Editorial: What the European Law Journal stands for; The ELJ's ecosystem; A call for ELJ Scientific Committee members; In this issue** In law as in life, there are exceptional people who cross your path, people who understand you and a situation in the blink of an eye, people who give disinterested but always thoughtful advices. To Loïc Azoulai, thank you. And since a journey is always multifaceted, thank you very much to Olivier Costa for his interdisciplinary and editorial eagle eye on this text, allowing me to improve it from a decentered standpoint.

This issue marks the renewal of the European Law Journal editorial line. At its heart, lies a questioning of both what purely doctrinal legal studies do fail to address and leave in the shadow of EU law and what – now mainstream – contextual legal studies do say and emphasise. It is an existential questioning of EU law, European legal scholarship and the ELJ itself or, more broadly speaking, of the meaning and purpose of European integration, with both theoretical and concrete roots.

From a conceptual standpoint, if law is a form of 3D social ordering, in terms of organisation of societal interactions (the formal axis) and more deeply in terms of ascribing, construing and reflecting the meaning of our lives (the substantial and axiological axes), living EU law 11 The expression ‘living law’ is used in its literal or plain meaning and does not refer specifically to Eugen Ehrlich's sociological jurisprudence (see. E. Ehrlich, Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law (Routledge, 2017)) or to any proponents of a sociological approach to law (see e.g. R. Cotterrell, Living Law: Studies in Legal and Social Theory (Routledge, 2017)). The aim is indeed to allow the reader to understand or conceptually translate this expression in her own theoretical frame of reference. forms the object of our scholarly endeavours. It ensues that the first objective of a “review of European law in context,” the ELJ's mission, cannot ‘merely’ consist in deciphering EU law through various theoretical or methodological approaches, be it economic, political, social, historical or philosophical. It does not mean that it is not key in enriching our understanding of the text(ure) of EU law, however, its ultimate contextualisation lies in the intimate connection(s) established between law and life. This and no other can avoid a bubble effect that would end up sucking the life out of law to the point of depriving it of its legitimacy and effectiveness. Law, after all, is a very human experience.

More concretely, the European Union seems to be at a crossroads. ‘Do or die’ would sum it up in all its eloquent crudeness. Pressured by the unstoppable course of an accelerating history and faced with multiple crises, the EU is summoned to spell out what it stands for. Defining European integration through action is the challenge of the 21^st century for a European union of the willing, whether one believes in it or thinks of it as the lesser of all evils.

European (legal) scholarship is thus also at a crossroads. It can continue to write the most beautiful swan songs about European disintegration by describing EU law in a purely doctrinal fashion or by explaining in a contextual fashion, and albeit with exquisite sophistication, the multiple endogenous and exogenous crises that have hit our European vessel while it is sinking. Alternately, it can decide to participate in a collective effort to craft European integration anew in order to tackle contemporary challenges. This is what guides the ELJ editorial line, this is the gap it hopes to contribute to filling, and this is what the ELJ resolutely stands for.

If contextualising EU law in life translates into the active participation in defining European integration through law, it requires first to reconnect with the pioneering spirit that characterised the beginnings of the European adventure, with the understanding that pioneering after all is not a phase but a (necessary) state of mind, even more so for those who do not wish to surrender to a paralysing “false fatalism”. 22 As explained by Philip Allott in Eutopia: New Philosophy and New Law for a Troubled World, (Edward Elgar, 2016), at 3–4: “false fatalism” finds it roots in “[o]ur perverse naturalising of the human world”. It “is a convenient way of transferring responsibility to something beyond our control, even if that something is nothing but us.”

Second, it means to keep the questioning acquis and inquisitive spirit inherent in a critical approach to law albeit one that goes beyond ‘mere’ deconstruction to reconstruct its object of study in all its post‐critical richness. 33 See L. de Sutter (ed.), Postcritique, (PUF, 2019). Spelling out the bases of a positive, “super‐critical” methodology which would focus its enquiry on “matters of concern” more than “matters of fact” (echoing in this a contextual review of law in life) see B. Latour, ‘Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’, (2004) 30 Critical Inquiry 225. Such an approach thus opens the floor to its (necessary) reformist counterpart. Indeed, taking conceptualisation seriously means shedding an original light on some puzzling issues while also providing an innovative framework in which to rethink problems and find new keys to solve them. (Re)constructive criticism is pivotal in ensuring a meaningful analysis of EU law, one that really makes sense of it, in life. Furthermore and after all, lawyers, whatever professional path they choose, are meant to provide legal answers to real‐life problems.

