Cities around the world are facing a global housing crisis characterized by rising unaffordability, slums, gentrification, inequality, and urban segregation. The Global Financial Crisis highlighted the detrimental impact of highly financialized housing markets. This Article argues that transitioning from a market-based to a welfare-oriented approach is both necessary and feasible to ensure the right to adequate housing for everyone. This shift requires a fundamental re-imagining of housing issues, recognizing that the root causes lie in a political economy where law plays a pivotal role, crossing traditional boundaries between private and public law. We illustrate the legal foundations of adopting a welfare-based approach to the political economy of housing law, contrasting it with a market-based approach in three key areas: Land use regulation, housing finance, and rental markets.

Deprivation of national citizenship is one of the strategies used to counter the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters, that is, individuals traveling abroad for the purpose of terrorism. This Article begins with a short overview of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the deprivation of citizenship. In these cases, the contestation of the deprivation of citizenship was based on the infringement of the rights to private and family life. We then turn to the limits imposed by EU law on decisions made by national authorities of Member States concerning citizenship deprivation of foreign terrorist fighters. Focusing on recent cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the European citizenship, we address the evolving role that EU law plays in the assessment of the proportionality of Member States’ decisions to strip individuals of national citizenship. We also consider the national practice, focusing on a recent decision in Denmark. In addition, we consider legal issues arising from the repatriation of Foreign Terrorist Fighters and their children. We argue that EU citizenship thus offers a further layer of protection against the deprivation of citizenship and that Member States are under a positive obligation to repatriate EU citizens who are the children of Foreign Terrorist Fighters on account of the case-law stemming from the Ruiz-Zambrano and X (Thai national) cases. For the moment, no common approach to repatriation of foreign fighters, or their children, is taken by EU member States in the context of the EU.

This article presents a “glocal” method of comparative constitutional interpretation. In the debate on the judicial use of foreign ideas, transnationalists claim to propose a simultaneously global and local approach. However, they perpetuate the methodological nationalism of globalists and localists by assuming nations as their primary units of analysis. In contrast, this article advances a truly glocal theory of judicial interpretation. The glocal is the product of a constant interplay between the global and the local, from the inception of an idea to its practical judicial application. This approach follows a three-step process. First, it provides a multiscale toolkit to demonstrate that ideas may have never been purely national in the first place but are the result of plural hybridizations. Second, it uncovers the units that generate and disseminate constitutional knowledge: trans-territorial networks united by thematically shared beliefs rather than by nationality or a global mission. Third, it equips judges with the ability to glocalize or customize the idea, not as an exercise of national differentiation but as a strategy to make it epistemically familiar and more politically appealing to the network. In this way, the article critically engages with the debate on constitutional transplants, challenging its nationalist bias.

The EU Return Directive demands that immigrant detention be as short as possible, but, by logical implication, this also means that detention can be as long as necessary. What concerns the maximum length of detention, the Return Directive is remarkably generous: Immigrants can be detained for a period of up to eighteen months—a deprivation of liberty that is otherwise justified only as punishment for serious crimes. The practice of such long-term detention, now burgeoning, is highly questionable for moral, practical, and—our focus—legal reasons.

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) provides the relevant yardstick. While discussions on the legality of immigrant detention have focused on requirements of necessity, we shift attention towards the surprisingly absent question of maximum duration. Our analysis delves into the drafting context of the ECHR to reveal that it only authorizes the pre-removal detention of immigrants for markedly short periods. Picking up the interpretative canon of the regime, we note that meanings can of course change, but we argue that it is a legal mistake to consider that long-term detention is now sanctioned by the Convention.

Given its role as a legal instrument not only to try superiors but also to prevent both them and their subordinates from committing grave international crimes, the correct understanding and proper application of the doctrine of superior responsibility is of paramount importance. This article aims to illuminate specific and some controversial aspects of the third element of the doctrine—the failure to adopt necessary and reasonable measures—and obtain a clearer and more comprehensive understanding on the superiors’ duties, its limits and main prerequisites under the doctrine. For this purpose, an interdisciplinary study was conducted to investigate whether basic principles and business aspects of corporate governance and compliance management may be applied for a better understanding and refinement of the doctrine. The underlying analysis in corporate governance and compliance covers American (U.S.), German, and international standards.

The digital revolution has transformed the dissemination of messages and the construction of public debate. This article examines the disintermediation and fragmentation of the public sphere by digital platforms. Disinformation campaigns, that aim at assuming the power of determining a truth alternative to reality, highlight the need to enhance the traditional view of freedom of expression as negative freedom with an institutional perspective. The paper argues that freedom of expression should be seen as an institution of freedom, an organizational space leading to a normative theory of public discourse. This theory legitimizes democratic systems and requires proactive regulation to enforce its values.

Viewing freedom of expression as an institution changes the role of public power: this should not be limited to abstention but instead has a positive obligation to regulate the spaces where communicative interactions occur. The article discusses how this regulatory need led to the European adoption of the Digital Services Act (DSA) to correct DPs through procedural constraints. Despite some criticisms, the DSA establishes a foundation for a transnational European public discourse aligned with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and member states’ constitutional traditions.

In May 2024, the European Union adopted the Directive on violence against women and domestic violence, marking the first EU-wide binding legislation to address various forms of sexualized and gendered harm. This Article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the Directive’s provisions on image-based sexual abuse (“IBSA”), encompassing the non-consensual taking, creating, and sharing of intimate materials, as well as threats to distribute them. While acknowledging the aim to harmonize legislation at the Union level, the Article identifies a range of limitations and the failure to fully reflect the diverse experiences of victims. Additionally, the Article evaluates the complementary roles in combating IBSA of the Digital Services Act and the AI Act which impose obligations on online platforms, search engines, and AI developers. Overall, the current EU framework represents a promising but partial approach. If the EU is to comprehensively address IBSA and safeguard victims’ rights, implementation beyond the minimum will be required together with proactive, effective regulation.

This Article argues that to protect public debate, which is vital for democratic societies, it is crucial for courts in EU Member States to apply the freedom of expression standards established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) when adjudicating cases, particularly in the context of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). The Article examines whether the obligation to protect the freedom of expression extends to the non-enforcement of judgments that could have a chilling effect on public debate, and explores the legal implications within the framework of the EU’s mutual recognition regime. By analyzing the Real Madrid v. Le Monde case, the Article highlights the importance of safeguarding free speech and public debate, praising the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for providing clear guidance on when non-enforcement is necessary to prevent the suppression of the public debate. The Article concludes by emphasizing the evolving role of the ECJ in balancing mutual trust among Member States with the protection of fundamental rights, especially in light of the EU’s ongoing integration and its potential accession to the ECtHR.

In this work, I address the “demarcation problem” in law, which invites us to look for the essential properties distinguishing law from nonlaw. First, I introduce the main terms of the discussion, which has seen the traditional view that law is a distinctive practice with its own distinguishing properties pitted against the critical view that law cannot be associated with any such properties. I then turn to what I take to be the core of truth that the critics of the demarcation project have brought to our attention, showing that they have offered a compelling argument even against the most sophisticated treatments of the distinctive traits of law contained in the work of influential mainstream legal theorists. Finally, I argue that, despite the best critical efforts, the demarcation question stands. For, while the critical stance does have a point in challenging the search for necessary and sufficient properties of law, it does not follow that there is no justification at all for the demarcation project, once this project is understood as a circumscribed and context-bound quest for the properties that are fundamental to the core cases of law in a specific tradition.

The accepted approach of competition law to non-horizontal mergers, largely based on the Chicago School of Antitrust Law and Economics paradigms, is criticized on both sides of the Atlantic as too lenient, disregarding developments of economic theory, and no longer adequate in the reality of the digital economy. Current economic research confirms the legitimacy of fears about the effects of non-horizontal concentrations that were raised before the Chicago School put them into doubt. The disbelief in the accuracy of the former US non-horizontal mergers policy resulted in the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice adopting new Vertical Merger Guidelines. The changes introduced were considered insufficient, which led to the unilateral repeal of the guidelines by the FTC and the start of work on new guidelines introducing a stricter approach. The new U.S. 2023 Merger Guidelines introduced far-reaching changes taking into account the modern views of economists and empirical research on vertical mergers. Comparatively, the EU Commission’s Non–Horizontal Merger Guidelines still do not fully correspond to what empirical research and contemporary economic theories say about the possible effects of vertical mergers. Thus, the revision of the EU guidelines seems necessary.

