This Article examines how private economic actors mobilize EU law to pursue broader legal, political, economic, or societal ends. It studies the strategic nature of corporate litigation before the Court of Justice of the EU in the context of the EU Emissions Trading System, a prime illustration of neglected strategic climate litigation. Corporate cases against the ETS have so far fallen under the radar of scholarship focused on EU strategic climate litigation. Such underrepresentation is linked to a double bias in scholarship, favoring high-profile climate cases that advance public interest causes and progressive agendas. Applying a normatively open definition of strategic litigation and actor-centered methodological approach, the Article brings to light features of corporate strategic litigation in EU law which otherwise go unseen. It offers empirical observations into boundary-testing behavior by private economic actors and the notion of a private generalizable interest, untangling strategic climate litigation by private economic actors as overlooked proponents in Court. The Article finally distinguishes a selection of legal strategies through which corporate actors mobilize EU law, such as instances of coordinated litigation; futile and seemingly routine challenges initiated before the Court to test judicial waters; and the use of litigation as a political advocacy tool.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces a new regulatory approach to address the societal harms of online platforms: Systemic risk assessments. While a core component of the DSA, the regulation only outlines the standards and processes governing systemic risk assessments in broad strokes. It remains unclear what these systemic risk assesments will entail in practice. This Article develops a proposal of how systemic risk assessments should be implemented. It situates systemic risk assessments as a critical step toward platform accountability as they address societal harms, while existing approaches, such as remedy mechanisms, only protect user rights. Engaging with intangible harms and regulating speech and public discourse, risk assessments also entail significant challenges. Conventional reference points for content moderation regulation, such as terms and conditions, contractual freedom, fundamental rights and expertise, do not provide practical and legitimate bases to concretize risk assessment obligations. Public actors, such as the European Commission, should refrain from defining substantive standards, too, as they are directly bound by freedom of expression guarantees. Instead, the Article argues, the Commission should foster a procedural framework, a “virtuous loop,” which empowers civil society and allows it to specify and refine the standards governing systemic risks over time. Developing this framework, the Article explains how systemic risk assessment can fix “multistakeholderism,” and “multistakeholderism,” in turn, can help make systemic risk assessments work.

For strategic litigation, the existence of independent judicial institutions is a prerequisite. In this Article, based on the case of Poland, I analyze what happens when some domestic judicial institutions are weakened and how this affects the ability of different stakeholders to engage in strategic litigation. I argue that strategic litigation was an important tool used by civil society and crucial for countering democratic backsliding in Poland in 2015–2023. In addition to traditional actors involved in strategic litigation in Poland, new ones have joined—such as the Human Rights Commissioner (the “Ombudsman”) or increased their involvement—such as corporate actors. Also, the prosecution office, controlled by the populist government, became active in litigation conducted by right-wing NGOs. Paradoxically, the rule of law crisis also resulted in the popularization of strategic litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union and some domestic courts, which began to apply the Constitution directly.

This article discusses a currently hypothetical, but increasingly more likely, situation where Article 7(2) TEU is activated against more than one backsliding Member State at the same time. To prevent the offending Member States from teaming up to block the sanction mechanism, an extension of the exclusion from voting in Article 354 TFEU beyond “the Member State in question” is likely to be considered by the CJEU. However, such a use of this mechanism is contrary to the effet utile of Article 7 TEU, if interpreted in the context of trust. This interdisciplinary study uses insights from trust theory to demonstrate that the outcome will inevitably be further distrust and fragmentation between the EU and its Member States. This is why Article 7(2) TEU is not meant to be (and ought not to be) used against more than one Member State at the same time in this manner. This impression is reinforced considering that the existing legal solutions for implementing the extension of the exclusion from voting under Article 354 TFEU violate general principles of EU law and will therefore cause further distrust and fragmentation.

In an international social rights debate disproportionately focused on English-speaking countries, redundant emphasis has been placed on justiciability. While constitutionalization does challenge stable relations between powers, especially in the post-colonial and developing world, solid insights for a workable interpretative method can be derived from continental Europe, where the difficulties typically associated with justiciability have long been settled. The constitutions of Italy, Germany, and Portugal take socioeconomic democracy seriously, tempering socialist claims and refuting libertarian stances, and have managed to spur a legitimate judicial increment of substantive equality. Through a threefold comparison, this paper describes the peculiarities of these fundamental texts across the spectrum of possible constitutional design choices, and draws from comparative constitutional caselaw to highlight a cross-national convergence on a set of interpretative standards. These blend together a strong safeguard of legislative discretion with justiciable minimal guarantees, and a value-assertive orientation of balancing coextensive with the integrationist function of constitutionalized social and economic rights.

