Poul F. Kjaer

The regulation of the interfaces of private and public interests is a central and recurrent issue of modern law. The centrality of the distinction and the manifold conceptual and practical problems associated with it has moreover been exacerbated over the past fifty years through the dominance of the twin-episteme of law constituted by law and economics and human rights law. Against this background, an alternative approach to and concept of law, transformative law, is briefly introduced. An approach which implies replacing the notions of private and public interests with the concepts of legally constituted public power and societal power. In order to analyse the potential and limits of transformative law, five legal phenomena, central to the other contributions to this special issue, are analysed: public interest litigation; legal mobilisation in the preliminary ruling procedure; bankruptcy proceedings; third-party litigation and the Meta Oversight Board.

In the western context, law has two functions. It upholds normative expectations and it transforms social phenomena. The latter is expressed through the form-giving function of law as law designates particular social phenomena as, for example, economic, political or religious. Inside such overarching categories, further subcategories can moreover be observed. In relation to economic processes, the legal institutions of competition, contract, corporation and property are, for example, classical examples of the form-giving function of law. The dual function of law is briefly illustrated through a genealogy of imaginaries of law distinguishing between four historically dominant types of law: ‘Law as purpose’; ‘law as a tool’; ‘law as an obstacle’; and ‘law as reflexivity-initiation’. On this background, ten core dimensions of what might become a new episteme of transformative law are fleshed out with the aim of answering the question to what extent it can act as an alternative to the previous four types of law.

This chapter advances a twofold analytical strategy. Firstly, an extrapolation of the legal method, i.e. the application of general rules to particular cases, into a general tool for both description and problem solving. Secondly, through the integration of the legal method with a phenomenological approach for the study of social worlds. This provides the basis for an integrated approach potentially deployable in relation to all social phenomena at the micro, meso and macro levels. This makes it an alternative to the methodology of the social sciences, i.e. economics, political economy, political science and sociology. The social sciences have become characterized by hyper formalistic and opaque modelling and simplistic assumptions resulting in a structural incapacity of scholarly innovation with the consequence that they are incapable of answering ‘big questions’ and lacks the ability to reflect critically upon the basic structure of society and core assumptions about the composition of the social world.

This article outlines a new approach to the law of political economy as a form of transformative law, a new approach that combines a focus on the function of law with a concept of law encapsulating the triangular dialectics between the form-giving prestation of law, the material substance the law is oriented against, and the transcendence of legal forms—that is, the rendering of compatibility between forms. Transformative law thereby serves as an alternative to both law and economics and recently emerging culturalist and neo-Marxist approaches. The timing of this publication is not coincidental. The era of neoliberalism—that is, of structural liberalism, which started in the 1970s and experienced its breakthrough in the 1980s and 1990s after the collapse of structural Marxism—is ending. This makes the question of what will succeed the neoliberal episteme pertinent.

Habituellement considéré comme un phénomène des années 1970, le débat entre Jürgen Habermas et Niklas Luhmann s’est en réalité poursuivi jusqu’à la mort de Luhmann, en 1998 ; et l’évolution des positions des deux théoriciens au cours des années 1980 et 1990 s’est caractérisée par une convergence, plutôt que par une divergence. Dans le domaine de la théorie du droit, suggère cet article, la convergence a progressé dans la mesure où la théorie de la discussion (Diskursetheorie) d’Habermas peut se caractériser comme une superstructure normative au regard de la théorie descriptive de la société formulée par Luhmann. De plus, le résultat du débat a été une absorption presque complète de la théorie habermassienne par le complexe de la théorie des systèmes de Luhmann – issue facilitée par le fait que ce dernier a délibérément traduit les concepts habermassiens centraux dans les concepts de la théorie des systèmes. Le débat et la conversion d’Habermas ont été possibles parce que le travail de celui-ci mais aussi celui de Luhmann peuvent être considérés comme un fruit de la tradition idéaliste allemande. Luhmann n’a pas vu que cette manœuvre permettait la réalisation des objectifs normatifs d’Habermas ; pas plus qu’il n’a perçu qu’il pouvait éradiquer une faille centrale de la construction de la théorie des systèmes en permettant de cartographier le contexte dans lequel les distinctions sont tracées – problème d’importance cruciale pour saisir les relations entre les différents systèmes sociaux et les coordonner via le déploiement d’instruments juridiques.

O Direito Global estrutura-se, predominantemente, por normas de conectividade, que se diferenciam das normas de coerência e de possibilidade. A centralidade das normas de conectividade emerge da própria função do direito global, que é a de aumentar a probabilidade de transferência de componentes sociais condensados, como capital econômico e produtos, doutrinas religiosas e conhecimento científico, de um contexto juridicamente estruturado para outro, no âmbito da sociedade mundial. Esse é o caso desde o colonialismo e o direito colonial até as atuais cadeias produtivas globais e os direitos humanos. Tanto o direito colonial quanto os direitos humanos podem ser entendidos como ferramentas à serviço da função de constitucionalização orientada à estabilização e à facilitação da conectividade. Por conseguinte, é possível compreender o colonialismo e a governança global contemporânea como equivalentes funcionais, mas não como equivalentes normativos.

The Report presents insights which illuminates the intertwinements of European regulatory policies and global governance arrangements. By pinning down the exact nature of the interaction between these two levels, the EU’s dilemma becomes obvious: On the one hand, stronger global governance can be a chance, through which the EU can clarify its own raison d’être of increased integration to the wider world. On the other hand, the design of the European project is being challenged by more assertive global structures. This is especially the case in relation to the WTO regime, which is constraining the decisional autonomy of the EU, regarding the appropriateness of its content and its external effects. Thus, the regulation of services in the EU and the WTO are discussed in the first section of this report. Section two focuses on labour standards, which are analysed from different angles in order to clarify the functions of the WTO and the ILO, multinational companies as well as other private actors within this specific field. The final section deals with the legitimacy problematic of transnational governance. Table of contents: Introduction Christian Joerges and Poul F. Kjaer Section One: Freedom of Services Chapter 1 The Multiple Understandings of Conflict between Trade in Services and Labour Protection Alexia Herwig Chapter 2 Competing in Markets, not Rules: The Conflict over the Single Services Market Susanne K. Schmidt Chapter 3 Competitiveness and Labour Protection: A Comment Markus Krajewski Section Two: Labour Standards Chapter 4 WTO and ILO: Can Social Responsibility be maintained in International Trade? Josef Falke Chapter 5 Reframing RECON: Perspectives on Transnationalisation and Post-national Democracy from Labour Law Claire Methven O’Brien Chapter 6 Transnational Governance and Human Rights: The Obligations of Private Actors in the Global Context Regina Kreide Section Three: The Legitimacy of Transnational Governance Chapter 7 Legitimacy through Precaution in European Regulation of GMOs? From the Standpoint of Governance as Analytical Perspective Maria Weimer Chapter 8 The Justice Deficit of the EU and other International Organisations Jürgen Neyer Chapter 9 Towards Normative Legitimacy of the World Trade Order Alexia Herwig and Thorsten Hüller Chapter 10 From Utopia to Apology – The Return to Inter-state Justice in Normative IR Scholarship: Comments on Neyer and Herwig & Hüller Jens Steffek

Hybridization has become a defining feature of regulatory frameworks. The combined forces of globalization and privatization together with increased reliance on self-regulation have resulted in the emergence of a multitude of regulatory arrangements which combine elements from several legal orders. This book offers a conceptual framework as well as numerous empirical explorations capable of increasing our understanding of regulatory hybridization. A number of central dichotomies are deconstructed: national vs. transnational law; international vs. transnational law; convergence vs. divergence; soft law vs. hard law; territorial vs. non-territorial, ‘top-down’ vs. ‘bottom-up’ globalization as well as national vs. global. In addition, the implications of regulatory hybridization for the question of choice of court and conflict of laws are analyzed. List of Content: Poul F. Kjaer: Introduction. Ino Augsberg: Observing (the) Law: The “Epistemological Turn” in Public Law and the Evolution of Global Administrative Law. Jan Klabbers: Of Round Pegs and Square Holes: International Law and the Private Sector. Peer Zumbansen: Law and Legal Pluralism: Hybridity in Transnational Governance. Paulius Jurčys: Regulatory Hybridization in International Intellectual Property Law. Faye Fangfei Wang: Regulation of Internet Jurisdiction for B2B Commercial Transactions: EU and US Compared. Hideaki Shiroyama: Dynamics of International Harmonization and Divergence of Safety Standards: The Regulatory Hybridization of Automobile and Food Safety. Nina Boeger and Joseph Corkin: Are Expert Networks Driving the Trend towards Soft Transnational Coordination? Mark Fenwick: Transnational Regulatory Networks. Harm Schepel: Rules of Recognition: A Legal Constructivist Approach to Transnational Private Regulation. Andreas Maurer: The Concept of Participation in the Making of Transnational Law: Legitimization and Normativity in the Transnational Sphere. Adeline Chong: State Immunity and Breaches of Fundamental Human Rights. Ren Yatsunami: The Impact of Transnational Customs on Private International Law. Maebh Harding: Does Transnational Family Law Exist? Should Adult Relationships be Freed from National Protective Norms? Poul F. Kjaer: Between Integration and Compatibility: The Reconfiguration of Cognitive and Normative Structures in Transnational Hybrid Law

This book explains the emergence and functioning of three forms of governance structures within the context of the European integration and constitutionalisation process: comitology, (regulatory) agencies and the Open Method of Co-ordination. The point of departure is the insight that the intergovernmental/supranational distinction, which most theories of European integration and constitutionalisation rely on, has lost its strength. A new paradigm of EU research is therefore needed. Against this background it is suggested that the distinction between governing and governance provides a more appropriate basis for analysing the phenomenon of integration and constitutionalisation in Europe. The distinction between governing and governance allows for an understanding of the EU as a hybrid consisting of a governing dimension, characterised by legal and organisational hierarchy, and a governance dimension which operates within a network form characterised by legal and organisational heterarchy. The function of governance structures is to ensure the embeddedness of the governing dimension in the wider society. Instead of representing contradictory developments, the two dimensions are therefore mutually constitutive in the sense that more governing implies more governance and vice versa. These theoretical insights are illustrated through two detailed case studies which respectively reconstruct the operational mode of the Open Method of Coordination within EU Research & Development Policy and the regulatory system for the EU chemicals market (REACH). The book is inter-disciplinary in nature and incorporates insights from law, political science and sociology. Reviews and review essays: - Thomas Conzelmann, European Law Journal, volume 19, Issue 1, 143 – 45, 2013. - Agustin José Menéndez, European Public Law, Vol. 18, Issue 3, pp. 556–563, 2012. - Sarah Kahn-Nisser and Gianluigi Palombella: ‘Integration and Function: Taming Governance in the EU?, Transnational Legal Theory, Vol. 1, 4, 587 – 595, Dec. 2010. - Chris Thornhil, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 37, 4, 687-90, Dec. 2010. - Edoardo Chiti, The Common Market Law Review, Vol. 48, 1, 265-66, 2011. - Maartje de Visser, European Law Review, Vol. 36, 3, June, 440 – 442, 2011. -Mark Fenwick, The European Union Institute in Japan Review, Feb., 1 – 5, Feb. 2012.

""This volume presents the first thorough sociologically-informed legal analysis of the financial crisis which unfolded in 2008. It combines a multitude of theoretically informed analyses of the causes, dynamics and reactions to the crisis and contextualises these within the general structural transformations characterising contemporary society. It furthermore explores the constitutional implications of the crisis and suggests concrete changes to the constitutional set-up of contemporary society. Although the question of individual responsibility is of crucial importance, the central idea animating the volume is that the crisis cannot be reduced to a mere failure of risk perception and management for which individual and collective actors within and outside of financial organisations are responsible. The 2008 crisis should rather be understood as a symptom of far deeper structural transformations. For example contemporary society is characterised by massive accelerations in the speed with which societal processes are reproduced as well as radical expansions in the level of globalisation. These transformations have, however, been asymmetrical in nature insofar as the economic system has outpaced its legal and political counterparts. The future capability of legal and political systems to influence economic reproduction processes is therefore conditioned by equally radical transformations of their respective operational forms and self-understanding. Potentially the 2008 crisis, therefore, has far-reaching constitutional implications. Individual Contributions Poul F. Kjaer, Introduction; Gunther Teubner, Constitutional Moment? The Logics of ‘Hitting the Bottom’; Rudolf Stichweh, Towards a General Theory of Function System Crises; Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Financial Market Crisis: A Case of Network Failure?; Moritz Renner, Death by Complexity: The Financial Crisis and the Crisis of Law in World Society; Urs Stäheli, Political Epidemiology and the Financial Crisis; Hauke Brunkhorst, Return of Crisis; Dirk Baecker, Culture Form of Crisis; Jean Clam, What is a Crisis?; Marc Amstutz, Eroding Boundaries: On Financial Crisis and an Evolutionary Concept of Regulatory Reform; Alberto Febbrajo, Failure of Regulatory Institutions: A Conceptual Framework; Kolja Möller, Struggles for Law: Global Social Rights as an Alternative Financial Market Capitalism Aldo Mascareño, Ethics of the Financial Crisis; Chris Thornhill, Future of the State; Poul F. Kjaer, Law and Order Within and Beyond National Configurations. Reviews and review essays: - Cesare Pinelli, European Constitutional Law Review, 11 (1), 217-225, 2015. - Andromachi Georgosouli, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(4), 2012, 1174-1177. - Giorgio Tosetti Dardanelli, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2, 2012, 273-275. - Emilios Christodoulidis: The Quest for a Constitutional Perspective, Jurisprudence, 4, 2, November 2013 , pp. 322-335."

"This book develops a sociologically informed theory of constitutionalism in the global realm, addressing both national and transnational forms of constitutional ordering. The book begins with the argument that current approaches to constitutionalism remain tied to a state-based conception of constitutions, and overlooks underlying structural transformations that trigger the emergence of constitutional forms of ordering. Poul F. Kjaer aims to address this shortcoming by offering a sociological and historically informed analysis of the evolution of constitutionalism in the face of globalisation. The analysis contextualises on-going constitutional developments through the use of a long-term historical perspective, which is capable of highlighting the impact of deeper structural transformations unfolding within society. The book looks at the ways in which national and transnational legal forms have evolved alongside one another. It demonstrates that the formation of global constitutions has not resulted in a corresponding decrease in the power of nation states, but instead, legal and political aspects of both the nation state and the transnational have been reconfigured and intensified in a mutually supportive manner. In combining insights from a range of fields, this interdisciplinary book will be of great interest to students and scholars of constitutional law, sociology, global governance studies, and legal, social and political theory. List of Content 1. Introduction: The Metamorphosis of Constitutionalism Part 1: Structural Transformations 2. The Implosion of the Euro-Centric World 3. The Multiplicity of Normative Orders in World Society Part 2: Re-configurations of Law and the Political 4. The Law within and in-between Normative Orders 5. The Political within and in-between Normative Orders Part 3: Constitutional Stabilisation 6. The Breakdown of Constitutional Ordering through Globalisation-induced Crises 7.The Transmutation of Constitutional Ordering 8.Re-calibrating the Constitutional Concept 9. Conclusion Reviews and Review essays: - Aldo Mascareño: Revista de Ciencia Política, 36, 2, 587 – 592, 2016. - Gregory Shaffer: ‘Law, Constitutionalism and World Society: Kjaer, Kratochwil, and global (dis)order’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 13, 4, 1063–1077, 2015. - Alfons Bora: Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 35, 1, 152-156, 2015. - Grahame Thompson: ‘Socializing the Constitution?’, Economy and Society, 44, 3, 480 – 93, 2015.

It started and ended in Chile! This might be the introductory sentence to an economic history of our times. After the 1973 military coup the “Chicago Boys”, a group of Chilean economists educated by Milton Friedman at University of Chicago, took control of Pinochet’s economic policy. A type of policy which later on entered government offices in the UK and the US together with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Today protesters on the streets of Santiago seeks to tear down the core pillars of the paradigm installed by the Chicago boys. Looking at broader developments, the essential driver of change over the past four decades have however not been an economic one but rather a legal one. Or rather the essential change has been the economics discipline acting as an invasive species entering into the realm of law though the law and economics paradigm.

D’un point de vue sociologique, l’architecture du droit global se caractérise par une prééminence des normes de « connectivité », qu’il convient de distinguer des normes de « possibilité » et des normes de « cohérence ». La centralité des normes de connectivité dans cette structure provient de la fonction même du droit global, qui vise à faciliter le transfert de composants sociaux condensés –_tels que le capital, les produits économiques, les doctrines religieuses ou les connaissances scientifiques_–, d’un environnement juridique à un autre à l’échelle planétaire. Cela se vérifie aussi bien dans le cas du colonialisme et du droit colonial que dans celui, aujourd’hui, des chaînes de valeur globales et des droits de l’homme. Le droit colonial et le droit des droits humains peuvent tous deux être compris comme des moyens de remplir une même fonction constituante de stabilisation et de facilitation de la connectivité. Cette compréhension trouve un écho significatif dans le droit international privé, qui participe de la même fonction.

This book investigates the consecutive shifts between three types of intermediary institutions in the European context: Corporatist, Neo-corporatist and Governance institutions. It develops a new conceptual framework for understanding the function and position of intermediary institutions in society, as well as a vocabulary capable of explaining the causes and consequences of these shifts for politics, economy and society at large. The book is designed to fill a gap in three rather distinct, yet also overlapping bodies of literature: European Political Economy, European Integration and governance studies, and socio-legal studies in the European context. Reviews: - Anne Guisset: Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 22, 3, 427-429, 2016. - Ian Bruff, Capital & Class, 40, 3, 555 – 57, 2016.

Intermediary institutions are a multi-facetted phenomenon which has taken many different forms in the course of social evolution. This is also being testified by the evolutionary trajectories from corporatism through neo-corporatism to governance in the European settings from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. Against this background, this chapter seeks to outline the key parameters of a theoretical framework suitable for approaching and analysing intermediary institutions. The chapter pins down five central dimensions of intermediary institutions. This is done under the headings: Context, Function, Evolution, Order, and Compatibility.

This book develops the law of political economy as a new field of scholarly enquiry. Bringing together an exceptional group of scholars, it provides a novel conceptual framework for studying the role of law and legal instruments in political economy contexts, with a focus on historical transformations and central challenges in both European and global contexts. Its chapters reconstruct how the law of political economy plays out in diverse but central fields, ranging from competition and consumer protection law to labour and environmental law, giving a comprehensive overview of the central challenges of the law of political economy. It also provides a sophisticated and multifaceted framework for further enquires while outlining the contours of new law of political economy.

The law of political economy is a contentious ideological field characterised by antagonistic relations between scholarly positions which tend to be either affirmative or critical of capitalism. Going beyond this schism, two particular features appear as central to the law of political economy: the first one is the way it epistemologically seeks to handle the distinction between holism and differentiation, i.e., the extent to which it sees society as a singular whole which is larger than its parts, or, rather, as a mere collection of parts. Different types of legal and political economy scholarship have given different types of answers to this question. The second feature of the law of political economy is the way in which it conceives of the relation between hierarchical and spontaneous dimensions of society, i.e., between firms and the market, or between public institutions and public opinion. The two distinctions can, however, be overcome through a third-way, emphasising the strategic role of law in mediating between holism and differentiation and hierarchy and spontaneity. This is demonstrated through a historical re-construction of the evolution of corporatist, neo-corporatist, and governance-based institutional set-ups of political economy.

A questão de saber se existe ou não pode ser encontrada em todos além do Estado tem sido o tema central da disputa acadêmica nas últimas décadas. Essa contribuição deriva do insight histórico que tem formas extensas de ordenar posses, qualidades constitucionais sempre existiram abaixo, ao lado e acima do estado. Nas últimas décadas, o debate sobre o constitucionalismo além do Estado se desdobrou em dois discursos separados: O primeiro é dirigido principalmente por cientistas políticos e pelo direito público e é caracterizado por uma tentativa de criar um estado nacional Este último está sistematicamente subestimando a dimensão política das estruturas transnacionais. A fim de colmatar esta lacuna para o número de figuras-chave de um conceito transnacional específico do político está sendo concretizada.

Desde os anos 1990, os efeitos da globalização na lei e nos desenvolvimento jurídico têm sido um tópico central no debate acadêmico. Até o presente, o debate foi, contudo, marcado por três lacunas que este capítulo tentará remediar a partir de uma reconceptualização do direito global como o direito de intercontextualidade marcado pela inter-juridicidade e materializado por meio de um corpo de normas que podem ser caracterizadas por sua conectividade. A primeira lacuna é de ordem histórica e empírica. Tanto os críticos quanto os defensores da “lei não estatal” compartilham a premissa de que a “lei além do Estado” e as normas jurídicas correlatas teriam ganhado relevância nos tempos atuais se comparadas a períodos históricos anteriores. Enquanto o direito global, incluindo tanto o direito público e privado de governança global, bem como as construções regionais, como da União Europeia, passou por profundas transformações desde as estruturais, que seguiram os processos de descolonização em meados do século XX, constata-se que não há mais instrumentos de direito global em comparação com outros tipos de lei no mundo contemporâneo do que havia em outros períodos históricos. A segunda lacuna é metodológica. A maioria das produções acadêmicas sobre o direito global é ou de natureza analítica, trazendo reflexões a partir do campo da filosofia, ou de natureza empírica, observando a existência do direito global e os graus de conformidade às normas global em um dado período histórico. Embora essas duas metodologias tenham seu mérito, elas são estáticas, incapazes de explicar e de avaliar a transformação do direito global ao longo do tempo. A terceira lacuna é teórico-conceitual. Em diversas instâncias, o direito global é compreendido como uma lei unitária que produz normas de escala planetária, ou, alternativamente, adota-se uma perspectiva pluralista radical que descarta a existência de normas globais singulares. No entanto, ambas as abordagens parecem não compreender as características estruturais, função e efeitos societários do direito global. Ao contrário, uma terceira posição entre as perspectivas unitárias e radicais pode ser adotada por meio de uma compreensão do direito global e normas legais relacionadas como um tipo descentralizado de direito intercontextual e caracterizado pela inter juridicidade. O direito global pode ser definido como um fenômeno que, a princípio, é ilimitado em alcance, isto é, detém validade sem referência ou limitação a um território ou população específica, embora, por razões práticas, seja submetido a alguma limitação na maioria dos casos. Isso torna o direito global distinto do direito nacional, internacional, transnacional e da lei viva de base comunitária quando definidos da seguinte maneira: direito nacional, a lei dos estados-nação derivada do conceito de soberania; o direito internacional, a lei entre estados-nação; direito transnacional, qualquer lei que, em termos de jurisdição, origem ou efeito, ultrapassa as fronteiras nacionais, produzindo externalidades positivas ou negativas, enquanto continua a depender dos instrumentos e mecanismos legais dos estados; lei viva, normas sociais preenchendo a função de lei no seio de uma comunidade. Esses quatro tipos de lei podem agir, potencialmente, como fonte do direito global inter-jurídico na medida em que são empregadas numa forma intercontextual. Refletindo essa estrutura inter-jurídica, o conteúdo normativo substancial do direito global é caracterizado por uma relativa predominância estrutural de normas de conectividade. Normas de conectividade estão orientadas a facilitar o transplante, isso é, a extração, transmissão e incorporação dos componentes de significado de um contexto jurídico-legal para outro, como, por exemplo, no caso do comércio internacional e das leis de investimento, lei comercial doméstica ou leis aprovadas sobre atividades missionárias no contexto das leis religiosas. O conceito de normas de conectividade, portanto, diferencia-se do entendimento clássico sobre as normas de coerência, cuja finalidade é dar coerência no âmbito de uma coletividade sob a base de prescrições de ações que limitem o escopo de possíveis ações futuras e estabelecer sanções para a não-conformidade. Diferencia-se, ainda, de um entendimento progressivo sobre as normas como normas de possibilidade, implicando a articulação de futuros possíveis com base numa distinção entre o factual e o não-factual, isto é, mediante o distanciamento do mundo factual, com o objetivo de acentuar a abertura do futuro. Assim sendo, as normas de conectividade são, em outras palavras, um terceiro tipo de normas localizado entre as normas de coerência e as normas de possibilidade.

Since the 1990s the effects of globalization on law and legal developments has been a central topic of scholarly debate. To date, the debate is however marked by three substantial deficiencies which this chapter seeks to remedy through a reconceptualization of global law as a law of inter-contextuality expressed through inter-legality and materialized through a particular body of legal norms which can be characterized as connectivity norms. The first deficiency is a historical and empirical one. Both critics as well as advocates of ‘non-state law’ share the assumption that ‘law beyond the state’ and related legal norms have gained in centrality when compared with previous historical times. While global law, including both public and private global governance law as well as regional occurrences such as EU law, has undergone profound transformations since the structural transformations which followed the de-colonialization processes of the mid-twentieth century, we do not have more global law relatively to other types of law today than in previous historical times. The second deficiency is a methodological one. The vast majority of scholarship on global law is either of an analytical nature, drawing on insights from philosophy, or empirically observing the existence of global law and the degree of compliance with global legal norms at a given moment in time. While both approaches bring something to the table they remain static approaches incapable of explaining and evaluating the transformation of global law over time. The third deficiency is a conceptual-theoretical one. In most instances, global law is understood as a unitary law producing singular legal norms with a planetary reach, or, alternatively, a radical pluralist perspective is adopted dismissing the existence of singular global norms. Both of these approaches however misapprehend the structural characteristics, function and societal effects of global law. Instead a third positon between unitary and radical pluralist perspectives can be adopted through an understanding of global law and its related legal norms as a de-centred kind of inter-contextual law characterised by inter-legality.

