This qualitative study explores the evolution and implications of limiting contractual liability in Saudi Arabia, focusing on the interplay between Sharia principles, international conventions, and domestic legal reforms. Through a comprehensive analysis of primary and secondary sources, including the new Civil Transactions Law 2023 and relevant legal documents, the research aims to thoroughly understand the historical roots and contemporary dynamics shaping contractual practices in Saudi Arabia. The study uncovers the challenges and opportunities inherent in harmonizing Sharia principles with global legal norms within the Saudi legal framework. Examining the new legislation reveals notable changes in the treatment of liability in commercial contracts, signaling a shift towards modernization and alignment with international standards. Its findings highlight the complexities of balancing contractual autonomy with legal constraints in the Saudi context, emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue and research to address emerging issues and enhance the clarity and enforceability of contractual agreements. The study underscores the importance of a collaborative approach that integrates legal, cultural, and international perspectives to strengthen the legal framework and foster a conducive environment for commercial transactions in Saudi Arabia. In doing so, it offers a nuanced analysis of the legal landscape, shedding light on stakeholders' challenges and opportunities in navigating contractual practices within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The paper aims to answer the question if and under which conditions a talaq performed in an Islamic state may be recognised in European states. The authors provide an analysis of various forms of talaq performed in different Islamic states and reach conclusions on the effects that may be recognised in Europe, with an outlook towards a possible uniform approach. The recognition of talaqs in England and Wales, Germany and Bosnia and Herzegovina are used as examples for different solutions to similar problems before European courts. The EU legislator has not adopted a uniform approach to the application and recognition of talaqs in the EU. The CJEU got it wrong in Sahyouni II and missed the opportunity to contribute to a uniform EU policy but its subsequent decision in TB opens the door for the CJEU to overturn Sahyouni II if another case concerning a non-EU talaq divorce comes before them. The Hague Divorce Convention of 1970 is an international instrument that provides for appropriate solutions. Ratification by more states in which a talaq is a legally effective form of divorce and by more European states would provide the much-needed security for families moving from Islamic states to Europe.

Background. The arbitrability of administrative contracts contributes to sustainable dispute resolution within the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals 16 (SDG 16). However, different regulation of administrative contracts in comparative law affects the arbitrability of the disputes arising out of them. The question arises – is protection deserved if an administrative contract containing an arbitration clause concluded in violation of the administrative law of the governmental body or without a special approval is invalid, unenforceable, or if the company was unaware of such a requirement? This paper analyses the concept of an administrative contract and its arbitrability in Saudi Arabia and comparative law to provide for sustainable solutions. Methods. The analysis of the applicable arbitration and administrative laws and rules is conducted with the normative method to establish the arbitrability of the disputes arising out of administrative contracts and the concept of the administrative contract. The case analysis reveals if the legislative approach causes difficulties in practice. The dogmatic method is applied to link the reasons for legislative and case law development to the current normative solutions in comparative and Saudi law. The conclusions on the existing problems and possible solutions shall be based on the analytical method. Results and Conclusions. Government contracts are of great importance and their exclusion from arbitration contradicts the set goal of sustainable dispute resolution mechanism. Differences in comparative law in terms of the notion of the administrative contract and the arbitrability may diminish the positive effects of arbitration in administrative contracts, as they may endanger equal access to dispute resolution as part of the sustainable development goals, be enforceable, or even cause discrepancies between states that annul the arbitration awards and others that still enforce the awards despite their annulment.

This article deals with the protection of consumers when they enter e-commerce transactions with foreign companies. Most states reacted to the growing importance of e-commerce by enacting data protection and consumer protection legislation and by requiring registration of e-businesses. Companies have found a way to circumvent the consumer legislation by offering the consumers to agree to a choice of foreign courts and laws which are included in their terms and conditions. Consumers give away the protection of their home state simply by clicking to accept the general terms and conditions on the company’s website. The purpose of this article is to examine if the solutions and the experience from the United States and the European Union could serve as a model for transnational protection of consumers in e-commerce. The authors discuss the different levels of protection offered in the United States and the European Union and consider unification of the standards by a multilateral convention.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development builds upon the Millennium Development Goals while at the same time reaffirming the conclusions of the leading instruments in the field of human rights and international law. The 17 integrated and indivisible sustainable development goals (SDGs) require innovation through digitalization and legal activities. Digitalization and new technologies are crucial for SDG 8, 9, and 16. SDG 16: Peace, justice, and strong institutions directly focus on law. While SDG 16 does not directly mention it, digitalization is essential in achieving its specific targets. Examples include concepts of e-government (including data protection and public access to information), e-commerce, equal access to dispute resolution mechanisms in cyberspace, and enforcement of non-discriminatory laws for sustainable development. The right to a healthy and sustainable environment encompasses economic, social, and environmental aspects that SDGs capture. To achieve these goals, the 2030 Agenda relies on international law instruments. The right to a healthy and sustainable environment is developing towards an internationally recognized human right. As environmental goals do not recognize national borders, international law plays a key role. International environmental law should facilitate a broader application of existing clean technologies through the transfer of technology and examine the development of new technologies as to its compatibility with a sustainable environment. Moreover, the human right to share in scientific advancement and enjoy its benefits embodies equal access to technology. The legal enforcement of sustainable goals in the private and governmental sectors remains one of the main concerns of climate change.

The question of a general part for EU Private International Law has attracted research and debate among PIL scholars long before the EU started to codify this legal field after the Amsterdam Treaty. However, the EU has made no attempt to make use of the existing research to adopt a comprehensive regulation of the general part of EU PIL and has adopted sector-specific regulation with inconsistent regulation of several general institutes. For the occasion of the anniversary of the Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien this paper revisits the topic to answer the question which institutes of PIL should be codified in a general part of EU PIL. The conclusions are made based on four criteria: which general institutes of PIL are already regulated in the EU; are they generally applicable to all special parts of EU PIL; what is their practical relevance; and is there a need for their uniform regulation. The paper analyzes the discrepancies between existing general institutes of EU PIL and offers brief discussions on the possible formulation of some of the institutes for the general part.

