Articles for category: English Articles

Freedom to Discuss Religion Between Facts and Opinions

In a recent televised discussion in Turkey, two Youtube-influencers have discussed Sharia law and Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha. This has caused strong reactions on social media. Moreover, after a public statement of the Justice Minister, a criminal investigation has been initiated. I argue that such statements should enjoy the full protection of freedom of expression. However, I criticise the distinction between “statements of fact and value judgements” as introduced by the ECtHR in case E.S. v Austria.

A Democratic Mandate to Overhaul Mexico’s Judiciary?

It is time to take the present threat as what it is: the most serious threat to Mexico’s constitutional democracy at least since the slow start of the democratic transition in the late 1970’s. The constitutional amendment to the judiciary will translate into an incommensurable retrocession in terms of professionalization and judicial independence building. The day after the amendment is passed, Mexico will officially be less democratic and more authoritarian in that the scrutiny of the exercise of public power would have been put at great risk.

Aristotle in the Commission

Today, the European Commission issued its fifth Annual Rule of Law Report (ARoLR). While this monitoring exercise has come a long way and has been significantly improved, the rule of law backsliding remains one of the most pressing issues of the EU. In the following I present seven recommendations how to improve the Commission’s monitoring exercise. At the core lies a differentiation between a democracy and a hybrid regime. Once a Member State qualifies as the latter, it must be treated accordingly.

The Collective Memory of Trauma and Why it Still Matters

Holocaust historian Jan Tomasz Gross claimed in a 2015 article that the immigration crisis in Europe is inextricably linked to the way Europeans today contend with their group’s behavior during the Holocaust. What does the influx of mostly Muslim immigrants to Europe have to do with how Europeans treated their Jewish population eighty years ago? According to Gross, the answer lies in whether nations acknowledge their historical culpability, most notably in the case of Germany, or whether they actively try to deny any wrongdoing, such as in the cases of Poland and Hungary.

Poverty as a Crime

In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Opinion City of Grants Pass v. Johnson held that the Constitution does not guarantee individual protection against the criminalisation of homelessness. Similarly, in May 2024, the European Court of Human Rights found the case concerning the criminalisation of begging, Dian v. Denmark, inadmissible. Both of these judicial decisions are disputed since the criminalisation of poverty cannot solve the problem of homelessness or begging. Rather, it violates the fundamental dignity of the individual.

Never Again. And Not Quite.

Those who build new public law act with the past hovering over their shoulders. Rejecting regimes of horror explains much of the content of new constitutions. Aversive constitutionalism – in which constitutionalists overtly steer away from a country’s appalling pasts – guides how they understand these new texts. On balance, even among those who disagree over precisely how the past is memorialized as “never again” in new constitutions, evidence shows that the horrors of the past influence public law in the present much more than do the dreams of some ideal future.

A Union of Equality?

Last Thursday, Ursula von der Leyen, the new – and former – President of the EU Commission presented the ‘Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2024-2029’, her ideas and priorities for the coming mandate. This blogpost will examine whether the Guidelines are living up to the scale of the gender-related concerns and challenges that are facing the Union, as Ursula von der Leyen promises. It identifies a shift in tone in the Commission’s pledges to promoting gender equality and outlines some proposals that the German Women Lawyers Association (djb) has advanced in order to help tackle these challenges.

Administrative and Citizen Interpretations of Unwritten Constitutional Principles and Constitutional Silences

Looking at Canadian law, this blog posts argues that administrative agencies should be able to interpret and articulate unwritten constitutional principles when exercising their discretionary powers, and that these interpretations ought to be deferred to by courts. This would also encourage citizens to put forward their own interpretations of unwritten constitutional principles, fostering a participatory approach to constitutional interpretation.

Never Again Say »Never Again«

“Never Again” is one of those slogans on which practically everyone can agree. How can one not? (Unless you belong to the flat-earth Holocaust-denial lunatic fringe). When we use “Never Again” it is, of course, a shorthand to the enormity of German National Socialism. The pledge “Never Again” is absolute in time: Never again. It is absolute in space too: “That” cannot and should not ever take place anywhere. It is universal: It bridges Left and Right, North and South, Rich and Poor. Standing at the barricades under the “Never Again” banner is both powerful and self-empowering. But herein lies its potential for abuse. What exactly is the “that” which must never happen again?

»Never Again«

“Never again” is, first and foremost, a story. It’s a story about our collective fears, anxieties, and aspirations, those moments and events that we have promised ourselves that will never be repeated. The Jewish story is interwoven with the Holocaust—the killing of six million Jews in Europe and the urgency of the re-establishment of a Jewish state to solve the problem of Jewish homelessness. Yet the constitutional and international meaning of “never again” depends on one’s position and point of view, and it changes over time. The chain reaction that began with the horrors of WWII continues to drive constitutional and international agendas. It is clear that “history talks,” but in which direction?