Articles for category: AAA General

Behemoth v. The Dual State in the Gaza War

Fraenkel’s The Dual State (1941) and Neumann’s Behemoth (1942) offer two diverging accounts of the legal reality under National Socialism. The controversy between the two is important not only for the Gaza War, but also for the future of international humanitarian law writ large. The picture, according to which if lawyers had more power post-World War I, democracies in Europe would not have collapsed, affected both constitutional and international law. Yet, the claim that Weimar and the world could have been saved if only the law and lawyers had possessed more power is inaccurate. We are now reliving the consequences of this mistake in the Gaza War.

Human Rights in the ICJ’s Climate Opinion

This summer has seen two major climate advisory opinions published – first from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and then from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Both opinions address human rights law, embedding human rights in a broader overarching framework of international law that also includes international climate treaties and customary international law. But how do these opinions compare, and what room does the ICJ leave for continuing development of human rights standards by other relevant courts and treaty bodies?

Mia Yamamoto

Her story is one of courage, sacrifice and solidarity with those pushed to society’s periphery: for decades, Mia Yamamoto hid her true self as a trans woman while fiercely advocating for the marginalized and uniting diverse groups to amplify unheard voices. Since birth, she has shared the fate of the incarcerated – a reality that continues to shape her to this day.

A State Without Statehood

One year after New Caledonia was tormented by violent demonstrations, resulting in the deaths of 14 people and causing over 2 billion euros worth of damage, representatives of New Caledonia and the French State signed the Bougival Accord to bring an end to the situation and pave the way for peace. While Emmanuel Macron hails the Accord as “historic”, the overseas minister Manuel Valls celebrates it as “the best response to the fear”. However, a closer look at the agreement reveals that the Accord continues to entrench the French hold on the island and renders New Caledonian independence more elusive than ever.

The Ruling and the Mirror

Much of the commentary that has emerged so far, in this symposium and in seemingly every other corner of the internet, focuses on the legal content of the opinion: the articulation of States’ obligations under international law, the rejection of the lex specialis argument, and the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, inter many alia. Yet beyond the legal reasoning and doctrinal outcomes lies something else. The opinion is also an act of identity performance: a way for the ICJ to speak about itself.

Parteiverbotsverfahren in der öffentlichen Debatte

In der seit einigen Monaten kontrovers geführten Debatte um ein mögliches AfD-Verbot werden immer wieder Positionen mit rechtlichen Argumenten unterfüttert, die mit Blick auf das Verfassungsrecht kaum haltbar oder zumindest stark umstritten sind. Ihnen soll im Folgenden besondere Aufmerksamkeit gelten: als Mahnung an alle, die sich öffentlich zu diesem Thema äußern, dass die juristische Methodik auch dort nicht vernachlässigt werden darf, wo (gefühlte) politische Dringlichkeit auf normative Komplexität trifft.

»We Were Just Cooperating!«

On June 12th 2025, Advocate General (AG) Ćapeta delivered her Opinion in Case WS v Frontex (C-746/23 P), concerning Frontex’ responsibility for violations of fundamental rights in joint return operations (JROs). The AG first exposes serious logical and legal flaws in the General Court’s approach before explaining why Frontex can be held directly accountable for fundamental rights violations when acting in cooperation with Member States; a question that was central to the applicants’ case but one that the General Court failed to address entirely.

Who is In, Who is Out?

In our blog post “Access Denied”, we informed the research and Open Access (OA) community about Verfassungsblog’s removal from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). With the publication of our appeal –  which was ultimately rejected by DOAJ – we also announced our intention to initiate a broader discussion with DOAJ and the OA community about the directory’s admission and removal processes. As DOAJ is a central and established instrument in the Open Access movement, we believe this discussion is vital. To enable an open and constructive conversation, I will revisit the arguments from our appeal and connect them to broader issues of Open Access publishing, funding, and DOAJ’s role in this process. Since Matt Hodgkinson, Head of Editorial at DOAJ, has recently published DOAJ’s response, I will engage with some of his key points.

What the Court Didn’t Say

The aim of this blog post is not to summarise the ICJ’s opinion or assess its overall relevance for international law. Instead, it draws attention to some of the issues that the ICJ did not address, or where it might have gone further, by providing more depth, precision, and guidance. By focusing on what the ICJ did not say, we can gain a better understanding of how it navigates its institutional constraints, political sensitivities, and the evolving terrain of international climate litigation.

A Right Foundational to Humanity’s Existence

For the second time in a month, one of the world’s highest judicial authorities has issued an advisory opinion on the climate crisis that highlights the importance of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Echoing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion 32/25, on July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously held that this right constitutes a binding norm of international law.