The latest issue of the German Law Journal is perfectly timed for the start of the year, as it covers an array of themes poised to dominate the scholarly agenda in 2025. If your still-fresh New Year’s resolution involves exploring new fields or diving into the latest debates on constitutionalism, technology, or environmental governance, you’re in the right place.

The issue begins with Matej Avbelj’s reflection on the transformation of constitutionalism in an algorithmic society. Against the backdrop of rapid technological change that weakens core functions of constitutionalism, Avbelj reimagines how constitutional frameworks can adapt to sustain democratic ideals and offer a compelling normative outlook for a world shaped by artificial intelligence.

Next, Marco Giraudo, Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, and Gianclaudio Malgieri take us into the intricate dynamics of AI-driven innovation. In the current European regulatory framework marked by uncertainty, they argue, businesses are forced to “bet” on future legal landscapes without guarantees of stability. This generates economic and political risks and ultimately calls for more resilient governance models for emerging technologies.

Jaye Ellis shifts the focus to the Anthropocene, asking how legal systems can match the challenges of this epoch of human-induced ecological transformation. Ellis emphasizes the importance of integrating sustainability principles into civil liability frameworks and reimagines the negligence standard as a tool for transnational environmental governance.

In a related environmental vein, Melina Moreira Campos Lima draws attention to the glaring omission of the livestock sector from global climate change policies. Her article calls for urgent legal reforms of livestock production and to align agricultural practices with the broader goals of climate justice and sustainability.

Alessandro Drigo explores an emerging trend in climate litigation: the judicial recognition of future generations as stakeholders in environmental protection. By examining cases across jurisdictions, Drigo illustrates how courts are expanding the temporal scope of legal relevance, embedding intergenerational equity into contemporary legal frameworks.

Evangelia Psychogiopoulou turns to the regulatory challenges of online hate speech. Her contribution traces the EU’s multifaceted approach to combating digital hate speech, from legislative instruments to voluntary codes of conduct with platforms. Psychogiopoulou illustrates the regulatory balances required in a platform-dominated communication landscape.

Finally, Niklas Eder examines systemic risk assessments under the EU’s Digital Services Act. Eder positions these assessments as a vital innovation in platform regulation, aiming to address societal harms that individual remedies often overlook. His proposal for a multistakeholder governance model emphasizes the need for collaboration between public and private actors to refine standards and ensure accountability.

As always, happy reading,

Klaas Hendrik Eller
on behalf of the GLJ Editors-in-Chief