International organisations (hereinafter referred to as “IOs”) have evolved and expanded their roles across sectors, enjoying absolute jurisdictional immunity that raises concerns regarding the adequacy of rules governing their operations – espe-cially in the area of modern justice needs. This paper addresses the debates sur-rounding the scope of jurisdictional immunity of IOs against legal responsibility, evaluating its rationale and contrasting it with the lack of appropriate legal redressal forums for violations of IOs. The authors have adopted a qualitative analysis method to examine judicial opinions and controversies involving major IOs like the UN, WHO, and NATO, revealing legal barriers that undermine efforts to hold these organisations accountable for violations of international law. The paper argues for a balanced approach that preserves the essential functions of IOs while establishing effective mechanisms for legal redress and accountability. The authors propose limiting the scope of immunity in specific cases and enhancing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to uphold the rule of law principles.

The article explores the outcomes of the judicial reform in Poland after 2015, which diminished judicial independence; and it has also been counter-productive in terms of the proclaimed need of judicial accountability. The changes made to how judges are appointed, disciplinary procedure and the management of the courts are discussed from this perspective, observing the capacity to give an account of the power entrusted to judges. The aim of the study is to show that the reforms introduced under the banner of increasing judicial accountability have made that accountability synonymous with the judges being held politically dependent, which is quite the opposite of accounting for the power entrusted. The research methods used in the text are the dogmatic method and case study.

This study systematically investigates the primary issues and obstacles impeding the establishment of a functional and credible judiciary in Kosovo, adopting an international perspective. The research methodology includes a combination of qualitative and empirical analytical approaches to concrete actions based on a review of relevant literature, reports, and legal documents. This paper concludes that Kosovo should be ready to reach compromises, strengthen the independence, pro­fessionalism, transparency and accountability of judges and prosecutors, and increase public confidence in justice, to achieve a successful reform in the judicial system. The paper offers several recommendations for improving the quality and efficiency of justice in Kosovo, such as promoting cooperation and coordination with international factors in this field.

The purpose of the article is to present selected aspects of the issue of legal (administrative and legal) impossibility and to propose structural solutions that can contribute to reducing the scale of that negative phenomenon. Firstly, the article refers to the causes of legal impossibility and its form. Next, a structural solution that has been used and verified in developed administrations, that is, the accountability of administration, was presented, and its application to Polish administrative law was proposed. The study includes the use of, among other things, the method of transferring management solutions to administrative law. In the paper, a thesis was formulated that a systemic and correct introduction of the institution of the accountability of administration into the Polish system of administrative law (in the form of proper structural norms) may significantly contribute to reducing the scope of legal impossibility. The reflections presented in the article are provided in two dimensions – one that is formal and dogmatic and another that concerns legal realism.