Looking back, last year’s 30th anniversary volume turned out to be the biggest in the history of the journal, and the first issue of this year’s volume was the biggest single issue so far. While this issue, the second issue of 2026, is a little smaller it still ranks as the second biggest single issue to date. These expansions would not be possible without not only the writers (and readers) of course but also the many reviewers and the support of the International Editorial Board members. It is with regret and thanks that we note that Professor Beth Gaze, Professorial Fellow at Melbourne Law School, is retiring from our board this year after many years. Her support has been much valued and we are delighted that she will remain part of the wider IJDL community.

As noted in past editorials, these are troubled times for equality (and in many parts of the world for academics and practitioners) amid a sea of wider troubles: to quote a director of UN Women in March 2026 while launching a report for the Commission on the Status of Women, at its seventieth session, ‘As the world navigates democratic backsliding, rising conflicts, economic pressures and shrinking of civic space, there is an increasingly organised pushback at gender equality and regression of women’s rights… Justice systems do not stand apart from those pressures, they actually reflect them’.1 The same can also be said, to varying extents, for other protected characteristics, both collectively and individually, but as analysed in this and other issues there is progress as well as retrogression.

Chaptertakes up the Pay Transparency Directive section by section.

Our last editorial noted a number of recent and pending occurrences across the world and concluded that “[a]ll of these events may, to varying degrees, have at best relevance to, and at worst, a negative impact on, matters relating to anti-discrimination and equality”.1 Negative outcomes have manifested foremost in the battle being conducted in the U.S. against diversity, inclusion and equality (DEI) efforts, with many corporations globally, and U.S. universities, abandoning their DEI programs in the face of threatened repercussions.2 Furthermore, the last few weeks, at time of writing, have also seen Hungary seeking to ban Pride marches and subjecting demonstrators to automatic face recognition (something which may potentially breach the EU AI act and the ECHR).3On a more positive note, we are delighted in this issue to further mark the 30th anniversary of the journal by hosting its 15th special issue (and the first under our oversight).4 The Borders Within: When the Right to Non-Discrimination Confronts Migration Law? is guest edited by Vladislava Stoyanova, Alezini Loxa and Serde Atalay, an outcome of a workshop held at Lund University in May 2024. Their introduction to the issue follows ahead of the five pieces.We are also looking forward to the journal’s 100th issue later in the year and further marking the 30th anniversary through a virtual special issue/collection bringing together, and making open access for a year, a range of articles representing the diverse topics and drawn from across the years.We hope you enjoy reading this issue.

International academic exchanges at the Stockholm Centre for Commercial Law and Juridicum are presented as central to building a dynamic legal research and teaching environment that is deeply embedded in global knowledge networks. The chapter traces a long intellectual history of crossing borders for learning, from the Greek Sophists to contemporary itinerant scholars, and connects this to modern debates on internationalisation in higher education. Using work by Knight, Hawawini and others, internationalisation is framed not as an end in itself, but as a process of integrating the institution into a worldwide ecosystem of knowledge production and circulation. Within this framework, the chapter details Stockholm University’s policy commitments, structured student mobility, and LL.M. programmes drawing applicants from dozens of jurisdictions. It then turns to concrete institutionalised cooperation, particularly the long‑running SCCL–Oxford partnership, including post‑doctoral fellowships, senior sabbaticals, biannual symposia and emerging trilateral links with Bonn, showing how these arrangements generate co‑authored work, methodological exchanges and career‑defining opportunities. The chapter concludes that such exchanges produce immeasurable institutional and personal value by enriching scholarship, strengthening comparative and international perspectives, and ensuring that future researchers participate fully in the global legal academy.

The 2023 EU Pay Transparency Directive is ground-breaking in two significant aspects: first, in using pay transparency at the EU and Member State levels as a tool to tackle gender-based discrimination and gender biases in pay settings, both on individual as well as structural levels; and second – and the major focus of this article – by placing greater emphasis on procedure to ensure victims’ access to justice through the enforcement of pay claims. The latter is to be achieved through an institutional structure involving the private individuals affected, civil society in the form of labour unions and worker representatives, and the public through equality bodies and labour inspectorates. 

This strengthening of access to justice, and the invocation of both collective and individual claims through private and public enforcement presents different challenges to the EU Member States depending upon the national industrial relations constellation in place, as well as the roles exercised by government agencies, equality bodies and labour inspectorates, and non-governmental organisations, such as labour unions and civil society in general. In labour markets where, to a large extent, the social partners set wages, such as in the Nordic countries, empowering individuals through access to justice changes the power dynamics of wage-setting. In jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, where private enforcement has historically been essential, the labour unions have acted as facilitators, for example by funding collective actions concerning pay, as seen with the recent Asda case. The avenues of enforcement as well as remedies also vary greatly between the Member States. 

