This article explores Turkey’s exclusion from enlargement scenarios in European political discourse in the new geopolitical era, which imposes important external pressures on European integration. It utilises the concept of “Geopolitical Othering,” which concerns the discursive constructions of the European identity through boundary-drawing practices that portray the Other as a threat to European security and stability. By doing so, the article aims to complement recent studies on Turkey’s growing role as a third country rather than an enlargement candidate, while clarifying another facet of the complexities in EU–Turkey relations, which extend beyond the persistent normative obstacles to Turkish accession. The article illustrates its theoretical arguments with two case studies on EU–Turkey relations, focusing on the 2016 EU–Turkey Statement on irregular migration and the 2018–2020 Eastern Mediterranean Crisis. It demonstrates how Turkey’s specific foreign policy choices over the past decade, including certain cooperative arrangements with the EU, paired with its geopolitical rivalries with the Union, have caused the EU to associate Turkey with certain existential threats. This perception, in turn, has contributed to Turkey’s discursive dissociation from the EU enlargement process, especially during the last Commission term, which coincided with the intensification of a geopoliticised identity discourse within the EU.

Harmonised standards are the cornerstone of efficient EU AI Act compliance. This paper presents one of the first systematic analyses of European technical and soon to be harmonised standardisation for organisations providing AI systems. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with twenty-three leading European organisations developing AI applications across different sectors, such as Mistral and Helsing, and providing transparency regarding the status quo of draft standards, it examines how companies, especially start-ups and SMEs, are dealing with the contemplated standardisation under the EU AI Act and sectoral standardisation. Industry sectors covered include mobility, finance, manufacturing, healthcare, as well as defense and legal tech. Key challenges identified comprise an insufficient effective implementation period of likely less than 6 months compared to at least 12 months actually required for around thirty (partially referenced) technical standards, an imbalance of participation and influence in standardisation committees, double regulation and technical implementation hurdles as well as significant annual costs for harmonised standards compliance. Technical standards are currently reshaping global AI competition and will have a massive influence on the AI landscape as market entry barriers, particularly on start-ups. Hence, the paper offers policy recommendations based on the revealed challenges for AI providers.

After an introduction to the notions of cybersecurity and cybersecurity-related risks, this preface introduces four collected contributions on challenges and perspectives of EU cybersecurity policies in cyber-physical ecosystem.

Our special issue examines the regulation and practice of constitutional risk management in the V(isegrád)-4 countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia). Unfortunately, the treatment of the COVID-19 pandemic made this enterprise relevant, as all four countries had to face a similar health emergency. This article presents the most important experiences and trends in the constitutional crisis management of the four countries, identifying the challenges that the constitutional emergency regulatory regimes have encountered so far. Our paper argues that despite the basically similar constitutional frameworks, these countries typically handled the crisis in a different way, and in the process many constitutional problems arose for which there was no clear or uniform solution. Since the purpose of the international comparative research that is the basis of our special issue was to examine the emergency constitution of these four countries in general (since it will have to be applied to possible later, other types of emergencies), in the last chapter of the article we examine the possibilities of a proposition that represents a novelty in the constitutional discourse on emergency situations: this is an option for the convergence of emergency constitutions.

Global discussions around the risks, benefits and governance of solar radiation modification (SRM) in the climate change response portfolio are accelerating, but the topic remains nascent in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). In 2023, a US start-up (Make Sunsets) performed a small-scale, non-research deployment of SRM in Baja California, Mexico, without prior permission or community engagement. Their actions prompted Mexico to announce its intention to ban SRM experimentation, underscoring the need for governance to prevent irresponsible practices that could discredit legitimate research. We perform an empirical and ethical analysis of the landscape of academic discussions and media coverage on SRM in the LAC region, focusing on the Make Sunset case. Our analysis leads us to three conclusions: first, a lack of regulations in LAC that fosters mistrust, fuels perceptions of neo-colonialism and restricts potentially valuable and responsible research; second, we argue that the theatrical Make Sunsets case is not ethically justified in light of the diversity of risks associated with it; third, we offer foundational, participatory recommendations to promote effective, transparent and sustainable governance of SRM, including LAC in global conversations.

