Putting ‘lobbyists’ and ‘lobbying’ on the EU law map – acknowledging that there is little interest in lobbying by EU legal research – explaining why EU lawyers and especially constitutional law scholars should be interested in lobbying – presenting a framework to study lobbyists as regulated actors under EU law – considering the merits of ethnographically-oriented socio-legal research and the ‘new legal realism’ as methods of studying lobbyists and lobbying.

In the coronavirus pandemic that has swept the world, the Finnish Government, like many of its peers, has issued policy measures to combat the virus. Many of these measures have been implemented in law, including measures taken under the Emergency Powers Act, or by ministries and regional and local authorities exercising their legal powers. However, some governmental policy measures have been implemented using non-binding guidelines and recommendations. Using border travel recommendations as a case study, this article critically evaluates governmental soft law-making. The debacle over the use of soft law to fight the pandemic in Finland revealed fundamental misunderstandings about the processes and circumstances under which instruments conceived as soft law can be issued, as well as a lack of attention to their effects from a fundamental rights perspective.

There is an increasing involvement of lawyers and law firms in public affairs through activities that are aimed at influencing legislative and regulatory developments. Law firms offer services which can be regarded as lobbying, and yet, to the detriment of transparent policy-making, they are reluctant to register in the European Union Transparency Register (EUTR) and provide information about their activities. As growing attention is paid to the need to regulate lobbying at the EU and Member State levels, the question arises as to whether and to what extent such regulatory framework should also cover certain services provided by law firms, that is, legal lobbying. This Article charts the phenomenon of legal lobbying and its regulation in the EU context. It shows how the EUTR attempts to distinguish between legal services and lobbying by defining two lawyer roles: a legal expert, and an advocate. These roles allow the possibility to pinpoint two unresolved issues associated with legal lobbying: the scope of professional secrecy, and the meaning of the legal advice exception. An important conclusion is that regulatory clarification is necessary to resolve ambiguities and broadly address the implications that legal lobbying raises in terms of transparent and legitimate law-making processes.

The EU’s openness towards stakeholders is central to the legitimacy of its law-making. With the rapid globalisation of EU legislative activities, openness towards actors from third countries requires analysis. With reference to the notion of ‘lobbying’, this article outlines a framework for identifying the role of third country actors in EU policy processes. The two arguments brought forward suggest that third country lobbying is facilitated by the openness of Union law- and policy-making, and that third country actors contribute to EU decision-making at all stages. The article concludes with a set of questions that third country lobbying raises concerning the EU’s legitimate law-making authority in Europe and beyond.

EU law is teeming with framework norms – ‘laws in progress’. They provide little clarity for those to whom they apply, engendering rule-making in networks to assist those charged with implementing and applying laws at the national level. Taking as its specific focus the particular process through which the concept of an ‘article’ was constructed and constituted in a set of negotiations around the EU Chemicals Regulation, REACH, this article shows that networks not only make framework norms operational but also transform them in the process. The fact that networks have an important role in laying out what the law says throws the effectiveness of traditional forms of accountability in doubt. In particular, judicial control is in need of rethinking in order to accommodate norms that change and the networks that change them. This article suggests looking at the connections between internal peer control and externally operating judicial control as a way to keep up with the progress of laws in progress.