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.

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.

Looks at the difficult balancing act required by the needs of freedom of information versus law enforcement. Richard Dowling, an RTE investigative journalist with considerable experience of using FOI legislation nationally and internationally, notes that unlike other states with FOI legislation, the Irish state has traditionally excluded the police force from FOI. This is set to change now that the Government has included An Garda S í och á na in the revised FOI legislation. In consequence, this chapter examines and questions that extension in order to assess how effective it is likely to be in practice. It notes that many parts of the organisation are excluded from the new FOI provisions and examines why this is the case, and how the Irish Act compares to other similar jurisdictions where the police are subject to FOI. Irish exemptions are compared with the FOI regimes in other jurisdictions, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to the release of Irish material, which – ironically – may sometimes be obtained ‘second-hand’ from agencies in other states that are subject to FOI. An examination of this, and recent reports regarding gardaí and crime, reveals that the current FOI legislation, while welcome, remains limited in its capacity to deal with the Irish state’s approach to policing and accountability.