Articles for category: AAA General

Can Germany Remain Silent?

Is Germany legally obligated to condemn violations of international humanitarian law? This argument was recently put forward in an article on Verfassungsblog. Elsewhere it was claimed that Germany, along with other States failing to utilize their full repertoire of diplomatic options (including “[calling] for a permanent ceasefire”), is in breach of its own IHL-responsibilities. Admittedly, international law does have a say when organs of States speak. Nevertheless, the intricacies of this matter go beyond first impression. I submit that such a duty is not as easy to derive in the present case as is suggested by opposing views.

A European Dialogue on Strike Action

With its decision in Humpert and others v Germany of 14 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights settled a long-standing debate: The ban on strikes for German Civil Servants does not violate the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. This decision ends the strategic litigating efforts of the applicants and their union to obtain the right to strike for the approximately 1.7 million civil servants in Germany. The judgment is also the culmination of an extraordinarily intense dialogue between Strasbourg and Karlsruhe.

Militant Rule of Law

To protect the rule of law based legal system against abusive use of the loopholes, imperfections, contradictions of the law, to avoid legal inertia legal positivist arguments are needed to convince and mobilize the legal mind. The same applies when the blind fortune of democracy provides the opportunity to erase the legally enthroned injustice and domination of illiberal regimes. When it comes to legal enactments that serve legal cheating the rule of law must respond to systemic abuse of the law, and that requires and justifies a rule of law based exceptionalism and a systemic remedy.

Not Just Abortion

On 14 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case M.L. v. Poland. The ECHR decided that the restrictions on abortion rights that Poland had violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Contrary to the hopes of the initiators of the case, this is not a European Roe v. Wade moment. The ECHR again refused to affirm that Article 8 can be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion. Nevertheless, the ECHR made significant findings regarding Polish rule of law violations.

Between Return and Protection

Last month, the ECJ responded to a preliminary reference of the Regional Court in Brno concerning Czechia’s so-called return procedure. The ECJ ruled that a third country national cannot be subject to a return decision if they applied for international protection and a first-instance decision on that application has not yet been delivered. Curiously, the ECJ thereby answered a question it had not actually been asked, while contradicting the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (“SAC”), rendered shortly before. While the ECJ’s ruling will nonetheless improve some of the problems that have inhered within Czechia’s approach to international protection and return procedures, its failure to answer the referred question constitutes a missed opportunity to facilitate a productive dialogue with referring courts in an area of law where preliminary references have been exceedingly rare.

A Duty to Rescue

Reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean have, unfortunately, become more and more frequent in recent years. A recently published MSF report has highlighted the role ‘pushbacks and systematic non-assistance to those at risk of drowning proliferate’ play in this regard. The report refers specifically to two events that happened in 2023 in which national authorities failed to launch rescue operations despite receiving the information on migrants in distress at sea hours before the tragedy. In this blogpost, we assess whether a coast guard’s failure to act in situations of migrants in distress might violate an incumbent criminal law duty to rescue. We map the core elements of the duty to rescue under criminal law and how they might apply to such a chain of events, using the abovementioned event of 14 June as an example.

The EU’s Pacing Problem

The EU regulators face a pacing problem. This has been demonstrated several times during the legislative process of the AI Act itself: for example, the initial Commission proposal from 2021 did not include a definition of General Purpose AI (GPAI). The proposal did not anticipate the rise of Large Language Models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 but only addressed AI systems designed for specific purposes. This lacuna in the original proposal has haunted the EU Parliament, Council and Commission in the past final weeks of the trilogue negotiations, where the inclusion of so-called Frontier Models has been hotly contested. This blog post explores potential boosters for the EU's capacity to regulate AI: delegated legislation, soft law, and a centralized AI office.

The Economic Distortions of the Federal Constitutional Court’s Debt Brake Decision

Germany is not facing a debt crisis, but rather a serious budget crisis triggered by the ‘debt brake’ ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). This crisis is deeper than the 60 billion in unused "Corona debts" being shifted to a climate fund, as reported in the media. More fundamentally, the court has mandated that the federal budget strictly adhere to the "principle of annuality" (Jährlichkeit). This is the most significant impact of the court's ruling, and from an economic perspective, it is quite perplexing.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

This blogpost unpacks some of the ‘democratic paradoxes’ that come with the ‘Defence of Democracy’ package (DoD package), which the European Commission published on Tuesday, 12th of December. While a Recommendation on promoting civic engagement and citizen participation (Civil Society Recommendation) reflects positive changes in the Commission’s conception of democracy, the ‘Directive establishing harmonised requirements in the internal market on transparency of interest representation carried out on behalf of third countries’ (Foreign Funding Directive) directly contradicts this emphasis on a more citizen-centred model and is illustrative of a broader dilemma: how to defend democracy in the EU’s multi-level constitutional space, while keeping the sensitive legal tools for doing so out of the hands of the enemies of democracy that are already – and for the time being irreversibly – on its inside.

»This Is Not a Foreign Agents Law«

On Tuesday, 12 December 2023, the Commission adopted its long-awaited Defence of Democracy package, which includes a Proposal for a Directive on Transparency of Interest Representation on behalf of Third Countries. Dubravka Šuica, Commissioner for Democracy and Demography seemed eager to clarify what the Directive is not. Šuica emphasised that the Directive “is not a foreign agents law”. But the more a statement is repeated, the less credible it appears. Rather, the opposite appears to be true. And so, the devil is not in the name, it lies in enforcement. Despite the Commission’s assertion that full harmonisation of the Directive prevents Member States from gold-plating or potentially worse activities, the Commission has limited control over how Member States apply and enforce their national laws. This is the biggest risk of the proposal.