This chapter first introduces the main debates on the legitimacy of judicial review. It then turns to the most problematic examples of non-accountable decision-making that recently took place in the EMU, causing problems for individuals accessing fora of legal accountability, most visibly in the reduction of the protection of fundamental rights. The purpose of this exercise is to offer a sneak-peek preview of what went wrong, how (the lack of) judicial review contributed to this problem, and why traditional arguments against judicial review do not work in this context. Given that the EMU is an area characterised by high redistributive effects coupled with a wide discretion on the part of decision-makers, courts are in the perfect position to ensure that such decisions meet the Treaty objectives of the common interest. Any review of decisions in the EMU entails two duties. First, the starting point for courts must be an assumption of a full review. Second, decision-makers have an extensive duty of giving reasons for their decisions and put to the court the arguments on the nature of their discretion and how they used it. The chapter closes with conclusions on how the proposed framework will be used in the book.

This chapter examines the debate over the applicability of the term ‘concentration camp’ for the migrant detention centers at the southern border of the United States in the context of the Trump administration and its authoritarian turn. In June 2019, Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, when she declared the detention centers “concentration camps,” provoked a turn in Holocaust memory culture, as she asked Americans to look prior to the Holocaust to the long Western history of the concentration and detention of unwanted populations. Ocasio-Cortez’s public analogical reasoning produced heated reactions which fell primarily along party lines, with the Republican Party embracing Holocaust exceptionalism and the Democratic Party open to analogies as potential motivators of political action. The debate also opened another chapter in the scholarly discussion of the efficacy of analogical reasoning, with the conditions at the border and the Trump era’s abuses suggesting an urgency for some. For those interested in direct action, Ocasio-Cortez’s evocation of the memory of the Holocaust required immediate intervention in the name of Holocaust vigilance.

The concluding chapter pulls together key elements of a Green vision for global politics. It summarises the basis o a Green alternative in each of the areas covered in the book: security, economy, the state, global governance, development and sustainability. Recognising diversity of views and multiple theories of change, it suggests critical areas where this vision can be taken forward around the renewal of democracy and subsidiarity, by recommoning and economic democracy, by building new alliances and pursuing just transitions. The politics of the twenty-first century are and will be the politics of sustainability. The question for all of us is: whose politics and on whose terms?