This edited volume valuably combines doctrinal, political science and socio‐legal research. Going well beyond its title, in this book the diverse and highly qualified pool of authors demonstrates that there is no single eurosceptic challenge to EU law. In the summary that follows the 11 preceding chapters (many of which offer single or comparative country case studies) as well as a prologue and an introduction, the editors admit that their initial focus on the challenges to EU law and governance by ‘legislative, administrative and judicial practices’ driven by ‘eurosceptic attitudes’ (p. 229) led them to broaden their exploration of the problems of implementing EU law. These may result not only from principled challenges to European integration but also from the lack of capacity or from deeply embedded features of domestic legal cultures.

The editors refer to Falkner's classification of ‘worlds of compliance’ (pp. 236–239) (though they do not introduce the classification until Part III, which offers case studies on free movement and migration). They argue that traditions at the member state level affect their decisions to comply with EU law in several sectors. The explanations based on the attitudes of political elites and deeply embedded governance practices are partly overlapping but can conflict as well. Hungary's historically pro‐European position contrasted with its current approach towards EU law, discussed by Papp and Varju, is a case in point.

Courts merit being the focal point of the volume. As the chapters addressing the preliminary reference procedure in Part IV indicate, judiciaries can help overcome some of the odds to the implementation of EU law in the member states, but they face their own practical challenges (see Glavina's chapter). Yet the volume focuses less on pluralist responses to the EU law's claim to supremacy. These would amplify the advance of EU law via disagreement, with some member state actors committed to the core EU values protecting fundamental rights beyond the requirements set by the Court of Justice. Though such a position can hardly be considered as ‘anti‐EU’, even the judicial role faithful to EU law envisioned in Wallerman's chapter seems to be more of a ‘top‐down loyalist’ than a ‘critical bottom‐up Europeanist’ one.

While a comment on the selection of the specific cases under study would have been useful for understanding the editors' choices, their brief overview in the Introduction can help the reader navigate to what she is most interested in. Substantively, the analysis reveals that euroscepticism has largely been studied by political scientists (as demonstrated by the explicit focus on euroscepticism in Part I). Given its breadth, this volume prompts further study on the relationship between euroscepticism and other concepts used more frequently in legal scholarship. Indeed, some chapters offer thorough analysis without mentioning ‘euroscepticism’ (Papp and Varju, Thalmann), referring to ‘populism’ instead (Mayoral, Tacik) or using both terms synonymously (Gianniti and Guastaferro).

If we accept Michal Bobek assertion in the prologue that the EU ‘appears to be [in] an overall crisis of (integrationist) faith’ (p. xiv), the present volume's relevance will be amplified if anti‐EU actors capitalize on the economic and social hardships after the Covid‐19 pandemic.

这本编辑的书非常有价值地结合了理论，政治学和社会法律研究。在本书中，本书的标题已远远超出标题的范围，其多元而又高素质的作者群体表明，对欧盟法律没有欧洲怀疑论的挑战。在前11章（其中许多提供单个或比较国家案例研究）以及序言和引言之后的摘要中，编辑们承认，他们最初关注的是“立法，行政，法律和公共政策对欧盟法律和治理的挑战”。道德观念的驱使下的司法实践”（第229页）促使他们拓宽了对实施欧盟法律问题的探索。这些可能不仅是由于欧洲一体化面临的原则性挑战，还可能是由于能力不足或国内法律文化根深蒂固的特征所致。

编辑们参考了Falkner对“合规性世界”的分类（第236-239页）（尽管直到第三部分才介绍该分类，该部分提供了有关自由流动和迁移的案例研究）。他们认为，成员国一级的传统会影响他们在多个部门遵守欧盟法律的决定。基于政治精英的态度和根深蒂固的治理实践的解释部分重叠，但也可能会发生冲突。匈牙利的历史亲欧洲立场与Papp和Varju讨论的其当前的欧盟法律方针形成了鲜明的对比。

法院值得作为本卷的重点。正如第四部分中有关初步参考程序的章节所指出的那样，司法机构可以帮助克服在成员国实施欧盟法律的几率，但它们面临着自己的实际挑战（请参阅格拉维纳的一章）。然而，本书的内容较少集中于对欧盟法律至高无上主张的多元化回应。这些将通过意见分歧扩大欧盟法律的发展，一些成员国行为者致力于欧盟核心价值观的保护，超越了法院设定的要求，从而保护了基本权利。尽管这样的立场很难被认为是“反欧盟”，但即使是沃勒曼一章所设想的忠于欧盟法律的司法角色，似乎也更像是“自上而下的忠实主义者”，而不是“批判性的自下而上的欧洲主义者”。

虽然对选择的特定案例进行评论对理解编辑的选择非常有用，但他们在“简介”中的简要概述可以帮助读者导航到她最感兴趣的内容。从本质上讲，分析表明，欧洲怀疑论具有政治学家在很大程度上进行了研究（第一部分中对欧洲怀疑论的明确关注证明了这一点）。鉴于其广度，本卷促使人们进一步研究欧洲怀疑论与法学界中更频繁使用的其他概念之间的关系。确实，有些章节提供了详尽的分析，而没有提及“欧洲感觉主义”（Papp和Varju，Thalmann），而是提到了“民粹主义”（Mayoral，Tacik）或同义地使用了这两个术语（Gianniti和Guastaferro）。

如果我们在序言中接受米哈尔·鲍勃（Michal Bobek）的断言，即欧盟“似乎[正在]陷入（整合主义）信仰的全面危机”（第xiv页），那么如果反欧盟行为者利用经济利益，那么当前的相关性将得到扩大。以及Covid-19大流行之后的社会困境。