Migrant »Instrumentalisation« before the ICJ

On 19 May, Lithuania introduced proceedings against Belarus before the International Court of Justice for the alleged smuggling of migrants. Lithuania claims that Belarus violated provisions of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, which supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. This blog will detail several difficulties with Lithuania’s argument which seeks to collapse key differences between migrant smuggling and the practice of migrant “instrumentalisation”.

Using Immigration Court as a Trap

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun apprehending noncitizens at immigration court – where individuals appear to seek humanitarian relief or defend against deportation – immediately after the government moves to dismiss their case. Immigrants and their attorneys are increasingly reporting that ICE, in coordination with government lawyers, is detaining individuals as they exit court following such dismissals. Rather than providing a reprieve, dismissal is now being used to facilitate detention and potentially summary deportation, raising serious concerns about due process and adherence to governing statutes in the United States.

Sleeping on Bills

In a landmark judgment from April 2025, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that gubernatorial inaction is unconstitutional. Responding to the Governor of Tamil Nadu’s failure to act on ten bills, the Court declared such inaction “illegal” and reasserted limits to gubernatorial discretion. It not only imposed a timeframe for assent but also used its extraordinary powers to deem the bills passed.

A New Look at Confiscating Russian Assets

In the near future, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) may issue its first compensation awards against Russia for its conduct in the war in Ukraine. When that happens, the question of how to enforce such awards will become paramount. Given Russia’s lack of cooperation, claimants may seek to enforce compensation awards in third states holding Russian assets, a promising yet untested avenue. Drawing from a recent report by Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), this post explores some of the legal hurdles this avenue entails as well as some of its broader implications. We believe that this approach could be a limited but significant instrument to redress harm for victims of human rights abuse committed in the war.

»For the Sole Reason of Being Born Mixed-Race«

Where there is a will, there is a way. This phrase could sum up the logic behind the recent judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal which condemned the Belgian government to compensate for the damage resulting from the abduction and racial segregation of children of white fathers and Black mothers during its colonisation of the Congo. The judgment sets a historic precedent: it is the first time that a domestic Court has ordered the government to pay financial compensation for acts that could have had amounted to crimes against humanity during its colonial past.

Asylwende mit Hindernissen

Um die „Asylwende" zu erreichen, wurde im Kabinett nun beschlossen, dass der Familiennachzug bei Fällen subsidiären Schutzes ausgesetzt werden soll. Auch soll die Bundesregierung künftig per Rechtsverordnung „sichere Herkunftsländer" bestimmen können. Während die Aussetzung des Familiennachzugs von einem de facto und de jure unzutreffenden Verständnis des subsidiären Schutzes ausgeht, drohen bei der Einstufung von „sicheren Herkunftsstaaten“ per Rechtsverordnung Intransparenz und mangelhafte Begründung.

Verordnete Krise oder Krise geordnet?

Das Asyl- und Migrationsrecht kommt aus der „Krise“ nicht heraus. Ziel der Reform ist insbesondere, nationale Alleingänge in Derogation des GEAS einzudämmen, indem sie europäische Prozesse für bestehende Probleme schafft. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist die neue Krisenverordnung und das damit geschaffene Rechtssystem für ein gemeinsames Vorgehen in Zeiten besonderer Belastungen eine der wesentlichen Errungenschaften der gesamten Reform.

It’s Not a Trap

Despite most countries having trouble getting rid of bribery in daily life, only few so far have dared integrity testing: sending out undercover testers disguised as ordinary citizens to contact the public administration and check which public employees ask for bribes. The main argument against such undercover tests has been that they constitute “entrapment”. However, in Cavca, the ECtHR finally dispels the myth that these tests in and of themselves equal entrapment. Yet, the decision leaves one key question unaddressed: Just when does integrity testing become entrapment?

Populism over Principle

As EU officials arrive in Sofia to celebrate Bulgaria’s readiness for euro adoption, nationalist-fueled protests erupt in the streets. The tensions were triggered by President Rumen Radev’s unexpected call for a referendum on whether the country should join the euro on 1 January 2026 – despite Bulgaria having met all convergence criteria after years of effort. Far from a genuine democratic impulse, the move appears to be a populist gamble, trading legal commitments and European credibility for short-term political gain.