International Comparative Jurisprudence 2026, vol. 12, no. 1

The growing threat of terrorism raises the question of punishing not only the perpetrators of terrorist acts, but also the instigators. This article presents a comparative analysis of criminal legislation on incitement to terrorism and itsenforcement in three jurisdictions: Lithuania, Germany and France. The aim of the work is to enrich the theoretical analysis of legislation on countering incitement to terrorism, with the possibility of applying theoretical results in practice by thelegislator and law enforcement. The objectives of the research are to analyse the approaches used by jurisdictions to prohibit incitement to terrorism, how exactly this legislation is applied, what problems law enforcement faces, and to formulate recommendations for solving them. The main research methods are the formal-legal method, as well as comparative legal methods. In conclusion, it can be noted that both Lithuania and France establish a special ban on incitement to terrorism (using different wording). However, while in Lithuania the article on incitement to terrorism is not applied in practice, in France it is actively applied and becomes the subject of criticism for excessive criminalisation of speech. At the same time,in Germany there is only a general ban on incitement to crime.

Maximisation of the value of assets is one of the general principles of insolvency law, though its application in cross-border insolvency proceedings remains obscure. This article focuses on the importance of this principle and its effects when main and secondary insolvency proceedings are opened. Since insolvency law should not only establish the legal framework of debt enforcement but also provide effective mechanisms to maximise creditors’ returns, the question arises of how value maximisation should be attained when the assets of a debtor are located in different jurisdictions. This article analyses how the existing European legal framework of cross-border insolvency proceedings addresses the questions of treatment of assets, and whether it allows effective administration and realisation of the assets. In addition, it deals with challenges in the formation of insolvency estates when both main and secondary insolvency proceedings are opened; in particular, the powers of insolvency practitioners to recover assets that are removed from the respective insolvency estates of such proceedings. The research revealed that maximisation of the value of assets guides cross-border insolvency proceedings, and is important in resolving the questions pertaining to the treatment of assets which arise in these proceedings.

Employee stock option plans are increasingly common within multinational enterprises (MNE), used as tools to attract and retain talent. In many cases, the shares granted to the employees are not from the employer itself, but rather from another entity in the group, usually the parent. The paper aims to assess such employee stock option plans (ESOP) arm’s length nature (or rationale), as this is perceived by the authors to be a fundamental step towards determining if (and how) any intra-group compensation is due. This aim is explored through the accurate delineation of the transaction and through the subsequent impact of this exercise on the frame of an eventual separate or aggregated compensation for an employee stock option plan. The paper is based on a comparative law assessment and especially focuses on the OECD, particularly Latvian and Lithuanian perspectives, and contributes to increased tax and legal certainty to MNEs operating in the selected jurisdictions, and to the overall operators of the tax systems therein. The analysis carried out indicates that such an ESOP is likely to be framed either as a form of service provision (priceable condition) or as a mere shareholder activity (non-priceable circumstance).