This article addresses the complex challenge of defining the concept and principles of juvenile justice within the realm of legal science: juvenile justice is a specialized legal framework that focuses on addressing legal issues involving minors, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. The article explores the evolution of juvenile justice, examining its theoretical foundations, legislative developments, and practical applications across different legal systems. By dissecting various definitions and principles proposed by scholars and practitioners, this article aims to clarify the core components of juvenile justice and propose a coherent conceptual framework. This article seeks to analyze and elucidate the concept and principles of juvenile justice by examining its historical development, theoretical underpinnings, and current practices. Through a comprehensive review of existing literature and comparative analysis of various legal systems, the article seeks to provide a robust framework for understanding juvenile justice, to offer clarity on “juvenile justice” definition and principles, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of juvenile justice systems and contributing to more informed policy-making and legal reform. The analysis underscores the importance of protecting minors’ rights while balancing the interests of society, thereby contributing to a more nuanced understanding of juvenile justice in contemporary legal discourse. Based on the research, it is suggested to define juvenile justice as a comprehensive system of legal norms and institutions, state and other bodies that protect the rights of minors, as well as a complex of preventive and other measures in this area.

While the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council is sometimes criticized for the potential influence of political agendas on its decisions, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is criticized for its limited jurisdiction and dependence on the party's willingness to accept the ICJ's jurisdiction, a crucial concern is raised over the efficiency of the current Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (DRM) for aviation industry related disputes. Unravelling the compelling inquiry that hangs in the air: Just how efficient is the current aviation arbitration legal system? Is the efficiency of this system available to ad hoc arbitration¹ or arbitral tribunals²? The authors aim to analyze the existing legal guidance to navigate the complex arbitration system. This article sheds light on precedent cases by the ICAO Council and the ICJ studying challenges, such as the lack of efficiency of the ICAO Council and the criticism of the Council's ineffectiveness for being hampered by the political interests of Member States. As well as the ICJ as it may be a more powerful authority in resolving such disputes, it also faces multiple challenges including the lack of enforcement, jurisdiction issues, and political influence, which in return makes it unlikely for dispute parties to seek the ICAO or the ICJ for resolution of their disputes, instead parties have now mostly adopted arbitration clauses as their primary dispute resolution method under Air Services Agreements (ASAs) and other aviation related agreements. While ad hoc arbitration has shown effectiveness and success, its secrecy and confidentiality might result in inconsistency and the inability to develop a case law system. The authors note the urgent need for an arbitration institution³ under the United Nations (UN) umbrella specialized in air law and aviation technology disputes, with the power to issue an enforceable, legally binding ruling. The article also examines the realm of arbitration in the aerospace industry, analyzing legal resources, current aviation arbitration systems, centres, and platforms, and further analyzing case studies to assess the results of the efficiency of each Dispute Resolution Mechanism.