This article examines to what extent and how German administrative law and organisation have been changed by globalization, as well as the increasing reach and depth of global governance. A first chapter analyzes the legal discourse in Germany and finds that international (more than global) administrative law has become a major topic. It points to three different strands in German scholarship and highlights especially the proposal to conceptualize global governance as an exercise of international public authority. In a second step, the article examines three specific fields of law (environment, health and financial services) and analyzes how national administrative and legal structures have been influenced by globalization. In particular, it inquires what instruments of standard setting and forms of implementation have been used. Finally, the article acknowledges that globalization has had a tremendous effect on German administrative law, and describes seven instrumental and substantive modes of the effect of international rules on the German legal order.

One day before the historic trial against Radovan Karadžić was due to begin, Biljana Plavšić, a former Bosnian Serb leader, was released from prison after serving two-thirds of an 11-year sentence for war crimes. She flew in from Sweden to Belgrade, where she was welcomed by the Prime Minister of Republika Srpska. While Plavšić was on her way home, more than a hundred representatives of Bosnian nongovernmental organizations were heading from home to the Hague, to be present for the beginning of the Karadžić trial. Drawing on cases of returning war criminals, this article argues that similar to Bosnian citizens and war criminals who are commuting in different directions, cosmopolitan and local forms of justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina are also progressing in opposite destinations.

After the Sporting Exchange and Ernst Engelmann rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2010, it is now entirely clear that the process of granting exclusive rights to undertakings must be conducted in compliance with the Treaty rules on free movement, particularly in accordance with the consequent principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and transparency, irrespective of whether the right is awarded by means of a public contract or by other legal means (public or private). Thus, even if public authorities wish to exclude competition in a given market due to justified reasons, and are authorized by EU law to do so, they must nonetheless ensure a sufficient degree of competition for that market so as to ensure an undistorted rivalry of the various market operators at the stage of application for that right. It is submitted that the public authorities granting exclusive rights should not complain about the requirements that are imposed upon them by the TFEU rules. After all, by granting exclusive rights within competitive and transparent procedures, the public authorities have an excellent chance to select, from among the many potentially interested operators— including those from other Member States— beneficiaries that will best serve the needs of the relevant community. In turn, if they want to depart from those requirements, they must substantiate the existence of a clearly defined public interest that is capable of outweighing the benefits resulting from a competitive and transparent procedure.

The article critically assesses the role of the Directorate General of the European Commission in executing enforcement of the European Communities Competition Law. The Commission is granted equally unprecedented legal powers to carry out the functions of policy maker, investigator, “judge”, “jury”, and “executioner”. For some, it is accordingly difficult to resist the suggestion that the focus of so many regulatory roles and so much power in the hands of one organization represents a legitimate source of concern. By comparing the European system of antitrust enforcement with that of the United States and examining the historical evolvement of the Commission's role, the article determines whether focus of so much power in the hands of the European Commission forms a legitimate source of concern. It determines whether so much power given to the Commission may interfere with the basic rights of corporate undertakings to carry out their business operations, and how the powers granted to the Commission lead to legally based reasons for anxiety.

The article discusses whether EU arrangements allow the opportunities offered by its multijuralism and multilingualism to be realized and the problems raised by them to be minimized. Those opportunities are defined, in the case of multijuralism, as the EU having at its disposal a toolbox of many legal solutions for many situations. In the case of multilingualism, one has to distinguish between a strong variety (all language versions are equally authentic) and a weak variety (one authentic language and so many official translations). One opportunity offered by both varieties is that multilingual laws are linguistically superior to monolingual ones because of the clarifying effect of translations. An opportunity offered only by the strong variety is that the meaning of such a law can best be pinned down by linguistic triangulation, i.e. by approaching it from different linguistic angles. Problems caused only by strong multilingualism are the intractability of contradictory language versions of a law and the very indeterminacy of all laws, which is the necessary counterpart of the possibility of linguistic triangulation. Concerning multijuralism, the article finds ample possibilities for EU lawmakers and adjudicators alike to make use of the toolbox. Concerning multilingualism, while the clarifying effect of translation is real enough, current arrangements allow the EU to profit from it only at some legislative stages. Further, linguistic triangulation is found not to be a workable concept in the EU, which has 23 authentic official language versions. Strong multilingualism therefore, cannot offset the problems it causes.

In February 2011, a Bundesgerichtshof [BGH—Federal Court of Justice] decision caused a great media echo. The court convicted Germany's largest bank to pay about half a million Euros in damages for the breach of advisory duties. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, banking law evolved fast in German courts. The recent decision raises new questions concerning the advisory duties of a bank, when offering financial products to its clients. The article gives an insight to various factual backgrounds, which, as financial products of today, are somewhat complex. Another interesting aspect to this case is that there are numerous decisions of lower courts that dealt with the same product as the BGH did. The ruling is considered to be far-reaching and groundbreaking. This case note will look into the question how far this is true.

The priority given to the development of research skills during doctrinal legal education often neglects the importance of equipping PhD students with the pedagogical skills necessary to fulfill their important educational role as academics. Thus, in many instances there is a significant gap in the requisite skill base that PhD students acquire when they complete their doctrinal education. This paper outlines a first step that has been taken to address this deficiency in postgraduate legal education in Ireland. The PhD community of the University College Dublin (UCD) School of Law convened an internal Syllabus Design Workshop in April 2010 in order to provide doctrinal students with an opportunity to design a university module and to explore the issues which arise in undertaking such an exercise. The first part of this paper outlines how the workshop was conceived and convened, and provides an account of the considerations that each student had to take into account in the design of a syllabus. From here, we address the content of the workshop and reflect upon some of the important issues which were raised. Finally, we offer a number of recommendations in relation to the development of doctrinal students as future educators. By highlighting the importance of uniting research and teaching, it is hoped that this paper will contribute to postgraduate legal education in Ireland, and also internationally.

Mark Mazower's latest book, No Enchanted Palace: the End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations intelligently weaves in the League of Nations as the primary informant of the United Nations to deconstruct any claims of discontinuities between the two institutions. In doing so, Mazower offers an eloquent polemic against the literature's tendency to idolize the United Nations' founding as a symbolic and material break from empire. Exploring the dark sides of its intellectual origins and early years, however, Mazower points to the decolonization movement to argue for the potential of the United Nations as a site of emancipatory struggle — his book concludes with a reinvestment in its promise of a more inclusive and just world order. The issue left to the reader, and which I hope to address in this review essay, is the legitimacy of Mazower's claim that the United Nations has indeed escaped its imperial heritage.

David Strauss' The Living Constitution addresses the issues of constitutional interpretation and judicial activism in the United States. The book supports the practice of Living Constitutionalism and attempts to demonstrate its advantages over Originalism. It presents general arguments as well as accounts of landmark decisions in order to demonstrate the superiority of Living Constitutionalism. The Living Constitution also argues for common law as the all-but-exclusive method for constitutional change in the modern United States. Overall, the book presents a well-organized and concise case for Living Constitutionalism.