Throughout its history the European integration process has not undermined but rather strengthened the autonomy of Member States vis-à-vis wider societal interests in relation to political economy, labour markets and social provisions. Both the ‘golden age nation state’ of the 1960s as well as the considerable transformations of Member State political economies over the past decades, and especially after the euro-crisis, was to a considerable degree orchestrated through transnational, most notably European, arrangements. In both cases the primary objective has been to strengthened state capacities of public power and law against the encroachment of private interests into the state. In spite of this continuity considerable changes can however be observed in the substantial economic policies advanced due to the switch from a Keynesian to a monetarist economic paradigm. It is suggested that the debate on constitutional imbalances between the EU’s economic and social constitutions should be seen in this light.

Regulatory governance frameworks have become essential building blocks of world society. From supply chains to the regimes surrounding international organizations, extensive governance frameworks have emerged which structure and channel a variety of social exchanges, including economic, political, legal and cultural, on a global scale. Against this background, this special issue sets out to explore the multifaceted meaning, potential and impact as well as the social praxis of regulatory governance. Under the notions rules, resistance and responsibility the special issue pins out three overall dimensions of regulation and governance thereby providing a theoretical and conceptual framework for grasping the phenomenon of regulatory governance. This is combined with extensive case studies on a number of regulatory governance settings ranging from the World Bank to agricultural reforms carried by the International Transitional Administrations (ITAs) in Kosovo and Iraq as well as global supply chains and their impact on the garment industry in Bangladesh.

Global law settings are characterized by a structural pre-eminence of connectivity norms, a type of norm which differs from coherency or possibility norms. The centrality of connectivity norms emerges from the function of global law, which is to increase the probability of transfers of condensed social components, such as economic capital and products, religious doctrines, and scientific knowledge, from one legally structured context to another within world society. This was the case from colonialism and colonial law to contemporary global supply chains and human rights. Both colonial law and human rights can be understood as serving a constitutionalizing function aimed at stabiliz- ing and facilitating connectivity. This allows for an understanding of colonialism and contemporary global governance as functional, but not as normative, equivalents.

Over the past decades, the idea that national sovereignty and the authority of the state have been increasingly challenged or even substantially eroded has been a dominant one. Economic globalization advancing a neo-liberal dis-embedding of the economy is seen as the major reason for this erosion. Concerns have increased about the negative consequences for the social fabric of societies, deprived of the strong shock absorption capacity that the welfare states had established in the time of the embedded liberalism to use a term John Ruggie coined. The concerns have also helped nationalistic movements to gain power in many high-income countries, not at least in the United States, calling for putting their economy first. Accordingly, a number of commentators have announced a return of the nation state. In this special issue, we will show that the retreat-of-the-state thesis as well as the return-of-the-state thesis shares the same shortcomings. They conflate state and authority. As a consequence, both theses underestimate important transformations of authority that have taken place since the end of the “short 20TH century,” to use Eric Hobsbawm's periodization. With this special issue, we seek to contribute to a more nuanced analysis of the transformation of authority. The issue is the outcome of a conference that took place at the Copenhagen Business School in 2015, hosted by the research project ‘Institutional Transformation in European Political Economy: A Socio-Legal Approach’ and funded by the European Research Council.

Over the past decades, the idea that national sovereignty and the authority of the state have been increasingly challenged or even substantially eroded has been a dominant one. Economic globalization advancing a neo-liberal dis-embedding of the economy is seen as the major reason for this erosion. Concerns have increased about the negative consequences for the social fabric of societies, deprived of the strong shock absorption capacity that the welfare states had established in the time of the embedded liberalism to use a term John Ruggie coined. The concerns have also helped nationalistic movements to gain power in many high-income countries, not at least in the United States, calling for putting their economy first. Accordingly, a number of commentators have announced a return of the nation state. In this special issue, we will show that the retreat-of-the-state thesis as well as the return-of-the-state thesis shares the same shortcomings. They conflate state and authority. As a consequence, both theses underestimate important transformations of authority that have taken place since the end of the “short 20TH century,” to use Eric Hobsbawm's periodization. With this special issue, we seek to contribute to a more nuanced analysis of the transformation of authority. The issue is the outcome of a conference that took place at the Copenhagen Business School in 2015, hosted by the research project ‘Institutional Transformation in European Political Economy: A Socio-Legal Approach’ and funded by the European Research Council.