This paper aims to examine the issue of environmental protection in the context of armed conflicts. First and foremost, through the regulation of public international law, while at the same time raising the moral-religious basis of the issue. In the second half of the paper, I will examine the concept of ecocide and its regulatory framework. In particular, with regard to whether the void left by the regulatory gaps and enforcement deficiencies of international law can be filled by ecocide as an emerging legal regime.

We live in the ’Anthropocene’, whereby human destructive activity is having such a major impact on Planet Earth that it has become the main culprit in the global ecological crisis involving climate change, biodiversity loss and overall pollution. The scientific conception of the Anthropocene makes it inevitable that societies will reconsider the myriad economic and legal institutions used to regulate the relationship between humans and the environment. Since, a critic from the environmental ethics perspective states that the ecological crisis has been brought about by an anthropocentric view that emphasizes the exclusivity of human interests, subordinating non-human beings to these human interests. Such eco- or biocentric approaches, giving rights to nature or constitutionalizing biodiversity, seem rather exotic to a European lawyer, as in climate policy fights of this region we make efforts to increase the role of human rights. In this paper, I would like to point out that legal solutions that go beyond an anthropocentric perspective should not be understood as a kind of exoticism, but as a fundamental challenge to human rights-based climate protection that seeks to extend the language of rights beyond humans and calls for a non-human-centred protection of the environment. I will argue that, while this challenge must be taken seriously, there are good reasons to continue to use the language of human rights to express our climate change-related demands.

In humanity's search for solutions, efforts to curb environmental problems and reverse harmful processes are evident. Throughout history, depending on the prevailing worldview, legal cultures have reflected humanity's relationship with nature. The study presents certain manifestations of a relatively new regulatory concept – the phenomenon of the rights of nature – according to its appearance at different regulatory levels. After summarizing its common elements, it compares this with the perspective present in the Catholic Church's social teachings concerning the relationship between humans and nature.

This study aims to present the basics of indigenous law. This is because in the recent years both international treaties and scientific literature emphasize the need of taking into account indigenous knowledge and tradition when answers to ecological problems are being formulated. The indigenous tradition and law differ what we consider law from a modern western viewpoint. On the above basis the author was inspired to share few critical remarks regarding modern law.

A major issue of legal theory today is to explore the problems raised by the so-called “green criminal law” or „green criminology.” Serious environmental disasters and the harmful effects of climate change also imply a rethinking of the established system and conceptual features of criminal law. Despite the European Union's efforts to develop environmental criminal law, the question arises as to whether criminal law can be seen as having an environmental function, and whether criminal law is suitable for protecting the environment. Recently there have been problems of effectiveness in the regulation of environmental criminal law at European and national level, and a new EU directive had to be adopted because the previous one had proved ineffective in achieving environmental objectives. It is therefore important to go deep inside the theoretical foundations that can provide a coherent explanation for the ineffectiveness of environmental criminal law and environmental regulation in general, and to find a justificatory framework that can justify the obligation to comply with these norms.

Immovable properties have a specific legal and economic role. The specific role of immovable properties means that the rules governing real estate transactions are not only specific but also complex. This conclusion is shared by the renowned professor Charles E. McLure, jr. who argues that the treatment of real estate transactions from a VAT perspective is one of the most complex issues in the field of taxation. Where the subject of the transaction is real estate, further analysis is required as to which type of real estate the property is for VAT purposes, as the VAT consequences for each type of real estate are significantly different. The primary level of distinction between the different types of real estate is whether the property is unbuilt or built-in. In the present study, I address the issues related to the definition of built-in real estate.