Articles for category: AAA General

Poland’s Sham ›Migration‹ Referendum

On June 15, 2023, Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of Poland's PiS party, announced a rare referendum, ostensibly to allow the public to weigh in on crucial elements of Polish immigration policy, alongside the general elections. Yet, in reality, the referendum had little to do with migration and the opposition parties largely ignored the referendum's questions to avoid its deployment as an electoral campaign tool. As such, whatever voters will decide on Election day, it will tell us little about the state of Polish migration politics.

Europe’s Sick Success Child

Poland's rule of law crisis, spurred by the ruling coalition under Jarosław Kaczyński, has caused severe damage to its legal system and democratic foundations. The European Union has responded with infringement proceedings and withholding of funds, leading to some concessions from the Polish government. Yet, Poland's legal community and civil society have shown resilience, challenging these attacks in courts, advocating for democratic values, and maintaining a robust private media. As parliamentary elections loom, the question arises: can this resilience lead to a restoration of the rule of law?

Open letter from Israeli international law experts

The taking of hostages is a blatant violation of international law. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Pending their release, they are all entitled to be treated with humanity and respect.  This includes the receipt of proper medical care and supply of essential medication for those who need it, and the provision of information regarding the hostages and means of communication with them. We call upon the international community, including all states and relevant international organizations to pressure those holding the hostages to release them all immediately.

Slicing Away at Regulatory Statutes

In its June 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Water Act of 1972 to significantly cut back its water pollution protections and to hand an important victory to private property owners.  Sackett is not simply important for its impact on environmental protection.  Although it may be among the Court’s less visible recent rulings, it follows the Court’s trend of anti-administrativist rulings and may add importantly to the Court’s kit of anti-regulatory interpretive tools.   

Automated Decision-Making and the Challenge of Implementing Existing Laws

Who loves the latest shiny thing? Children maybe? Depends on the kid. Cats and dogs perhaps? Again, probably depends. What about funders, publishers, and researchers? Now that is an easier question to answer. Whether in talks provided by the tax-exempt ‘cult of TED’, or in open letters calling for a moratorium, the attention digital technologies receive today is extensive, especially those that are labelled ‘artificial intelligence’. This noise comes with calls for a new ad hoc human right against being subject to automated decision-making (ADM). While there is merit in adopting new laws dedicated to so-called AI, the procedural mechanisms that can implement existing law require strengthening. The perceived need for new substantive rules to govern new technology is questionable at best, and distracting at worst. Here we would like to emphasise the importance of implementing existing law more effectively in order to better regulate ADM. Improving procedural capacities across the legal frameworks on data protection, non-discrimination, and human rights is imperative in this regard.

The Constitution Does Not Sleep

The South Korean government is embarking on a process to amend the current Assembly Act with the aim of enforcing stricter regulations on assemblies and demonstrations. Among other things, demonstrations at night are to be generally prohibited. I argue that the legislator’s plans disregard the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and fail to comply with standards of international law.

Constitutional Pluralism and Article 370

Recently, the Indian Supreme Court finished hearing oral arguments on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 which extended all provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. In the midst of the arguments, the Court pondered upon the nature of the relationship between the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. While the Court is unlikely to hand down an authoritative ruling on this relationship, the exchanges between the judges and lawyers offer us a valuable avenue to explore. By analysing the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly Debates, this piece examines the nature of the relationship envisaged by the two constitutions. I argue that the constitutional principle that undergirded the previously existing constitutional relationship between India and Jammu and Kashmir is heterarchy.

The Comeback of the Mixed Chamber

Three years ago, in the wake of the Weiss judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, we proposed the creation of a “Mixed Chamber” in the Court of Justice of the European Union, to rule in last instance on judicial disputes on points of Union competence. The rationale of a Chamber so composed is not obvious. After all, in a Union in which EU Law has primacy over national law, in which the autonomy of EU law is all-pervasive and where the Court of Justice is the ultimate interpreter of EU law, why should a Mixed Chamber be needed? We believe there are at least three good reasons that make a Mixed Chamber as salient as ever.