Solar radiation modification (SRM) presents important challenges to risk regulation and governance, arising from the array of multiple risks that SRM may influence. SRM would not simply reverse climate change, but could pose further ancillary impacts, depending on the method of SRM, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB), or a space-based planetary sunshade system (PSS). We identify multiple risks that SRM may influence, both biophysical and sociopolitical, to be compared to the multiple risks that may be affected by greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and climate adaptation. This multi-risk framework helps analysts and decision makers identify, evaluate, and compare multiple risks holistically; helps identify affected groups to overcome problems of disregard and omitted voice; helps compare policy options and map the array of risks to corresponding (or missing) governance mechanisms; and seeks risk-superior policies that would reduce multiple risks in concert. We then examine governance frameworks: uncoordinated, coordinated and comprehensive. We suggest two key mechanisms that can help build up from uncoordinated toward more coordinated or even comprehensive approaches, and that can gain support from SRM advocates, observers and critics alike: a series of international assessments of SRM, and a transparent international monitoring system for SRM.

Research into solar radiation modification (SRM) offers tentative hope of averting some of the risks of otherwise unavoidable climate change. Yet such technologies come with novel risks. Risk–risk, or risk trade-off analysis has been proposed as a governance tool to evaluate the desirability of development of such potential climate interventions, but most references to such analysis appear primarily as rhetorical efforts to argue for continued SRM research. A detailed review of the leading methodological proposal reveals serious practical and ethical shortcomings arising in both the framing and current methodologies of risk-risk analysis. Methodological inconsistencies and asymmetries are identified, and related to underlying political and ideological presumptions rooted in modernist technocratic social imaginaries. The shortcomings mean ethical questions are not resolved, interaction effects between possible responses are downplayed and other potential exceptional responses ignored. Rather than identifying possible risk-superior pathways, in this case risk-tradeoff analysis – embedded in a technocratic risk management repertoire – seems likely to encourage excessive reliance on SRM. While methodological improvements could be made to risk–risk analysis approaches, effective future governance urgently needs a novel, genuinely precautionary, risk management repertoire that would help humanity live with uncertainty, support meaningful action to avoid worst-case outcomes, and reflect an ethics of care.

One of the goals of this paper is to define the most important concepts for the comparative study of the constitutional risk management of the V4 countries. For this purpose, first, it considers the theoretical difficulties of conceptualising emergencies, especially focussing on what kind of response can be given to the widespread view that considers emergencies as a kind of legal “black hole” due to their unpredictability. Then a general definition of “emergency” is discussed which is broad and flexible enough to serve as a basis not only for a comparative study but also for the constitutional discourse of emergencies. Constitutional crisis management as a core concept for such an undertaking is also canvassed. After defining the basic concepts essential for evaluation and comparison, the article outlines the general types of emergency regulatory regimes. The development of effective regulatory systems for emergencies also has to face certain problems that every constitutional polity must solve. Finally, the paper summarises assessment criteria necessary for the evaluation and a comparison of the emergency constitutions of different countries.

The paper outlines Czech constitutional law and the development of emergency law. Initially, the legislature did not expect emergencies to occur, perhaps due to the idealistic optimism associated with the general atmosphere of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 and the “End of History” thesis. As a result, emergencies were not regulated by Czech law in the 1990s. This changed after the great floods at the end of the 1990s, when “history returned,” and the need for some special rules for emergencies became clear. The first decades of this century showed that Czech emergency law worked well for short-term natural disasters. The game-changer came in 2020, with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for a long-term state of emergency. It soon became clear that the rules that worked for floods and other disasters did not work for long-term global pandemics. In other words, the legal system was not prepared for a situation in which emergencies were the rule rather than the exception. Legislators were unable to prepare a long-term legislative response to fill this gap. The memory of COVID-19 is fading fast, and there are no plans to reform the relevant legislation. Accordingly, any new pandemic or similar event will lead to the same problems that the Czech legal system had to deal with from 2020 to 2022.

The concept of identifiability remains a foundational yet contentious criterion in European Union (EU) data protection law. Similarly, anonymisation has sparked intense debate.

This paper examines recent developments that have shaped the EU’s approaches to identifiability and anonymisation, including trends in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law, national supervisory authority (SA) assessments of anonymisation processes, and the recent European Data Protection Board (EDPB) Opinion 28/2024 addressing the anonymity of artificial intelligence models and EDPB Guidelines 01/2025 on pseudonymisation.

