study evaluates Taiwan’s legal and institutional frameworks on ship emission control, pollution liability and compensation, and interagency coordination, identifying key gaps compared with global standards. By analyzing Japan’s and South Korea’s best practices in port management, cross-border pollution prevention, and vessel monitoring, this study proposes legal and policy reforms that are tailored to Taiwan. Recommendations include strengthening liability mechanisms, enhancing interagency collaboration, monitoring vessels, and fostering regional cooperation. Our findings suggest that these reforms will improve Taiwan’s marine environmental governance and contribute to regional and global ocean sustainability. Full article

(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Law Issues)

► Show Figures