Almost every contribution to the symposium shows that it is not possible to import LPE positions from the US without friction. At the same time, an LPE Europe research agenda exists that is theoretically sound and embedded in a concretising practice. This could be used to reorganise important social infrastructures in a stable, climate-friendly and innovative way.
Western media are not equipped to handle right-wing populists like Donald Trump, Orbán, or the AfD. Moreover, constitutional theorists who argue that democracy should be purely procedural are joining the populist chorus. In our current age of populism we keep telling ourselves that everyone’s voice is always equally valid – also when based on lies and disinformation. It’s just another “point of view”. What populism has undermined is the right but also the courage to call out those who deliberately spread lies as well as those who in doing so openly use democratic institutions to destroy democracy.
Crises are a good test case, not only to check the practical performance of the law, but also to gain conceptual clarity about the possibilities of (certain areas of) the law. This post compares a German regulatory approach to private law with the US Law and Political Economy movement.
It is no understatement to say that the 19 July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion constitutes a seismic change in the international law and practice on the question of Palestine. In one fell swoop, the ICJ has shifted what was hitherto an almost exclusive focus of the international community on how Israel has administered its 57-year occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory under International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, to the requirement that Israel end its occupation of that territory as “rapidly as possible”.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine, or more accurately, between the two Peoples, has persisted for over a century. A tragic reminder of the unbearable costs of this conflict is the deadly October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel, and the ensuing war, which has led to horrific consequences, with thousands of Israelis and Palestinians killed, many severely injured, and extensive damage to the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. In these circumstances, an important question arises: what role should international law and international tribunals play in mitigating the grave harm to all those involved in the conflict?
Among the many crises challenging our societies is the inequality crisis. The central role of law in creating and addressing this crisis is not sufficiently recognized. What do “Steward Ownership” and “Law and Political Economy” might have to offer in this regard?
Scholarly debates on climate change law in general and climate change litigation more specifically and the recent LPE debates mutually enrich each other. Surprisingly, the interaction of those two fields of study – while evoked frequently – remains underdeveloped.
This post tells the fascinating story of two recent and remarkable developments in the decolonization of the Chagos Archipelago. Last week, the governments of Mauritius and the UK issued a surprise joint statement that the two countries had reached a ‘historical political agreement’ on the exercise of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Running in counterpoint to the international plane, a once inactive colonial judiciary established as an administrative pretence has recently begun to hear cases, and in doing so set the administration of justice in conflict with the US military.
The accepted framework for settling the Palestine question through bilateral negotiations, in legal terms, does not survive the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024. The degree to which the Advisory Opinion catalyses a new political framework remains to be seen. But the Advisory Opinion gives the Palestinians newfound agency in shaping one.
The principle uti possidetis juris, raised in the Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde and according to which a new State established in formerly colonial territory inherits the former (colonial) borders is untenable in the situation of Israel. The reason is that at the time of independence Israel’s leaders accepted the principle of partition. No claim was made then or subsequently that the State of Israel inherited the borders of Mandatory Palestine and legislative acts reveal that Israel even regarded territories not within the UN Partition Plan borders as occupied territory.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters