The latest issue of the German Law Journal has a constitutional flavour. It opens with a contribution to the comparative study of constituent power from Ngoc Son Bui, who addresses the research gap in the study of constituent power in socialist regimes, both current and former. Identifying three paradigms – the revolutionary paradigm, the post-revolutionary paradigm, and the contemporary reformist paradigm –  the author considers socialist constituent power’s historical and present design and practice.

In his article on ‘The Unforeseen Guardians of Constitutional Democracy: Lessons from the Guatemalan 2023 Electoral Process’, Carlos Arturo Villagrán Sandoval explores the safeguarding role played by different legal, political, and civil society actors in the lawful transition of power. The author juxtaposes his case study of Guatamala’s 2023 electoral process with the phenomenon of ‘abusive constitutionalism’ to show how democracy was defended in this instance.

Keeping this constitutional focus going, Luke Dimitrios Spieker problematises Dieter Grimm’s well-known claim that European Union Law is over-constitutionalised, and leads the argument that this thesis is theoretically, analytically, and normatively flawed. Pointing to a largely uncritical acceptance of this claim, Spieker separates it into two dimensions – primary law’s extensive entrenchment, and an imbalance between the EU’s legislature and judiciary – and argues that reality belies Grimm’s analysis.

Staying with the EU,Giovanni De Gregorio and Oreste Pollicino’s article considers the European constitutional approach to tackling disinformation in the age of Artificial Intelligence. Noting the emphasis this approach places on relationships of trust and cooperation between public and private actors in the regulatory space, they present it as a unique alternative via media constitutional strategy between the liberal and illiberal regulatory models.

Kilian Lüders’ empirical examination of balancing language in the case law of Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court uses text-as data methods to analyse judicial reasoning across over 3000 decisions. ‘Balancing language’, as he explains, refers to those typical phrases and language used by the court when deploying balancing in constitutional rights adjudication, including both explicit and implicit mentions. His article discusses this phenomenon in terms of judicial activism in the GFCC.

In his article, Jan Broulík leads arguments in favour of European Union competition law recognising harms suffered by workers as a result of restricted competition between employers as a form of harm relevant in itself. Staying with a broadly welfarist approach to competition law, Broulík makes the case that not only should the law protect the individuals at the edges of the supply chain, it should also intervene regarding competitive harm of market counterparties generated by conduct benefitting the counterparties themselves.

Finally,Jan Zglinski’s article identifies the desperate need for reform of the beautiful game and considers the potential role of the European Union as a sports regulator within this space. Exploring different football governance options, the author identifies a best approach option, specifically EU legislation establishing both minimum standards and substantive requirements, and outlines broader changes that need to occur to make such regulatory change viable.

We very much hope that you enjoy this issue.

As always, happy reading.

Jen Hendry, on behalf of the GLJ EiC