Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (161 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

LAW (843 journals)            First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Showing 801 - 354 of 354 Journals sorted alphabetically
Veredas do Direito : Direito Ambiental e Desenvolvimento Sustentável     Open Access  
Veritas et Justitia     Open Access  
Verstek     Open Access  
Vertentes do Direito     Open Access  
Via Inveniendi Et Iudicandi     Open Access  
Vianna Sapiens     Open Access  
Victoria University of Wellington Law Review     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10)
Villanova Environmental Law Journal     Open Access  
Villanova Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Violence Against Women     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 60)
VirtuaJus - Revista de Direito     Open Access  
Vniversitas     Open Access  
Vox Juris     Open Access  
Waikato Law Review: Taumauri     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Washington and Lee Journal of Energy, Climate, and the Environment     Open Access  
Washington and Lee Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Washington Law Review     Free   (Followers: 2)
Washington University Global Studies Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy     Open Access  
Washington University Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Wayne Law Review     Free  
Western Journal of Legal Studies     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Western New England Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
William and Mary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice / Recueil annuel de Windsor d'accès à la justice     Open Access  
Wirtschaftsrechtliche Blätter     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics     Open Access  
Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
Yale Journal of Law and Technology     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
Yale Journal on Regulation     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 19)
Yale Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 63)
Yearbook of European Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19)
Yearbook of International Disaster Law Online     Full-text available via subscription  
Yuridika     Open Access  
Zuzenbidea ikasten : Irakaskuntzarako aldizkaria     Open Access  
交大法學評論     Open Access  

  First | 1 2 3 4 5     

Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Yearbook of European Law
Number of Followers: 19  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 0263-3264 - ISSN (Online) 2045-0044
Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [419 journals]
  • The Future of Europe after Brexit: Towards a Reform of the European Union
           and its Euro Area

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Calliess C.
      Pages: 3 - 55
      PubDate: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeaa014
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • The Liminal European: Subject to the EU Legal Order

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: de Witte F.
      Pages: 56 - 81
      Abstract: AbstractThis contribution suggests that recent changes to EU free movement law have led to the emergence of a new type of subject: the liminal European. This subject is deemed to deserve the protection of EU law, in terms of the rights of residence and equal treatment in the host state, only when she is economically productive and socially adaptive. These changes pose a fundamental challenge to the authority of the EU, whose legal order is premised on its ability to challenge domestic processes of subjugation, exclusion, and precarity, which it is now, instead, starting to perpetuate. Being European is increasingly a status that is deeply precarious and conditional: a transitory state that is bestowed on rather than inhabited by the European. This notion of liminality is not only a useful descriptive category with which to analyse recent changes in EU free movement law. It also comes with significant normative implications for the EU and its legal order.
      PubDate: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab006
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • The Past and Future of the Right to Petition the European Parliament

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Vogiatzis N.
      Pages: 82 - 110
      Abstract: AbstractThis article critically evaluates the right to petition the European Parliament, a right which has not managed, to date, to constitute a credible alternative for citizens’ participation in the EU. It argues that there are two main reasons for the shortcomings of this right. First, before Maastricht, the Petitions’ Committee suffered the consequences of a broader decline of parliamentary petitions within and beyond Europe. Second, after Maastricht and Lisbon, the petition right was affected by the (partly complementary and partly divergent) rights to complain to the European Ombudsman and to sign or support a European citizens’ initiative. In addition, and possibly as a consequence of the above reasons, throughout its life, the petition right and the Committee on Petitions more generally have not benefited from significant resources, while their visibility has been very limited. A comparative examination of the three rights (petitions, European Ombudsman, citizens’ initiative) in terms of access, scope, user-friendliness and outcome is undertaken. Looking at the future of the petition right, in an era marked by the resurgence of online petitions, the article argues that the Petitions’ Committee should strategically focus on areas which are not covered by the two aforementioned rights, namely the national level and broader policy choices in the EU, in order to maximize its input and relevancy within the EU’s decision-making world.
      PubDate: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab009
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • ‘Detailing’ EU Legislation through Implementing Acts

