What is the current state of Comparative Regionalism (CR) as a field of research? Since its inception, CR has suffered from a chasm between those who take European integration as the model for conceptualising, theorising, comparing, and designing regionalism worldwide, and the critics, who reject EU-centrism in favour of more contextualised approaches focusing on the Global South. This paper challenges this characterisation by showing how CR has fundamentally changed in the last decade or so. We detail three ‘silent’ transformations: (i) conceptually, scholars disaggregate regionalism into specific components, rendering systematic comparison more tractable and less individual case-centric; (ii) theoretically, scholars develop frameworks that build on general social science theories and actively seek to move beyond EU-centrism; and (iii) methodologically, scholars use more rigorous comparative designs and a broader range of data. These changes, we suggest, indicate a ‘mainstreaming’ of CR, with attendant benefits and costs.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping contribute meaningfully to climate change. Despite significant efforts of the International Maritime Organization over recent decades, existing measures are still inadequate for achieving net-zero GHG emissions in the shipping sector and multilateral negotiations hold little promise for improvement. This article considers the polluter pays principle (PPP) as an alternative or additional pathway for tackling marine GHG emissions. The article focuses on the challenges in identifying polluters, which is the key issue that must be addressed before the PPP can be applied. Specifically, the article presents an analytical framework and examines various approaches to identifying marine GHG emissions polluters. Firstly, it identifies the polluter from a general perspective, using three approaches: examining the issue broadly, reviewing international conventions and European Union initiatives that incorporate the PPP, and analyzing selected domestic legislation reflecting the PPP. The article then focuses on maritime shipping, considering specifically two types of contract of affreightment – charterparties and bills of lading – while highlighting key factors in identifying the polluter. In conclusion, the assessment of causal links, along with operational and management decisions regarding the vessel, attribute the status of primary polluter to the shipowner, demise charterer, and time charterer.

Both European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights offer an opportunity structure for a broad array of interests to pursue their objectives through strategic litigation. The spectrum of rights that litigants can claim is sufficiently broad that no consensus has emerged on the general consequences of such litigation. While much research has emphasized European law as a resource for civil society groups, EU law in particular has also been identified as a boon for businesses who challenge cornerstones of coordinated capitalism. This paper sets out to provide a better empirical basis for a normative evaluation of the consequences of strategic litigation in European law by asking who engages in it and who does not. It draws on data from a large-scale survey among interest groups in eight European countries. While results show significant differences in country-level litigation rates, the focus of this analysis is on the impact of group characteristics on the choice of litigation as a strategy. The findings confirm that litigation requires specific resources but highlight that groups with a prior interest in European affairs and those with antagonistic relations to national authorities are the most likely to turn to strategic litigation based in European law.

This Article discusses the emerging strategic litigation practice in the European Union through the lens of participatory democracy. After situating such a practice both historically and conceptually within the specificities of the EU legal order, it explores whether and the extent to which strategic litigation, understood as an additional form of participation in the Union’s democratic life, may contribute to EU participatory democracy and under which conditions. It unveils that while strategic litigation carries the potential to enhance democratic participation in the EU, it also risks—due to limited judicial literacy and unequal access to justice—empowering those already powerful. For strategic litigation to unleash its democratic potential at scale, EU courts must—as required by the “Provisions on Democratic Principles” of the Treaty of Lisbon—ensure a participatory enabling environment capable of proactively catalyzing and facilitating the ability of ordinary citizens—as well as diffuse, under-resourced and traditionally overlooked groups—to be better able to contribute to the Union’s democratic life. Ultimately, no legal order worth of its name should rely on the heroism of its citizens and residents to keep its legal system in check.

