Corruption has been the centre of attention on a global scale. Almost all studies concentrate on corruptive effects on the governance, economics or politics. This paper investigates the citizens’ perceptions towards corruption and anti-corruption in Vietnam. This is a new look contributing to the panoramic picture of anti-corrup-tion. The study employed a descriptive approach with a researcher-made ques-tionnaire for 385 respondents selected by a stratified random sampling method based on Cochran’s formula. It was found out that preventive measures and corrup tion laws are not severe enough to admonish corruption offenders. Transpa-rency is not highly promoted for people to access information, so citizens’ super-vision is not very effective. There is a mismatch between citizens’ perceptions and external organisations’ assessment. It is necessary to implement anti-corruption law strictly and renovate people’s right to get corruptive information. Moreover, the government should recheck and adjust preventive anti-corruption laws to match each specific type of corruption. Urgently, the operation of the state appa-ratus ought to cooperate and join hands to combat corruption. It is advisable for the government to collaborate with external organisations to exchange experience in curbing corruption

The subject of this paper focuses on issues concerning criminal liability for a crime committed while inebriated or intoxicated. These issues, whose social significance is indisputable, continue to be controversial from the perspective of criminal law. One reason for this is the shortcomings of Article 31 § 3 of the Criminal Code, which serves as the basis to hold an offender who was in said state tempore criminis criminally liable. The purpose of this paper, however, is not so much to criticise the current legal solution as to offer a proposition de lege ferenda concerning a change in the wording of the said provision on the grounds of the reservations raised. The conclusions that lead to it are derived both from the dogmatic-legal analysis of the cited provision and from the empirical approach motivated by the psychopathological view of the state of intoxication, or the problem of (in)sanity of the perpetrator of a prohibited act. These issues are ingrained in the regulation contained in § 3 of Article 31 of the Criminal Code. It is the will of the criminal legislator for the scope of Article 31 of the Criminal Code to encompass a variety of states which may seem similar from a psychopathological point of view they, but actually require a different legal approach with regard to criminal-legal aspects and criminal policy, which this study aims to present.

The purpose of the article is to discuss the new regulation provided in Art. 189d item 4 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, i.e. the impact of the circumstances of the offender’s contribution to the occurrence of administrative tort on the administrative penalty. First, after conducting an analysis, I come into a conclusion that the said contribution does not affect the very fact of being held liable, but is taken consideration only at the stage of determining the amount of penalty. This proves that its application is limited. Then, I proceed with a critical analysis of the existing limitation, referring to the fundamental principles that should be taken into account in the process of law enforcement, which involves also imposing sanctions and determining the role of administrative financial penalties.