We Are Launching the Judicial Resilience Project
How Vulnerable Is the German Judiciary?
How Vulnerable Is the German Judiciary?
Can commemorative practices such as memorials, museums, and national remembrance days effectively transform attitudes and behaviours to deter violence? Despite the proliferation of memorialisation practices globally, their tangible impact on reducing violence or fostering reconciliation and healing is often assumed rather than rigorously demonstrated.
Nearly three years ago I wrote here about the far-right constitutional theory behind Trump lawyer John Eastman’s role in the inept yet deadly January 6, 2021 coup attempt against then President-elect Joe Biden. I described the idiosyncratic reworking by Eastman and other so-called west-coast Straussians at California’s Claremont Institute of the ideas of the German-Jewish refugee Leo Strauss, an imposing, deeply conservative political theorist, into an apology for an executive-directed counterrevolution aimed ostensibly at restoring the original US constitutional order. Little did I imagine that Strauss’ Claremont disciples would soon enjoy a political comeback, and that they would once again be wreaking constitutional havoc.
Digital memory scholars highlight a shift to “connective memory”, which connects individuals to a multitudes of users as opposed to the memory of a collective. Additionally, the importance of forgetting has become an essential demand of participants in digital communication, which leads to the importance of understanding “disjunctive memory” as well. Undermining the hopes for progressing empathy and understanding in the digital age, its disruptive effects materialize in Russian digital media discourse in the 2020s.
In his first month in office, US President Donald Trump has issued a series of sweeping executive orders targeting transgender rights. These orders build on political terrain that is now exceedingly hostile to transgender rights. In this post, I briefly examine the landscape for transgender rights in the United States, analyze what President Trump’s executive orders on transgender rights aim to do, and then discuss the stakes of United States v. Skrmetti, the pending Supreme Court case that will likely set out the framework that federal courts will use in adjudicating transgender rights cases under the Trump administration and beyond.
The heydays of international law are over - that much is suggested by politicians and political observers in Germany. Those who still argue in favour of an international order based on international law seem unprepared for a world of autocrats and transactional deals. Allegedly, they fail to realize the need to protect and prioritize national interests. International legal practices are even perceived as immoral when authoritarian states rely on international law to oppose foreign policy decisions of democratic states, as exemplified by recent proceedings before international courts on the war in Gaza. For a long time, international law was almost idealized in German debates, but now something seems to be shifting.
Amid Bolivia’s current economic crisis, mining cooperatives remain key actors due to their strong capacity for (self-)employment and their deep-rooted historical presence in popular sectors. Their significance was reflected in their recognition in the 2009 Plurinational Constitution as a constituent sector of the country's "plural" economy. However, the strength of this sector has paradoxically led to weak regulations exposing miners to multiple risks, including the severe threat of silicosis.
In an era where Large Language Models increasingly shape how societies remember and interpret history, it is crucial to recognize their potential impact on the diversity and plurality of collective memory. By implementing regulatory frameworks, fostering digital literacy, and prioritizing ethical AI development, we can ensure that these technologies enhance rather than homogenize our shared narratives, preserving the richness of human history for future generations.
The Venice Commission’s position on Poland’s judicial reforms presents a paradox: it warns that measures to restore the rule of law could themselves violate it – even though the rule of law has already been undermined. To solve this paradox, I propose two conceptual clarifications. The first one applies distinction between violating and departing from formal legality. The second one recognizes that judges unconstitutionally appointed under an illiberal regime cannot be acknowledged as legitimate judges in the constitutional sense.
Our symposium ‘Musk, Power, and the EU’ has evolved in parallel with the inauguration of the new US administration and has been marked by numerous and unprecedented attacks on the European Union. Amid a flurry of announcements challenging the status quo - often with brutal disregard, even against traditional allies - the European Union, along with the way it exercises power, suddenly appears as the antithesis of the new America. Yet does the EU have what it takes to resist such an expansionist and plutocratic projection of power, which now threatens Europe’s security, lifestyle and overall existence?