Russia's war against Ukraine has had devastating human consequences and destabilizing geopolitical effects. This roundtable takes up three critical debates in connection with the conflict: Ukraine's potential accession to the European Union; the role of Ukrainian nationalism in advancing democratization; and the degree of human rights accountability, not just for Russia, but also for Ukraine. In addition to challenging conventional wisdom on each of these issues, the contributors to this roundtable make a second, critically important intervention. Each essay explores the problem of concealed political and normative commitments within much of the research on Russia's war against Ukraine by unearthing biases intrinsic to particular conceptualizations. The collection also questions the perceived separation between “interests” and “values” that permeates policy analysis. This roundtable further draws attention to the ethical problems that scholars and policymakers bring to policy debates through the occlusion of their preexisting political commitments. It argues for greater transparency around and awareness of the ways in which values, not just evidence, inform research findings and policy positions.

The United Kingdom has experienced significantly lower growth rates of business investment and labour productivity following its decision to leave the European Union, although this lacklustre performance was affected by the economic shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in addition to Brexit. This article aims to quantify the impact of Brexit on business investment and labour productivity in the United Kingdom using the National Institute of Economic and Social Research’s Global Macroeconometric Model. We model Brexit as a decline in trade with the European Union and associated reduction in terms of trade, a decrease in productivity and a permanent increase in uncertainty. Our estimates suggest that these shocks have led to an approximately 12–13% decline in UK business investment in 2023, which gradually declines to 7–8% by 2035 as businesses adjust to the terms of trade and productivity shocks. This corresponds to a real gross domestic product (GDP) loss of 2–3% (about £850 per capita) in 2023 and 5–6% (about £2,300 per capita) by 2035. Additionally, we find that Brexit has reduced labour productivity by around 2–2.5% as of 2023, with a projected reduction of 5–6% by 2035.

This paper explores the regulatory awakening regarding generative AI (GenAI) in the United States and European Union (EU) institutions with the release of ChatGPT. Based on a thematic analysis of regulatory documents, it investigates how governments have approached the deployment and use of this emerging technology within their classic government activities. The analysis shows several layers of regulatory approaches, ranging from command-and-control to an experimental approach, combined with risk- and management-based approaches. It also reveals different perspectives. The EU institutions have notably adopted more restrictive guidelines on the use of publicly available Large Language Models (LLMs) - a type o GenAI that is trained on vast amounts of text data to understand, generate, and respond in human-like language. This approach reflects greater caution about data security and confidentiality and the risks of foreign interference. However, the American and EU documents share a common concern about the risk of reinforcing discrimination and the protection of human rights. Interestingly, considering the administrative environment, neither the administrative activities in which GenAI may be used nor the key legal principles embedded by the rule of law are explicitly used for guiding administration in their development and use of GenAI. In this context, the paper calls for future research that could help contribute to the renewal of administrative law theory in the context of the digital transformation of public administration.

In our digitalized modern society where cyber-physical systems and internet-of-things (IoT) devices are increasingly commonplace, it is paramount that we are able to assure the cybersecurity of the systems that we rely on. As a fundamental policy, we join the advocates of multilayered cybersecurity measures, where resilience is built into IoT systems by relying on multiple defensive techniques. While existing legislation such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) also takes this stance, the technical implementation of these measures is left open. This invites research into the landscape of multilayered defensive measures, and within this problem space, we focus on two defensive measures: obfuscation and diversification. In this study, through a literature review, we situate these measures within the broader IoT cybersecurity landscape and show how they operate with other security measures built on the network and within IoT devices themselves. Our findings highlight that obfuscation and diversification show promise in contributing to a cost-effective robust cybersecurity ecosystem in today’s diverse cyber threat landscape.

Usage data on research outputs such as books and journals is well established in the scholarly community. Yet, as research impact is derived from a broader set of scholarly outputs, such as data, code, and multimedia, more holistic usage and impact metrics could inform national innovation and research policy. While usage data reporting standards, such as Project COUNTER, provide the basis for shared statistics reporting practice, mandated access to publicly funded research has increased the demand for impact metrics and analytics. In this context, stakeholders are exploring how to scaffold and strengthen shared infrastructure to better support the trusted, multistakeholder exchange of usage data across a variety of outputs. In April 2023, a workshop on Exploring National Infrastructure for Public Access and Impact Reporting supported by the United States (US) National Science Foundation (NSF) explored these issues. This paper contextualizes the resources shared and recommendations generated in the workshop.

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.