{"id":64310,"date":"2025-09-10T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-09-10T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/?p=64310"},"modified":"2025-09-09T16:48:32","modified_gmt":"2025-09-09T15:48:32","slug":"a-focus-on-constitutional-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/2025\/09\/10\/a-focus-on-constitutional-law\/","title":{"rendered":"A focus on constitutional law"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

The latest issue of the German Law Journal<\/a><\/em> has a constitutional flavour. It opens with a contribution to the comparative study of constituent power from Ngoc Son Bui<\/strong><\/a>, who addresses the research gap in the study of constituent power in socialist regimes, both current and former. Identifying three paradigms \u2013 the revolutionary paradigm, the post-revolutionary paradigm, and the contemporary reformist paradigm –\u00a0 the author considers socialist constituent power\u2019s historical and present design and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his article on \u2018The Unforeseen Guardians of Constitutional Democracy: Lessons from the Guatemalan 2023 Electoral Process\u2019, Carlos Arturo Villagr\u00e1n Sandoval<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>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\u2019s 2023 electoral process with the phenomenon of \u2018abusive constitutionalism\u2019 to show how democracy was defended in this instance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keeping this constitutional focus going, Luke Dimitrios Spieker<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>problematises Dieter Grimm\u2019s 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 \u2013 primary law\u2019s extensive entrenchment, and an imbalance between the EU\u2019s legislature and judiciary \u2013 and argues that reality belies Grimm\u2019s analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Staying with the EU,Giovanni De Gregorio and Oreste Pollicino<\/strong><\/a>\u2019s 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 <\/em>constitutional strategy between the liberal and illiberal regulatory models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kilian L\u00fcders<\/strong><\/a>\u2019 empirical examination of balancing language in the case law of Germany\u2019s Federal Constitutional Court uses text-as data methods to analyse judicial reasoning across over 3000 decisions. \u2018Balancing language\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his article, Jan Broul\u00edk<\/strong><\/a> 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<\/em>. Staying with a broadly welfarist approach to competition law, Broul\u00edk 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally,Jan Zglinski<\/strong><\/a>\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We very much hope that you enjoy this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As always, happy reading. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jen Hendry, on behalf of the GLJ EiC<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 \u2013 the revolutionary paradigm, the post-revolutionary […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":64311,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,7],"tags":[8439,8630],"coauthors":[8631],"class_list":["post-64310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-law","category-social-sciences","tag-german-law-journal","tag-glj-editorial-message"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64310","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64310"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64310\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64312,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64310\/revisions\/64312"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/64311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64310"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=64310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}