The chapter starts with an account of the rather hesitant and belated reception of twelve-tone technique in Western Europe, as exemplified by the situation in Italy, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. This is followed by an overview of the origins of European multiple serialism extending beyond Webern and Messiaen. The chapter shows above all that European serialism should not be restricted to its main protagonists such as Boulez, Nono, or Stockhausen. The music historical narrative of this important development in the period 1950–75 is in want of a more diverse view. Consequently, this chapter focuses on lesser-known composers of serial music such as Jean Barraqué, Michel Fano, Gilbert Amy, Karel Goeyvaerts, Herman Van San, Henri Pousseur, Bruno Maderna, Gottfried Michael Koenig, Bill Hopkins, and Bo Nilsson. The perspective is not merely broadened by introducing other composers who wrote aesthetically appealing works, but more importantly, presented other interpretations of what constitutes multiple serialism.

The concept of serialism appears conspicuously in the academic literature on twentieth-century music in technical, theoretical, and philosophical contexts. These various contexts, expressed over the course of much of the twentieth century, expose differing connotations of the serial concept. Part I of this chapter explores the serial concept before 1945, reflecting on the multi-dimensional origins of the concept in Arnold Schoenberg’s earliest serial compositions and the significance of Olivier Messiaen’s distinctive serial conceptions prior to the Second World War. Part II explores the serial movement in Europe after 1945, the prominent roles of the journal Die Reihe and the Darmstadt New Music Courses, and the contrasting approaches and attitudes to serialism in the United States after 1945. Tensions between rupture and continuity on both sides of the Atlantic and divergent priorities in discourse about new music demonstrate that theorising serialism entails an understanding of its dynamic disposition, instability, and impermanence.

European Criminal Law has developed into a complex, jagged subject matter, which at the same time has become increasingly important for everyday criminal law practice. On the one hand, this work aims to do comprehensive justice to the complexity of the matter without sacrificing readability. In order to achieve this, the book’s structure enables legal scholars and experienced practitioners to access the information relevant to them in a targeted manner and, at the same time, enables less-oriented readers to gain access to European Criminal Law. Thus, the volume both answers basic questions and offers discussion in more specialised areas. Written by experts in the field, the book offers discussions that are both of the highest academic standards and accessibly readable.

The chapter focuses on the interaction between European law and national criminal legislation, analysed in the light of the fundamental principles underpinning their relationship, especially the principle of primacy and the duty of loyal cooperation. After distinguishing between direct and indirect effects, paragraph 2 turns to the principle of primacy of EU Law. This cornerstone concept of Union Law affects domestic legislation in so far as it ‘neutralizes’ incompatible domestic criminal law through interpretation and disapplication of inconsistent provisions. This principle develops into a duty of loyalty for Member States (para. 3) which are thus bound to respect and enforce the rules and laws of the EU so as to secure the full and effective implementation of European criminal law in accordance with Art. 4 (3) TEU. Paragraph 4 examines how EU law penetrates the national legal systems of the Member States, focusing on the role of national judges that let European Law enter into the realm of national legal orders. This power represents the most relevant and disruptive manifestation of the ‘internal’ criminal effects of EU law. Selected case law will further demonstrate how EU law applies to and influences domestic criminal legal systems.

The decade of the 1950s witnessed a great transformation in the compositional practice of Pierre Boulez. The usual narratives of serialism during this decade have tended to dwell on Boulez’s experiments with multiple serialism in Structure Ia (1951), which were tremendously short lived. His desire to expand the serial principle, however, did not end with them. Ensuing works, like Le Marteau sans maître (1952–5), Pli selon pli (1957–62/89), and the Third Piano Sonata (1955–7/63), which brought Boulez to the pinnacle of his reputation within the European circle of composers, are those that truly redefined serialism. Through this redefinition, serialism remained an important element of Boulez’s compositional technique until the end of his career. This chapter shows that Boulez’s serialism was an essential forerunner of future trends, rather than a culmination of an abandoned practice, resulting in works and approaches that opened up new avenues for composition.

This chapter discusses serialism’s varied formal and sociopolitical meanings and implications – its aesthetics and, to a lesser degree, its mechanics – in the USSR, by examining the central figures in Soviet serialism, among them Andrey Volkonsky, Arvo Pärt, Alfred Schnittke, Edison Denisov, and Valentin Sylvestrov. It also points to representative compositions, performances, publications, and recordings. This chapter is particularly concerned with the aural culture of serialism in the post-war USSR as well as with thinking about serialism as both performative presence and material artifact. Other topics covered include the place of Soviet serialism in the cultural Cold War as well as the censorship and control of serialism in the USSR.

