Environmental Rule of Law, Climate Justice, and Governance in Planetary Crisis Conditions
Rosalía Ibarra Sarlat
The accelerating climate crisis has intensified pressure on legal and governance systems to respond to ecological harm through more coherent and accountable frameworks. At the same time, climate justice has emerged as a central concern because environmental harm increasingly intersects with human rights, state responsibility, and institutional legitimacy. This article aims to examine environmental rule of law as a unifying framework through which climate justice can be understood under conditions of planetary crisis. The study applies a qualitative normative-conceptual design centered on doctrinal and analytical interpretation. Its analysis reconstructs the internal relationship between environmental rule of law, human rights, state obligation, ecological protection, and institutional legitimacy. The discussion is developed through close reading and conceptual mapping of the core legal dimensions that structure climate justice claims across national and international settings. This qualitative approach is used because the research problem concerns legal coherence, normative integration, and governance logic rather than measurement or causal testing. Environmental rule of law is positioned as an essential legal framework that gives climate justice claims greater coherence, authority, and enforceability across fragmented governance domains. Climate justice is therefore better understood not as an external moral demand, but as a legally grounded governance claim embedded in a broader rule-based order. The article contributes to the field by clarifying the conceptual foundation that links law, justice, accountability, and ecological governance in contemporary climate debate.
Jun 04, 2026Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)environmental rule of law, climate justice, governance, accountability
Legal Accountability in Algorithmic Public Decision Making and the Transformation of Administrative Governance
Zhang Linghan
The rapid incorporation of algorithmic systems into public administration has generated new legal questions regarding accountability, justification, and review in contemporary governance. As digital infrastructures increasingly mediate welfare allocation, regulatory enforcement, and administrative assessment, public law faces mounting pressure to clarify how state authority remains legally answerable under technologically mediated conditions. This article examines how algorithmic governance is transforming the legal structure of accountability in public decision-making. It adopts a qualitative doctrinal and socio-legal design grounded in legal accountability theory, administrative law, and governance analysis. The analysis draws on statutes, regulatory materials, judicial reasoning, policy documents, and interdisciplinary scholarship concerning automated public decision-making and algorithmic regulation. These materials are examined through the analytical dimensions of answerability, transparency, justification, reviewability, contestability, human oversight, and responsibility attribution. Legal accountability in algorithmic governance emerges as a layered and composite framework rather than a single procedural safeguard, with conventional public law principles remaining relevant but increasingly strained by opacity, distributed responsibility, and formalized oversight. Public decision-making in digital environments therefore requires a reconstruction of accountability that extends beyond compliance-based transparency toward legally meaningful explanation, institutional traceability, and effective avenues of challenge. The article contributes to the field by clarifying how administrative law and legal theory can be integrated to explain the transformation of public authority under algorithmic governance.
Jun 04, 2026Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)algorithmic governance, legal accountability, public decision-making, administrative law
Platform Labour and the Reconstruction of Employment Law in Indonesia’s Digital Work Relations
Saefulah Saefulah
Platform labour has altered the legal organization of work in Indonesia by expanding digitally mediated labour arrangements across everyday service sectors. Despite this transformation, legal debate has remained strongly oriented toward worker classification, leaving broader questions about algorithmic governance, fragmented workplace authority, and technologically mediated labour vulnerability insufficiently developed. This article aims to examine how platform labour reconstructs legal work relations in Indonesia beyond the employee–independent contractor binary. The study applies a qualitative doctrinal and conceptual research design grounded in the analytical dimensions of economic dependency, functional subordination, and digital control. Data were drawn from Indonesian legal materials, regulatory texts, and relevant academic discussions on employment law and platform labour. The analysis was conducted through interpretive examination of the gap between formal contractual status and the actual organization of work under platform systems. A structured analytical framework was used to assess how dependency, authority, and control operate in digitally mediated labour relations. The discussion indicates that platform labour in Indonesia cannot be understood adequately through contractual classification alone because legal vulnerability is increasingly produced through data-driven governance and indirect forms of labour discipline. Employment law therefore requires a broader normative orientation that recognizes dependency, subordination, and control in technologically mediated work settings. The article contributes to the field by offering a coherent legal framework for analyzing platform labour as a transformation of work relations rather than merely a dispute over worker status.
Jun 04, 2026Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)platform labour, employment law, digital work, labour relations
Digital Sovereignty, Data Protection, and Transnational Regulatory Authority in Fragmented Governance
Samuel Chisa
This study emerges from growing concern over the vulnerability of economies facing repeated global disruption, including war, oil shocks, trade conflict, technological change, and broader geopolitical instability. Although economic resilience has become an important concept in contemporary scholarship, existing discussions often treat institutions, innovation, and inclusive growth as separate determinants rather than as interconnected foundations of long-term adaptability. The purpose of this study is to develop an integrated analytical framework explaining how institutional robustness, innovation dynamics, and inclusive growth jointly shape economic resilience. The study employs a qualitative conceptual research design based on analytical framework development. It uses document-based analysis of scholarly arguments and conceptual discussions related to economic resilience, institutions, innovation, and inclusive development. The analysis is organized around three main dimensions—institutional robustness, innovation dynamics, and inclusive growth—with economic resilience as the overarching analytical outcome. Through relational synthesis, the study maps how these dimensions interact under conditions of global disruption and geopolitical uncertainty. The principal results show that economic resilience is best understood as a systemic and relational capacity produced by the interaction of robust institutions, adaptive innovation, and socially broad development pathways. The study concludes that resilience becomes stronger and more durable when governance capacity, transformative adaptation, and inclusion operate as an integrated foundation rather than as isolated factors. Its main contribution is to provide a more coherent conceptual framework for understanding economic resilience in an era of prolonged uncertainty and structural disruption.
Jun 04, 2026Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)economic resilience, institutions, innovation, inclusive growth
Legal Accountability in Algorithmic Governance and Public Decision-Making in Administrative Law
Ritika Sharma
The increasing use of algorithmic systems in public administration has reshaped how administrative decisions are produced, justified, and reviewed. At the same time, legal accountability frameworks have not developed at a comparable pace, creating tension between automated decision support and the principles of lawful public administration. This study examines how legal accountability should be reconstructed when public decision-making is shaped by opaque or semi-autonomous algorithmic systems. The research employs a qualitative normative design based on conceptual analysis of legal accountability, administrative law, and governance. It uses close reading and analytical categorization to examine the changing relation between responsibility, reviewability, justification, and system-mediated decision processes. The analysis is organized around the legal dimensions of transparency, contestability, and institutional oversight as the core structure of algorithmic accountability. This approach is appropriate because the study addresses a legal-conceptual problem concerning the transformation of public authority rather than a measurable behavioral outcome. The discussion indicates that conventional accountability models are inadequate because they rely on human-centered assumptions that become unstable under distributed and opaque algorithmic governance. Legal accountability in algorithmic governance needs to be understood as a composite obligation that reconnects public authority with intelligible explanation, effective challenge, and institutional control. The study contributes to the field by offering an integrated framework that links administrative law, legal theory, and governance analysis in the evaluation of algorithmically shaped public decision-making.
Jun 04, 2026Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)algorithmic governance, legal accountability, public administration, administrative law
