When criminals exploit blockchain: determining personal jurisdiction in a decentralized digital environment

Abstract

Abstract The legal framework governing children’s and adolescents’ decision-making is evolving, navigating the delicate balance between protection and empowerment. This article examines key legal developments, focusing on the landmark Bell v. Tavistock case (2020, 2021), which highlighted tensions in recognizing minors’ autonomy, particularly in medical consent for gender-affirming care. The reversal of the initial ruling reaffirmed the Gillick competency principle, emphasizing individualized assessments of maturity over rigid age-based rules. Drawing on interdisciplinary insights from developmental science, bioethics, and human rights, the article explores how legal systems address children’s participation across domains like healthcare, criminal justice, and child protection. It critiques inconsistencies in applying principles like Gillick competency and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which recognizes children as rights-holders. The analysis advocates for reforms that integrate developmental evidence and ethical considerations to foster equitable frameworks, ensuring children’s voices are heard while safeguarding their well-being. By addressing these complexities, the article contributes to advancing legal systems that respect children’s evolving capacities.