Legal framework

The recruitment and use of children in armed conflict remains one of the most persistent violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Despite the existence of an extensive normative framework prohibiting child soldiering, including the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the practice continues across both international and non-international armed conflicts. This study examines the effectiveness of international legal mechanisms designed to prevent the recruitment and use of children in hostilities, and the extent to which these mechanisms have been enforced in practice. Adopting a doctrinal research methodology, the study analyses international treaties, customary international humanitarian law, decisions of international and hybrid criminal tribunals, and relevant United Nations instruments. Through case studies drawn from Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, the research highlights the evolving nature of armed conflict, the blurred distinction between voluntary and forced recruitment, and the increasing involvement of non-state armed groups. The findings reveal that while the international legal framework has achieved normative clarity, enforcement remains uneven and largely dependent on political will, domestic incorporation, and international cooperation. The International Criminal Court and other accountability mechanisms have contributed to the development of jurisprudence on child soldiering, yet significant gaps persist in prevention, prosecution, and post-conflict reintegration. The study concludes that strengthening domestic implementation, enhancing international cooperation, and prioritising child-centred reintegration strategies are essential to closing the enforcement gap. By providing a comprehensive legal and theoretical analysis, this research contributes to ongoing scholarly and policy debates on child protection, accountability, and the future of international humanitarian law.

Euthanasia, particularly in mental disorders, represents one of the most ethically complex and legally contested issues in contemporary medical jurisprudence. While physical suffering has long been the focus of end-of-life discussions, the recognition of psychological suffering as a legitimate basis for euthanasia introduces new layers of legal, ethical, and human rights considerations. This research critically examines the legal framework governing euthanasia in mental disorder cases, using a comparative approach between Nigeria and the Netherlands two jurisdictions with significantly divergent legal, cultural, and ethical perspectives. The study analyses the statutory and judicial positions on euthanasia in both countries, paying special attention to the criteria for mental competence, the evaluation of consent in psychiatric contexts, and the protections afforded to vulnerable individuals. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is legally permitted under strict conditions, even for individuals with psychiatric illnesses, provided that rigorous procedural safeguards are met. In contrast, Nigeria maintains a strict prohibition, with euthanasia treated as a criminal offence under both the Criminal Code and Penal Code, and without any provision for mental health-related exceptions. This research employs doctrinal and comparative methodologies, drawing from legal texts, case law, academic commentaries, and international human rights instruments. It identifies the shortcomings of Nigeria’s current legal stance and explores whether the Dutch model offers adaptable insights for humane and rights-based legal reform. The study ultimately argues for a more nuanced legal framework in Nigeria one that balances the sanctity of life with evolving standards of human dignity, mental health rights, and individual autonomy

This research critically examines the adequacy of the Nigerian legal framework in regulating advertisements that target families, with a particular focus on protecting family values and shielding children from harmful content. In an era where media and marketing profoundly shape societal perceptions and behaviours, advertisements have moved beyond mere commerce to become potent cultural forces. Nigerian families, especially children, are increasingly exposed to advertisement content that promotes materialism, distorts parental roles, encourages early sexualisation, and reinforces unhealthy stereotypes, etc — raising serious moral, psychological, and societal concerns. Despite the existence of regulatory bodies such as the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON), the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), and protective laws like the Child Rights Act and the APCON Code of Advertising Practice, enforcement remains weak, coordination among regulators is inconsistent, and legal provisions often fall short of addressing the unique vulnerabilities of families and children in the digital age. Using a mixed-method approach, this study combines doctrinal analysis of statutes, regulatory frameworks, and case law with empirical data collected through structured interviews and questionnaires administered to parents, legal professionals, educators, and regulatory officers and societal stakeholders. The research draws on the Social Responsibility Theory of the Press and the theory of Legal Paternalism to assess the role of the law in curbing harmful advertisements. It finds that while legal instruments exist, they lack the moral, cultural, and psychological sensitivity required to address the full impact of modern advertising on Nigerian families. The study ultimately recommends legal reform, enhanced media literacy, stronger institutional collaboration, and proactive regulatory strategies aimed at reinforcing societal values, safeguarding children’s mental and moral development, and ensuring that advertising content contributes constructively to the social fabric of the nation. This work contributes to the growing scholarship on media law, family law, and child protection in Nigeria.

Climate change poses significant environmental, economic, and social challenges globally, and Nigeria is no exception. This study examines the legal framework for combating climate change in Nigeria, with a focus on the policies, laws, and regulatory mechanisms designed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, promote sustainable development, and enhance resilience to climate-related risks. Through a comprehensive review of national legislation, international treaties, and policy instruments, including the Nigerian Climate Change Act, the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act, and Nigeria’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, the study highlights the strengths and gaps in the current legal regime. Key challenges identified include inadequate enforcement mechanisms, limited public awareness, and insufficient integration of climate change considerations into sectoral laws. The study concludes that while Nigeria has made important legal strides in addressing climate change, effective implementation, harmonization of laws, and stronger institutional capacity are critical to achieving sustainable environmental outcomes. Recommendations include strengthening regulatory frameworks, enhancing inter-agency coordination, and promoting public participation in climate governance.