Manifestos have very often prefigured constitutional crisis, revolution, the overthrowing of legal orders, and set the terms of what follows. Project 2025, or the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, can be read as a manifesto, and one that is now well on its way to being implemented. Examining it through the lens of constitution (re)making sets out some of the terms in which it could be opposed, including by counter-manifesto.
Lawyers love legal theories. President Trump’s unprecedented executive actions have reignited interest in theories about the U.S. Constitution, especially conservative ones. Is he working with an extreme conception of the unified executive theory, a strong version of “originalist” or even “post-originalist” legal reasoning, or will the “political question doctrine” dominate? These debates are fascinating, but they strike me as pointless. Why? Because Trump’s supporters are not deploying them in good faith. Rather, these theories are being used as rhetorical maneuvers to dress up a power grab in theoretical garb.
“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”
“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
At the European Union’s external borders, migrants are being instrumentalized in geopolitical conflicts, as seen in cases before the European Court of Human Rights concerning pushbacks at the EU-Belarus border. Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania justify these measures as responses to a “hybrid war,” while critics warn against eroding non-refoulement protections. The Court’s ruling will be crucial in defining the balance between state security and human rights.
When does sharing information become an act of disloyalty to the state? Three bills advancing through Israel’s Knesset aim to answer this question decisively: any cooperation with international justice mechanisms, particularly the International Criminal Court (ICC), would constitute a betrayal of the state punishable by up to life imprisonment. This legislative package marks a dramatic shift from merely opposing international criminal jurisdiction to criminalizing the very act of documentation and information-sharing about potential human rights violations. For Israeli scholars researching international humanitarian law, the message is clear: our academic work could become a criminal offense if it finds its way to international courts.
In Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation of Article 2 ECHR on account of the State’s failure to protect the right to life of residents in an area of Southern Italy known as the “Land of Fires” (Terra dei Fuochi). This is the first judgment linking a violation of the right to life to the prolonged exposure to pollutants released into the environment. The decisive element for the applicability of the right to life has been a shift in the Court’s approach to the causal link requirement that triggers a violation of Article 2. The Cannavacciuolo judgment should therefore be seen as a turning point for climate and environmental justice.
The CJEU is soon to decide upon Malta’s citizenship for investment scheme. Upholding the Commission’s challenge would not deprive Malta of power to confer Maltese citizenship. Instead, it would build on settled jurisprudence that EU law constrains national rules conferring EU citizenship and follow the longstanding direction of travel of the Court’s jurisprudence, which has already overcome objections that it is too radical.
A mere two months into 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have dealt with no less than 7 cases concerning various types of alleged pushbacks at Europe’s borders. In each of these cases rules of evidence were and remain at the forefront of effective human rights protection. This contribution highlights how the defending duty-bearing parties sought to interpret the applicable rules of evidence to evade responsibility. It further argues that failure by the Courts to meaningfully interpret these rules in light of current-day realities and the principle of effectiveness could risk eroding the absolute human rights at the core of the European legal order.
After decades of gridlock on campaign finance reform at the federal level in Australia, the major parties reached a deal to pass the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 (Cth) on almost the last parliamentary sitting day before a forthcoming election. The new law will not take effect until after the election. It will lower the threshold for the disclosure of donations and ensure disclosures are published more quickly. It will also impose a cap on political donations and a cap on electoral expenditure. This all sounds like a great improvement for transparency and fairness in election campaigning. In theory, it is. So why and how could it be the subject of a successful constitutional challenge?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters