In their latest ‘WHO transformation’ (which began in 2017), the WHO hired at least six consulting firms, praised by the Director-General as the ‘best firms in the world’. Despite their prominent role in WHO processes and reform efforts, there is a clear accountability gap in their role at WHO. Consultant engagement contributes to a trend towards informal governance and public-private collusions in an organization that looks less and less like a public authority.
On 8th March 2024, the Irish people rejected two separate constitutional referendums on family and care in an overwhelming no vote. These amendments aimed to update a conservative and gendered ideal of family found in Article 41. The family and care referendums involved more abstract statements of directive constitutional values. The result of the referendums is a win for voter confusion, anger towards the government and the NoNo campaign. It is also a loss for political constitutionalism.
With an estimated 6,9 million deaths and with its enormous scale of economic, social and political collateral damages, the COVID-19 Pandemic has created excessive momentum for re-considering the rules and procedures governing global health – or has it? In this blog contribution, I will discuss the promises and pitfalls of current law-making and law-amending efforts that seek to strengthen pandemic governance post COVID-19 by reflecting on three distinct features of global health as an area of international cooperation.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed systemic problems in the global health system. It revealed that the global health system perpetuates global health inequalities rather than effectively reducing them: The international community, particularly the countries of the Global North, failed to make COVID-19 vaccines widely available to the populations of the world's poorest countries. This blog debate takes stock of the reform debate about a just and decolonizing transformation of the health system. Bringing together scholars from various disciplines, the contributions of this debate ask what a fair global health system could look like and what role the law plays in it.
Macht sich strafbar, wer den Satz „from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free“ verwendet? In aller Regel nicht. Der Slogan ist vieldeutig und Gerichte müssen bei mehreren Deutungsmöglichkeiten wegen der Meinungsfreiheit genau begründen, warum allein die strafbare Interpretation plausibel sein soll. Er kennzeichnet auch nicht die Hamas, denn verschiedene Akteure verwenden ihn seit Jahrzenten bis heute.
Today, the Security Council adopted a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan as a first step to a “lasting sustainable ceasefire”. This comes after a months-long impasse and a total of five vetoes on the matter. The resolution is – despite statements to the contrary – legally binding and creates a legally binding request for an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan and a legally binding request to immediately release all hostages.
Last week, European Commissioner Breton received a slap on the wrist from the commission’s officials. After he (politically unwise) criticized the process of electing Ursula von der Leyen as the EPP’s leading candidate on X (formally Twitter), the Commission’s Secretary General did not mince his words in reminding him of his obligations under EU law and the potential sanctions for violating them. In this post, I argue that one cannot construe the duties of the Members of the Commission as a prohibition of political expressions of any kind.
It may sound trivial, but I argue that the technicalities of EU law have been neglected and that an in-depth inquiry is lacking. To see why such an inquiry might be interesting, we must go beyond the traditional understanding of legal technicalities and see them as protagonists in their own right. We need to focus on lawyers’ knowledge practices and to inquire into the transformative power of legal technicalities.
Although EU law touches on several profound and complex ontologies of ways of living and being in the European polity, these meanings are usually not reflected in how lawyers and legal scholars ‘speak’ EU law. The reason for this is that EU law is formulated in a strikingly abstract and univocal way, leaving little room for an in-depth consideration of the different interpretations of the law by reference to the various values and conceptions of the individual and social institutions that it underlies.
Can there be a cultural study of EU law? The notion of legal culture is notoriously tricky. It is both omnipresent and yet seemingly ungraspable. Can we nevertheless hope to dispel the mystery of legal culture, and seize this notion as an object of study? And can it provide a method to improve our understanding of EU law?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters