Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing) crimes by rogue fisheries companies are rife in the sea waters of Riau Province. However, this issue is rarely reported by those provincial journalists in the online media where they work. In fact, in Riau, there are 163 online media companies and 600 competent journalists; 200 of them live in capture fisheries center areas. Apart from the journalist competency factor, the decision to make IUU fishing news can also be influenced by the fisheries company intervention that committed the crime. Besides, the policy role of media leaders—editors, editors-in-chief, and media owners—also determines journalists’ decisions to make those news stories. This research aims to analyze the influence of journalist competence and fishing company intervention on the decision to make IUU fishing news, as well as the role of media leader policy as mediators in these influences. This survey involved 100 competent journalists as respondents. Data collection was carried out through a questionnaire containing a number of closed statements measured on a 5-point Likert scale, which was distributed to respondents. The data were analyzed using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method. The research results show that the fishing company intervention has a negative and significant influence on the decision to make IUU fishing news in Riau, while journalist competence does not. Additionally, media leader policy was found to play a significant role in mediating the influence of fisheries company intervention and journalist competence on the decision to make IUU fishing news. The leader policy could prevent journalists from making IUU fishing news if fisheries companies, who are responsible for those crimes, intervene and request it. Those actions of media leaders need to be questioned because they can hamper the media’s function as a means of disseminating information, educating the public, and implementing social control, especially those related to combating IUU fishing crimes.

Since an outbreak of COVID-19 in the late 2019 in Wuhan in China, the pandemic and contagious nature of coronavirus did not spare Nigeria as the most populous Africa nation from being affected. Statistical records have shown that a large number of citizens were affected and overwhelming literature has explored different dimensions of the impacts of COVID-19 in the country. However, there is a less attention in exploring legal, economic, health and ethical impacts of the pandemic on Nigerian children. The paper primarily aims at filling this gap in the existing body of knowledge. Systematic literature review (SLR) and content analysis of secondary data of online peer-reviewed, scholarly articles among others were used as methodology. The findings revealed that, the general economic impact of COVID-19 that affects trade and small & medium scale business activities of parents also directly or indirectly affected their children. The health consequence of COVID-19 affects provision of nutritious foods that would help their balanced diet and growth. It is further noted that the ethical impact of COVID-19 affects their right to education as a result of lockdown during the first phase of the out-break. It is however reiterated that, there has not been adequate legal framework to address the multifarious im-pacts of COVID-19 on the Nigerian children. In conclusion, this paper has novel contribution specifically showing concern for children during the period of COVID-19 pandemic in the country. It is therefore suggested that efforts should be galvanized by the stakeholders in addressing multifarious challenges of the impact of COVID-19 on the Nigerian children as explored in this study.

The causation conundrum in climate change litigation has long plagued the legal and scientific communities. This article explores the role of climate attribution theory in solving the loss and damage causation puzzle in climate change litigation. First, it describes the limitations of traditional causation theories in climate change litigation and analyzes the performance of emerging theories, such as the “substantial contribution” theory and the “market share” theory, in addressing this issue. The paper then evaluates the application of climate attribution theory in actual litigation through specific case studies and puts forward a series of policy recommendations. These include strengthening funding and support for climate attribution research, establishing a platform for interdisciplinary cooperation, developing a unified standard of proof, promoting public and judicial education, and promoting the improvement of the international legal framework. Finally, the paper points out the main problems and limitations in the application of climate attribution theory and proposes key directions for future research. The paper posits that by fostering continuous scientific research and enhancing the legal framework, climate attribution theory will assume a more prominent role in climate change litigation and facilitate the process of global climate governance.

This article advocates for a fundamental shift in England’s legal approach to professional negligence, particularly within the domains of accounting and audit. English law should move away from its intricate and unclear case law surrounding professional negligence towards a clearly defined test for professional misconduct. Drawing upon a comparative analysis with the legal framework in the United States, where auditors are not shielded from liability under the law, the article highlights the need for a more consistent and accountable legal landscape in England. One of the main aspects that necessitates change is the proximity test, as set out in the Caparo case, which currently prevents auditors from being held liable for negligence to investors (as third parties)—despite investors relying on auditors for their professional skill to audit accounts. As investors rely on audited accounts when making financial decisions, a well-defined test for professional negligence should align English law with international standards and empower victims to seek compensation from the auditors themselves and/or the auditors’ professional indemnity insurance. Such a change would enhance trust and transparency in the financial domain.