Although the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is a technical intergovernmental organization with a limited mandate, it has been entrusted with a panoply of tasks. These include, inter alia, the international harmonization of intellectual property law, the administration of fee-based global intellectual property protection services, and the delivery of dispute resolution services to individuals. While the central role of WIPO in the continuous development of substantive intellectual property law has been questioned by developing countries, the administrative activities of WIPO have remained largely unscathed by critique and, therefore, have not attracted much attention. They revolve around the international filing, registration or recognition of industrial property rights, such as patents, industrial designs and trademarks, and provide an interesting perspective on the law of international institutions.

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.

There is no point in denying the significance of the Right to be forgotten for the state of judicial dialogue in Europe. It vindicates the position of the BVerfG as a court deserving international recognition for advancing the law in the crucial field of data protection. Nevertheless, restricting the scope of analysis to the narrow context of judicial dialogue misses the wider context of the rise of authoritarian constitutionalism in certain EU Member States. In this respect, it is of the highest significance that the decisions on the Right to be forgotten effectively eliminate the imagined normative hierarchy between domestic and EU law that provided the basis for the BVerfG’s jurisprudence ever since Solange I and Maastricht. Moreover, by reasserting the primacy of EU law, the BVerfG strengthens the position of embattled judges in Poland facing disciplinary action for implementing the primacy of EU law. The concern shown by some members of the First Senate for the situation in Poland corroborates this reading.

Criminal law is different, it is often said, from other areas of law in that it is rooted in and thus depends on national heritage to a great extent. This uniqueness is recognized by European institutions, as expressed by General Advocat Mazák in a case concerning the protection of the environment by means of criminal law:

“In many respects, criminal law stands out from other areas of law. Availing itself of the most severe and most dissuasive tool of social control – punishments – it delineates the outer limits of acceptable behaviour and in that way protects the values held dearest by the community at large. As an expression essentially of the common will, criminal penalties reflect particular social disapproval and are in that respect of a qualitatively different nature as compared with other punishments such as administrative sanctions.

This article focuses on contemporary theories of territorial rights in political and legal philosophy and explores their implications for the case of Crimea, focusing on three main accounts of territorial rights: Liberal nationalist, Lockean, and Kantian. The article advances the legal-political account of the “people” and its territorial rights as a promising approach to theorizing the corporate agents that have potentially valid territorial rights and claims. While normative theory does not yield a single unequivocal judgment that identifies one claimant as the solely justified territorial right-holder in Crimea, the application of general principles of territorial rights theory can help identify the pertinent considerations for the case, which clarify the normative implications of each potential resolution. While no party has an absolutely just territorial claim to Crimea, this article offers a qualified defense of the existence of a distinct “Crimean people,” defined by the distinct political history of Crimea and its long-standing legacy of autonomous legal-political institutions, which may constitute a shared political project for the culturally diverse population.

On February 26, 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) declared—for the first time in its history—a criminal prohibitory law (strafrechtliche Verbotsnorm) from the German Criminal Code null and void.1 The provision in question—Section 217 of the German Criminal Code—dealt with the controversial issue of assisted suicide. This case study will briefly examine the previous regulation pertaining to assisted suicide in Germany under Section 217, before scrutinizing its subsequent unconstitutionality as a consequence of the BVerfG’s landmark decision. In order to do so, this article will explore the legal background of the decision, the fundamental rights which were held to have been infringed by Section 217, and propose potential ways of regulating assisted suicide in Germany in the future.

On July 2 and 3, 2009, both old and new friends of the German Law Journal (GLJ) gathered in Berlin for a symposium in celebration of the Journal's tenth anniversary. The two-day symposium, hosted in partnership with the Budesministerium der Justiz (the Federal Ministry of Justice) and the Law Faculty of the Freie Universität, brought together renowned justices, scholars and practitioners as well as law students from North America and Europe to discuss the transnationalization of legal cultures.

