Schmutz und Würde

Mit der Entscheidung von Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, für die Wahl als Richterin des Bundesverfassungsgerichts nicht mehr zur Verfügung zu stehen, endete eine politische Hängepartie für die schwarz-rote Koalition. Zugleich kulminierte auch eine teils sehr heftig und unfair geführte Debatte über die inhaltlichen Positionen und Qualifikationen von Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf. In einer Demokratie für ein öffentliches Amt zu kandidieren und sich damit einer Wahl zu stellen, ist immer eine Herausforderung und verdient per se genauso Respekt wie die Entscheidung, von einer solchen Kandidatur aus politischen Gründen zurückzutreten. Gleichzeitig wirft die Erklärung von Brosius-Gersdorf in drei Punkten Fragen auf.

Klarheit aus Den Haag

Am 23. Juli 2025 verkündete der Internationale Gerichtshof (IGH) sein lange erwartetes Gutachten zu den „Pflichten der Staaten in Bezug auf den Klimawandel“. Darin bestätigte das Gericht, dass Staaten nach geltendem Völkerrecht verpflichtet sind, erhebliche Schäden am Klimasystem zu verhindern. Kommen sie dieser Pflicht nicht nach, können sie haftbar gemacht werden. Das Gutachten hat tiefgreifende Konsequenzen für Produzenten fossiler Energieträger und zieht zudem erhebliche Auswirkungen auf das internationale Investitionsrecht nach sich.

Anti-Feminism versus Abusive Feminism

Some of the world’s most powerful leaders have openly embraced an agenda that is overtly hostile to diversity, equity and inclusion, and often overtly anti-feminist. These discursive and behavioral attacks have been accompanied by a range of anti-feminist policy changes. As liberalism and democracy often erode together, it is no surprise that the growth of anti-feminism is associated with democratic backsliding. What is more surprising is that many of these anti-feminist, would-be autocrats have engaged in a parallel set of tactics that appear to endorse, rather than challenge, certain feminist ideas.

Of Warming and Warzones

Despite mounting attention to the impacts of military activities and conflicts on climate mitigation and adaptation in recent years, the issue remains largely absent from international legal scrutiny. Therefore, the very fact that several States and organizations raised it during the advisory proceedings held last December left the few scholars and practitioners working on this issue hopeful. This post reviews how the issue of armed conflicts and military emissions was addressed during the ICJ advisory proceedings. Despite the ICJ’s silence, the post highlights a few interpretative openings that may have legal implications for the regulation of wartime climate harms and explores what the ICJ’s ruling means for the legal visibility and accountability of military emissions.

Colombia’s Ketchup-Bottle-Case

It may well be Colombian literary culture shining through when the presiding judge of the case against former President Álvaro Uribe cited the French aristocrat: “As Montesquieu rightly said, the law must be like death, which spares no one”. The verdict of 12 years in prison has been 14 years in the making. The most important implication of this case is neither the verdict itself, nor the length of the sentence – it is its nature as a “Ketchup-Bottle-Case”: the opening for more than 100 cases in the system that include crimes against humanity carrying life-in-prison sentences.

Litigation v. Politics

The Trump Administration appears committed to crush any and all opposition by the aggressive use of national power. Given the constitutional status of federalism within the United States, these attempts at control from Washington are provoking a wave of litigation. However, it is also important to pay attention to the political means by which states can engage in resistance. A major issue of the moment is whether the Texas Legislature will adhere to the strong demand by Donald Trump that it redraw the legislative districts; and whether Democrats within the state will succeed in their defiance.

Warum politisch denkende Verfassungsrichter kein Problem sind

Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf hat ihre Kandidatur für die Wahl zur Bundesverfassungsrichterin zurückgezogen. Die Debatte gibt Anlass, einmal deutlich zu machen, dass sich Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und Politik in der Art ihrer Entscheidungsfindung unterscheiden, und gerade dieser Unterschied ein Gewinn für demokratisches Regieren ist. Denn es erhöht die Rationalität des Regierens, wenn politische Regelungen noch einmal aus verfassungsrechtlicher Perspektive geprüft werden. Betrachtet man dieses Potential der Verfassungsrechtsprechung, dann stellt sich heraus, dass die Bedenken gegen die Wahl von Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf der Arbeitsweise des Verfassungsgerichtes nicht gerecht wurden.

State Responsibility and the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, many observers were quick to conclude that it “[opens] the door to a cascade of lawsuits” (Politico). The opinion is indeed an important confirmation that the rules of State responsibility apply in the climate change context. In this post, I assess the ICJ’s treatment of State responsibility in light of the particularities of climate change, especially the plurality of States that contribute to, and suffer from, climate harm. The advisory opinion places trust in the capabilities and flexibility of the applicable rules, yet defers complex decisions on questions like causation to a case-by-case assessment. 

Game, Set, Review

The long-standing tension between private sports arbitration and the EU’s system of fundamental rights came to a head on 1 August 2025, when the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in RFC Seraing v. FIFA. The case addresses whether arbitral awards rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport can be insulated from review by EU national courts when EU law is at stake. The judgment represents a restrained but meaningful intervention by the CJEU into the autonomy of sports arbitration, seeking to balance the authority of CAS with the imperative of protective fundamentals rights under EU law.

Three Opposites in Taiwan’s Refracted Constitution

Civil society groups have initiated a mass recall movement in Taiwan, targeting the main opposition party KMT. On 26 July, it received an electoral setback. The movement has been hailed as the most recent evidence for Taiwan’s robust democracy. But its result suggests a more complicated and nuanced story concerning Taiwan’s constitutional image.