Climate change law faces a serious implementation problem. New instruments promoted by states from the Global North to address the implementation gap come from the sphere of trade and supply chain regulation. This article focuses on corporate climate due diligence legislation and its potential contribution to fulfilling the objectives outlined in the Paris Agreement. By examining the EU’s legislative process towards adopting a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), it explores various approaches to regulating the climate impacts of corporations, including along global supply chains. The article critiques both the ultimately adopted climate transition planning requirement and the European Parliament’s alternative proposal, which aimed to incorporate climate mitigation into the general due diligence framework of the Directive but was unsuccessful. It applies two overarching critiques, termed ‘not enough’ and ‘regulatory imperialism’, to the specific context of corporate climate due diligence. Although these critiques may initially appear contradictory, the article endeavours to reconcile them through a compromise approach that fosters greater participation, integrates measures to mitigate impacts on self-determination, and specifies the obligations imposed on corporations regarding climate mitigation. Finally, the article discusses the idea of a decentralised enforcement regime and highlights the importance of regulation in states of the Global South to achieve a truly planetary legal order on corporate climate accountability.

This contribution to the Symposium on Ecosystem Restoration and EU Law assesses the underground protection schemes suggested by the European Green Deal (EGD) for the European Union (EU). By addressing the overground bias that environmental laws and policies have traditionally suffered from, the analysis engages with the EU Soil Strategy for 2030, its ‘Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”’, and the proposed 2023 Soil Monitoring Directive. The Article explores how and to what extent this agenda for the preservation and restoration of soils is legally reordering the European ground and, simultaneously, how and to what extent it is regrounding the European legal order.

Much existing social commentary and scholarship around the regulation of the European digital economy is focused on how societies could better regulate that economy and its associated harms. Such analyses often portray a problematically viewed order as ungoverned, or not effectively governed, by law. Instead, I argue for more (re)descriptive analyses on how our pre-existing legal structures powerfully create order in the European digital economy. I explain why we should explore the productive connections between pre-existing European legal arrangements and socio-technical order, and discuss what such exploration could entail. The article covers three complementary ways in which legal arrangements are productively connected to sociotechnical order: as tools of ordering to address problems and promote values; as tools that can also enable projects unintended and unforeseen by policymakers; and as constitutive of technologies and other forms of order. It provides concrete examples of these productive connections from various contemporary struggles within the governance of the European digital economy. I argue that focusing on the analysis of productive connections may shed light on how pre-existing legal arrangements are baked into and shaped by the European socio-technical order. As the current order of the European digital economy is characterised by massive inequalities, these analyses can also direct our attention to how our pre-existing legal arrangements can produce and reproduce inequalities and oppression. Analyses of pre-existing legal arrangements might produce different attributions of responsibility and possibilities of contestation than analyses of legal deficiency.

Interdisciplinary analysis of law is a powerful tool for analyzing a variety of legal problems. The strength of interdisciplinarity is its ability to unveil significant factors that remain hidden when seen solely within disciplinary boundaries. This symposium aims to focus on the analytic abilities of interdisciplinarity when exploring European law. To provide the proper background, the introduction reviews the use of interdisciplinarity for the study of European Union law in the literature. The contributions to the symposium have used a variety of interdisciplinary tools to reflect on questions relating to European law. These contributions are briefly reviewed in this introduction.

This contribution to the Symposium on Ecosystem Restoration and EU Law is concerned with the changing features of sustainability. It argues that the Commission is gradually articulating, next to the consolidated objective of sustainable development, an ecological understanding of sustainability. It discusses the meaning and relevance of such new understanding, by asking how ecological sustainability is formulated as a policy objective and jurified in the legislation stemming from the Green Deal. It then reflects on the distinction between ecological sustainability and sustainable development. The contribution finally presents some thoughts on the relevance that the ongoing process of complication of the legal construction of sustainability may have for the Green Deal.

In their recent article ‘Europe’s political constitution’, Alexander Somek and Elisabeth Paar conclude: ‘scholactivism is the form of constitutional law of Europe. There is nothing below or above it. It is all there is’. In this reply I want to take issue with such (rather bleak) view of what European constitutional scholarship is about. Firstly, I argue that scholactivism undermines the very conditions of scholarship as a pursuit of knowledge autonomous from both public and private power. The current attacks on academic institutions by authoritarian governments, and also the increasing dependence of research on private funders result, at least in part, from the politicization of scholarship. Secondly, I argue that we should be more critical towards the infrastructure of the digital public sphere, which Somek and Paar see to be emerging through blogs and other platforms, and be more protective of the existing practices that we inherited from our predecessors.

This essay explores what can be learned from understanding EU law as a language in the literary sense of being a set of resources for manifold ethical and political expression and social action. As a contribution to new methodological approaches to studying EU law, it will propose a method highlighting how EU law can be studied in such a way by paying attention to the various linguistic and structural features of a legal text while, at the same time, diversifying the rationales through which we understand and make sense of such textual features. The Sayn–Wittgenstein decision will serve as point of reference in order to illustrate the value-added of this new theoretical and methodological insight to understanding EU law. This essay will conclude that it is not only worth taking the language of EU law seriously because it allows us to ’see’ more in the law, but also because it enables us to elevate the deeper ideas about Europe to the surface of the language we use when writing and speaking about EU law and to thereby contribute to a more productive dialogue about the foundations and future of the EU polity.

