Never Again. And Not Quite.

Those who build new public law act with the past hovering over their shoulders. Rejecting regimes of horror explains much of the content of new constitutions. Aversive constitutionalism – in which constitutionalists overtly steer away from a country’s appalling pasts – guides how they understand these new texts. On balance, even among those who disagree over precisely how the past is memorialized as “never again” in new constitutions, evidence shows that the horrors of the past influence public law in the present much more than do the dreams of some ideal future.

A Union of Equality?

Last Thursday, Ursula von der Leyen, the new – and former – President of the EU Commission presented the ‘Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029’, her ideas and priorities for the coming mandate. This blogpost will examine whether the Guidelines are living up to the scale of the gender-related concerns and challenges that are facing the Union, as Ursula von der Leyen promises. It identifies a shift in tone in the Commission’s pledges to promoting gender equality and outlines some proposals that the German Women Lawyers Association (djb) has advanced in order to help tackle these challenges.

Vereinsverbote und wehrhafte Demokratie

Es ist richtig, dass die zuständige Verbotsbehörde die Grenzen des geltenden Rechts und damit der wehrhaften Demokratie gegen die COMPACT-Magazin GmbH austestet. Die Rechtsprechung zu Verboten von Medienorganisationen ist bisher nämlich nur bedingt aussagekräftig. Grundrechte wie die Meinungs-, Presse- und Rundfunkfreiheit stehen ihrem Verbot auf der Grundlage des Vereinsgesetzes allerdings nicht grundsätzlich entgegen. Der Zusammenschluss zu einer Medienorganisation ist kein Freifahrtschein für den Weg aus dem Vereinsgesetz hinaus.

Warum das Compact-Verbot auf Grundlage des Vereinsrechts ergehen konnte

Um das Compact-Verbot ist eine hitzige Diskussion entbrannt. Die Einschätzungen reichen von legitimem Verfassungsschutz auf der einen bis hin zu verfassungswidrigem Zeitungs- und Medienverbot auf der anderen Seite. Betrachtet man das Vorgehen aus vereinsrechtlicher Perspektive und vergegenwärtigt sich die bisherige Verbotspraxis in vergleichbaren Fällen, bestätigen sich die grundsätzlichen Bedenken nicht.

Administrative and Citizen Interpretations of Unwritten Constitutional Principles and Constitutional Silences

Looking at Canadian law, this blog posts argues that administrative agencies should be able to interpret and articulate unwritten constitutional principles when exercising their discretionary powers, and that these interpretations ought to be deferred to by courts. This would also encourage citizens to put forward their own interpretations of unwritten constitutional principles, fostering a participatory approach to constitutional interpretation.

Never Again Say »Never Again«

“Never Again” is one of those slogans on which practically everyone can agree. How can one not? (Unless you belong to the flat-earth Holocaust-denial lunatic fringe). When we use “Never Again” it is, of course, a shorthand to the enormity of German National Socialism. The pledge “Never Again” is absolute in time: Never again. It is absolute in space too: “That” cannot and should not ever take place anywhere. It is universal: It bridges Left and Right, North and South, Rich and Poor. Standing at the barricades under the “Never Again” banner is both powerful and self-empowering. But herein lies its potential for abuse. What exactly is the “that” which must never happen again?

»Never Again«

“Never again” is, first and foremost, a story. It’s a story about our collective fears, anxieties, and aspirations, those moments and events that we have promised ourselves that will never be repeated. The Jewish story is interwoven with the Holocaust—the killing of six million Jews in Europe and the urgency of the re-establishment of a Jewish state to solve the problem of Jewish homelessness. Yet the constitutional and international meaning of “never again” depends on one’s position and point of view, and it changes over time. The chain reaction that began with the horrors of WWII continues to drive constitutional and international agendas. It is clear that “history talks,” but in which direction?

A Historic Verdict Against Chiquita Brands

A jury in a small town in Florida has set a milestone in the fight for international justice. After more than 25 years and 17 years of litigation, survivors of violence in Colombia have secured a victory in their pursuit of financial compensation. The verdict determined that Chiquita Brands International illegally financed the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a designated terrorist paramilitary organization, and thus contributed to the murder of hundreds of civilians. The Chiquita case is the first to hold a U.S. company accountable for financing human rights violations in Colombia.

Proximity, Amicable Settlements, and how the EU Guts GDPR Enforcement

The EU legislator is working on a new Regulation to modify the GDPR. Unfortunately, the reform features deeply troubling elements. It seeks to mainstream a controversial Irish approach to dealing with data protection complaints, namely “amicable settlements” between individuals and digital corporations. Further, and rather problematically, the reform foreshadows the end of the principle of proximity. Gutting – or at least eroding – the proximity principle should ring alarm bells for anyone concerned with effective judicial remedies in the EU.

Zeitungsverbot durch die Hintertür?

Mit ihrem gewohnten Impetus und einigem Inszenierungsaufwand verkündete Bundesinnenministerin Nancy Faeser am Dienstag dieser Woche das Verbot des rechtsextremen Magazins Compact. Seither ist die verfassungs- und verwaltungsrechtliche Debatte in vollem Gange. Ein Hauptkritikpunkt: das als Grundlage des Verbots gewählte Vereinsrecht. Tatsächlich spricht einiges dafür, dass dieses das gezielte Verbot eines Medienerzeugnisses nicht tragen kann.