International Review of Law

Front Matter

2026-09-17T11:27:54+03:00

Back Matter

2026-09-17T11:38:49+03:00

Editorial Foreword

2026-09-17T11:42:24+03:00

Editorial Foreword

2026-09-17T11:44:38+03:00

Table of Content

2026-09-17T12:56:56+03:00

Table of Content

2026-09-17T12:59:42+03:00

Annulment as a Mechanism for Protecting Contractual Will in Contracts Concluded through Artificial Intelligence Systems: An Analytical Comparative Study

2026-09-17T16:57:09+03:00

This study aims to examine the extent to which the doctrines of mistake and fraud apply to AI-generated contracts, to analyze the effects of voidability, particularly where restitution is impossible or where non-pecuniary harm occurs, and to propose legislative updates that strike a balance between protecting contractual intent and ensuring transactional stability.

The selection of this research topic stems from the need to address a scholarly gap concerning the adequacy of traditional rules under Egyptian and French law in protecting contractual intent within this emerging framework. Previous studies have not systematically addressed the application of voidability rules to AI-generated contracts.

The study adopts a comparative analytical approach based on an analysis of the legal provisions, legal scholarship, and jurisprudence in the Egyptian and French legal systems, with particular reference to legislative developments following the 2016 reform of the French Civil Code.

The findings indicate that traditional voidability rules are inadequate when applied to AI-generated contractual language, particularly with regard to establishing the source of the defect and assessing non-pecuniary harm. French law, by contrast, demonstrates a relative degree of flexibility in interpretation and application.

The originality of the study lies in proposing a modern legal framework for addressing the effects of voidability in smart and AI-generated contracts, and in proposing explicit Egyptian legislative regulation that responds to ongoing digital transformations.

Constitutionalizing and Activating the Right to a Fair Trial in the Palestinian Legal System

2026-09-17T16:56:56+03:00

This study examines the issue of constitutionalizing the right to a fair trial and activating its guarantees within the Palestinian legal system, by assessing the conformity of the constitutional and procedural texts governing this right in the Palestinian Basic Law and the Criminal Procedure Law with relevant international and comparative legal models.

The significance of the study stems from the role of the right to a fair trial in building a state governed by the rule of law and institutions, particularly within a legal environment characterized by overlapping legislation, multiple sources of legal rules, and challenges to judicial independence. These factors directly affect the protection of the rights of the defence throughout all stages of criminal proceedings.

The study adopts an integrated methodology combining descriptive, analytical, and comparative approaches. It examines the legal foundations of the right to a fair trial to determine the legal characterization of its various components, analyzes the jurisprudential approaches of the Supreme Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation, and draws on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and selected comparative constitutional and judicial models.

The study concludes that a constitutional and procedural gap impedes the direct enforcement of international conventions and that a gap exists between legislative provisions and judicial application. It recommends constitutionalizing the status of treaties and establishing human dignity as a governing reference for the legality of evidence, in accordance with the tests of necessity and proportionality. The study's scholarly value lies in providing an analytical framework that links constitutional grounding with the requirements of practical application, thereby contributing to the transformation of guarantees from theoretical provisions into effective and enforceable judicial protection.

The Fiduciary Duties of Majority Shareholders in Joint-Stock Companies: A Critical Comparative Study Between U.S. Law (State of Delaware) and French Law

2026-09-17T16:56:43+03:00

This research examines the extent to which majority shareholders in public joint-stock companies are subject to fiduciary duties under the U.S. legal system of the State of Delaware, with particular emphasis on the case law of Delaware courts, given their status as a leading reference in corporate governance. The study seeks to clarify the limits of the controlling majority’s liability when influencing corporate decisions and to highlight the potential legal risks arising from the expansion of such duties. The topic was selected because of the practical issues it raises: U.S. courts have imposed fiduciary duties on majority shareholders where they effectively control the board of directors of a public joint-stock company and direct its decisions in a manner that serves their own interests, a position that departs from traditional conceptions that limit such duties to board members.

Accordingly, the study proceeds from the hypothesis that expanding fiduciary duties to majority shareholders may weaken the shareholder’s role and diminish the responsibility of the board of directors, which already enjoys special protection under the doctrine of board primacy and the Business Judgment Rule.

The study adopts an analytical and inductive methodology, starting with a detailed reading of Delaware case law and its historical evolution, and drawing upon American legal scholarship to clarify the theoretical foundations of fiduciary duties. It then employs a comparative approach to highlight the contrast with the French experience, which does not recognize this concept, relying instead on the abuse of rights doctrine to regulate majority behavior without imposing fiduciary-like obligations on them.

The research concludes that Delaware courts blur the distinction between the roles of the majority shareholders and the board, creating legal uncertainty for the stability of the corporate law framework. The originality of the study lies in its critique of the American model, arguing that imposing fiduciary duties on majority shareholders disrupts the balance of power within the corporation.