East Asia had incorporated Western music well before dodecaphony was introduced. Its foray into atonality and dodecaphony is unsurprising. Japan, as the first country to fully embrace Westernisation, played a major role. Developments of dodecaphony in China and Korea were connected to Japan through an active network of ideas, print media, and movement of people in the region. Despite their shared resources, however, wars and politics determined whether or not (and when) composers in different East Asian countries had the liberty to explore dodecaphony. China was close to developing dodecaphonic compositions before being stopped after the founding of Communist China in 1949. The post-Mao introduction of dodecaphony, led by Luo Zhongrong, was a late ‘arrival’. Japanese composers’ initial enthusiasm for dodecaphony did not gain in significance. Yoritsune Matsudaira and Joji Yuasa were representative. In Korea, led by Isang Yun and Sukhi Kang, serialism was employed thoughtfully by several generations of composers throughout their creative output.

According to standard accounts, twentieth-century music in Latin America was dominated by ‘folkloristic nationalism’. As this chapter demonstrates, however, there has been a number of lively serialist movements that, after gaining a foothold in Buenos Aires in the 1930s, gradually coalesced to achieve a modicum of mainstream and institutional acceptance across much of the region by the 1960s. This story not only provides an important facet of Latin America’s music history, but it also touches on crucial issues beyond that, such as the way artistic innovations are disseminated; the role of migration and national, regional, and international networks, such as the International Society for Contemporary Music (ISCM); the varying connections between aesthetic ideas and ideological and political principles; and debates about progress and tradition, national culture and universalism. The history of serialism in Latin America thus to an extent mirrors that in other regions but adds some specific elements.

While the ‘post-serial’ has been a resilient critical category over more than half a century, its status remains problematised by ongoing debates around the nature and limits of the serial itself. In particular, as insight grows into European serial practice after World War II, so does the case for understanding serialism as a more capacious concept than hitherto, embracing not only technique but also aesthetic and – a category regarded as taboo by certain of its practitioners – style. The generalisations that serialism underwent in the 1950s led less to a rigidly deterministic model of ‘total’ serialism than to a proliferation of the concept in many directions. Its seemingly endless possibilities of permutation led it (surprisingly to some) towards the statistical and the aleatory, while its notion of the ‘parameter’ went at times beyond the conventional categories of pitch and rhythm to embrace the manipulation of text, action and gesture. If relatively few composers now profess an overt allegiance to serialism, fewer still can entirely avoid the explicit reflections on material and process that it stimulated.

The European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) is competent to support action by the EU Member States’ law enforcement authorities and strengthen their cooperation in the fight against cross-border crime. Europol is not a ‘European FBI’ as it does not have executive powers. Nevertheless, its contribution to the activities of national police authorities is increasingly appreciated by practitioners, especially since the Agency is in an ideal position to process and exchange enormous amounts of personal data that are relevant for criminal investigations. This chapter examines Europol’s history, structure, competence and powers, as well as its relations with partners and the rules on its accountability. It also focuses on the crucial role that Europol plays in shaping EU criminal justice thanks to its Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessments, which set in motion a process at the European level by which the EU periodically identifies its priorities for the fight against serious international crime (the Policy Cycle-EMPACT). This chapter also analyses the forthcoming revision of Europol’s legal framework, which aims to ensure that the Agency can efficiently perform its tasks in an ever-changing security landscape.

A milestone of the European integration process, the European Public Prosecutor Office (EPPO) has been established in 2017 through the enhanced cooperation mechanism and has become operative in 2021. Following a biphasic idea of criminal proceedings, the investigative and prosecutorial powers related to crimes affecting the European financial interests. are exercised by EPPO at the EU level, while adjudicatory powers are exerted by national courts at the domestic level – this justifies the EPPO’s multi-layered system which is, moreover, characterized by a verticalization of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. While the material scope of the EPPO is narrowed both to the so-called ‘PIF’ offences and broader ‘ancillary offences’, only an interplay between European and domestic levels may ensure the effectiveness of the whole procedure. Yet, the applicable national law in case, cross-border investigation issues, evidence rules and defence rights are very sensitive issues that still rest unresolved as the EPPO Regulation did not deal clearly with those matters. Despite the numerous issues, the establishment of the EPPO might pave the way to a deeper cooperation in criminal matters among the EU and Member States, through a pragmatic approach which would show its results in the coming years.