This article first addresses the directive’s pay transparency requirements more briefly. The thrust of the discussion here is on the directive’s second half, the strengthened access to justice mechanisms as well as the quartet approach of the individual, worker representatives, equality bodies and labour inspectorates. 

This timely book evaluates the advantages and challenges of adopting pay transparency legislation (PTL) to address the ongoing issues of the gender pay gap. Chapters contextually examine whether PTL can help reduce the gender pay gap and discuss which factors should be considered to potentially boost the effects of this legal intervention.

The editors have brought together expert contributors to explore detailed case studies demonstrating how PTL is implemented across the globe. The 2023 EU Pay Transparency Directive is rigorously analyzed in addition to the role of Equality Bodies and private certification systems. The book provides an in-depth yet accessible critique of both the potential and limitations of PTL and considers key themes including the role of self-regulation, collective bargaining and the need to depart from traditional work and care patterns to address pay inequity.

Bridging the Gender Pay Gap through Transparency is an excellent resource for legal scholars and practitioners specialising in gender equality and labour rights. Students and researchers of gender studies, governance and regulation as well as policymakers and HR professionals will find the comprehensive analysis beneficial.

As we write this introduction, equality and discrimination are much in the news - for good or ill. Hate crimes have surged in a number of western countries, partly attributable to the appalling situation in Gaza;1 the legality of new anti-homosexual legislation is before the courts in Uganda (where the Supreme Court has just upheld most of the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023)2 and Ghana (a Bill having been passed at the end of February but which awaits a Supreme Court ruling and perhaps a presidential veto);3 and EDI or DEI seems to be a target of the apparent ‘culture wars’ ahead of the US and UK elections.4 More progressively, Thailand looks set to become the first country in south east Asia to fully legalise same-sex marriage after the lower house overwhelmingly supported a marriage equality bill.5 Furthermore, Women’s History Month has just drawn to a close, as has, within Legal Academia, the 34th Annual Conference of the Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA) which this year was hosted at the University of Portsmouth and which included a number of equality papers within and beyond its Equality and Human Rights stream. The SLSA, a charitable organisation that aims to advance education and research in the field of socio-legal studies, has a membership of over 1700 people across 20 countries. As stated on this Journal’s Aims and Scope web page, ‘[t]he International Journal of Discrimination and the Law (IJDL) presents research that engages critically with the broad field of discrimination, equality and law. The journal provides a forum for consideration of this highly topical area from a broad range of perspectives (including doctrinal, conceptual and socio-legal research)’ and we were delighted to be afforded the opportunity to promote the journal at the conference.

Gender pay inequity, manifested in part by the Gender Pay Gap (GPG), is a persistent problem worldwide. The increasing consensus on the limited effectiveness of equal pay laws to address pay inequity has led to the emergence of other policies and regulatory tools to tackle this phenomenon. Among these tools, Pay Transparency Legislation (PTL), which places disclosure duties upon employers and seeks to reduce pay information asymmetries, has been introduced in many OECD countries. This introduction provides the conceptual, historical and broader regulatory context for the rich collection of chapters that throughout this book illustrate PTL’s potential and limits across and within more than 14 jurisdictions. The chapter examines the causes of the GPG, provides key terminological clarifications and explores the four waves of pay equity regulation, starting in the early 20th century. It also briefly analyses the key features of the 2023 EU Pay Transparency Directive (PTD), which will become binding in June 2026. Finally, the chapter provides an overview of the book structure, highlighting the key themes that emerge in individual chapters as well as differences and similarities between them.

This chapter addresses the balance between corporatism and individualism within the Swedish labour law model, particularly in the context of the Gender Pay Gap (GPG). The model, historically lauded for its success in fostering cooperation between social partners, maintains a delicate equilibrium without state intervention, allowing social partners to regulate labour market terms, including wage setting. Despite its success in minimising industrial action, Sweden grapples with a GPG of approximately 12 per cent, challenging the model’s effectiveness in addressing pay equity. The tension between corporatism and individualism becomes evident as the Swedish model resists external interference, whether from the EU or domestic legislation, in matters of equal pay. The corporatist approach, which shaped existing wage structures, clashes with individual-focused discrimination protections, contributing to Sweden’s declining ranking on the EU Member States’ GPG scale. The chapter advocates for a radical revaluation by labour unions to dismantle gendered assumptions embedded in wage structures, job classifications, and wage-setting procedures. With a reluctance to litigate on an individual level due to economic risks, labour unions must take the lead in reshaping wage processes to achieve genuine pay equity.