Can the values and objectives of the European Union really (or even at all) be systematically protected and ensured, not just on books but in practice, by legal means, and in particular by courts, let alone the supranational ones? I believe the answer is no.
Kim Lane Scheppele suggests a comprehensive, holistic approach to deal with prominent challenges to the basic principles of the European Union. I very much sympathize with this idea, but believe a purely legal approach in itself is not sufficient (and might even be counter-productive).
While I agree with Kim Scheppelle’s "systemic infringement action" proposal, I am not so sure that it can be accomplished under the existing legal authority. Or better put, the prevailing understanding of what EU Treaties allow the Commission to do requires a much deeper transformation of the Commission’s role than Scheppelle suggests.
What can the European Union – and in particular the European Commission – do about Member States that no longer reliably play by the most fundamental European rules? The question is now urgent because several Member States are already posing such challenges. Treaty reform could give the Commission new powers. But can the Commission act without waiting for the long and arduous process of treaty reform to provide new tools? Kim Lane Scheppele proposes a new approach, a simple extension of an existing mechanism: the infringement action.
Asyl für Edward Snowden in Deutschland? Der Bundesinnenminister hält es für ausgeschlossen. Doch ist es tatsächlich unmöglich, Snowden Schutz zu gewähren? Bei genauer Lektüre des Gesetzes muss die Antwort differenzierter ausfallen.
“One of the most disturbing aspects of the public response to Edward Snowden’s revelations about the scale of governmental surveillance is how little public disquiet there appears to be about it.“ But why should we care when most likely the majority of us will never even notice that their data are being stored and can easily be accessed by State authorities? To put it simply: because it is against the law.
Prosecution is pending in Greece against the Right Wing extremist party “Golden Dawn”. The accusations concern the criminal activity of the organization which is also a political party represented in Greek Parliament by 18 members. The accusation of having committed criminal acts is enough from the point of view of political liberalism for the criminal process to begin against them. Criminal prosecution for the accusation of acts and not only ideological discourse is justified and imposed under political liberalism since such acts directly harm others.
Is it against international law to spy on mobile phone conversations of foreign heads of government? Wiretapping is not per se regulated by international law; there is no explicit rule that prohibits espionage. But that doesn’t mean it’s allowed. Likewise, just because all countries are spying, you cannot conclude that there is a rule of customary international law that allows them to do so. The states know that spying is problematic. That’s why they do it secretly. Is there an indicator in international law that these practices are illegal? These practices may infringe on general principles of international law, such ... continue reading
Russell Miller, a leading expert on German constitutional law in the USA, explains the American perspective on the NSA affair - why Americans don't see it as a legal problem or even as a problem at all, and why the German alarm one month after the Constitutional Court declared the surveillance of members of the Bundestag by the German internal intelligence service unconstitutional appears somewhat hypocritical to American eyes.
Dieter Grimm is in South Africa at the moment. We could send him a couple of questions, though: about the NSA affair and its consequences, the American understanding of constitutional protection and the many small steps we will have to take to achieve a global rule-based order.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters