The articles selected for this issue cover a broad spectrum of topics. We are pleased to remark, however, that three of them are devoted to a particularly pertinent topic: the approximation of Georgian legislation with the acquis communautaire of the European Union (EU). The fourth article in this issue, covering a no less important matter than the previous three, touches upon the current challenges of legal education in Georgia. That the author of this article is an American academic should, in our view, make it even more intriguing for a potential reader. A brief overview is in order. Giorgi Asatashvili explores the notion of parallel conduct in competition law. By providing an overview of how doctrinal considerations and various jurisdictions shape its legal effects in antitrust cases, the article aims at conceptualizing the distinction between parallel conduct and direct conspiracy to fix prices among dominant market players. The comparative perspective of the article elucidates this distinction and emphasizes that parallel conduct can be driven by economic rationality without any conspiracy. Next, Irakli Samkharadze looks into the highly-specialized area: the harmonization of Georgia’s energy legislation with the regulatory framework of the EU. The article contributes to mapping the relevant steps in the lengthy process of legal harmonization in this area, while providing a concise overview of the relevant legal instruments and identifying remaining gaps and challenges. The article by Elene Gogichaishvili examines the extent to which Georgia’s private international law can be receptive to EU consumer protection standards under the so-called Rome I Regulation, Article 6. Emphasizing Georgia’s general undertaking under the EU-Georgia Association Agreement to integrate EU consumer protection standards into its own regulatory space, the author identifies potential limitations in national legislation on private international law which could hinder such integration with regards to cross-border transactions with the EU. In the next article, Timothy Barrett, an American faculty member at a Georgian law school, offers a set of prescriptions for improving legal education in Georgia. These prescriptions are based on his observations and accumulated experience in the country’s academic sector. The article identifies some first order problems common to Georgian law schools and contains the author’s suggestions for overcoming them. The well-known issues of low student attendance (given the wide practice of students’ employment parallel to their studies), low GPA thresholds set by law schools and a lack of practical skills upon graduation are central to the concerns outlined in the article. While the author’s proposed solutions may well be subject to healthy debate, the article presents a much-needed opportunity to trigger discussion of this topic in our pages. For example, is the low GPA threshold related to the over-dependence of most Georgian law schools on income generated by tuition fees? Can it be that any single law school finds itself in a sort of prisoner’s dilemma where the unilateral act of raising the GPA and other standards is disincentivized — because others might not follow the trend,thereby making the law school with higher standards less attractive to prospective students? Finally, do we come full circle if it is largely true that students need to work fulltime parallel to their studies to cover their tuition fees and therefore cannot properly devote themselves to studying? We invite any potential contributor to address these questions and are open to organizing a symposium on this topic should there be sufficient contributions.
On 29 June 2018, the Georgian-Norwegian Rule of Law Association, in cooperation with the Association of Law Firms of Georgia, launched a competition of papers for law students. This competition is made in memory of Giorgi Margiani and is currently planned to be held on an annual basis. Giorgi Margiani (1989-2016) was a young Georgian lawyer who tragically passed away following a long struggle with illness while studying for his LL.M. at the University of Oslo. An associate of the then newly-founded Georgian-Norwegian Rule of Law Association, he exuded one of the central aspirations of the Association – to facilitate the building of bridges between legal professionals in the two countries. As noted in the opening remarks of the chairman of the Association, Mr. Giorgi Giorgadze, the competition  was conceived to encourage legal research and academic work among students. In light of this ambition, which is intrinsically linked to the main goals of both the Association and the Georgian Law Journal, we are particularly pleased to publish the winning paper by Ms. Gvantsa Elgendashvili in the current issue. The paper – “Economic Analysis of Deterrence through Criminal Law” – grapples with perennial problems of crime and punishment. In particular, the paper examines the relationship between sanctions and deterrence through the lens of an economic analysis of law. Amongst many pertinent topics, the paper discusses whether a system based on restorative justice can be assumed to curb recidivism to a greater extent than a system based on a more traditional approach which seeks to make the punishment “fit the crime” (i.e.,be proportionate to the perpetrator’s wrongdoing). While the notion of restorative justice is a central concept in Norwegian criminal law, its viability in the current political climate is by no means assured. In 2016, the Government of Norway narrowly failed to win support for its proposal to increase the maximum possible prison sentence that can be applied under Norwegian law. This setback should not obscure the fact that the Norwegian outlook on crime – and the persons responsible for committing it – has hardened considerably in recent years. Legislators have sharply increased penalties not only for violent crime and sexual offenses but also for certain breaches of the Immigration Act. Moreover, courts have offered little resistance to applying these harsher penalties in particular cases. The impact on Norwegian sentencing practice has been profound. In an examination of the period between 2005 and 2016, the Norwegian Prison Directorate, which is responsible for executing final judgments in criminal cases, found a decrease of 15% in the number of judgments that required a person who had been found guilty of a crime to serve time in prison. However, the number of days to be served by convicted persons increased by 71% in the same period. The Norwegian experience illustrates that calls for being “tough on crime” can resonate even in a legal system that has enjoyed low recidivism rates and which has historically prided itself on valuing rehabilitation over retribution. If nothing else, it emphasizes the need for continued academic reflection and debate in this area of law. The questions discussed by the winner of this year’s competition are therefore topical not only in Georgia but in Norway as well. We hope that the paper will be of interest to readers  in both countries.The Georgian Law Journal is always open to readers’ comments and suggestions.These can be submitted by e-mail at editors@georgianlawjournal.org.
 

On behalf of the Editorial Board,
TEIMURAZ ANTELAVA and THOMAS FRØBERG