Interviewed by: Rachel Sleiman ’23, Valerie Brankovic ’23, & Emma Cordes ’25 Written by: Rachel Sleiman ’23 In October 2022, […]

Interviewed by: Rachel Sleiman ’23, Valerie Brankovic ’23, & Emma Cordes ’25 Written by: Rachel Sleiman ’23 In October 2022, […]
By Gábor Halmai.
The recent deviations from the shared values of constitutionalism towards a kind of “populist, illiberal constitutionalism” in East-Central Europe raise the theoretical questions: are populism and illiberalism what the leaders of these backsliding states proud of, reconcilable with constitutionalism? I shall concentrate on a particular version of populism, which is nationalist and illiberal, and mainly present in Hungary and Poland, and in other countries of the region. Most are also members of the European Union, a valued community based on liberal democratic constitutionalism. The arguments set forth below about East-Central European populist constitutionalism in this paper do not necessarily apply to other parts of Europe (Greece and Spain), Latin-America (Bolivia), or the US, where populism has a different character, and its relationship to constitutionalism is distinct from the Hungarian or the Polish variant. […]
By Mel Marquis.
Bundling practices involving patents are fairly common, but in the EU, it can potentially raise competition law concerns. This short comment provides an overview of how EU law may apply in this context. […]
By Huanxin Luo.
Due to the number of claimants and the complexity of claims, the South China Sea dispute is deemed as the “mother of all territorial disputes”. In 2013, the Philippines unilaterally filed an arbitration case, requesting the tribunal to adjudge her disputes with China concerning the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Philippines’ submissions were detailed about the legitimacy of China’s historic rights claim based on the “nine-dash line”; the status and maritime entitlements of relevant features in the Nanshan Islands. On July 12, 2016, the tribunal rendered its final award, which mostly backed the Philippines’ position. Immediately, the Chinese government reaffirmed her objection, insisting the award is null and void for the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over any of the claims made by the Philippines. […]