Articles for category: AAA General

Armenia’s Constitutional Catch-22

In October 2024, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan simultaneously approved a Protocol regulating the joint work of their respective border delimitation commissions. The protocol’s enactment in both countries became possible after Armenia’s Constitutional Court issued a landmark Decision No. 1749 on 26 September 2024, confirming that the border delimitation agreement complied with Armenia’s Constitution. However, the Court’s Decision traps Armenia in a legal and political Catch-22.

Political Resistance and Two Dirty Words

On November 6, Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election in a landslide, winning all Swing States and the popular vote. Given the dire consequences of Trump’s second presidency looming on the horizon, it would be natural for Democrats’ reactions to include some of English’s finest swear words, the f- and the s- words in particular. But besides swearing being impolite, there are at least two other dirty words to consider: Federalism and (State) Sovereignty. It is time to use them for progressive purposes and shield Democrat states against excessive overreach by the Trump administration, as some had already suggested during the first Trump presidency

Into Reverse Gear

The recent Hague Court of Appeal judgment, in the appeal brought by Shell against the first instance decision in favour of the NGO Milieudefensie, held that Shell is legally obliged to reduce its scope 3 emissions, but did not order Shell to reduce them by 45%, or indeed any percentage. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on climate change litigation against corporations beyond just the Netherlands. That impact will be all the greater if the losing parties, Milieudefensie and others, do not appeal.

Towards a Bundle of Duties

This week’s decision in Shell v Milieudefensie from the Hague Court of Appeals seemed like a blow to climate litigation: Milieudefensie was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the Court that it could transpose a global requirement for 45% emissions reductions by 2030 into an obligation for a particular actor. Yet, the Court of Appeals decision marks considerable progress in how we understand the civil liability of large Dutch economic actors for their contributions to climate change.

An Antidote To Constitutional Authoritarian Populism?

Presidential reelection is once more a focal point in Latin American constitutional law. The amendment to the 2010 Dominican Constitution, approved in October 2024, modifies the presidential term to bar future changes that would permit unlimited presidential reelection. This reform opposes the populist trend that argues for the people’s unconditional right to reelect the incumbent president, as witnessed in Venezuela and Chile. However, as cases like El Salvador demonstrate, constitutional design may be insufficient to deter abusive interpretations by constitutional courts.

Silent Prayer vs Safe Access

In line with a broader trend, all three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom now have Safe Access Zones legislation that creates a protective area around premises where abortion services are provided. Specified behaviours are criminalised within these protective areas, with silent prayer being a common challenge. I argue that the UK Safe Access Zones legislation demonstrates a cautious approach that protects a pregnant person’s right to access lawful abortion services in conditions of dignity and privacy.

Lessons of a Landmark Lost

On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal in Shell v Milieudefensie set aside the preceding 2021 judgment which held Shell responsible for its contribution to climate change. The 2021 judgment was widely heralded (though also critiqued) as groundbreaking and a precedent that could be followed elsewhere. While the Appeal judgment is unlikely to receive similar praise from climate activists, it contains important lessons regarding the responsibility of multinational companies for their contributions to climate change.

A Piece of Advice

In this blog post, we discuss two pieces of advice about the legal and political consequences for the Netherlands arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These are the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024 and the Advisory Letter from the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs of October 2024. Both pieces of advice provide concrete recommendations, many of which, in our view, require fundamental changes in the current Dutch policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Dutch Government is constitutionally obliged to provide a meaningful response to both these pieces of advice. So far, however, it has failed to do so.