Right now, in our field, there is probably no larger and more pressing issue than the future of the European Union. To not actively engage with this debate would be tantamount to a self‐confinement in a decontextualised solipsistic world, as if adopting a critical distance towards their European object of study would immunise scholars from influencing its course or from questioning the impact of their own stance. It would be falling into the same bubble‐trap as legal‐dogmatic studies which the ELJ with its law‐in‐context approach precisely aimed to avoid. Lastly, and perhaps even more importantly, it would contribute, willingly or not, to conceding victories either to growing waves of ‘Euroscepticism‐philia’ framed in the dangerous illiberal narratives of a post‐truth world or to a European melancholia entrapped into a disillusioned Weltanschauung. If, nowadays, the relevance of European integration through law in tackling contemporary challenges is questioned, 44 L. van Middelaar, Alarums and Excursions: Improvising politics on the European stage, (Agenda Publishing, 2019). it might also be because lawyers themselves have left it in disarray. The editorial line of the ELJ is based on the conviction that integration through law, although neither an end in itself nor a panacea, represents one of the best means at our disposal to ensure a European, if not global, liberal and sustainable way of life. This is what the ELJ stands for.

Having thus redefined the main tenets of the ELJ and in order to adapt to the challenges of the 21^st century, the editorial focus aims to push further the contextualisation of EU law in space: taking stock of globalisation, tectonic geopolitical shifts and interconnections between international, European and national legal orders; in time: tackling topical issues, from e.g. climate change or migration to the digital revolution; and in methodology: enhancing interdisciplinarity and openness towards other professionals involved in shaping the European Union of tomorrow with due respect for everyone's unique standpoint and original perspective. In sum, the ELJ aims to build bridges to create unity in diversity reflecting and strengthening the heart of European integration.

中文翻译：

---

《欧洲法律杂志》代表什么

社论：《欧洲法律杂志》的意思；的ELJ的生态系统; 呼吁ELJ科学委员会成员；本期**在法律上和生活中一样，有一些杰出的人穿越你的道路，有了解你的人和眨眼间的情况，有的人给出无私而又周到的建议。感谢LoïcAzoulai，谢谢。而且由于旅程总是多方面的，非常感谢奥利维尔·科斯塔（Olivier Costa）对这本书的跨学科和编辑的鹰眼，让我从偏心的角度来改进它。

本期标志着《欧洲法律杂志》编辑专栏的更新。从本质上讲，这是一个问题，即对纯粹的法学研究没有解决并留在欧盟法律的阴影下以及上下文法研究（现在是主流）的说法和重点都提出了质疑。这是对欧盟法律，欧洲法律学术和ELJ本身，或更广义地说，对欧洲一体化的意义和目的的既存质疑，具有理论和具体根源。

从概念的角度来看，如果法律是3D社会秩序的一种形式，那么就社会互动的组织（形式轴）而言，更深层次地是在赋予，解释和反映我们生活的意义方面（实质和价值论轴） ，符合欧盟法律11 “活着的法律”一词的字面含义或原义使用，并不专门指Eugen Ehrlich的社会学法学（见E. Ehrlich，《法律社会学基本原理》（Routledge，2017年））或一种法律的社会学方法（例如，参见R. Cotterrell，《生存法：法律与社会理论研究》（Routledge，2017年））。目的的确是允许读者在她自己的理论参考框架中理解或概念性地表达该表达。构成我们学术努力的目标。因此，“在上下文中审查欧洲法律”的首要目标，即ELJ的使命，不能“仅仅”在于通过各种理论或方法论方法来解读欧盟法律，无论是经济，政治，社会，历史还是哲学上的。这并不意味着它不是丰富我们对欧盟法律文本的理解的关键，但是，其最终的语境化在于法律与生活之间建立的紧密联系。这一切都无法避免泡沫效应，最终将使生命丧失法律效力，以至于丧失生命的合法性和效力。毕竟，法律是一种非常人性的经验。

