Focusing on national public administrations in EU member states, this chapter explores the growing trend of public administrations in democratic states moving beyond their traditional administrative roles to engage in law-making, a shift influenced by the globalization of law. It introduces the concept of “administrative legislative policy” as a model for regulating various aspects of modern democracies, particularly those affected by globalization’s regulatory regimes. The chapter addresses two key perspectives: first, it outlines the reasons behind and methods of utilizing public administration as a primary tool for national law-making; second, it examines the implications of this model for democratic principles, especially participatory democracy. Analyzing the advantages, such as law-making efficiency, and the risks, such as threats to foundational democratic principles, posed by administrative legislative policy, this chapter proposes constitutional measures to mitigate these risks while preserving the efficiency gains of this law-making model.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) presents profound regulatory challenges, as emerging technologies often outpace traditional legislative frameworks. This article critically examines the European Union’s AI Act as a case study in regulating AI, highlighting the inherent tension between the law’s stability and the need for flexibility in governing innovation. The AI Act employs a risk-based approach, categorising AI systems according to their potential societal risks and introducing a multifaceted regulatory governance structure incorporating statutory, administrative, and outsourced legislative policy models. The study identifies key challenges arising from this fragmented regulatory approach, including legal uncertainty, inconsistencies, and concerns over political accountability. Through a comparative analysis of four legislative policy models—statutory, administrative, judicial, and outsourced—the article argues for an administrative model centred on a dedicated EU AI Agency. This proposed model aims to balance regulatory adaptability with legal certainty by consolidating expertise, ensuring procedural clarity, and strengthening accountability. By outlining a refined governance structure, this research offers a preliminary blueprint for a more coherent regulatory framework for emerging technologies, particularly AI.

The constitution holds unparalleled importance in a well-established democracy, serving as the foremost legal, political, and social document that molds the life of the entire national community. Beyond structuring the fundamental components of a state, constitutions also articulate the core values guiding both public and private actors. However, upon closer examination of realities, the idealized concept of constitutions reveals a divergence in many contemporary democracies, including Sweden. Despite aspiring to the ideal-typical model, Sweden showcases a divergence in its constitutional landscape. Certain constitutional documents in the Scandinavian country are deemed 'fully constitutional,' providing a solid and stable legal foundation acknowledged by both legal and political actors to shape and limit their work. On the contrary, substantial portions of Sweden's constitutional charters appear less stable, lacking essential support within the legal discourse of the nation. This work aims to present the varying perception and utilization of constitutional charters in Sweden, exploring the factors contributing to their "political"role rather than a purely legal one in the national discourse. Additionally, it highlights recent shifts in these factors, suggesting emerging tendencies that may guide major legal actors in Sweden toward a more inherently 'legal' vision of the constitution as a fundamental framework for all legal and political discourse.

Looking at two of the key paradigms of the post-Cold War era–national sovereignty, and human rights – this book examines the possibilities for their reconciliation from a global perspective. The real or imagined fear of a flood of immigrants has caused and fuelled the surge of an amalgam of populist political forces, anti-immigrant movements, and exclusionist nationalism in many developed countries. In the last decade, we have witnessed the emergence of two phenomena in the political and legal spheres. On the one hand, there are liberal globalists asking for respect and the protection of the basic human rights of migrants and asylum seekers and arguing for their civic and social integration into host societies. On the other hand, there are growing calls for a tougher stance on immigration, and powerful populist politicians and governments have emerged in many developed countries. How can the idea of universal human rights survive exclusionist nationalism that uses a populist, unscrupulous approach to its advantage? The contributors to this book explore the meaning of, and possible solutions to, this dilemma using a wide range of approaches and seek appropriate ways of dealing with these normative predicaments shared by many developed societies. Scholars and students of human rights, migration, nationalism and multiculturalism will find this a very valuable resource.

his book aims to confront, discuss, and clarify the structural antinomy extant in the legal discourse between the state and the state’s obligation to protect human rights. During the ‘golden age’ of the nation state, state sovereignty was considered as the final and decisive goal according to which and for which laws that superseded the movements of human beings across national borders were created. Today, since the outset of a post-national world, the state apparatus and its interests can still be regarded as key figures and criteria for migration regulation, albeit we believe that these interests should always be understood as means to reach the higher goal of the realisation of human rights. By investigating these state-rights problematic relations from a multidisciplinary perspective, the authors suggest three major areas where the law and its actors may ‘re-think’ the complex relation between state sovereignty and individuals’ rights to move from one country to another. First, revising and re-adapting the terminology of the legal and political discourses surrounding the phenomenon of migration, in particular when it comes to its basic components, is warranted. Second, another group of authors aspire to give traction to structural changes in the approach used to tackle legal issues raised by migration in relation to the sovereignty of the state. Third and finally, the book generally boosts the setting up of individuals and their rights at the centre of the legal discourse about migrants and state sovereignty.