The main purpose of the preliminary ruling procedure is to prevent divergences in judicial decisions applying European Union (EU) law and to ensure the uniform interpretation of EU legal provisions across Member States. The procedure, introduced in the Founding Treaties, has provided a platform for the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter, the ECJ or the CJEU) to deliver seminal judgments that have progressively defined the relationship between national and EU legal systems, among others. The procedure has also helped the ECJ to develop fundamental principles of EU law, including direct effect, indirect effect (i.e., the interpretation of national law in line with directives) and primacy. Being one of the most important aspects of the EU judicial system, the procedure provided by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereafter, TFEU) has had an immense impact on the harmonious development of EU law and the way in which national courts and EU courts interact and communicate.

While considerable thought and effort has been put into exploring and fixing the ethical rights and professional responsibilities of private lawyers, little energy has been directed towards defining and defending the role and duties of government lawyers. As a result, the traditional understanding seems to be that government lawyers are to consider themselves as being under the same regimen and restrictions as their private counterparts. After criticizing this default approach, the article offers a fresh evaluation of what is different about the role of government lawyers and develops a more appropriate model for thinking about their professional responsibilities and ethical privileges. The central thrust of the article is the effort to appreciate legal ethics and professional responsibility as part of a larger democratic understanding of law and justice.

On June 26, 2001 the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) handed down a new decision regarding the liability of experts towards third parties (Reg. No. X ZR 231/99). While the Court appeared to have taken a somewhat new direction, the latest judgement must be considered in the context of a steadily evolving jurisprudence related to the effect on third parties of contracts involving the transfer of expertise, especially in light of a third party's reliance on this expertise. Parties contracting for expert testimony or evaluation regularly do not, at least not explicitly, take a third party into consideration in their contractual dispositions. Problems arise, however, when in the performance of the contract a third party, often the buyer or a bank seeking an evaluation of a client's creditworthiness, substantially relies on this expert evaluation produced pursuant to the contract. Where the seller defaults, the bank (in this example) may attempt to directly sue the expert.

The following essay was the keynote delivered at the International Conference of the German Law & Society Association in Bremen, Germany, in March 2010. In seeking to understand the formation of the Association of the Sociology of Law it is important to be mindful of the context of the spirit of the 1960s and 1970s in which it arose. Sociology of law's beginnings can be traced to the start of the 20th century with especially Eugen Ehrlich, Max Weber, Hermann Kantorowicz, Arthur Nußbaum and Theodor Geiger. However, after nearly being wiped out under German National Socialism, it began to re-emerge slightly in the 1960s.

Since May 2004 Polish administrative courts have passed a great deal of judgments in which the law of the European Union (formerly European Community law) has played either the main role or a subsidiary role in the proceedings. This article seeks to examine how the above-mentioned courts comply with the expectations which are put on them by EU law and how they participate in the process of legal integration within the EU. In this context, the author scrutinizes how the national judiciary adjudicating in the administrative law area understands, interprets, employs and applies the systemic principles of EU law such as: supremacy, and (in) direct effect and effectiveness. In addition, the participation of national courts in the process of a dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union through the preliminary ruling procedure is captured. The analysis is not aimed at being exhaustive and focuses solely on the total impact of EU law on the national judiciary and the general trends in the judicial application of EU law, that is to say the overall reception of EU law and the dimension of the EU-friendliness displayed by Polish administrative courts.

New Private Law Theory (“NPLT”) offers itself as almost a natural fit for legal education and in particular—I argue—legal education in the climate crisis. Yet, the world climate hardly features in the book and its impressive resource list. Without claiming to fill any existing gaps in the book, the Article seeks to articulate NPLT’s relevance to sustainable legal education and at the same time tease out what facing the, social, fact of the climate crisis would add to NPLT’s already rich framework.

In this article, I bring together three recent ideas from political theory and constitutional law. The first is the notion developed by Jürgen Habermas and Markus Patberg of a pouvoir constituant mixte. Complex polities such as supra-state federations should be understood as constitutional entities that combine two or more authorizing subjects. The default “mixed” conception is that of dual sovereignty, split between the federations’ member collectives and member individuals. The second idea is that of Stephen Tierney, that sub-state national societies should be seen as involved in struggles over constituent power. The third is the idea and practice of sovereignty referendums, which I illustrate by looking at the 2017 Catalonia independence referendum. I contend that, at a minimum, sovereignty referendums, especially lost ones, should be understood as strategies to bring about, shift or complement constituent powers, in achieving compound or mixed sovereignty. Finally, I venture into some ideas about the criteria of legitimacy for such endeavors, in distinguishing the activation of constituent powers from their articulation and exercise.

The article draws lessons for EU non-discrimination law from the protected grounds of religion and belief through a discussion of the CJEU’s headscarf judgments. The article has two ambitions. First, the judgments are used to draw broader lessons for EU non-discrimination law, in relation to the distinction between and the justification of direct and indirect discrimination, as well as the purpose of protecting against (religious) discrimination. Second, these lessons are used to analyze the headscarf judgments and the criticism directed at them. While there is widespread agreement that the CJEU erred in these judgments, there is little agreement as to what mistakes were made. Through a discussion of these judgments, the article clarifies the difference between direct and indirect discrimination and the justification of both forms of discrimination. It is argued that the headscarf cases correctly distinguished between direct and indirect discrimination, and that the problem lies in the justificatory burden for indirect discriminatory measures, which was set too low by the CJEU.

In Viking and Laval, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) adjudicated the rights of labor and capital mobility under E.U. law. Both cases strengthen the single European market through economic liberalization to generate greater prosperity for all Europeans as part of the process of European economic and political integration. Labor and capital mobility create greater prosperity for all through more rational market exchanges. Free trade is good for goods and is even better for labor. A liberalized and fully mobilized labor market results in more productivity and greater wealth in the European polity, as well as interdependence, and thereby deeper integration resulting in greater understanding and less conflict. The decisions, wrongly criticized by some as “bad for workers” are justified by the fact that they will benefit workers in Eastern Europe, consumers in Western Europe, and the Community as a whole by deepening integration. A key challenge for the European Union is to economically anchor and deepen the political restructuring of Eastern Europe by enabling the natural labor and capital movements which an open marketplace generates. Europe does this not with the failed neo-liberal model which has ravaged the wealth of the United States and squandered it in illusory booms based on consumer borrowing and deficit spending to fund war for oil. Rather, Europe is developing a neo-corporatist social model. This article uses the Viking and Laval cases as examples of this development.

The relationship between immigration and constitutional identity is simultaneously obvious and evasive. This Article explores that relationship through a comparative case study of Italy and Canada. It begins with a conceptual analysis of the role of immigration against the backdrop of collective identity, constitutional identity, and constitutional subjectivity. The metaphor of immigration as a mirror of constitutional identity orients this analysis. Then, an empirical comparison of the role of immigration in Italy and Canada demonstrates the very different place of immigration in national and constitutional narratives of “self” and “other.” Yet, when the lens is widened to include their recent startup visa programs, their narratives start to converge as the new metonymy of innovation makes an appearance. This convergence marks a conceptual shift in constitutional identity: From immigration as mirror to immigration as display. As a tool of attraction for innovators, immigration law has both internal and external dimensions, which reverberate with implications for constitutional identity. Ultimately, the startup visa programs enlarge the constitutional “us” and make constitutional subjectivity more fluid.

This Article seeks to explore the nature, function, source, and content of a constitutional civil religion (CCR) within Singapore’s constitutional experiment in managing the diversity of race and religion and promoting solidarity. CCR is constructed as a strategy to secure social harmony within the world’s most religiously diverse polity, through recognizing an irreducible plurality in ethnic and religious terms, while maintaining an indivisible unity through nurturing bonds of citizen solidarity. This dovetails with the function of the constitution as an instrument of social integration, involving the articulation and regular affirmation of shared community values and aspirations, as well as process and practices—or public rituals—which regulate dispute resolution or conflict management during instances or crises where racial and religious harmony is threatened. A functional approach is taken towards the idea of a civil religion, and the tasks of integration, legitimation, and inspiration it may play within a constitutional order. The nature of civil religion in general, and the sources of CCR in Singapore, as well as its expression as a public ritual in managing religious disharmony disputes is discussed.

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.