Drawing on conversations with a queer interlocutor who moved to Austria to escape persecution in their country of origin, I reflect on the limits of legal protection in the host country when and if it is not accompanied by social change. I focus on the tension introduced by anti-black racism that comes in the way of queer solidarity.
Germany, as a major greenhouse gas emitter, has a critical obligation to support developing countries affected by climate change; however, its adherence to the constitutional “debt brake” undermines this responsibility and exacerbates global inequalities.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters