Articles for category: English Articles

The Individual Application Mechanism is on the Verge of Collapse, and so is Turkish Constitutionalism

Turkey is plunged into yet another profound judicial crisis as the Turkish Constitutional Court (TCC) and the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) lock horns over the fate of an imprisoned opposition politician. While two earlier posts published on Verfassungsblog have already meticulously dissected this unfolding judicial drama (here and here), we aim to invigorate the debate with a fresh vantage point. In this piece, we will narrow the focus to one key actor: the TCC. More particularly, we will delve into the implications this evolving judicial crisis holds for the future of the TCC's individual application mechanism.

An Unholy Relic in the Greek Constitution? On the Peculiar Obsolescence of Article 3 para. 3

On a constant basis, church-state relations are a prominent topic in the Greek news. Currently, the new leader of the main opposition party repeatedly emphasizes that he strives to advance “church-state separation.” As far as the desiderata for constitutional reform are concerned, relevant discussions usually centre on Article 3 para. 1 of the Greek Constitution (cited as “Article 3,” but usually referring particularly to Article 3 para. 1), which defines the Orthodox Church as “the prevailing religion in Greece”. Often, yet to a lesser extent, debates focus on Article 16 para. 2, which lists “the development of [...] religious consciousness” as one of the goals of school education. Still rarer, the debates cite Article 105 dealing with the monastic communities of Mount Athos. Surprisingly, Article 3 para. 3 of the Greek Constitution is barely ever brought up in the debates. Yet, precisely this paragraph could – rather uncontroversially – be labelled as utterly peculiar and, above that, obsolete.

Deregulating Legal Gender in the Shadow of Social Ascription

On 23 August 2023, the German government published a bill on Gender Self-Determination (hereinafter also referred to as SBGG-E). The bill is currently under debate before the German parliament (Bundestag) and is subject to heated socio-political debate. Its primary objective consists of deregulating the conditions for altering and deleting the gender entry provided by the German Civil Status Act. Aside from a strong commitment to deregulating legal gender (Section 1 SBGG-E), the bill sets boundaries and conditions for gender recognition. While some appear self-explanatory, others are infused by what I will hereinafter refer to as the ‘logic of social ascription’.

Limited Success

On 11.11 Australia and Tuvalu concluded a treaty on establishing the ‘Falepili Union,’ which deals with three pressing matters (art.1): climate change adaptation, collective security, and a new human mobility pathway. Hailed as ‘groundbreaking’, and ‘the most significant Pacific agreement in history,’ the Treaty certainly constitutes a profound step forward in building climate-resilient international relations, especially with its contributions to international migration law and international law on statehood. However, it also falls short in several instances, especially in fully respecting Tuvaluan equality in relation to Australia.

Why are illiberal monuments legally possible? Some insights from Bosnia and Herzegovina

After unveiling a monument to the genocide denier Peter Handke a few years ago, local authorities in Banja Luka – the largest city of Bosnia’s Serb-dominated Republika Srpska entity – are now building a massive monument to the soldiers of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) who died in the war of 1992–95. The memorial site in Banja Luka is not the first dedicated to the VRS. On the contrary, it follows the example of other towns and municipalities in the Serb-dominated areas. Together, they form an illiberal politics of remembrance developed by Bosnia, and especially Republika Srpska, since the end of the war in the 1990s. This memory politics is marked by the denial of war atrocities and the glorification of war criminals. The ongoing construction of the monument in Banja Luka shows that, almost thirty years after the conflict, there is a need to establish a new and comprehensive legal framework for memorialization in Bosnia. In essence, memorialization should be aligned with human rights and enable the development of a democratic culture. To achieve this twofold goal, constitutional and legislative reforms are needed.

Supreme Judgecraft

In R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) the UK Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State’s policy to remove protection seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. Rwanda is not, at present, a safe third country. There are, the Supreme Court found, “substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that asylum claims will not be determined properly, and that asylum seekers will in consequence be at risk of being returned directly or indirectly to their country of origin.” Should this occur “refugees will face a real risk of ill-treatment in circumstances where they should not have been returned at all.” We argue that the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning and evidential assessment are both impeccable, applying legal principles that are well-embedded in international and domestic law to very clear evidence. However, the UK government’s responses are deeply troubling, from the perspectives of refugee protection, international legality, and the rule of law in the UK.

Undermining the Energy Transition

Australia is confronted with three multi-billion dollar investment treaty claims from a mining company. The basis for two of the claims is a judgment from the Queensland Land Court, in which the court recommended that no mining lease and environmental authority should be granted to a subsidiary of the claimant for its coal mine. The investment treaty arbitration serves as another illustration of how the international investment protection system poses a threat to an urgent and just energy transition. In this blog post, I explain the background of the investment treaty claim, the decision of the Queensland Land Court, and argue that the Court’s decision is an important precedent for the connection between coal, climate change, and human rights.

Magical Thinking and Obsessive Desires

Two days before the UK Supreme Court declared the government’s Rwanda policy unlawful, PM Rishi Sunak rid himself of his Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. The sacking, the ruling, and the aftermath demonstrate both a key division in the Conservative Party and illustrate the choice it faces on the kind of politics it will promote after the next election: socially liberal technocratic nationalism (the Sunak option) or illiberal ‘culture war’ nationalism (the Braverman faction). The Supreme Court’s judgment raises the stakes in this conflict because its grounds for ruling the Rwanda Plan unlawful appear to provide ammunition for the radical illiberal wing of the Conservative Party.

Defeat in the Supreme Court

On 15 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) unanimously declared the government’s policy of removing some asylum seekers to Rwanda to process their claims  unlawful. Like the Court of Appeal, it found substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment because of insufficient guarantees against refoulement. This post explores the origin and significance of the UKSC judgment and the legal and policy implications of the UK government’s immediate response to it.