This study explores the relationship between addictive behaviors, online behaviors, and adolescents’ ability to manage conflict. Effective conflict management is influenced by emotional self-regulation, empathy, and the digital environment. The literature suggests that deficits in these areas may exacerbate antisocial behavior and social adjustment difficulties. This study evaluates the influence of emotional intelligence, addictive behaviors, and online behaviors on conflict management. The hypotheses include adolescents with a high level of emotional adjustment who manage conflicts more effectively (H2) and that addictive and problematic online behaviors increase the risk of conflict escalation (H1, H3). The research involved 403 adolescents, selected through non-probabilistic methods using structured questionnaires. Statistical analysis included normality tests, Spearman’s correlations, and Mann-Whitney U tests to identify group differences. Adolescents with high emotional adjustment obtained significantly higher scores in conflict management and emotional self-regulation. Addictive and problematic online behaviors are associated with more significant difficulties in conflict management. Adolescents involved in minor crimes demonstrate deficits in emotion and conflict management. The results confirm the essential role of emotional intelligence in conflict management and the negative impact of addictive and problematic online behavior. Educational interventions promoting emotional intelligence development and responsible use of technology can reduce antisocial behaviors and improve adolescents’ social adjustment.

This research examines the impact of parental communication and education on the aggressive behavior of adolescents and their attitudes toward morality, from an interdisciplinary perspective. The study aims to investigate the relationship between parental attitudes towards aggressive behaviors, the disciplinary styles used, and the school adaptation of adolescents. The central hypothesis is that a parenting style based on open communication reduces aggressive behavior and improves moral attitudes. Methods. The method involved a cross-sectional study on a sample of 403 adolescents, using structured questionnaires to assess parental communication, attitudes towards aggression, school experience, and aggressive behaviors. The findings revealed a significant positive association between parental tolerance of aggression and adolescents’ aggressive behaviors (r = 0.280, p < 0.001). In contrast, open parental communication was positively related to school adaptation (r = 0.348, p < 0.001). Moreover, negative school attitudes were strong predictors of aggressive manifestations (r = −0.374, p < 0.001). The conclusions emphasize the importance of parental intervention programs that promote effective communication and reduce tolerance of aggressive behaviors, thereby fostering the development of prosocial behaviors and healthy moral attitudes in adolescents.

The effectiveness and legitimacy of international justice mechanisms are increasingly tested in a world marked by shifting power dynamics, regional conflicts, and divergent political agendas. This paper explores the multifaceted challenges facing international justice in the context of evolving geopolitical realities. Institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), International Court of Justice (ICJ), and ad hoc tribunals operate within a complex framework where legal norms often collide with state sovereignty, national interests, and global asymmetries of power. The lack of enforcement mechanisms, selective compliance, and political instrumentalization of justice processes undermine the impartiality and credibility of international legal bodies. Moreover, powerful states frequently resist or bypass international rulings, contributing to a growing legitimacy crisis. The research highlights recent case studies—including the Russia–Ukraine conflict, the situation in Palestine, and the limitations of accountability in Syria and Myanmar—to demonstrate how geopolitics influences access to justice and the implementation of international legal standards. At the same time, the rise of multipolarity and fragmentation within the international system generates both obstacles and opportunities for reform. The paper argues that for international justice to remain relevant and effective, it must adapt to the realities of a contested global order, emphasizing inclusive participation, institutional resilience, and a renewed commitment to universality and impartiality. Ultimately, the study calls for a pragmatic rethinking of the relationship between law and power, as well as for stronger normative coherence in the face of global crises and political pressures.

This paper examines the evolution of corporate criminal liability in Romanian and European criminal law, highlighting the shift from the traditional principle societas delinquere non potest to the contemporary recognition of corporate criminal responsibility. The primary aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of the current sanctioning mechanisms applicable to legal persons, through a comparative analysis of Romanian and selected European legal systems. The research traces the normative development of corporate liability in Romania, especially following the 2004 Criminal Code, and analyzes its alignment with European Union directives and Council of Europe standards. Through comparative examination of jurisdictions such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands, the study evaluates the structure, proportionality, and practical enforcement of sanctions imposed on corporate entities. It also explores doctrinal and jurisprudential debates on the attribution of criminal liability to legal persons, evidentiary challenges, and the impact of corporate compliance programs in mitigating responsibility.Special emphasis is placed on the interpretative role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), whose rulings increasingly shape national approaches. By integrating legal theory with case law analysis, the paper aims to determine whether current mechanisms serve their preventive and deterrent functions effectively, and to identify areas where further harmonization or reform is necessary. The findings contribute to the ongoing European discourse on corporate accountability and the need for coherent, functional, and just responses to corporate crime.

This paper examines the growing entanglement between penal populism, the pervasive influence of social media, and the erosion of the presumption of innocence—a foundational principle in democratic legal systems. Penal populism, characterized by a political tendency to promote harsher punishments and swift justice in response to public sentiment rather than empirical evidence, increasingly relies on social media platforms as tools for shaping and amplifying public outrage. In this context, individuals are often "tried" in the court of public opinion before due process unfolds, leading to reputational damage and societal exclusion even in the absence of a legal conviction. The paper explores how viral accusations, cancel culture, and algorithmic amplification contribute to a punitive ethos in which the boundaries between justice and vengeance are blurred. Social media not only fuels mass mobilizations and emotional reactions but also alters perceptions of crime and punishment, shifting from retributive justice anchored in law to performative condemnation rooted in spectacle. Moreover, this phenomenon exacerbates systemic inequalities, as marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by extrajudicial moral judgments. By drawing on interdisciplinary literature in criminology, media studies, and legal theory, the paper argues that the digital age demands renewed safeguards for legal fairness and individual dignity. It concludes by proposing normative and institutional responses aimed at reasserting the presumption of innocence and resisting the corrosive effects of punitive populism amplified through digital platforms.