This Article examines the criminal law defense of provocation in the U.S., which employs an objective reasonable person standard, as applied to recent Asian immigrants. It discusses approaches taken in other countries and describes the cultural defense. The Article concludes with different possibilities for a hypothetical Asian defendant who was provoked: Improving education about U.S. laws as a preventative measure, using expert cultural witnesses at trial, and taking the defendant’s characteristics into consideration during the sentencing stage.

The public trust doctrine holds promise as a tool for combatting international climate inaction. A global public trust in the Earth’s atmosphere may be a feasible avenue for generating international cooperation in this issue. The public trust doctrine is a viable and underutilized mechanism of understanding our collaborative obligations with respect to natural resources. This Article looks to the historical origins and current presentations of public trusts to extract features which indicate its effectiveness and appeal for modern climate change applications. Additionally, it presents two circumstances under which a global public trust in the atmosphere could eventually develop.

This Article explores, from a participatory perspective of an engaged legal scholar, the case of homeless EU citizens in the Netherlands and the mobilization of their rights. By marking them as so-called niet-rechthebbenden (“non-rightholders”), Dutch municipalities have systematically denied homeless EU citizens access to overnight shelters and general homelessness services on equal footing as Dutch citizens. This legal and practical deadlock—a classic case of non-compliance through “law in action”—has most probably led to a denial of rights to EU citizens entitled to shelter as permanent residents, (former) workers, or otherwise legally residing EU citizens. The contribution explores the context and motivations that led a broad coalition of actors—ranging from homelessness organizations, advocacy groups, a public interest litigation organization and legal experts—to join efforts and consider strategic litigation a credible avenue to protect the interests of the most vulnerable under EU law within a national and local context. The case demonstrates, however, how strategic litigation is not considered the most effective or preferred strategy when other avenues for legal mobilization open up.

The present contribution seeks to provide an empirical overview of how the amended internal review mechanism established under the EU Aarhus Regulation is currently being deployed by civil society organizations to mobilize EU climate change law. This Article argues that the 2021 reform of the Aarhus Regulation has broadened the legal opportunity structure available to environmental organizations, which can now challenge a much broader set of EU administrative acts. However, this contribution holds that the internal review mechanism is being used strategically by environmental NGOs with the intention to contest - even before the EU judiciary - not only EU administrative acts, but also broader policy arrangements, representing the legal infrastructure of the EU ecological transition. In this regard, the Aarhus internal review mechanism can now be considered a real scientific dispute settlement forum, where NGOs and EU institutions can confront each other and disagree on the way scientific evidence is taken into account in the EU policymaking. Finally, the new specific features of the internal review mechanism are truly empowering only those organizations owning the necessary legal and technical expertise, allowing such NGOs to act as credible scientific interlocutors of the EU institutions on behalf of the wider public.

Germany’s content moderation law—NetzDG— is often the target of criticism in English-language scholarship as antithetical to Western notions of free speech and the First Amendment. The purpose of this Article is to encourage those engaged in the analysis of transatlantic content moderation schemes to consider how Germany’s self-ideation influences policy decisions. By considering what international relations scholars term ontological security, Germany’s aggressive forays into the content moderation space are better understood as an externalization of Germany’s ideation of itself, which rests upon an absolutist domestic moral and constitutional hierarchy based on the primacy of human dignity. Ultimately, this Article implores American scholars and lawmakers to consider the impact of this subconscious ideation when engaging with Germany and the European Union in an increasingly multi-polar cyberspace.

This Article uses various concepts of Husserlian phenomenology to explain the disparate opinion between the North American and Italian public in response to the prosecution and ultimate acquittal of Amanda Knox. This Article argues that the comparative difference in public opinion is due to an extensive shift in culture that is necessarily accompanied by a shift in spatial-temporal location. In this Article, the Husserlian concepts of intentionality, the Self, the Other-I, and empathy overlay the judicial opinions and media releases critical to shaping North American and Italian public perceptions of Amanda Knox. As applied, these Husserlian concepts function as interpretive lenses, providing the reader with a novel framework for analyzing the cause of interpretive difference across cultures.