Hardship Theory under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 1980

2026-09-17T16:56:30+03:00

This study examines whether hardship falls within the scope of Article 79 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), which addresses the concept of an “impediment.” The absence of a specific provision in the Convention governing hardship has left considerable room for divergent approaches in comparative legal scholarship and jurisprudence, with no specialized Arab contributions to this debate. This study therefore seeks to address a gap in Arabic legal literature. It adopts a descriptive-analytical and inductive methodology, with particular emphasis on the various approaches in comparative legal scholarship and case law, as well as the opinions of the CISG Advisory Council.

The study finds that the divergence of views as to whether an impediment encompasses hardship stems from the inadequacy of an interpretive approach adopted by some scholars, which examines the concept of an impediment through the concepts of force majeure and hardship as recognized in national legal systems. The study concludes that an impediment has a distinct legal nature and identity independent of analogous concepts, and that its meaning should therefore be understood within the context of the provisions of the CISG alone, in a manner that serves the objective of unifying the substantive rules governing the international sale of goods in their interpretation and application.

Given the difference between the legal effects stipulated in Article (79) and those of force majeure or hardship in comparative legal systems, the meaning of impediment cannot be confined to either of these two concepts. Impediment, thus, is a flexible term responds to diverse changing circumstances. The study recommends that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) amend Article (79) to explicitly state the case of hardship, in order to put an end to the differences in the opinions of courts and arbitral awards, which would contribute positively to promoting the idea of unifying interpretation, achieving stability in transactions and legal security.

Copyright Laws in GCC Countries in the Age of Generative AI: A Legal Analysis Using ChatGPT as a Case Study

2026-09-17T16:58:43+03:00

ChatGPT is one of the most popular generative AIs because it can independently create content, such as drafting articles and writing books or poetry, without human intervention. This content can be original and may be considered copyrightable work. Consequently, generative AI intersects with copyright law, raising numerous legal concerns, including ownership and authorship. This paper examines ChatGPT’s policy from an intellectual property (IP) perspective, with a particular focus on copyright law. While ChatGPT poses challenges to copyright law globally, this research explicitly addresses the Copyright laws of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

This study examines whether the copyright laws of the GCC countries, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, are adequate to address the legal implications of generative AI, namely ChatGPT. If not, how could they be amended to address the legal implications and keep pace with cutting-edge technology? It is necessary to regulate generative AI in the IP rights domain, specifically in the copyright laws of the GCC countries. Therefore, this paper proposes critical recommendations for reforming these laws.

Child Abduction and Forum Shopping: The Hague Convention on Child Abduction to Protect Children in Cases of Parental Divorce

2026-09-17T16:58:30+03:00

The present article explores the issues of international child abduction and forum shopping in the context of divorcing parents, with a primary focus on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The research draws inspiration from the growing global occurrence of child abduction in cross-border divorce cases and the strategic use of jurisdiction known as forum shopping—to legitimize such actions or avoid responsibility. Existing literature addresses child abduction from psychological and legal angles but insufficiently covers the convergence of abduction with forum shopping and the Convention’s role in mitigating it. The objective of this research is to evaluate the Convention’s effectiveness in safeguarding children and discouraging abuse in private international law. For the present study, a doctrinal and analytical approach was employed, further supported by case law. The study also incorporates empirical data and documented cases to assess the Convention’s practical application. The findings demonstrate that while the Hague Convention on Abductions has improved international cooperation and the return of abducted children, its success is limited by non-universal ratification, legal loopholes, and challenges in enforcement. The Convention’s provisions do limit forum shopping by prioritizing the child’s habitual residence, yet do not preclude it. This research contributes to private international law by clarifying how the Convention may be abused for jurisdictional manipulation. It offers practical recommendations, such as broader ratification and consistent application standards. The study adds value by filling a notable gap in the literature. It sets the objectives of defining transboundary child abductions, identifying the scope of the Hague Convention, understanding how forum shopping can be used to avoid justice, and the mechanisms of the Convention to fight such abuse.

Provision of Adequate Redress for Victims of Violence in the Iraqi Legal System

2026-09-17T16:58:16+03:00

This article examines the shortcomings of the Iraqi legal framework for enabling victims of violence to obtain adequate reparations, with a particular focus on harm caused by acts of violence perpetrated by non-state actors since 2003. Despite the scale of the physical, material, and psychological harm suffered by victims, many remain deprived of effective remedies. While studies on transitional justice and reparations in Iraq have grown, attention to the structural and procedural gaps in the existing reparations system has remained limited. This study seeks to address this gap by assessing the adequacy of Iraqi laws and institutions in guaranteeing victims’ rights to redress.

The study employs an analytical legal approach based on primary legal sources, including the Compensation for Victims Law No. (20) of 2009 and its amendments, relevant provisions of the Iraqi Civil Code, and available judicial rulings, supported by documentary analysis and quantitative data drawn from United Nations reports and relevant international bodies.

The findings reveal persistent shortcomings in both legislation and its practical application to provide comprehensive redress. The Iraqi legal framework is also found to be inconsistent with the State's positive obligations under international human rights law to ensure adequate reparation. This research contributes by systematically linking deficiencies in Iraqi law to international standards for victims' rights, offering, in the short and long term, practical recommendations for legislative reform and strengthening judicial capacity. The article concludes that the failure to implement fundamental reforms will continue to deprive Iraqi victims of justice and human dignity.

