Vol. 8 No. 08 (2026): Volume 08 Issue 08

This article examines the problem of determining the labour-law status of persons performing work through digital labour platforms under conditions of algorithmic management. ILO Convention No. 193, ILO Recommendation No. 198, Directive (EU) 2024/2831, the Labour Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and relevant national rules are examined comparatively. It is argued that, in the legal assessment of the relationship, priority should be given not to the title of the contract or the formal status of self-employment, but to factual indicators such as the actual organisation of work, remuneration, allocation of tasks, ratings, monitoring, sanctions, and deactivation. “Algorithmic subordination” is proposed not as an independent indicator of an employment relationship, but as a set of criteria demonstrating that the platform’s organisational and managerial authority is exercised through digital means. A two-stage legal approach is proposed for Uzbekistan: first, to provide all persons performing work through platforms with basic guarantees of algorithmic transparency and effective protection; and second, where facts evidencing management and control are established, to introduce a mechanism for determining the existence of an employment relationship on the basis of the factual circumstances.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most critical maritime choke points, through which approximately one-fifth of global petroleum liquids flow daily. In recent years, state and non-state actors have increasingly shifted from traditional kinetic force toward "lawfare"—the strategic exploitation of legal frameworks, maritime jurisdictional claims, and regulatory enforcement to achieve geopolitical and strategic objectives. This article investigates the operationalization of lawfare within the Strait of Hormuz under international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Utilizing a qualitative legal-doctrinal and comparative empirical methodology, this paper examines how coastal states leverage ambiguous provisions governing innocent passage, transit passage, state security exceptions, and environmental regulation to justify ship seizures, boarding operations, and navigation disruptions. The findings indicate that legal gray zones surrounding sovereign immunity, marine environmental protection, and asymmetric interpretation of UNCLOS provisions serve as force multipliers in gray-zone conflicts. The study concludes that mitigating maritime lawfare requires strengthening international dispute settlement mechanisms, clarifying transit passage enforcement thresholds, and enhancing multilateral maritime domain awareness.