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Englisch J.
      Pages: 111 - 145
      Abstract: The concept and scope of implementing powers under Article 291 (2) TFEU have been subject to debate ever since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, and even prior to this in the general context of constitutional reform of the European Union (EU). In particular, the relationship between implementing powers and delegated powers—the latter regulated in Article 290 TFEU—has given rise to controversy. Several of those delineation issues have been settled by two Grand Chamber judgments and a series of subsequent rulings handed down by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). In particular, the CJEU has established that while categorically distinct, the substantive scope of both types of powers partially overlaps and that the Union legislator has certain discretion to choose between them where this is the case. However, several open issues remain, and new questions have been raised by the Court’s decisions. The case law is not sufficiently clear as to the areas with respect to which both instruments of delegation are at the disposal of the Union legislator, and where the latter is confined to authorize only one of them. Legal uncertainty also exists regarding the question which limits, if any, apply to the discretion of the legislator in making its choice in the areas where there is an overlap. Finally, how the new context of implementing powers under the Lisbon Treaty affects the institutional balance between the Court itself and the Commission as the typical delegate of those powers has as yet received little attention.
      PubDate: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab007
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Regulatory Agencies and Private Damages in the EU: Bridging the Gap
           between Theory and Practice

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Cherednychenko O.
      Pages: 146 - 171
      Abstract: AbstractRegulatory agencies have traditionally been concerned with deterring unlawful conduct in the public interest. This article explores the emerging role of agencies in securing compensation for individuals in mass damage situations resulting from violations of EU private law. It identifies three main models of the relationship between administrative enforcement and private law remedies, notably damages, within the agencies’ operation: (1) separation, (2) complementarity, and (3) integration. These models reflect elements of the current legislative and agency practices in a variety of jurisdictions across different areas of EU private law and provide an analytical framework for assessing such practices in terms of their potential to reconcile the pursuit of the public interest with a concern to ensure justice between private parties. The analysis points to the need to systematically rethink the prevailing regulatory theory concerning the tasks of regulatory agencies along the lines of a holistic approach to deterrence and compensation.
      PubDate: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab013
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • The Private Administrative Law of Technical Standardization

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Vallejo R.
      Pages: 172 - 229
      Abstract: AbstractThe nature and place of technical standards has remained an enigma for EU law and legal thought, despite their ubiquitous part and growing importance in market-building processes within and beyond Europe. The significance and intractability of this enigma has been heightened by the landmark Fra.bo (2012) and James Elliot (2016) judgments of the ECJ. These judgments have prompted contradictory positions regarding the publicity and justiciability of technical standards among European legal scholarship and even between the European Commission and the European Parliament. The enigma and these contradictory positions have recently reached the ECJ again through the Stichting Rookpreventie case currently under review by its Grand Chamber. Drawing upon a reconstructive analysis of these and other relevant legal sources concerning technical standardization in Europe, this paper surmounts these seeming contradictions by advancing a new account of these legal developments. Contrary to the mainstream positions nowadays in tension, the article argues that these judgments have reaffirmed the New Approach and the distinctive place of technical standardization organizations in the European legal order while avoiding dysfunctional modes of judicialization. It has done so by acknowledging the techno-political character of technical standards and aptly delineating institutional competences between the government and the judiciary throughout technical standardization processes. To guide future legal thinking and reasoning on these processes, the paper recasts these legal developments through the idea of a ‘private administrative law’ as signifying the way that EU Law has transformed the nature and place of technical standardization in the internal market and as an eventual means for the global reach of EU law.
      PubDate: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab011
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Access to the EU Courts in Environmental and Public Health Cases and the
           Reform of the Aarhus Regulation: Systemic Vision, Pragmatism, and a Happy
           Ending

