How should scholars use the interviews they conducted for a research article or a book chapter? Is there a recommended style or format for presenting findings from qualitative research? Throughout the author’s ten years of interviews, these questions have seldom been raised. In every research process, there comes a point when authors turn to their data to begin writing about it, and yet this writing phase is rarely reflected upon in any meaningful way. This chapter offers some thoughts on the use of interviews in EU legal research. It first discusses expert interviews as a distinct category, particularly relevant to EU legal researchers. Expert interviews in EU legal scholarship typically address complex, embedded situations involving influential political and legal figures who are especially vulnerable to breaches of anonymity. These interviews are often part of research with significant policy relevance and implications beyond academia. The chapter then discusses how such expert interviews can be used. It provisionally explores three guiding principles: situatedness, transparency, and integrity for qualitative legal researchers writing both about and with interviews. It is fair to warn, however, that none of these principles offers quick fixes or guarantees of academic recognition or accolades.

Litigation makes the European Union’s (EU) legal order work: By claiming their EU rights, private and public actors can argue their case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and shape supranational policymaking. This chapter situates EU law litigation in comparative context to answer three questions: Who litigates EU law, who influences ECJ decisions, and with what downstream effects? Leveraging a dataset of 7,353 cases adjudicated by the ECJ, it compares whether well-established litigation patterns in the United States also arise in the EU and uncovers several illuminating patterns. First, EU law litigation is not only driven by resourceful business and trade associations, but also by a surprising abundance of resourceless individuals and a paucity of labor unions and advocacy groups. Second, individuals, labor unions, and trade associations are most effective in influencing the ECJ, but in counterintuitive ways: whereas labor unions and individuals prompt liberalising rulings that restrict national autonomy, trade associations prompt protectionist rulings. Finally, individuals and advocacy groups are better able to attract attention and shape downstream legal debates via litigation than businesses and trade associations. The “haves” are certainly protagonists of EU law litigation, but they are neither the sole nor the most effective protagonists.

In Chapter 3, notions of kinship and family come to the fore. Once belonging had been articulated by the settlement laws, and moreover was seen to have been invested not only in individuals but in families, the question soon arose: who counted as ‘family’ for the purposes of the law? For example, when and under what circumstances would the status of ‘child’ expire? What would be the effects of marriage and remarriage? A study of legal sources helps distil the changing regulations – another unintended consequence of the settlement laws which affected millions, and echoes today. A case study concerning one woman illustrates the effects of the settlement laws on kinship and community relations. Local and regional samples suggest how the law was implemented in near and distant localities.

Chapter 3 looks at the different objectives that have been proposed as the basic rationale for competition law. The chapter starts with a discussion of the consumer welfare and total welfare standard and their pros and cons. This is followed by a discussion of the ‘protection of the competitive process’ standard and a range of other, less familiar, objectives. All of these claimed goals have their drawbacks, which are carefully assessed.

Chapter 11 uses antitrust law as a case study to explore the phenomenon of extraterritorial regulation. It argues that the principle of sovereign equality requires states to resolve disputes involving fields of concurrent prescriptive jurisdiction through mandatory cooperation.

The conclusion presents a powerful call to action. It considers the contribution of the volume to advancing knowledge of evidence-based approaches to genocide prevention. It discusses measurable actions that can be taken to contribute to genocide prevention, by a range of stakeholders. Through collective and concerted effort, we can all contribute to making ‘never again’ a reality.

The focus of this chapter is the criminal use of submarines for smuggling, terrorism and other criminal offences. The chapter begins with an explanation of international law principles relevant for policing in varied maritime zones and over different persons and acts. Submarine involvement in maritime law enforcement is not common and the discussion recognises how submarines may be limited to information gathering and the commencement of hot pursuit. Instead, the deployment of submarines for smuggling has prompted closer consideration of laws addressing transnational crime and underlines the important role of domestic law. US legislation dealing with drug trafficking by submersibles is assessed in this regard. Potential terrorist use of submarines, extending to possible mutinies, are regulated through different international instruments. We highlight the need for States to participate in these treaty regimes, as well as ensuring their national laws are properly in place to deal with this increasing criminal activity.