Globalization is commonly cited as an important factor in theorising legal phenomena in the contemporary world. Although many legal disciplines have sought to adapt their theories to globalization, progress has been comparatively modest within contemporary analytical jurisprudence. This paper aims to offer a survey of recent scholarship on legal theory and globalization and suggests various ways in which these writings are relevant to the project of jurisprudence. This paper argues, more specifically, that the dominant interpretation of globalization frames it as a particular form of legal pluralism. The resulting concept – global legal pluralism – comes in two broad varieties, depending on whether it emphasizes normative or institutional pluralism. This paper goes on to argue that these concepts coincide with two central themes of jurisprudence, namely its concern with normativity and institutionality. Finally, this paper reflects on the feasibility of constructing a ‘general’ and ‘descriptive’ jurisprudence in light of globalization.

The ongoing process of Europeanization for promoting cross-border transactions and conferring better protection for consumers and small businesses has had its impact all over Europe. It represents a new step towards a harmonized set of legal rules to govern cross-border transactions in the field of contract law. So what is its exact scope? Who will benefit from it? What are its risks? What is its methodology? Does it represent a codification of common law rules? What will be its impact especially on common law countries such as the United Kingdom? The effectiveness of Europeanization depends almost entirely on the correct implementation into national law of the various directives; every member state is obliged to fully implement a harmonized measure into its domestic laws. This is accomplished by ensuring that (1) the relevant legal framework meets the requirements of the harmonized measure and (2) the application of the domestic rules giving effect to a harmonizing measure does not undermine the effectiveness of the European measure. English contract law is largely an uncodified law. Accordingly, the approach taken and the methods used by this jurisdiction to implement European directives into its national laws with the aim of harmonization are different. How did the English courts interpret legislations that implement EU legislations? Will Europeanization affect the deep-rooted principles and doctrines of English contract law (issues of commercial agency), good faith in pre-contractual obligations, unfair contract terms and specific performance? Finally, what could be the clash between European contract law, Rome I Regulations and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods? Could this optional instrument be an exclusive law to either national or international mandatory rules for consumers in member states? What will be the qualification for a genuine consent of consumers in cross-border contracts? Will it lead to the development of the internal market as envisaged by the Commission?

Maintenance law in European jurisdictions is in a state of constant transformation. Recent reforms, however, show some areas of major concern. In child maintenance law, particularly joint custody of the parents and an alternating residence of the child make the need for a better calculation of maintenance more apparent. The use of guidelines with tables and formulas is on the rise. In maintenance after divorce, the growing influence of the principle of self-sufficiency is leading to reductions of the maintenance payments made to former spouses. Enforcement of maintenance claims, the role of the State and the relationship with social security benefits remain difficult.

This introductory article sketches the problématique of this special issue on ‘Subsidiarity in the European Union and beyond’. It starts with a short historical overview of the origins, meanings and implementation of the subsidiarity principle within the EU. Subsequently, it problematizes the concept and application of subsidiarity in a multilevel governance context by examining two fundamental characteristics of this essentially contested concept that render it fascinating to study: its complexity and power-relevance. The relatively new concept of global subsidiarity is briefly discussed to situate the intra-EU discussion in a wider context. This introduction ends by discussing some of the findings of the special issue’s two substantial articles – that both deal with policy topics in which different competence regimes meet – in light of the subsidiarity problématique.

Since the early 1990s, the European Commission applies the State aid rules (part of European competition law) to the funding of national and subnational public broadcasters. This article analyzes to what extent discussions on the regulation and funding of public service broadcasting are determined by a conflictual notion of subsidiarity. Focusing on encounters between the European Commission on the one hand and Germany, the Netherlands and Flanders on the other hand, the article concludes that Member States and the European Commission focus more on competence divisions than on substantive discussions about the future of public service broadcasting. This is particularly regrettable as the digital age requires a thorough re-thinking of the role of public broadcasters in Western European democracies.

This article examines the impact of multi-level governance (MLG) on the democratic input into European Union (EU) trade policy under the Lisbon Treaty. Focusing on two recently concluded EU trade agreements, i.e. the multi-party agreement with Colombia and Peru and the association agreement with Central America, the article traces several dangers and risks that MLG entails for democratic accountability and participation, which are closely tied to the strong output-oriented nature of MLG and its emphasis on technical effi ciency. These dangers of MLG – the article argues – are not accidental, but are fi rmly rooted within an underlying hegemonic social-economic trend, characterised by an intentional (neo-liberal dominated) attempt to de-politise, and even de-democratise, European political policy-making.