Dear reader,
Authors: Simovart Mari Ann 
Published: December 2023

This year’s Juridica International compendium offers
articles on a wide variety of topics. From an initial glance, the problems
tackled in those articles might not seem to have so much in common. Yet, even
though offering windows to several quite distinct cross-sections of legal
scholarship, many of the pieces, upon a closer look, reveal themselves to be
very much interrelated. One notices that most of them share a theme of concern
arising from crises in society that have recently come to a head, with a
leitmotif of concern for the future and of venturing into unknowns – a backdrop
so familiar to us these days’ that we might not even recognise its peculiarity.

Contemporary times are
marked by complex global developments such as the pandemic, the ongoing
wars in Ukraine and of Israel/Hamas, a still very much unwritten future of AI
influencing all aspects of life, etc. In times such as these, the law assumes a
critical role in shaping not only our current doings but the course of human
affairs far further down the line as well.

The corresponding concern for our global future can be
characterised as underpinning this edition from its very first article, a paper
whereby Astrid Stadler calls on the courts to save the climate. The same focus
could be ascribed to the examination of sensitive health data’s application as
presented from research by Maret Kruus and the analysis penned by Kai Härmand
examining AI’s impact on judicial action. Their scholarship silently invites us
to ponder the profound influence that the judiciary and the legislature can
have on the future. Furthermore, the need to accommodate in the manner most
beneficial for society and for every individual alike seems to give significant
impetus for such research. The article by Jānis Neimanis on recent Latvian
Constitutional Court case-law reflects concerns of a similar nature, via
illustrations from the response to SARS-CoV-2, empowerment of marginalised
groups, and protection of democracy.

While the work of Neimanis demonstrates how legal response
may manifest a balancing act between individuals’ rights and the broader public
good, other pandemic-related articles analyse the angle of palliative efforts
by national legislators or simply struggles for efficiency within the
complicated field of public procurement in crisis-ridden times. The piece by
Şimal Efsane Erdoğan and Oana Ştefan and that
by Raquel Carvalho, in turn, allow us to compare national reactions in this
regard. I am immensely pleased
to note that these articles reflect fruitful discussion of public procurement
in times of crisis from a highly
successful conference held on this topic at the University of Tartu’s School of
law last January.

Finally but surely not least, I stress that I in no way
wish to underestimate articles that, by dealing with somewhat more
stability-rooted aspects of jurisprudence, are centred less on crises or
struggles. Age Värv writing about the role of foreign sources in Estonian
case-law; Aleksei Kelli, Margus Pedaste, and Äli Leijen providing a most
interesting empirical view of the so-called education exception to copyright (a
subject every academic certainly has come in contact with); the analysis Eneli
Laurits provides of protecting privacy in certain criminal investigations;
eye­witness identification as revisited comprehensively by Annegrete Palu and
Anneli Soo; and, finally, the description of a ‘super‑judge’ safeguarding such
realms, by Julia ­Laffranque, offer plenty of hearty food for legal thought.

I extend my warmest thanks to all of the authors for
addressing these difficult topics, thus advancing legal scholarship and,
through their contribution, serving the common good.