The paper explores how the balance between over-inclusiveness and under-inclusiveness is being calibrated, suggesting the emergence of a functional definition of personal data in CJEU case law. It underscores the importance of the burden of proof in evaluating anonymisation processes, as confirmed by national SA assessments. Finally, it highlights how to ensure consistency between the GDPR and data sharing mandates stemming from the new generation of EU data regulations.

This article explores whether Russia’s war against Ukraine represents a geopolitical turning point for the European Union’s enlargement policy. By applying the concepts of historical institutionalism and turning points, the study examines a potential shift in EU priorities from normative to geopolitical considerations. Through a bibliometric analysis of academic literature and a quantitative analysis of progress reports from 2013 to 2023, the findings reveal that while the EU has increasingly incorporated geopolitical factors into its enlargement strategy, these changes do not yet constitute a definitive turning point.

Technology neutrality is a guiding principle of the European Union’s technology regulation, stating that legislation should not favour or discriminate against any particular technology, but rather focus on the effects or functions of technologies broadly. This article examines the principle as a way to future-proof regulation by allowing legislation to adapt to the changes in technology over time. Effects of technology neutrality have not been sufficiently analysed in the novel context of regulation of artificial intelligence, which arguably poses more significant societal risks than telecommunications, where the principle first evolved. To address this gap in research, this article analyses whether the technology neutral nature of the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) renders it more future-proof. It identifies three main factors that affect future-proofness of the AI Act in light of technology neutrality: definition of AI, the risk-based approach and its enforcement mechanisms. The findings indicate that the AI Act’s deviations from technology neutrality, including specific provisions for general-purpose AI models significantly improved its scope and future-proofness. Thus, technology neutrality and future-proof regulation should not be treated synonymously, and strict adherence to neutrality may even obscure the political choices and democratic agency essential for AI regulation.

This article contributes to understanding how inexperience and lack of commitment to evidence-based decision making may undermine an otherwise broadly functional framework for constitutional risk management. As part of a focus on the “Visegrád Four” countries, it also helps understand regional dynamics since the COVID-19 pandemic as the most visible emergency after 1989. The article starts with a brief elucidation of the political contexts that have shaped Slovakia’s constitutional risk management, focusing on the developments from 2020 through early 2025. An analysis of mechanisms of emergency risk management in the constitutional framework follows, that helps identify key state authorities attempting to make decisions under serious time pressures. The implementation of the constitutional framework during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the creation of new avenues for restricting rights and bolstering executive competence, with the formally powerful constitutional review mechanisms struggling to challenge these decisions. Ultimately, political context emerges as key: Slovakia entered the COVID-19 pandemic with a governing coalition enjoying constitutional majority and an aura of reform and hope. The emergency mismanagement not only facilitated the breakup of this coalition and early elections, but also a rise in emergency conspiracies openly hostile to institutions and actors committed to evidence-based decision making.

Over the past decade the European Union (EU) has transformed sustainability into a dense matrix of legally binding ESG reporting obligations for companies. Compliance increasingly hinges on firms’ ability to collect and verify thousands of datapoints deep into global supply chains – an exercise that is costly, error-prone and may yield non-comparable results. (Semi-)centralised ESG data-sharing arrangements – shared hubs where suppliers post one or more verified sets of sustainability figures that all their customers can reuse – can restore some efficiency by eliminating duplicate requests and supplying standardised, audit-ready inputs, but this amplifies competition-law risk. Drawing on competition law and policy and recent Dutch banking practice, the paper devises a set of legal “firewalls” and access rules that neutralise collusive potential resulting from the information exchange that takes place while safeguarding smaller market players from exclusion. These safeguards are essential to ensure that ESG data collaboration supports – not hinders – the EU’s Twin Transition towards a green and digital economy.

The aim of this note is to shed some light on the “agreement in principle” concluded on 6 December in the light of the division of competences between the different EU institutions and the Member States. Whilst classification as an “agreement in principle” might initially appear to be primarily procedural in nature, the implications of its conclusion by the EU go beyond merely procedural issues. In effect, it touches on sensitive issues concerning the institutional balance between the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Member States both within current negotiations and also in relation to the conclusion of a treaty with the MERCOSUR states. The possibility of splitting the trade limb from the political limb of a forthcoming association agreement is also addressed.