The Impact of International Court of Justice decisions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: A legal perspective

2026-09-17T16:58:04+03:00

This study aims to analyze the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in shaping the course of the Gaza conflict through its decisions and advisory opinions, focusing on its legal and political impact on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, starting with the advisory opinion on the separation wall in 2004 through the provisional measures issued in 2024. The central issue of the study is embodied in the question: How has the ICJ contributed to shaping the dynamics of the conflict in Gaza through its advisory and arbitration decisions?

The study employed a critical-analytical approach, examining gaps between the theoretical framework of international law and the Court's practical decisions, alongside a comparative analysis of the Court's rulings in cases such as Rwanda and Bosnia relative to the Palestinian cause. The study demonstrated that the ICJ played a pivotal role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by legitimizing Palestinian rights, particularly the right to self-determination, as a jus cogens norm. However, the Court's decisions have been challenged by the political considerations of the Security Council, and international public opinion has made them a reference for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns. The Court has succeeded in legitimizing Palestinian claims and revisiting the international debate on the conflict from the perspective of international law, despite the issues facing the implementation of the decisions.

The study's originality lies in its integrated legal-political analysis of ICJ decisions from 2004 to 2024, assessing international judicial effectiveness in a protracted occupation conflict.

L’extraterritorialité des droits humains à l’épreuve de la souveraineté étatique : entre silences conventionnels et innovations jurisprudentielles

2026-09-17T17:01:13+03:00

L’étude examine la manière dont l’extraterritorialité des droits humains se heurte au principe de souveraineté étatique. Elle met en évidence le rôle des organes internationaux, tant universels (Comité des droits de l’homme, Comité contre la torture,…etc.) que régionaux (Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples), dans l’interprétation et l’application extraterritoriale des traités relatifs aux droits humains, malgré les silences conventionnels qui limitent explicitement leur champ d’application.

La recherche repose sur une analyse doctrinale et jurisprudentielle approfondie. Elle mobilise les instruments universels (Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, Convention contre la torture), les jurisprudences emblématiques (Lopez Burgos c. Uruguay, Al-Skeini c. Royaume-Uni, Commission africaine c. Libye), ainsi que les Observations générales et décisions quasi-juridictionnelles des comités onusiens. L’approche comparative confronte les positions étatiques, fondées sur la défense de la souveraineté et du principe de non-ingérence, aux interprétations évolutives des organes de contrôle qui tendent à élargir la portée des obligations conventionnelles.

L’analyse démontre qu’en l’absence de dispositions explicites, une jurisprudence en voie de consolidation reconnaît progressivement des obligations extraterritoriales aux États. Cette tendance se manifeste dans divers contextes (opérations militaires hors territoire, contrôle effectif d’individus, effets transfrontaliers des politiques publiques ou des activités économiques). Néanmoins, cette évolution demeure partielle et suscite de vives résistances étatiques invoquant la souveraineté, la sécurité juridique et la préservation de l’équilibre conventionnel.

L’article met en lumière la tension constitutive entre souveraineté et universalité des droits humains. En articulant l’étude des lacunes textuelles avec l’analyse des innovations jurisprudentielles, il montre comment les organes internationaux contribuent à une redéfinition progressive et créative du droit international des droits humains, au-delà des frontières étatiques.

Au-delà du multilatéralisme international : la coopération judiciaire inter-régionale dans la définition du terrorisme en Belgique et au Qatar

2026-09-17T17:00:54+03:00

Cette contribution analyse si l’absence persistante d’une définition du terrorisme en droit international traduit un échec du multilatéralisme ou révèle l’essor de dynamiques inter-régionales capables de produire des cadres juridiques opérationnels. L’étude montre comment la Ligue des États arabes et l’Union européenne, à travers les législations du Qatar et de la Belgique, pallient les insuffisances du droit international en élaborant leurs propres incriminations du terrorisme.

L’article adopte une approche comparative fondée sur l’analyse :

des instruments internationaux relatifs au terrorisme ;
des définitions régionales élaborées par la Ligue des États arabes et l’Union européenne;
de leur transposition dans les droits nationaux qatari et belge.

Cette démarche permet d’identifier convergences fonctionnelles et divergences conceptuelles entre les modèles régionaux.

L’étude montre qu’en l’absence de définition universelle du terrorisme, les organisations régionales ont développé des incriminations propres, plus cohérentes et opérationnelles. Si la Ligue des États arabes et l’Union européenne proposent des modèles distincts, elles convergent sur certains éléments essentiels. La comparaison du Qatar et de la Belgique confirme que l’inter-régionalisme favorise une harmonisation minimale des législations nationales.

L’étude met en évidence la capacité de l’inter-régionalisme pénal à produire des convergences entre des systèmes juridiques éloignés et à constituer, à terme, le socle d’une définition internationale du terrorisme.