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Leonelli G.
      Pages: 230 - 264
      Abstract: AbstractAfter years of debate, the Aarhus Regulation has finally been reformed. This article focuses on the amendments to the scope of application of the Regulation’s internal review and access to justice provisions, and demonstrates that these are the most important changes introduced by the reform. Not only do these amendments mark an important development towards full compliance by the European Union (EU) with its obligations under the Aarhus Convention; they also fill a vacuum, and solve the main problem which lay at the heart of the EU system of access to justice in environmental public interest cases. First, the article explores the obstacles faced by different stakeholders seeking access to the EU Courts by reference to specific categories of EU environmental law and risk regulation acts. This provides a systemic overview of different problematic aspects associated with different scenarios, unpacking all relevant implications. Secondly, it embraces a pragmatic perspective and draws a clear distinction between challenges to legislative and regulatory acts. Against the backdrop of this examination, the article identifies the main problem of the EU system: the application of the ‘complete system of legal remedies’ rationale to the specific case of regulatory acts. Further, it highlights that there is no ‘interpretative’ way out of the TFEU conundrum. Thirdly, the article analyses the Commission’s disappointing proposal for a reform of the Aarhus Regulation and the final text of the 2021 amendments to the Regulation. The story has a (surprisingly) happy ending. The EU institutions have finally acknowledged the main problem in the system of access to the EU Courts in environmental matters, and recognized the need to solve it in the specific context of the Aarhus Regulation.
      PubDate: Thu, 23 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab010
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Institutional Change in the Banking Union: The Case of the Single
           Supervisory Mechanism

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Schammo P.
      Pages: 265 - 309
      Abstract: AbstractThis article is about institutional change in the Banking Union. It has two related aims. The first is to engage with the law of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM)—the first pillar of the Banking Union—and in this context to discuss tensions that have lately emerged between the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and that of the German Federal Constitutional Court. The second, but main, aim of this article is to put the law of the SSM as it was enacted in the SSM Regulation, and as it was interpreted by the CJEU and by the German court, in a broader perspective of institutional change. For this purpose, this article adopts an interdisciplinary approach that seeks insights on institutional change in the political science literature. In particular, the article seeks to shed light on the role played by courts. In short, it argues that whilst the SSM is a story of change following an exogenous shock (ie the sovereign debt crisis), it is also an account of change and contestation between courts made possible by the ambiguities and incompleteness of the SSM rules. It will show that the evolution of the SSM is by no means frictionless and that it is only by tracing change from the point of the enactment of the law to its interpretation by the courts that one gains a real appreciation of the dynamics and salience of change within the SSM.
      PubDate: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab002
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Challenges of Justice in the European Banking Union: Administrative
           Integration and Mismatches in Jurisdiction

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Simoncini M.
      Pages: 310 - 334
      PubDate: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab001
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Public International Law as a Refuge of (Euro-)Member States During the
           Financial and Economic CrisisThe Case of the Intergovernmental Agreement
           on the Transfer and Mutualisation of Contributions to the Single
           Resolution Fund (IGA)

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Weismann P.
      Pages: 335 - 373
      PubDate: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab005
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • You Want It Extra CRISPERY' Legal Disruption through New Plant
           Breeding Technologies in the EU

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Purnhagen K.
      Pages: 374 - 397
      Abstract: AbstractI will illustrate how the ‘old’ European Union (EU) legal regime on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is applied to regulate new plant breeding technologies (NPBT). I will discuss why and how this results in what elsewhere had been called ‘legal disruption’. Legal disruption will occur once legal rules which were initially confined to a specific identified issue start to be applied beyond their original target. Such legal disruption may be found in the example of NPBT interacting with the precautionary principle, the use of scientific evidence in preliminary ruling proceedings, and the enforcement of labelling and traceability requirements. In the case of NPBT, legal disruption took place because policy makers were unwilling to adopt legislation designed to meet the demands of the technology. Consequently, they shuffled the responsibility for regulatory decision to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The CJEU, in its current design, represents an ill-suited institution to decide on such complex technology questions. I will explain why. I will end with a plea for a regulation of NPBT, which likewise enables and protects, following the eight principles developed by Michéle Finck on the example of the governance of blockchain technology.
      PubDate: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab003
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Special, Personal and Broad Expression: Exploring Freedom of Expression
           Norms under the General Data Protection Regulation