FIDIC Forms of Contract in recent years are often used for regulation of rights and obligations of the investors and the contractors on the construction projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular in construction of the highways, railways and dams. Majority of the projects is finalized without significant disputes between the parties. However, in certain cases disputes between the parties escalate in such magnitude that one of the parties decides to terminate the contract. Due to severity of the financial consequences of the termination, it is necessary to emphasise interplay between the Laws on Obligations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and FIDIC Forms. A careful approach to the issue of the termination could prevent complicated and expensive arbitral proceedings.

The Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina had to determine the applicable law to the arbitration clause contained in general conditions of sale on seller’s website. The sales agreement was concluded orally and the reference to the website with general conditions of sale was made on a pro forma invoice paid by the buyer. The arbitration clause provided for ICC Rules and seat of arbitration in Amsterdam, while French law was chosen to apply to the contract. The buyer, a domestic company from Bosnia and Herzegovina, filed for damages before domestic courts, claiming that the arbitration clause was not consented to, nor was it concluded in written. The Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina issued in the “chicken breed” case in 2019 a pro-arbitration judgment with reference to the New York Convention of 1958 and European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961. It is a landmark decision on one of the most difficult questions of applicable law to formal and substantive validity of the arbitration agreement.

The research paper examines European public policy in cross-border family law in Europe as established by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. The goal is to identify recent case law and to review on which family matters the European public policy has already been created, on the one hand, and for which questions the development is slower and why, on the other hand. The normative and comparative methods are predominantly used in the paper to conduct a qualitative assessment. The analysis shows that the European public policy is at an advanced stage of development on same-sex communities and family name, in an early stage of development on surrogate motherhood and non-existing on private divorces conducted under Islamic law. The reasons confirm discussions in the literature on movement from status to contract law in family law matters except for samesex communities, but also predict a slower development of the European public policy in times of the COVID-19 and economic crisis.

The process of accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the EU implies the introduction of EU standards on Private International Law into its internal legislation. This paper includes considerations related to the ways of implementation of the reform of private international law, having in mind the complex constitutional structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially the division of competencies between the State and its entities. Bearing in mind the complexity of the decision-making process of different levels and the inability to reach political consensus on the reform, the article emphasises alternative mechanisms for introducing EU standards in the field of private international law into the legal system in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Given the external competence of the EU in its relations with third countries, this article gives a thorough analysis of the possibility of concluding international agreements in the field of private international law.

INTRODUCTION In the 1950s and 1960s, former Yugoslavia entered into bilateral treaties on legal assistance with Austria (Treaty 3), Bulgaria (Treaty 22), Czechoslovakia (Treaty 13), Hungary (Treaty 25), Poland (Treaty 26) and Romania (Treaty 27). Today these treaties are in force between the four successor countries of Yugoslavia – i.e. Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (henceforth: B&H), North Macedonia (henceforth: Macedonia) and Montenegro – and all the abovementioned European countries, which in the meantime have become EU Member States (in the case of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia as its successors). Each of these bilateral treaties contains the conflict-of-laws rules and procedural rules on succession that take precedence over, respectively, the rules of the Succession Regulation (Article 75(1)) in the contracting parties that are now EU Member States and the national private international law (PIL) rules in the four successor countries of former Yugoslavia that are not EU members. As these rules are based on the principle of nationality and the principle of the location of the estate, they are completely incompatible with the rules of the Succession Regulation and are, therefore, undesirable in the EU Member States. From the perspective of the successor countries of former Yugoslavia, a general assessment of the rules on succession contained in bilateral treaties cannot be given, mainly because international succession law is not consistently regulated in the successor countries: the rules of Serbian, B&H and Macedonian international succession law are based on traditional principles that correspond to those of the bilateral treaties, while the rules of Montenegrin international succession law follow the principles contained in the Succession Regulation. In order to make a proper assessment, it is first necessary to make a few remarks on the conflict-of-laws and procedural rules on succession in Serbia, B&H, Macedonia and Montenegro and then to look into the conflict-of-laws regimes and the procedural rules of the bilateral treaties in detail. A FEW REMARKS ON NATIONAL PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW RULES IN SUCCESSION MATTERS SERBIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA The main legal source of private international law in Serbia and B&H is the Act on Resolution of Conflict of Laws with Regulations of Other Countries (henceforth: PIL Act), which was enacted in 1982 in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (henceforth: SFRY) and is, with minor amendments, still in force today in both countries.

The freedom of services by correspondence should be one of the most important market freedoms in the EU legislative politics and the CJEU jurisprudence. The announcement of the establishment of a fifth market freedom on data flow is directly addressed by the freedom of services by correspondence. The growing importance of the freedom of services in general is in line with the rise of the EU service sector as the main contributor to growth and employment in the EU, accounting for about two thirds of both EU employment and value added. In addition, since 2015 the Digital Single Market is one of European Commission’s political priority that aims at providing free access to online services. Online services are in most part services by correspondence, where neither provider nor recipient travels cross border. The truth is that the freedom of services by correspondence is barely ever mentioned explicitly neither by EU legislator nor by the CJEU. The EU legislator has rather chosen a sectoral approach to the Digital Single Market, fragmenting the fifth market freedom to several narrow pieces of legislation. The paper deals with the question why the freedom of services by correspondence has not acquired the same position as the freedom of goods. The analysis will focus on answering this question on the grounds of the theory of convergence of market freedoms and its limits.