Menschlich verständlich, aber trotzdem falsch?

War der Gefangenenaustausch mit Russland, mit der Band Kettcar gesprochen, „menschlich verständlich, aber trotzdem falsch?“ Ich meine: nein. Als eine – rechtlich nur grob vorstrukturierte – exekutive Maßnahme an der Schnittstelle von Innen- und Außenpolitik geht sie nicht in einer Subsumtion unter strafprozessuale Normen auf. Sie bedarf vor allem einer tragfähigen politischen Begründung und einer eindeutigen Markierung der politischen Verantwortlichkeiten. Beides war hier gewährleistet.

Taming the Shrew

On May 30th, Iraq’s Court of Cassation (CC) issued an unprecedented decision invalidating a previous ruling by the country’s highest court in the land, the Federal Supreme Court (FSC). The CC’s judicial coup and self-aggrandizement rests on a flawed doctrinal foundation and runs counter to the judicial hierarchy set out by Iraq’s constitution.

On Recognition

The decades-long campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967-occupied territory meets the international system, however flawed, where it is. Its selling point is simple: an independent Palestinian state is the most attainable way, if not the only way, to restore integrity and dignity to the Palestinian people while maintaining a minimum standard of order.

Shades of Unconstitutionality

On July 12, the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye passed the 9th Package of Judicial Reforms. The package continues the tradition of amending various unrelated laws through a so-called omnibus law under the guise of reform. In addition, another feature has become remarkable: the alleged reforms deliberately overrule the decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC), rendering its rulings null and void.

Recht für rechts

SLAPP – dieses Kürzel steht für strategic lawsuits against public participation und befasst sich mit einem Phänomen, das sich steigender Beliebtheit erfreut: Klagen, die in erster Linie erhoben werden, um unliebsame Kritik zu unterdrücken. Insbesondere bei rechten Akteuren sind SLAPPs zuletzt immer beliebter geworden. Anfang des Jahres hat die EU eine Richtlinie gegen SLAPPs erlassen, die allerdings gerade gegen SLAPPs von rechts nicht viel ausrichten können wird.

Wahlrechtsbonus für vergangene Verdienste?

In der „unangefochtenen Einsicht“, dass ein perfektes Wahlsystem nicht existiert, billigte das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit seinem Urteil vom 30. Juli 2024 das Herzstück der Wahlrechtsreform: die Zweitstimmendeckung. Wer die Entscheidung in Gänze liest, könnte gleichwohl den Eindruck gewinnen, das BVerfG schaffe mit der CSU als „seit Jahrzehnten staatstragend im Parlament befindlicher Partei“ ganz nebenbei ein neues Gut von Verfassungsrang. Erneut erreicht eine Wahlrechtsdiskussion in Deutschland damit ihren Endpunkt bei der CSU. Das wäre vermeidbar gewesen.

Unprecedented Fraud and New Momentum

Venezuela is entering a new, dangerous phase of its conflict. Though not fully verified, the opposition appears to have won the July 28 election by a landslide. Nicolás Maduro's government has likely committed unprecedented fraud, tampering with votes and withholding tallies. Massive protests have erupted nationwide, with the government rapidly increasing repression and surveillance. This challenges prospects for a democratic transition, requiring a skilled national and international response.

Liberty of the Press Forever?

Constitutions are linked both to the past and to the future. A central constitutional mechanism in the attempt to mark a dividing line between the past and the future, to represent a new era are unamendable provisions. Unamendable provisions, in this sense, play a “negative” role, serving as a lasting reminder of recent past devastations and as a constitutional/institutional attempt to transform and never return to past injustices. It is within this framework of ‘never again constitutionalism’ I wish to examine one of the most unique and interesting unamendable provisions in the world: the protection of ‘Liberty of the press’ in the Mexican Constitution of 1824.

Allocating Duties and Distributing Responsibilities in a Post-Territorial Human Rights Paradigm

Migration is one of the frontier areas for rethinking the way in which human rights obligations are typically allocated. Not only is migration externalised and privatised, it is also a consequence of structural global inequalities. But complexity cannot be an excuse for lack of human rights accountability. Nor is there an unchecked mission creep: if human rights are indeed universal, there is no other option but to fill post-territorial gaps in human rights protection.

Relationalizing the EU’s Fundamental Rights Responsibility

Human rights law traditionally governs a three-part relationship which connects the individual, the state, and its territory. The design of the EU’s Integrated Border Management (IBM) governance model eschews the applicability and enforceability of international and European human (fundamental) rights law by significantly reconfiguring the relationship between each of these three prongs. This contribution maps how these three traditional triggers for the applicability of human rights law are increasingly evaded in EU IBM policies, the responses to these evasion techniques and how a relational turn in the determination of human rights responsibility may be inevitable.