This report examines Myanmar’s legal aid system from its establishment through the 2016 Legal Aid Law to the present crisis following the February 2021 military coup. The analysis reveals how Myanmar progressed from having minimal formal legal aid infrastructure to developing a comprehensive national system with government boards and civil society partnerships between 2016-2021. However, the military takeover systematically dismantled these institutions, forcing international organizations and courageous civil society groups to provide legal services under dangerous conditions. The report documents the collapse of government legal aid boards, restrictive amendments to legal aid legislation, mass arrests creating overwhelming demand for services, and the persistent barriers facing both legal aid providers and justice seekers. Despite severe repression, organizations continue delivering critical legal representation to thousands, including politically sensitive cases. The findings highlight both the fragility of legal aid systems under authoritarian rule and the extraordinary resilience of human rights defenders operating in crisis environments.

Protect your creativity the right way A registration is a powerful legal tool — but only when it is prepared…

How the Soviet Union Fell: From the Berlin Wall to the 1991 USSR Dissolution — Glasnost, Perestroika, Gorbachev, Yeltsin &…

The Mutawwa’a (officially the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or CPVPV) were once the most…

Sports and entertainment law occupies a dynamic and high-stakes intersection of commerce, culture, and celebrity, governing two of the world’s…

Witnesses continue to occupy the centre-stage of criminal justice. Even in an age dominated by DNA, CCTV and digital forensics,…

In One of the Most Consequential Legal Rulings in Modern American History In one of the most consequential legal rulings…

A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities, reputation,…

Saudi Arabia’s system of governance, a monarchy deeply rooted in its history and Islamic tradition, operates on a unique principle…

The 2025 amendments to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules mark a subtle but significant shift in India’s takedown architecture: a single “authorised intimation” can now determine the fate of online speech. By replacing the ambiguous “actual knowledge” standard with a system of senior-level authorisation and reasoned notices, the government aims to curb arbitrary removals while equipping intermediaries with clearer legal cues. Yet the reforms also consolidate state discretion, introduce new bureaucratic layers, and leave users without meaningful avenues to contest takedowns. Positioned against global trends favouring transparency and user rights, India’s model remains executive-centric, raising pressing questions about proportionality, operational capacity, and the future of safe-harbour. This piece critically evaluates whether the new regime strengthens procedural accountability or merely streamlines state control over digital expression.