This article presents two related arguments. First, the limits of doctrinal analysis cut deeper than many EU lawyers realise. Most would probably accept that legal doctrine does not determine every legal dispute, but lawyers studying EU institutional balance often still assume that it can be deduced from the positive law what is good institutional practice. This paper argues instead that the allocation of EU institutional authority cannot be determined by the exercise of legal judgement, but instead requires the exercise of political judgement on the relative merits of different institutions. Second, this means that political and normative discourses and disciplines cannot be assumed to fall outside the domain of legal scholarship. What we need instead is a distinctive kind of legal scholarship that interweaves doctrinal analysis with normative political theory, broadly conceived. I will argue that political theory, in addition to evaluative value, has adjudicative value, provided that our theories are sensitive to the EU’s social and political setting and the constraints this setting imposes on what is realistically feasible.

This is a reply to Komárek’s criticism of our article “Europe’s political constitution”. We address the issues raised by our critic one by one. The topics range from the definition of the public sphere to the role that law blogs and social media play in it. The reply concludes by examining what it means to pursue truth in legal scholarship based on contrasting the views of Hans Kelsen und Stanley Fish.

Restoring ecosystems and enhancing biodiversity is one of many regulatory ambitions under the European Green Deal. The motivations to do so include, but are not limited to, enabling carbon removal by capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in land. The business model of such schemes is to help the EU and its Member States meet their climate obligations whilst safeguarding biodiversity, and when relevant, enable sustainable agricultural practices by creating transferable carbon credits awarded to land managers pursuing such practices. The idea of introducing market-based mechanisms in the management of ecosystem services is not a novelty, but the increasing prominence of carbon removals in the European Green Deal and its related legislative actions warrants careful consideration of legal quandaries about how such removals are to be carried out, why, where and by whom.

In following the interdisciplinary spirit of this symposium, I emphasise the usefulness of the sociological approach of interpretivism, together with qualitative methods, by examining how EU legal actors perceived the Eurozone crisis and how they enabled policy solutions: financial assistance and policy conditionality. This case constitutes a legal conundrum because of how these solutions encompass and connect different forms of law – EU law, international law and private financial law – and how EU lawyers seek to protect the EU legal order from this hybrid arrangement by drawing the arrangement as closely as they can to the EU legal order. This in turn creates issues of accountability as the imposition of policy conditionality engenders litigation by EU citizens who were directly affected therein, raising the question of whether establishing liability for damages is possible in such a hybrid arrangement. Using interviews with legal actors and observations of court proceedings, I foreground the multiple meanings of EU law and explain how such an approach can expand our understanding of not only what EU law means to its practitioners, but also how these meanings give insight into the potential paths of EU law’s development. To interrogate these multiple meanings, I examine the crisis policy solutions as well as a set of court cases – Ledra Advertising, Mallis and Chrysostomides – that sought to hold the EU accountable for losses suffered because of these policies. Using these methods can partially overcome the opaqueness of judicial proceedings at the EU level, as well as give insight into the development of the legal arrangements being contested in court. A novel methodological element is the descriptive analysis of observations of court proceedings in Chrysostomides, where I demonstrate how the interactions between the lawyers and the judges shed light on how legal actors establish legal validity as a collective project.

The aim of the contribution is to focus on the conflicts arising between climate-related renewable energy goals vis-a-vis environmental protection interests. To this effect, the analysis will firstly investigate the origin of such types of conflicts, which may also be named intra-environmental conflicts, and define their main characteristics; secondly, the regulatory choices made by the RED II and the RED III Directives to manage these conflicts will be presented and compared, with a particular focus on the three key features of the recently approved RED III Directive; thirdly, an alternative approach to address such types of conflicts will be proposed. This is based on the principle of integration, to be interpreted with an ecological sustainability reading of the principle of sustainable development.

Insights from Social Network Analysis reveal that the structure of the social network surrounding international courts is important for these courts’ ability to secure compliance with their judgments and by this to initiate social change. International courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) invest growing resources in shaping their networks, recognising that these networks are necessary tools that can help them to influence society. This paper will focus on the ways social network analysis can facilitate a better understanding of the ECtHR. The paper explains how certain characteristics of the network surrounding the ECtHR determine the ultimate social impact of the court.

Community detection is a set of algorithms developed in network science to find meaningful sub-groups within larger groups. This article (1) outlines and evaluates the method and (2) shows how it can enrich ongoing debates about European integration. To this end, it uses the example of the approximation of laws, an enduring topic in European legal studies.

The article analyses the book Economic Constitutionalism in a Turbulent World edited by Skordas, Halmai and Mardikian, criticising the assumptions of societal constitutionalism and ordoliberalism on which it is based. The book concurs with the view that the current crisis of global legal institutions cannot be tackled going back to Nation States. Such an assumption seems to be inspired by societal constitutionalism à la Teubner. In contrast to traditional constitutionalism, which hinges on the dichotomy between constituent and constituted power, societal constitutionalism assigns a central role to independent institutions, whose main function is to avoid any hegemony of one social sub-system over another, in particular of politics over economics. The limit of societal constitutionalism lays in its assumption that the economic sub-system has its own rationality that the political–constitutional system can only irritate, taking for granted that the paradigm of that economic rationality is the one established after 1989, thus implicitly adhering to the neo-ordoliberal vision and legitimising its absolute immanentism. Coming to the materiality of the issues underlying the book, most of the contributions conceive globalisation as an engine for the increase of global prosperity. This confidence rests in the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage. However, the latter is valid only under condition of restrictions on the movement of capital. Another assumption made by several contributions is the theory of the varieties of capitalism, according to which individual models of capitalism tend to stabilise around certain production regimes whose key actors are large firms and business associations. According to an alternative, neo-Kaleckian paradigm, there is no natural convergence of the actors of the economic system towards a mutually beneficial institutional set-up, and it is quite unlikely that, without the external intervention of politics, the system can return to equilibrium.