The question of when and how a European consensus or trend contributes to shaping rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols is controversial. The European Court of Human Rights quite often performs an analysis of the laws and practices of the Council of Europe’s Member States or of relevant international material. However, the cases where rights have actually been shaped by a European consensus or trend are quite rare. In the last twenty-five years, some 27 out of 424 judgments on the merits of the Grand Chamber of the Court established a consensus or trend having a “shaping impact” on these rights. Further, only one advisory opinion based on Protocol No. 16 contained comparative law material having such an influence. This Article assesses the intensity of the impact of a consensus or a trend analysis on a judgment’s or an advisory opinion’s ratio decidendi, shows what shaping a right actually means, and suggests that cases that are more prone to a potentially persuasive consensus or trend analysis will typically deal with matters of political or general policy, sensitive moral or ethical issues, or changes in the case law.

Borders are ubiquitous. As invisible lines, they contribute to a functioning world order and guarantee security for the people. In the form of walls and fences, they divide society and establish strongholds of prosperity that are not accessible to everyone. A similar effect can be observed in connection with the concept of citizenship, which binds people fatefully to a particular territory and thus significantly determines an individual’s life chances. This article shows how borders and their protection as well as the concept of citizenship challenge fundamental ideas of justice and traces discourses that seek to evolve the current border and citizenship regimes into a more universal and just form of human coexistence.

The wide and deep participation into legislation is a crucial means for the CCP to govern the Chinese Party-state. This Article examines how the CCP as a legislating Party acts in the state legislation as well as in its own internal legislation and what influences the Party’s legislating behaviors bring to the socialist rule of law. By a positivist and typological survey, the Article divides the intra-party regulations into three kinds, namely the pure intra-party regulations, the state-parallel intra-party regulations as well as the supra-state intra-party regulations. On this basis, the Article further analyzes how different types of the intra-party regulations influence the state legislation and, ultimately, the socialist rule of law. Finally, this Article points out that the overexpansion of the intra-party regulations leads to the partisanization of the state legislation and the legalization of the Party legislation which renders the existing separation of the Party and the state feebler and the socialist rule of law could afford more pressures in a foreseeable future.

Much has been written on the constitutional overhaul in Israel, and the attendant constitutional crisis in the first nine months of 2023. Since October 7, however, with the breakout of the Israel-Gaza war, the overhaul was seemingly shelved. This Article seeks to connect both events, by comparing the legal-political response to the overhaul with the legal-political response to the war. It asks why, given the intensity of the protest movement generated by the overhaul, there was a dearth of protest activity after the war, even though both events implicated similar values, namely the rule of law and individual rights, championed by the protest movement. I argue that a central reason for the disparity cannot only be explained by the dynamics of war but also due to the tensions and complexities inherent in Israel’s self-professed constitutional identity as a Jewish and democratic state. In particular, I argue that anti-overhaul protests appealed to liberal universalist values to garner bipartisan support, with the effect of bypassing substantive issues such as the occupation of the Palestinian Territories and discrimination faced by Israeli Palestinians. This explains the lack of Arab participation in the protests, as many perceived them to be an internal Jewish Affair. Thus, when post-war repressive measures mostly affected Israeli Palestinians, the protest movement failed to rally in their support. Although anti-overhaul protests could have brought about greater liberal consolidation in Israel, the relative lack of post-war mobilization casts lingering doubts on the possibility of long-term consolidation of liberal values in Israel. Attempts to depoliticize the protests, while perhaps successful in warding off the overhaul, and though impressive on their own, have likely failed in instilling deeper, more resilient, liberal values in Israel.