Laws

This study evaluates the effectiveness of Jordan’s judiciary in overseeing electoral appeals within the framework of a constitutional monarchy. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, it combines doctrinal legal analysis of key constitutional provisions and Election Law No. 4 of 2022 with a comparative examination of electoral adjudication in Tunisia, Egypt, and Lebanon. The study is further strengthened by a structured content analysis of 120 appellate rulings issued between 2015 and 2023 and by qualitative insights drawn from anonymized interviews with judicial personnel engaged in electoral dispute resolution. Although Jordan’s legal framework formally empowers the judiciary to adjudicate electoral disputes, five structural limitations persist: narrow standing rules, rigid evidentiary thresholds, judicial reluctance to exercise investigatory powers, opaque reasoning in judgments, and the absence of specialized electoral courts. These constraints reflect systemic tensions between formal judicial independence and the realities of constrained discretion in hybrid regimes. An empirical analysis of 127 Jordanian electoral appeal cases from 2013 to 2020 reveals that a mere 7% of disputed electoral outcomes were overturned, whereas 73% of allegations were disregarded due to insufficient evidence. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that only 31% of rulings were publicly accessible, in stark contrast to the 89% accessibility rate observed in Tunisia. By identifying and addressing these systemic limitations, the study contributes to ongoing discourse on institutional reform and democratic resilience. In doing so, it underscores the importance of robust electoral justice mechanisms for sustaining public trust, rule of law, and inclusive governance—principles central to political and institutional sustainability as reflected in Sustainable Development Goal 16.

This article provides a detailed comparative analysis of the transposition and implementation of the Renewable Energy Directives II and III (RED II and RED III), REPowerEU Plan, and the ‘Fit for 55’ package in France, Italy, and Germany. The analysis highlights the objectives, key legislative provisions, and national-scale achievements, challenges, advantages, and disadvantages—including implications for investment conditions and renewable energy financing mechanisms—associated with these pivotal European Union legislative frameworks, which, to a certain extent, induced a paradigm shift with varying degrees of impact in every Member State. The work is divided into four parts that follow this brief introductory outline of the problem. The introduction presents legal developments in renewable energy law in the European Union. The second part offers a comprehensive and in-depth examination of the European Union’s renewable energy regulatory framework and research gaps that hinder doctrinal tensions within the EU’s renewable energy legislative framework. In the third part, we analyze the transposition and implementation of each mentioned directive in the selected countries. The last part highlights commonalities, divergences, challenges, best practices, and lessons learned from each nation’s approach. This comparative analysis predicts that implementation success is inversely linked to administrative divergence, with France’s centralized legal system facilitating effective bureaucratic streamlining and higher predicted deployment, while the fragmented governance structures of Germany and Italy serve as structural impediments that critically undermine the EU’s acceleration mandate.

The long-stop rule, under the UK Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 1987, imposes a 10-year limitation period for product liability claims, providing legal certainty for manufacturers and consumers. However, this timeframe is increasingly problematic in the case of medical devices, particularly implantable ones, which can fail decades after implantation. This review considers an extension to the long-stop period for medical devices, emphasising the need for patient protection, legal clarity, and reduced clinician burden, and contrasts the current UK system with the EU’s proposed 25-year long-stop period under the recently implemented 2024 Product Liability Directive. Through case studies, including surgical mesh and orthopaedic implants, the discussion highlights the challenges posed by delayed failure modes and the resulting difficulties in seeking redress within the 10-year window. Lastly, the role of publicly funded redress schemes and the evolving legal landscape are examined, underscoring the importance of reconsidering the current statutory limitations. Extending the long-stop period, combined with the use of explant analysis to evaluate defective medical devices, is proposed as a means to enhance patient safety and align with ongoing advancements in medical technology and regulation.