This article examines the democratic control over the European Union’s unilateral trade policy. It takes as a starting point how crises like COVID-19 and geopolitical tensions have led to the “weaponisation” of trade, making global commerce unpredictable. The EU has responded by modernising its trade instruments, such as anti-dumping measures and new regulations like the Anti-Coercion Instrument. However, these instruments often allow the European Commission to act without parliamentary approval, challenging democratic accountability. The article questions whether a democratic, yet effective, unilateral trade policy is possible for the EU. It reviews the processes behind the EU’s unilateral trade policy, critiques current legitimacy mechanisms and proposes reforms to enhance democratic oversight. Ultimately, it argues that a degree of democratisation of trade policy is feasible without Treaty changes, contributing to broader discussions on maintaining democratic control over executive actions in crises.

This article examines the concept of materiality in sustainability reporting, tracing its development from financial materiality to the adoption of double materiality under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). It explores the distinction between financial and impact materiality, highlighting the regulatory and ideological shifts that have shaped their integration. The discussion also includes the challenges companies face in implementing double materiality, such as data collection complexities, methodological inconsistencies, and the risks of selective disclosure. Additionally, the article contains an analysis of potential solutions, including additional regulatory guidance, independent oversight, and best practices for balancing transparency with strategic reporting. Ultimately, the author argues that double materiality represents a significant transformation in corporate governance, and that there exists concrete measures to be taken by both companies and regulators to improve the application of the CSRD.

The article examines the European Union’s neutrality toward Kosovo’s statehood and its influence on the EU’s enlargement process and engagement strategy in view of internal divisions among the EU Member States over Kosovo’s recognition. It assesses how the EU’s mantra of neutrality shapes the dimensions of EU actorness, balancing differences among EU Member States while ensuring Kosovo’s inclusion in the EU enlargement process. Next, the article explores how the EU engages with Kosovo despite the lack of unanimous recognition of Kosovo’s statehood from five EU Member States, arguing that neutrality unfolds both as a legitimising principle and an authorisation mechanism. Our hypothesis is that neutrality has enabled Kosovo’s incremental involvement in the enlargement process without undermining the EU’s internal cohesion. Drawing on three illustrative examples, notably, the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, the Stabilisation and Association Agreement and the CJEU’s interpretation of EU-Kosovo SAA Agreement, the article demonstrates the variations of the concept of neutrality and its impact in maintaining Kosovo’s attachment to enlargement policy. The findings suggest that neutrality has been instrumental in authorising the EU missions in Kosovo and in sustaining Kosovo’s European trajectory.

The green transition promoted by the European Green Deal (EGD) is not simply a matter of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. This macro-objective enshrined in European Climate Law (ECL) is complemented by the objectives of zero pollution and ecological resilience. These three intertwined objectives further manifest themselves in a myriad of sub-objectives, which are to be achieved through an array of interconnected regulatory and financial measures falling with the scope of energy, industrial, transport, external trade, agricultural and environmental policies. The genius of the EGD reform lies precisely in the fact that it articulates a number of complementary objectives whilst also operating within the framework of several EU policies. The aim of this article is to assess whether the 160 legislative instruments implementing the EGD amount to greenwashing of EU economic policies or whether they are in actual fact testament to a paradigm shift. This issue is all the more topical now that several simplification proposals have been proposed by the European Commission.

Exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals is linked to negative health impacts, including non-communicable diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases and cancer. This disease burden compromises consumer safety and costs the European Union an estimated €163 billion per year. Given these stakes, the importance of effectively regulating EDCs in food is paramount. Yet regulators face difficult challenges: scientific uncertainty, the ubiquity of EDCs in food products, and pressure from economic and political interests all complicate legislative responses. From a risk regulation perspective, the core problem is how to protect public health from EDC risks in food amidst these uncertainties and constraints. This paper addresses the problem by examining the current EU regulatory framework for managing EDCs in the food supply chain, identifying gaps and weaknesses, and proposing improvements to better safeguard public health. From this risk regulation perspective, the paper highlights the benefits of ensuring regulatory action keeps pace with scientific evidence, leveraging the General Food Law Regulation for a comprehensive approach to EDCs, and developing sector-specific EDC regulation across the food supply chain.