The increasingly popular concept of techological determinism – the premise that technology and in particular AI will determine and correct the path of society – is a dangerous delusion. Attempts to solve social problems with the help of technological tools, AI in particular, lead to algorithmic discrimination, interference with freedom of expression and democratic elections, a decreased trust in public authorities and the uncontrolled power of technological corporations. This exacerbates the digital divide, non-inclusivity and self-censorship, ultimately leading to non-participation.

Primary for the development of societies should remain the values that we share: in the first place, they are democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The system of fundamental values underlying the European legal order is based on this triad. That said, we are seeing a crisis of the triad: populist regimes gain more and more power, the Supreme Courts of some countries are losing independence, the world appears unable to stop even the outright breaches of human rights – the list goes on. Our core values are stricken with disease. Russia’s war against Ukraine is a horrendous symptom of the disease.

The pressure of technologies coupled with the fundamental values crisis – their lack of definition and the incapability of societies to make them work all bring us to a dead end. The only way out of the dead end appears to be honesty. We need to honestly face up to the fact that the value structure has deep inner contradictions aggravated by the intrusion of technologies. A theoretical model to overcome the contradictions is to be proposed. A two-stage approach could help here: (1) identifying the eroded elements of the value structure, (2) re-considering the values, working out a clean and clear system that will work in the immensely complex world of today. We should start with the rule of law as the most compromised element of the triad.

Roughly a year before the Court of justice of the European Union introduced the principle of non-regression in the landmark case Repubblika (April 2021), the EU Commission launched the renewed methodology for enlargement towards Western Balkan countries (February 2020), which, for the first time, introduced the principle of reversibility of the process of integration if countries suffer a backsliding of the fundamentals, a crucial part of which is, the rule of law. How these similar principles will unfold around the same phenomena by means of respectively case law and political steer remains still to be seen, and it surely pays-off to be observed. Placed in the context of a Copenhagen Commission as a narrative lately used more within the EU than outside of it, and a conditionality policy that struggles to instill values outside while fighting its own fatigue, this paper aims to non-exhaustively display the state of the debate on the attempts to enforce EU values of the rule of law around the reversibility / regression concept on the two sides of the EU border where the EU exercises its influence. While the ECJ judicial interpretation, case-law and interim measures, as well as the court dialogue has been pivotal for an ever-evolving EU understanding of the rule of law towards and with its Member States, the Western Balkans States receive this EU understanding by means of the conditionality process and political steer. The expected implications of the reversibility and/or regression principle on internal backsliders (Poland and Hungary) or external conditioned states (Western Balkans) will benefit from a view to the efficiency of the instruments deployed towards them, while looking at countries that represent a marriage of both worlds, such as Romania, which has experienced a short and reversed backsliding, while benefiting from the full package enforcing mechanisms of the EU (the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism and the court-dialogue by means of preliminary ruling).

The latest findings of a number of international monitoring tools in the area of the rule of law indicate that the rule of law in Slovakia has either been deteriorating in the past years or remains below the required regional average. Despite the numerous efforts taken by state authorities, particularly in the form of introducing legislative reforms or creating and adopting new policies, mounting scepticism remains on the progress achieved as concerns the state of the rule of law at the national level during last years.

For instance, while on the one hand, the European Commission in its latest 2022 Rule of Law Report took note of progress in some of the key areas as concerns preventing corruption, or the continued efforts to reform the justice system, it found the progress to be slow and in some cases limited. In addition, a number of areas, such as the enabling space for civil society orgainzations and their inclusiveness in law and policy-making have been highlighted as concerning. Increasing concerns and alarming alerts could potentially indicate a rule of law backsliding. Hence, regular monitoring of progress as well as highlighting alarming issues in the problematic areas remain esential.

Taking note of the findings of existing international monitoring tools, such as the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, EU Justice Scoreboard, Eurobarometer, or the European Rule of Law Mechanism, as well as recognizing their limits as regards their methodological approach towards measuring the rule of law, it is exactly with this aim that the rule of law tracker as a new monitoring tool has been created in Slovakia.

The paper will aim at presenting the rule of law tracker, focusing on exploring the journey from drafting the conceptual rule of law framework to the creation of a practical web-based tool for monitoring and measuring the state of the rule of law. In particular, the paper will highlight the theoretical background towards the understanding of the rule of law as presented in the methodological part of the rule of law tracker, as well as it will focus on highlighting advantages and disadvantages of measuring the state of the rule of law based on objective indicators.

The European Green Deal has prompted a reflection on the role sustainability concerns in EU antitrust policy. While oftentimes competition and environmental policies will be complementary, they may enter into conflict. The European Commission cannot compel undertakings to invest in green initiatives if there is a risk these might be punishable under by antitrust legislation. Yet it is paramount that the objectives of the European Green Deal are not exploited by the business community so as to circumvent the application of competition law and engage in self-serving anticompetitive conduct. This calls for a reflection on how to best to develop a ‘green’ antitrust policy that does not lose sight of the protection of competition and consumers.

This paper proposes a coherent analytical framework for balancing consumer harm and environmental benefits in anticompetitive agreements under EU competition law. When an environmental initiative falls foul of Article 101(1) TFEU, it may be redeemed provided that it generates countervailing efficiencies. The principal bone of contention in this regard is the requisite that consumers receive a ‘fair share’ of the benefits spawned by the arrangement. In the Commission’s view, those benefits must accrue either in the relevant market suffering the anticompetitive consequences of the conduct, or in a related market affecting the same group of consumers. Moreover, those consumers ought to be, on average, fully compensated for the harm actually or potentially suffered. This position raises doubts as to whether the societal benefits that might accrue from sustainability-enhancing agreements can be adequately considered, and has led commentators to talk about a ‘sustainability deficit’ in EU competition law. The paper considers recent proposals to address this issue and advocates for more, not less, competition law enforcement as a means to ensure adequate levels of consumer and environmental protection.

According to the evidence (e.g. Human Rights Watch Report, 2018), Global Value Chain Capitalism has not increased human rights protection and sustainability policy. GVCs have instead aggravated the accountability gap concerning corporate wrongdoings occurring in the field of human rights, good governance (anti-corruption) and environmental protection. Due the failure of private regulation instruments (e.g. chain-wide corporate code; other private ordering mechanisms), which was epitomized by a series of supply chain-related disasters («Rana Plaza», «Apple Scandal» and so forth), a novel form of regulation is raising. European Union, States and International institutions have reacted to the «injustice» embedded into supply chain capitalism by passing hard due diligence laws. In this sense, the current European Directive Proposal on Corporate Due Diligence Sustainability should be considered as the most ambitious project aiming at hold transnational corporations accountable within the GVCs legal spaces.

Scholars have analyzed the novel due diligence laws according to the statist (or «inter-states») orthodoxy: due diligence laws would sign the «coming back» of international or national regulation in tackling human rights abuses. As a consequence, criticisms have arisen which arguing (hard) due diligence laws are not able to address complex jurisdictional struggles and conflicts of law characterizing global value chains.

Against this backdrop, my work firstly contests the «re-nationalization» narrative by framing due diligence law into the «transnational law» paradigm. Moving from this challenging theoretical framework, the legal operability of European due diligence laws are explored in order to show how due diligence is legally appropriate to address the accountability gap associated with the assemblage of GVCs. Why is due diligence so able to? The paper will answer to this fundamental question by means of presenting due diligence as a sort of interface legal device.

Connecting legalities deriving from different legal orders (e.g. corporate ordering; transnational regulatory regimes and international ones), due diligence overcomes cross-normativity and reduces the jurisdictional anxieties. That explains why European Union sustainability policy within the supply chain spaces is relied upon due diligence approach. Accordingly, the paper will discuss how European due diligence laws are strategically designed to support EU as a Sustainability Global Ruler within the GVCs spaces («Bruxelles Effect»): the jurisdiction matrix according to which these regulations are conceived («territorial extension», «territorial extraterritoriality») and the «inter-legal» nature of due diligence make possible the European sustainability policy into the global chains.