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Erdos D.
      Pages: 398 - 430
      Abstract: AbstractThe interface between data protection and freedom of expression is increasingly crucial and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) solidifies a bipartite or potentially even tripartite conceptualization of this relationship. Whilst the GDPR’s personal exemption can play some role in governing individual expression, it must be construed narrowly so as to only exclude innocuous publication that is not liable to infringe other’s fundamental rights. The special expression derogation remains central and encompasses not just journalism but also other forms of special expression (academic, artistic, literary) which, when published, are objectively orientated towards a collective public. Whilst Member States do retain considerable discretion given the wide diversity of national constitutional norms in this area, a strict balancing between fundamental rights should still be ensured. Freedom of expression is also distinctly furthered by, inter alia, self-expression on social networking sites and the facilitation of a range of expressive purposes by search engines. As shown in GC and Others v CNIL, the stricter reconciliation of rights here must retain a direct role for data protection’s core substance including its legal grounds and principles and is thereby substantially (albeit not completely) harmonized across the EU.
      PubDate: Tue, 11 May 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab004
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Comparative Internal Market Law: The UK and the EU

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Weatherill S.
      Pages: 431 - 474
      Abstract: AbstractThe United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 introduces a new field of enquiry for scholars. It allows reflection on the model of an internal market chosen by the United Kingdom to regulate relations between its four constituent elements now that, after Brexit, the authority of the EU’s common rules has come to an end. It allows comparison and contrasts between the UK’s chosen model and the longer established patterns of the EU internal market. It is an invitation to develop a comparative study of the law of internal markets.The overall structure of the UK internal market envisaged by the 2020 Act is readily compared to that which exists in the EU, but there are also points of contrast. The most significant is that the UK model is less tolerant of regulatory diversity among its constituent elements than applies under EU free movement law. The scope to justify rules that obstruct trade within the UK is less generous than in the EU, with the consequence that the UK’s internal market has a more deregulatory flavour than the EU’s. This model of limited availability to protect local regulatory autonomy over unrestricted intra-UK trade pays little regard to sensitivities in Scotland and Wales, while the position of Northern Ireland, locked into the Protocol attached to the EU–UK Withdrawal Agreement, is different but also fragile. Internal markets possess economic motivations and they are built on legal rules, but they involve political choices and they have political implications. The UK Internal Market Act presents challenges to the stability of the United Kingdom itself.Accordingly the ambition of this paper is to explain the shape of the UK internal market and to compare and contrast it with the EU’s internal market. It also aims to demonstrate the political sensitivity of the choices that need to be made in designing an internal market against the background competing tensions of unhindered market access, on the one hand, and, on the other, respect for the regulatory autonomy enjoyed by the constituent units.
      PubDate: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab008
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Trust Thy Neighbour' Compliance and Proximity to the EU through the
           Lens of Extradition

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Mancano L.
      Pages: 475 - 514
      Abstract: AbstractThe principle of mutual trust between Member States is key to the functioning of European Union (EU) law. Rooted in sincere cooperation and equality of the Union’s States, that principle is premised on compliance with shared values, interests, and rules. This fosters close cooperation in many areas, such as law enforcement, as exemplified by the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision (EAW FD). Outside the Union, the presumption is that the principle of mutual trust does not apply. This seems confirmed by the case law on the extradition of EU citizens, with the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) prioritizing intra-EU cooperation over forced transfer of Union nationals to the requesting third countries. As the EU has developed a sophisticated network of relationships with its partners, and neighbours especially, the question arises as to when, if at all, third countries can be trusted, and when that trust can be challenged. By using the benchmark of EU membership as the standard of legal proximity, this article analyses the EU’s relationship with some of its neighbours in cases of extradition. The article creates an analytical framework to tackle unanswered questions around mutual trust and cooperation in criminal matters, and to read into the future of the legal relationship between the EU and some third countries.
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeab012
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2021)
       
  • Erratum

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Pages: 515 - 515
      Abstract: Raphaële Xenidis. Transforming EU Equality Law' On Disruptive Narratives and False Dichotomies. Yearbook of European Law, (2020), doi:10.1093/yel/yey005.
      PubDate: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/yel/yeaa003
      Issue No: Vol. 40 (2020)
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 35.170.82.159
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-