Crises are a good test case, not only to check the practical performance of the law, but also to gain conceptual clarity about the possibilities of (certain areas of) the law. This post compares a German regulatory approach to private law with the US Law and Political Economy movement.
It is no understatement to say that the 19 July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion constitutes a seismic change in the international law and practice on the question of Palestine. In one fell swoop, the ICJ has shifted what was hitherto an almost exclusive focus of the international community on how Israel has administered its 57-year occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory under International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, to the requirement that Israel end its occupation of that territory as “rapidly as possible”.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine, or more accurately, between the two Peoples, has persisted for over a century. A tragic reminder of the unbearable costs of this conflict is the deadly October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, and the ensuing war, which has led to horrific consequences, with thousands of Israelis and Palestinians killed, many severely injured, and extensive damage to the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. In these circumstances, an important question arises: what role should international law and international tribunals play in mitigating the grave harm to all those involved in the conflict?
Among the many crises challenging our societies is the inequality crisis. The central role of law in creating and addressing this crisis is not sufficiently recognized. What do “Steward Ownership” and “Law and Political Economy” might have to offer in this regard?
Scholarly debates on climate change law in general and climate change litigation more specifically and the recent LPE debates mutually enrich each other. Surprisingly, the interaction of those two fields of study – while evoked frequently – remains underdeveloped.
This post tells the fascinating story of two recent and remarkable developments in the decolonization of the Chagos Archipelago. Last week, the governments of Mauritius and the UK issued a surprise joint statement that the two countries had reached a ‘historical political agreement’ on the exercise of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Running in counterpoint to the international plane, a once inactive colonial judiciary established as an administrative pretence has recently begun to hear cases, and in doing so set the administration of justice in conflict with the US military.
The accepted framework for settling the Palestine question through bilateral negotiations, in legal terms, does not survive the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The degree to which the Advisory Opinion catalyses a new political framework remains to be seen. But the Advisory Opinion gives the Palestinians newfound agency in shaping one.
The principle uti possidetis juris, raised in the Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde and according to which a new State established in formerly colonial territory inherits the former (colonial) borders is untenable in the situation of Israel. The reason is that at the time of independence Israel’s leaders accepted the principle of partition. No claim was made then or subsequently that the State of Israel inherited the borders of Mandatory Palestine and legislative acts reveal that Israel even regarded territories not within the UN Partition Plan borders as occupied territory.
The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem" was a groundbreaking moment in international law. It has consequences not only for Israel, but also for third States, as well as international and regional organizations, in terms of non-recognition and non-cooperation. In this blog symposium, Palestinian, Israeli, and other scholars take stock of the Advisory Opinion and its regional and global impact.
The struggle over the Maltese investment citizenship scheme is probably one of the fiercest debates of EU constitutional law. The conflict revolves around the question of whether EU law contains requirements for the acquisition of Union citizenship and whether these requirements consist in a “genuine link” between the respective state and individual. The recent Opinion by AG Collins provides us with an extremely narrow and astonishingly one-sided view. In particular, he seeks to make us believe that there are no sound ways to anchor a genuine link requirement in EU law. Martijn van den Brink finds it “hard to disagree with the Advocate General”. Respectfully, I disagree.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters