In This Issue

Abstract

This issue marks a transition point in the life of this journal. Readers who peruse the inside cover of the journal (or our website) will notice that the editorial board has been (thoroughly) renovated. Self-questioning, self-criticism and even a penchant for self-subversion have been constitutive of the identity of the European Law Journal since its foundation. The new editorial board will contribute to keep this identity alive. I am extremely happy to report that the new board is close to complete gender balance (and hopefully will be rather soon in full gender balance). The new board is also more inclusive of the different legal, political and cultural traditions that make up the European legal mosaic. This will certainly lead to new ideas, new debates and new sections, in all cases reflecting an invariable commitment to thinking law in its economic, political, historical, social and cultural context. Never before was the reporting of the content of European law an act so pregnant of radical implications. Never before so much was at stake in Europe: socially, economically and politically. Not since the end of the Second World War was the very identity of European societies as open and cooperative, democratic and socially just societies so much challenged. If the proof of the cake is in the eating, the proof of the journal is in its contents. Both Gareth Davies and Marija Bartl break new ground on subsidiarity. Both authors focus on the structural constitution of power allocation in Europe. Separately, each piece challenges not only the existing literature, but also the practice (and discourse) of European institutions. Jointly, Davies and Bartl redefine the very terms in which the debate on subsidiarity should proceed from now onwards. Tanja Ehnert draws major theoretical and constitutional lessons from the study of what is at first sight the rather specialised if not esoteric subject of nanotechnologies in food (including nanofood). She acknowledges that European institutions produce lots of expertise, but she puts forward powerful reasons to doubt that this expertise amounts to the kind of knowledge which could justify the claim to legitimacy implicit in European practice. The point she raises goes far beyond the specific subject she studies. Nanofood may be physically tiny, but after you read the paper, you will be forced to agree that its legal implications are far from small. Fabien Terpan offers a systematic and theoretically grounded reconstruction of soft law. After the inflation (and recent devaluation) of the concept, it is high time we come to terms with what exactly soft law is and with what we mean when we characterise law as soft. Terpan puts us on a promising track. Marek Szydlo revisits one of the key affirmative action policies in European law: gender equality on company boards. He makes us rethink the legal framework and suggests some reasons why we should be careful when drawing conclusions on the matter. Finally, William Phelan invites us to revisit the very first European ‘troika’, namely the trio of founding cases of European constitutional law. Phelan's work is both a piece of legal history and a very contemporary plea for a different understanding of European law.