Articles for category: AAA General

State Responsibility and the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Change

After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, many observers were quick to conclude that it “[opens] the door to a cascade of lawsuits” (Politico). The opinion is indeed an important confirmation that the rules of State responsibility apply in the climate change context. In this post, I assess the ICJ’s treatment of State responsibility in light of the particularities of climate change, especially the plurality of States that contribute to, and suffer from, climate harm. The advisory opinion places trust in the capabilities and flexibility of the applicable rules, yet defers complex decisions on questions like causation to a case-by-case assessment. 

Game, Set, Review

The long-standing tension between private sports arbitration and the EU’s system of fundamental rights came to a head on 1 August 2025, when the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in RFC Seraing v. FIFA. The case addresses whether arbitral awards rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport can be insulated from review by EU national courts when EU law is at stake. The judgment represents a restrained but meaningful intervention by the CJEU into the autonomy of sports arbitration, seeking to balance the authority of CAS with the imperative of protective fundamentals rights under EU law.

Three Opposites in Taiwan’s Refracted Constitution

Civil society groups have initiated a mass recall movement in Taiwan, targeting the main opposition party KMT. On 26 July, it received an electoral setback. The movement has been hailed as the most recent evidence for Taiwan’s robust democracy. But its result suggests a more complicated and nuanced story concerning Taiwan’s constitutional image.

Sex Testing on Trial

Two global sport governing bodies – World Athletics and World Boxing – decided to institute genetic testing. Both now require all athletes intending to compete in women’s events to undergo a genetic test. The intent is to exclude some women, including those with certain congenital “differences of sex development”, from women’s sport. This revives an old model – last widely used in 1990s – which was deemed unscientific, unethical, and ultimately unworkable. In today’s legal landscape, this renewed approach faces even more pitfalls.

Crisis and Legal Scholarship

References to crisis abound. Since the 2008 financial crash and with the popularisation of the term “polycrisis” after the COVID-19 pandemic, the idea that we live in times of crises shapes public opinion, political discourse, and academic debates. A review of posts published on Verfassungsblog between January and July 2025 reveals an average of 15 posts per month mentioning some kind of crisis. Crisis is certainly a catchword, and these are hard to resist. But the pervasiveness of this term can also tell us something about the kind of knowledge produced by legal scholarship.

The Struggle Against Fossil Sovereignty

Over the course of decades, law has primarily functioned to enable and support the extraction, production, and consumption of fossil energy. As a result, planetary destruction remains not only awfully lucrative but also, in many cases, legally protected. The substantive impact of the ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change will depend largely on how effectively it contributes to dismantling the stronghold of fossil sovereignty. That tangled web of fossil-friendly laws has often obstructed or blunted progressive climate politics or any other interference with unsustainable, fossil-driven profit-making.

Rodina And Borisova V. Latvia And The Principle Of Self-Defending Democracy

The ECtHR, in its recent judgment on 10 July 2025 in the case of Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia, examined the applicants’ complaints regarding the refusals of domestic authorities to authorize the assemblies they wished to hold on 9 May and 23 September 2014. The ECtHR analyzed the freedom of peaceful assembly within the context of the principle of self-defending democracy. It reaffirmed that no one should be permitted to invoke the provisions of the ECHR to weaken or destroy the ideals and values of a democratic society.

New Standards in Government Framework Litigation

The ICJ advisory opinion articulates very clearly States’ international obligations with respect to climate change. Its findings that States’ mitigation efforts must reflect their highest possible ambition, be capable of achieving the 1.5oC goal, and be fair and ambitious, determined through the application of CBDR-RC are momentous, as are its conclusions on remedies. Government framework litigation can serve to hold States to these obligations – just as plaintiffs have done for the past 10 years. Given the multitude of lawsuits pending against governments around the world.

Sea-Level Rise Reaches The Hague

The advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 23 July 2025 marks a pivotal moment in the articulation of States’ obligations concerning climate change. While based on broader rules and principles of international law, the opinion foregrounded the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a key legal framework relevant to defining States’ climate obligations. As the ICJ itself stated, UNCLOS ‘forms part of the most directly relevant applicable law’ (para. 124). Thus, far from peripheral, the law of the sea emerged as a primary site for interpreting and enforcing States’ climate obligations under international law.

Taxation Without Representation

What started as a trade war in 2018 – and a domestic policy aimed at recalibrating the U.S. trade policy – has quietly transformed into a tool of hidden taxation, enabling the U.S. executive branch, meaning the President of the United States, to raise revenue and dramatically influence fiscal policy without legislative consent or even minimal participation in the legislative process by Congress. This divergence from legal norms represents a constitutional rupture – what I call the rise of a shadow fiscal state: a parallel tax system designed and executed solely through executive discretion rather than transparency and congressional legislation.