Acceso usuarios
Alan Dashwood
It was kind of the present Editors of European Law Review to invite me back to the editorial spot that I occupied for the first time almost exactly 40 years ago, in November 1975. I shall take advantage of the opportunity to recall the early days of the Review and to celebrate its later success. I used to take pride in writing editorials that were short and to the point, and am glad that tradition has been continued. I shall do my best to respect it.
That November 1975 editorial was written with a touch of nervousness. Starting a new publication, when there were established "competitors" in the same, then somewhat specialised field, could be seen as risky. However, I had the good fortune to enjoy the backing of publishers who were willing to give the journal time to prove itself. I also had a supportive Editorial Board and, to provide up-to-date reporting and analysis, a team of clever and industrious correspondents, some of whom would go on to become household names in the academic world and in European institutions. Our ambition was for the Review to be recognised as a natural outlet for the best work by the best scholars of European law (in a broad sense), whatever their provenance; and the "Classics of the First 40 Years", which are being re-published in the present Anniversary Volume, show that this was already achieved at quite an early date.
At the same time, we set ourselves two more specific tasks, as I explained in my November 1975 editorial:
"In the first place, special attention will be given to the problems of integrating the United Kingdom into the Communities and to the effects of Community membership on our law. It would be wrong to interpret this as parochialism: it is, rather, an indication that the task of becoming good Europeans is taken very seriously ...
Secondly, while preserving the highest academic standards, the Review will aim to cater for the needs, in particular, of those involved in the practice and administration of Community law. Such needs are real, precisely because the functioning of the Communities is not a matter of high politics but of everyday life; Community law touches directly upon the interests of undertakings and of individuals, and the protection which it provides must be made as accessible to Farmer George as it was to the widow Leonesio. The Review will have proved its worth if it is able to contribute towards establishing (and maintaining) the law of the European Communities as a familiar part of the stock-in-trade of judges, legal practitioners and administrators".
The first of those tasks has long been accomplished. It was still a question in 1975 whether the United Kingdom, with its common law tradition, would integrate comfortably into a legal order believed to be redolent with civil law concepts and principles. However, a positive answer was swift in coming. It is a justifiable boast that in no other Member State have the various branches of the legal profession - judiciary, legal practitioners and university law schools - responded better to the challenges and opportunities of accession to the EU. This may have been due in part, as I have suggested before, to an unexpected cultural affinity: the fact that so much of EU law is judge-made means that those who have mastered the techniques of the common law are likely to feel at home in it. Nevertheless, a significant educational effort was needed, in which European Law Review played its part.
The other, and closely related, task was that of satisfying the requirements of legal practitioners. The main vehicle for providing this practical service was the "Current Survey", covering recent developments in case law, legislation and policy formation. It was divided into three sections: one, normally the bulkiest, relating to the European Communities, and the others, respectively, to relevant developments in the law of the Member States and to the human rights jurisprudence and other activities of the Council of Europe. A regular feature of the Current Survey was a "Competition Checklist", which reported on new legislation and on Commission Decisions and Court of Justice rulings in the area of competition. Producing material for the Current Survey was the job of the correspondents I have referred to. Having an "in-house" team of commentators, reinforced by contributors on specialised subject-matter, made European Law Review a reliable source of topical information and analysis for those needing to keep up with a legal order that was changing and growing rapidly, long before the age of the internet. It was, I believe, more than anything the Current Survey that enabled the Review to carve out a niche for itself and build up its readership. However, a time comes when even the best ideas are seen to have had their day. Though I was sad when the Current Survey gave way to what is now the section of the Review entitled "Analysis and Reflections", that was evidently the right decision; partly because some areas of EU law, like competition, have grown so much that they can only be adequately catered for by specialised publications; but mainly because there are now much faster means than a bimonthly periodical to provide the well informed up-dating service that practitioners need. The important thing is that healthy balance has been maintained in the Review between reflective theoretical pieces exploring the deep structure of the legal order, and doctrinal analysis of the intricacies of new legislation and case law, of more immediate practical significance perhaps, but no less intellectually rigorous.
So, 40 years on, European Law Review continues to flourish. I pay homage for this, above all, to my successors in the editorial chair - Robin White, Tony Arnull, Damian Chalmers, Niamh Nic Shuibhne and currently Panos Koutrakos and Jukka Snell; also to the distinguished individuals comprising the Editorial Board, who have come and gone over the years, for their sound and candid advice; and, last but far from least, to the learned contributors who have entrusted their work to the Review and I am confident will continue doing so.
I cannot end without noting an irony. The launching of European Law Review was not, of course, unconnected with the outcome of the June 1975 referendum, when some two-thirds of the electorate voted in favour of the United Kingdom's remaining within the then Communities. Had the result gone the other way, clearly there would have been no journal.
When I wrote my November 1975 editorial, I firmly believed that the issue of Community membership had been settled for the United Kingdom once and for all. Now, in this 40th anniversary year of the Review, the country faces the prospect of another in/out vote by the end of 2017 at the latest. The very first article we published, by Dr R. E. M. Irving of the Department of Politics at Edinburgh University, was entitled, "The United Kingdom Referendum, June 1975". It repays re-reading, especially the analysis of the political background, which uncannily presents a mirror image of the main Parties' positions today. Much else is different, however. In particular, this time "fundamental re-negotiation" needs to produce serious results that will enable the Prime Minister to campaign in favour of staying in the Union; though it must be emphasised on every possible occasion that the referendum will not be about how well he has done, but on the much more serious question of where the future of the United Kingdom lies. The stakes are high, because, if a majority in Scotland voted in favour of remaining, while a majority in the rest of the country voted to leave, that would almost certainly trigger demands for a further referendum, which could mean the end of the United Kingdom. One thing, however, that would probably survive is European Law Review, since it has made itself indispensable.
