Chapter 1 introduces the key research question of whether the European Court of Human Rights has the appropriate equipment to respond to authoritarian populism in its position of ultimate interpreter of the European Convention on Human Rights. It sets out the analytical and disciplinary framework, situates the project in a broader field of scholarship and summarizes the upcoming s.

This concluding chapter synthesises the handbook’s exploration of victim engagement in transitional justice. It emphasises how the generational framework sheds light on historical shifts and contemporary dynamics throughout the chapters and cases in this book, from the foundational influence of early mobilisation to disruptive modes of resistance today, and how it deepens understanding of the proliferation of intersecting justice struggles through innovative adoption and adaptation of the paradigm. These developments challenge static, state-centric understandings of transitional justice and reveal its porous, evolving boundaries. Key themes for future research include the importance of relationality and relational justice approaches, the sustainability and intergenerational character of justice efforts, and the interplay between decentralisation and translocal agency in victim-led initiatives. Framing transitional justice as an expanding, victim-driven practice embedded within a wider justice ecosystem, the chapter argues for reimagining the field through epistemological and methodological pluralism, alongside deeper ethical reflexivity in scholarship, policy, and practice.

The European mandatory bid rule (‘MBR’) was a key factor in the controversy surrounding the legislative proceedings concerning the Takeover Directive (‘TOD’). The MBR has had an eventful history, characterised by political compromises, the active influencing of legislative procedures (regulatory capture) and ongoing controversies about the economic rationale of the MBR. This chapter traces the history of the MBR and its development. Additionally, it highlights the crucial issues that led to the enactment of the MBR and ultimately the adoption of the TOD. The core thesis is that the changing mood in the Member States was primarily responsible for the shift in opinion that created the potential for the introduction of the MBR at a European Union Level in the first place. However, the influence of the MBR on the capital markets of the Member States has been limited. The TOD has failed to achieve its regulatory objective at any rate. The assessment may only be different for smaller Member States without a long tradition of takeover law and/or strong capital markets. In these countries, for example Poland, the MBR might have had a greater influence.

In the present chapter, the authors offer a social exchange theory analysis of processes within intraracial versus interracial relationships. After commenting upon “the rise in intermarriage” (particularly within the United States during the past 50 years), the authors draw upon Levinger’s (1980) Acquaintance-Buildup-Continuation-Deterioration-Ending (ABCDE) model regarding stages of relationship development, highlighting several quantitative studies that examine social exchange processes at each transition or turning point between stages of intraracial and (especially) interracial relationships. Furthermore, the authors address implications of certain interdependence processes for the stability of intraracial and interracial relationships, as well as gaps in the evidence that is available concerning turning points within both types of relationships. Subsequently, the authors identify particular studies that serve as points of departure for suggestions about methodological changes and theoretical additions in future research on intraracial and interracial relationships. Finally, the authors provide examples of still-unanswered questions within the literature on interracial relationships in particular.

This chapter examines the engagement of women next of kin of forcibly disappeared individuals in Sri Lanka with the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF). The CTF was tasked with consulting on the design of four transitional justice mechanisms in 2016, including an Office on Missing Persons. Even though the government refused to respect the findings of this process, the chapter shows that the CTF generated a significant archive that can be probed as an ‘archive of desire’. This archive can help us to understand not only the demands of victim-survivors in relation to what form of justice or what kind of mechanisms they believe can deliver justice, but also the depth of affective feelings and investments underlying these demands. In post-war Sri Lanka, this archive continues to challenge and resist dominant narratives of denial and efforts to entrench impunity for forced disappearances. However, such archives equally serve as a resource to build solidarity across differences, to cultivate practices of listening to the ‘Other’, and to refigure the state towards recognising and redressing its sovereign violence.