更具体地说，欧洲联盟似乎正处于十字路口。“要么死，要么死”将其所有雄辩的粗俗性概括起来。在不断加速的历史进程中，面对多重危机，欧盟被召唤以阐明其立场。通过行动定义欧洲一体化是21的挑战，^ST为愿意的欧盟世纪，一个人是否在它认为还是它认为是万恶之轻。

因此，欧洲（法律）奖学金也处于十字路口。它可以继续以纯理论性的方式描述欧盟法律，或通过上下文解释来继续写出关于欧洲解体的最美丽的天鹅之歌，尽管其精致的技巧也使我们的欧洲船只遭受了许多内源性和外源性危机的打击。正在下沉。或者，它可以决定参加集体努力，重新打造欧洲一体化，以应对当代挑战。这就是指导ELJ编辑路线的原因，这是它希望为填补空白做出的努力，这就是ELJ坚决主张的立场。

如果将生活中的欧盟法律环境化转化为通过法律积极参与定义欧洲一体化，那么它首先需要重新与以欧洲冒险的开始为特征的开拓精神联系在一起，但要理解，开拓毕竟不是一个阶段，而是（必要的心态，对于那些不想屈服于瘫痪的“假宿命论”的人而言更是如此。2个2正如菲利普·阿洛特（Philip Allott）在《乌托邦：动荡世界的新哲学和新法律》（爱德华·埃尔加，2016年）第3至4页中所述：“错误宿命论”发现其根源是“人类世界的不自然归化” ”。“这是一种将责任转移到我们无法控制的事物的便捷方法，即使那只是我们自己。”

其次，这意味着保持批判性法律方法中固有的质疑性和探究精神，尽管这种方法超越了“单纯的”解构，而是以其批判后的丰富性重构了其研究对象。33见L.de Sutter（编），后批评，（PUF，2019）。阐明积极，“超临界”方法论的基础，这种方法将其关注点更多地集中在“关注的问题”上，而不是“事实的问题”（在此回荡对生活法律的上下文回顾），请参见B. Latour，“为什么批判用尽了？从事实到关注的问题，（2004）30关键查询225。因此，这种方法为它的（必要的）改革派对手打开了地板。确实，认真对待概念化意味着在一些令人困惑的问题上独占original头，同时还提供了一个创新的框架，可以在其中重新思考问题并找到解决问题的新钥匙。（再）建设性批评对于确保对生活中的欧盟法律进行有意义的分析至关重要，这一分析确实是有意义的。此外，毕竟，律师无论他们选择哪种专业途径，都旨在为现实生活中的问题提供法律解答。

目前，在我们领域，可能没有比欧盟的未来更大，更紧迫的问题了。不积极参与这场辩论就等于在脱上下文的唯我论世界中自我约束，好像对欧洲研究对象采取关键距离将使学者免于影响其研究进程或质疑自己立场的影响。它将与ELJ陷入法律教义研究一样的困境旨在避免这种情况的基于上下文的方法。最后，也许甚至更重要的是，它会（无论有意或无意）有助于承认胜利，这是在后真相世界的危险的自由叙事中构筑的“欧洲怀疑论”的热潮，或者是陷入幻想破灭的欧洲忧郁症患者的胜利。Weltanschauung。如今，如果有人质疑欧洲通过法律进行一体化对解决当代挑战的意义，[4]4 L.van Middelaar，《大事与郊游：改善欧洲舞台上的政治》（议程议程，2019年）。这也可能是因为律师们自己把它弄得一团糟。ELJ的社论是基于这样的信念，即通过法律进行融合，尽管它本身既不是目的，也不是万能的灵丹妙药，但它代表了我们可用来确保欧洲（即使不是全球），自由和可持续的生活方式的最佳手段之一。 。这就是ELJ所代表的。

因此具有重新定义的主要原则ELJ，为了适应21的挑战^ST世纪，编辑重点旨在进一步推动欧盟法律在空间中的语境化：全球化的进行总结，国际之间构造地缘政治的变化和互连，欧洲和国家法律命令；及时：解决诸如气候变化或移民到数字革命等主题问题；在方法论上：在尊重每个人的独特立场和原始观点的前提下，加强对跨学科和开放性的关注，这些专业人员参与塑造明天的欧洲联盟。总而言之，ELJ 旨在建立桥梁，以在多样性中建立统一，从而反映并加强欧洲一体化的核心。