Peinigen statt Wegtragen

Die Berliner Polizei hat gegenüber Klimaaktivisten, die sich auf eine Straße gesetzt hatten, um diese zu blockieren, sogenannte Schmerzgriffe bzw. Nervendrucktechniken zunächst angedroht und sodann angewendet. Beide polizeilichen Maßnahmen, also Androhung und Anwendung, verstoßen gegen das Verhältnismäßigkeitsprinzip, weil das Wegtragen der Aktivisten ein milderes Mittel wäre. Je nach den Umständen des Einzelfalles kommt auch ein Verstoß gegen das Folterverbot in Betracht.

Effiziente Praktik oder Gift für den freiheitlichen Rechtsstaat?

Gewaltsames Handeln der Polizei kann nach den Polizeigesetzen der Länder, wenn es verhältnismäßig ist, als „unmittelbarer Zwang“ rechtmäßig sein und vielfach ist es auch erforderlich, um polizeiliche Aufgaben zu erfüllen. Ob dies auch für polizeiliche Schmerzgriffe gegen rein passiv Protestierende vor oder während der Räumung einer Straßenblockade gilt, erscheint jedoch zweifelhaft: Handelt es sich bei extremer Schmerzzufügung gegenüber den Betroffenen überhaupt um unmittelbaren Zwang im Sinne des Polizeirechts? Und kann diese Praxis tatsächlich noch als verhältnismäßig angesehen werden?

Louise Weiss

When you hear the name 'Louise Weiss', you may think of the European Parliament building in Strasbourg that bears her name, or of her election to the first European Parliament and her inaugural speech. What may not come to mind is the woman Louise Weiss herself and the outstanding achievements throughout her life. This brief profile is a reminder that she should be remembered for her tireless search for peace, her tireless fight for women's rights, her endless humanitarian work and for being truly 'European'.

›Relevant Rules‹ as Normative Environment

On 21 May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered its much anticipated Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. This post zeroes in on one particular interpretative issue, and its wider ramifications for the development of international law, namely the Tribunal’s approach to Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (which enshrines the principle of systemic integration) in connection with the interpretation of UNCLOS. Although ITLOS did not elaborate in detail on its approach, as can be seen from its entire analysis, the Tribunal has demonstrated a clear and principled choice with respect to the content and application of Article 31(3)(c) VCLT and its customary counterpart.

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive beyond Europe

The CSDDD is a game changer that forces a large number of European States to level the legislative landscape with regard to corporate responsibility for human rights and environmental impacts, as well as in relation to liability and access to justice. And yet, its reach throughout global “chains of activities” will most likely bring important hurdles for implementation including in relation to the scope of human rights covered in practice; the need for effective capacity-building in transnational chains of activities; the need for a more proactive dialogue and cooperation between the EU and other States; and last but not least, in ensuring consistency between the national implementation of the CSDDD and international and regional human rights obligations.

The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Due Diligence

The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) seeks improvements in companies’ societal impacts but carries risks of negative impacts, including on the developing countries where some supposed beneficiaries are located. Does the CSDDD recognise and mitigate such risks? The blog identifies provisions in the CSDDD that address the unintended consequences that mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence requirements might have in developing countries.

More of the same or true evolution?

While rights holders are not expressly mentioned as a group of stakeholders in CSDDD, the adoption of this important legislation creates a significant opportunity to involve rights holders to define how the content of the stand-alone article on stakeholder engagement can be filled with legal meaning by soliciting them directly.

From Paper to Practice

The CSDDD requires companies to carry out due diligence on actual and potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. This means companies have to identify harmful impacts in their value chains and take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate, or bring them to an end. In this two-part blog post, we will look at which environmental impacts are covered by the CSDDD and how they are addressed. In this second part, we will discuss how the CSDDD negotiations influenced the design of its environmental provisions and identify missed opportunities. We will conclude by analysing what factors are important to ensure that transposition and implementation remain true to the CSDDD’s objectives.

Towards Planetary Boundaries for Business?

While the material scope of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) fell behind civil society demands, it does mandate a degree of environmental due diligence that constitutes a tentative shift towards real corporate environmental accountability. Despite its conceptual restrictions, which are the result of a somewhat polarised legislative process, the CSDDD’s environmental annex provides a provision with potential for the protection of biological diversity: the reference to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

More than a Sink

The difference between treating the oceans as a mere sink versus protecting them as a vital part of the environment has important implications under international law. These implications come to the fore when considering the relationship between the UNCLOS on the one hand and the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement on the other. While the latter treaties in no way legitimize pollution of the marine environment, their focus on oceans as sinks could be misinterpreted to deprive UNCLOS and the customary rules it codifies of a meaningful role in addressing climate change.