Reparation programmes for redressing human rights harms form a central pillar of transitional justice. Reviews about the success of such programmes, however, remain mixed: in terms of outcomes, they often fail to meet the justice needs of affected populations; in terms of process, there is agreement about the importance of meaningful participation, but only a minimal understanding of how to carry this out effectively. To develop a sound theoretical framework to guide actors interested in developing reparations programmes, this chapter builds on the theory of relational justice to provide both an instrumental and legal justification for inclusive processes in the design, implementation, and evaluation of reparations programmes. We argue that reparative processes should be mindful of building and repairing relations, especially between affected populations and the government that failed to protect them. We conclude by proposing four criteria we believe are fundamental for taking a relational justice approach to reparations.

This chapter analyses the relationship between takeover bids and corporate sustainability. Specifically, we ask how boards (should) deal with sustainability issues under company law, including national rules implementing the EU Takeover Directive, either before or after the launch of a takeover bid, especially if the bid is hostile. Resistance to hostile bids motivated by ESG considerations was undoubtedly unlikely at the time of the adoption of the Directive, when takeover bids were mainly aimed at increasing shareholder value and the protection of stakeholder interests mainly concerned creditors and employees. After a brief introduction to the economic and legal literature, we present three case studies in which a hostile bid was either rejected by the target board for reasons that included sustainability concerns, or accepted by the target board for reasons that mainly concerned shareholder value. We then discuss whether and to what extent the target board’s resistance to a hostile bid could be based on sustainability concerns. We also consider whether and to what extent defensive measures could be justified by the target board’s sustainability concerns.

Part I examines the birth of neo-socialism and the 1933 “neo-socialist schism” within the SFIO. The extant historiography of this schism tends to interpret it as the joint product of a doctrinal revision introduced by the neo-socialists and a separate tactical challenge by the party’s reformist wing pushing for a policy of socialist ministerial participation within bourgeois governments. The problem with this interpretation is that it treats neo-socialism as a coherent and ready-made doctrinal alternative to socialist orthodoxy, whereas the neo-socialists themselves initially conceived of their project as a “tactical,” and not “doctrinal,” challenge to the party leadership. Neo-socialism was not the driving force of the 1933 schism but emerged as a distinct doctrinal identity through the schismatic dynamic of the factional conflict over ministerial participation.

This chapter constructs a theoretical framework for analysing the interaction between market regulation and private law. It explores the meaning of each concept in the context of multilevel and heterarchical European private law. Drawing on a variety of perspectives from legal and regulatory scholarship, the chapter outlines the distinctive rationalities and characteristics of traditional private law as a state-backed bastion of interpersonal justice and those of EU private law as a subset of market regulation beyond the nation-state. These two different accounts of private law reveal conflicts between the core values that underpin EU and national private law and that inform their interface, reflecting intense academic and policy debates. The chapter identifies three such dichotomies: the one between the pursuit of the pan-European common good and interpersonal justice, the one between legal certainty and individual fairness, and the one between uniformity and diversity. These dichotomies highlight major tensions between public and private interests in the areas subjected to EU harmonisation and beyond. The chapter also reveals that the interaction between market regulation and private law can be viewed as a spectrum that ranges from almost none to fairly extensive, and conceptualises the role of fundamental rights in this context.

This chapter addresses the enforcement mechanisms of the EU Takeover Directive (TOD) and the discrepancies of such regimes among EU Member States. The TOD mandates certain measures, such as the mandatory bid rule to protect minority shareholders, but leaves enforcement to national law. The contribution examines the public and private enforcement models, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each. Germany relies heavily on public enforcement by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) to enforce takeover rules, focusing on administrative sanctions but being reluctant to implement private legal remedies for minority shareholders. Italy, conversely, allows for private enforcement through the courts, enabling shareholders to claim damages for breaches of the mandatory bid rule, as demonstrated in the landmark case Fondiaria-SAI. The chapter argues for more harmonization of enforcement mechanisms within the EU and advocates the inclusion of a civil liability regime in the TOD. The authors emphasize the importance of a balanced approach. In particular, the introduction of a programmatic rule recognizing a private right of action against the bidder for failure to launch a mandatory bid is recommended.