Lex Humana (ISSN 2175-0947)

RECLAIMING DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

Carlo Piparo — 2026-06-13

This article explores how artificial intelligence and data-driven platforms are reshaping the conditions of democratic citizenship by producing new forms of digital inequality. Drawing on critical theory, developmental psychology, media studies and constitutional law, the article develops an integrated framework combining Nancy Fraser’s theory of participatory justice, García Coll et al.’s ecological model of youth development and Valkenburg et al.’s social compensation theory. Empirically, it engages with survey data on perceived discrimination and youth digital skills, as well as emblematic case studies such as XLAW, Prometea and Cambridge Analytica. Normatively, it situates these developments within a broader project of digital constitutionalism, focusing on informational self-determination, substantive equality and democratic participation. The analysis concludes that addressing digital inequalities requires not only technical and regulatory fixes (GDPR, DSA, AI Act), but also a constitutional re-embedding of AI and platform power within frameworks of transparency, contestability and participatory governance.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF LEGAL PERSONS: DUE DILIGENCE AND COMPLIANCE AS RISK PREVENTION AND MITIGATION

Joaquim Ramalho — 2026-06-13

The criminal liability of legal persons has increasingly highlighted the importance of internal prevention and control mechanisms, requiring organizations to adopt effective legal risk management. In this context, this study systematically and thoroughly analyzes the relationship between compliance and due diligence as essential instruments in preventing and mitigating legal risks associated with organizational activity, particularly regarding the involvement of third parties. Starting with a conceptual review, it examines the evolution of compliance as a mechanism for regulatory conformity, as well as the development of due diligence as a structured procedure for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks. It concludes that the effective adoption and implementation of compliance programs and due diligence procedures tailored to the company's risk profile can be decisive in assessing the culpability of the legal persons and may, in certain circumstances, constitute grounds for its exclusion.

WORKFORCE DISPLACEMENT AND LABOUR TRANSFORMATION IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN UGANDA

Paul Atagamen Aidonojie — 2026-06-13

No doubt AI has rapidly reshaped and rebranded the labour market sector, thereby providing new opportunities by automating major functions of most establishments. Despite AI's potential for the labour market, however, it is gradually resulting in a high rate of worker displacement, with the Ugandan legal framework seeming not to have addressed these socio-economic and legal issues introduced by AI transformation of the labour sector. Hence, this study examines legal responses to workforce displacement and labour transformation in the age of Artificial Intelligence in Uganda. The study relied on a doctrinal method of study with a supplementary qualitative method. The study found, based on the data obtained, that AI has significantly transformed the Ugandan labour market, with more transformation awaiting in the future. However, the study also found that currently the majority of unskilled workers and several others will be displaced from the workplace and yet the legal structure to address these challenges is weak. The study concludes and recommends that there is an urgent need for reforms of Uganda's legal framework to balance innovation with worker protection. It is also recommended that there should be national reskilling policies and effective regulatory oversight to ensure inclusive and sustainable labour transitions in this era of AI.

WAS THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF FORCE EVER OPERATIONALLY BINDING ON GREAT POWERS?

Mahir Muharemović — 2026-06-13

This article asks not whether Article 2(4) of the UN Charter has been eroded, but whether it ever exercised meaningful restraint over the states with the greatest capacity to use armed force. Drawing on conflict data (UCDP/PRIO, Correlates of War MID, Military Intervention Project) and qualitative case studies of Security Council permanent members’ behavior from 1945 through Operation Epic Fury (February 2026), the article argues that the prohibition functions as an analytical filter, not a physical barrier. The central mechanism is the progressive expansion of formally narrow exceptions (self-defense under Article 51 and Security Council authorization) by the most powerful actors themselves, without effective sanction. When exceptions expand to cover conduct indistinguishable from aggressive war, and no enforcement authority corrects the gap, the rule remains formally intact but generates legal uncertainty and fails to predict Great Power conduct. However, the swift legal condemnation of Operation Epic Fury demonstrates normative resilience. The article concludes that the system is structurally asymmetrical: the prohibition imposes rhetorical and diplomatic costs, but it has never stopped Great Powers from acting when their vital interests were at stake.