Police operations such as stops are prone for patterns of racial profiling. The contribution looks into the role of the new federal police commissioner (Polizeibeauftragte des Bundes) and his tools to address this.
In an effort to force the European Union to adopt more ambitious climate targets, two environmental NGOs initiated a proceeding before the EU General Court, invoking the rarely used mechanism of “internal review” under the EU’s Aarhus Regulation. The reason for this unusual approach lies within a reoccurring issue of climate litigation: overcoming restrictive admissibility requirements. This new approach follows a path that had not yet been considered by legal scholarship or practice. While the line of argument is rather innovative, it goes beyond the boundaries of the Aarhus Regulation and is therefore likely to fail.
This article focuses on the legal findings of the ICJ concerning the Oslo II Accord, and argues in favour of its relevance in deciding the jurisdictional question raised by the UK before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It also addresses whether invoking this question through a procedure of an amicus curiae during the warrant of arrest stage fits neatly within the ICC’s procedural regime, and it concludes that it does not.
The first contribution of the online symposium explores the ineffectiveness of anti-racism laws. It raises the leading question whether their underperformance is a result of unrealistic expectations regarding the potential of law in general, or whether inherent flaws in legal design are the root cause.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) not only made it crystal clear that Israeli occupation is illegal in every respect – by itself a challenge for Western foreign offices as they face reproaches for double standards. The Court also added a number of paragraphs detailing the legal consequences of the Advisory Opinion for UN Member States.
This post analyses the possibility of unseating the Israeli Government from the UN General Assembly in case of non-compliance with the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The Advisory Opinion provides a particularly strong legal basis – grounded primarily in the right to self-determination – to unseat Israel’s government from the General Assembly until it complies with the Opinion – as the Assembly did with South Africa fifty years ago.
Von der Leyen has recently unveiled the new structure of the next Commission. At first sight it looks like a relatively light structure composed of only three hierarchical levels: the President on top, six Executive Vice-Presidents in the middle and the Commissioners at the bottom. However, as this post will argue, the new Commission is likely to become more hierarchical and less coordinated than before. Moreover, the new structure also reflects changing priorities that will lead to a less green agenda and increased competitiveness of the EU.
On October 4th 2024 the Court of Justice issued its judgement in Front Polisario II upholding the judgement in which GC annulled Council’s decision on the conclusion of the trade agreement between European Union and Morocco. In its landmark judgement the Court acknowledged the legal standing of Front Polisario – the liberation movement representing rights of the people of Western Sahara. The Court’s findings advance the flexible and adequate approach on access to EU’s courts – and for that are worth applauding.
The CJEU interprets its Common Foreign and Security Policy jurisdiction in light of the objectives set by the Lisbon Treaty, thereby integrating part and parcel of the CFSP into the rest of the European Union acquis. This aligns the CFSP with the general principles and constitutional rules set in the Treaty. As the Court advances the integration of CFSP jurisdiction within the broader EU legal order, the judgements of 10 September 2024 in Neves 77 Solutions and KS and KD v Council and Others serve as landmark ruling for the future of judicial review in CFSP.
In the OPT Advisory Opinion, the ICJ considered that Israel’s abuse of its position as an Occupying Power, through de jure and de facto annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, renders Israel’s presence in the OPT unlawful. In determining the legal consequences of this illegal presence, the Court held by a vote of 12:3, that all States are under an obligation “not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This holding was not accompanied by any concretization in either the Advisory Opinion or any of the many declarations and separate opinions attached to it.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters