»Es gibt nur eine moralisch, rechtlich und strategisch vertretbare Antwort: ein Waffenembargo«
Fünf Fragen an Janina Dill
Articles for category: AAA General
»There is only one morally, legally and strategically defensible choice: an arms embargo«
Five Questions to Janina Dill
The Strictest Asylum Policy Ever?
On 13 September 2024, ahead of the presentation of the State Budget, the new Dutch coalition presented their finalized plan to implement what it has labelled as the strictest admission regime ever in the field of asylum law. To implement its Outline Agreement, titled ‘Hope, Courage and Pride,’ the government plans to rely on an derogation provision in the Dutch Aliens Act 2000. We argue that the provision does not apply to the current situation and that the Dutch government therefore does not have the jurisdiction to render parts of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000 inoperative.
Taking Back Control?
This week, the Polish government unveiled its new migration strategy which lays out a proposal that, “in the event of a threat to destabilize the country by an influx of immigrants, it should be possible to temporarily and territorially suspend the right to accept asylum applications.” This blog argues that the proposal is not only unlawful but also poses a threat to the common European asylum system. This is so especially in light of the upcoming implementation of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at EU level.
Anti-Racism Law and its Limits
By drawing upon insights of sociolegal thought, feminism and the US social context, this contribution argues that anti-racism law’s apparent ineffectiveness stems from its reliance on the inherently vague concept of “race”.
Nine Months Into Chaos
Ecuador is nine months away from the chaotic events of 9 January 2024: attacks and the seizure of a live newscast by members of organized crime, the consequent declaration of an “internal armed conflict” by the Presidency and the designation of 22 organized crime groups as “military targets”. This social and political process which has transformed the country is not yet fully understood and merits reflection on several key aspects of this ongoing dynamic.
Apartheid or Systemic Discrimination?
This contribution argues that, reading between the lines, the expression “systemic discrimination”, which the Court referred to in para. 223 of the Advisory Opinion, was used as a synonym for “apartheid”, even though the Court did not link this description to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, but there does not appear to be any substantial difference between apartheid and systemic discrimination. This is because the word systemic is associated with crimes against humanity which is how apartheid is defined as a crime in international law.
Unleashing Horizontal State Liability
The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is under attack. In a recent Judgment against Hungary, the European Court of Justice has unambiguously stated that non-compliance with the rules of the CEAS undermines solidarity between Member States and strikes at the very heart of EU law. Traditional means of enforcement, however, seem insufficient to foster compliance with these rules. Against this backdrop, this blogpost argues for the unexplored avenue for enforcing the CEAS via horizontal state liability.
Fundamental Rights Score a Goal
Amid the significant number of rulings delivered by the ECJ on 4 October 2024, the long-awaited judgment pitting football against the media stands out. In Real Madrid vs Le Monde, the Court held that excessive defamation damages may breach the freedom of the press and trigger the public policy exception under Brussels Ia Regulation concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In doing so, the ECJ allowed national courts to conduct a substantive review of foreign judgments despite the principle of mutual trust, to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights across the EU.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion and Israeli Law
This post examines the relationship between the Advisory Opintion and Israeli law with respect to the duty to distinguish between Israel and the OPT. While the Opinion requires States to distinguish between Israel and the OPT in their dealings with Israel, and to omit acts that may strengthen Israel’s hold of the Territories, calls for such distinction are a civil tort under Israeli law, and those making them can be denied entry to Israel. As a result, Israelis are unlikely to support the Opinion. This will contribute to the growing gap between the international discourse and the domestic discourse in Israel with respect to the OPT.
