Staatliche Schutzpflichten gegen Rassismus statt AfD-Verbot

Der Rassismus- und Antisemitismusvorwurf dient als wesentliches Argument für ein Verbot der AfD. Aus rassismuskritischer Perspektive geht die Verbotsdebatte allerdings fehl. Sie erschöpft sich in einem symbolischen Antirassismus, der eine ebenso symbolische Antirassismuspolitik fördert, die an der Realität vulnerabler Gruppen vorbeigeht. Zudem externalisiert die Debatte um das AfD-Verbot den Rassismus der sogenannten Mitte und wirbt für einen rechtsstaatlich und demokratietheoretisch bedenklichen repressiven Antirassismus.

The Digital Public Square meets the Digital Baton

The value a society and its laws place on protecting free speech is arguably most keenly felt where that speech takes a critical turn. Which is why the history of this field is littered with prosecutions and penalties being levied against problematic speech, inviting courts to draw the lines between what is protected and what is not. The past ten years in India demonstrate that when faced with speech that is critical of government policy or state action, the state has become increasingly hesitant to let it remain on air. What is perhaps most alarming for the health of democracy is that, in most cases, there is often a synergy across the three arms of the State that curbing problematic speech is the best course of action to follow.

The Meaning of Carbon Budget within a Wide Margin of Appreciation

Although the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment discusses a number of rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Article 6 (right of access to a court), Article 2 (right to life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the focus of this blog post is on its discussion of Article 8 (right to private, home and family life). The question raised by that discussion is whether the judgment is one that will “frighten the horses” and lead to oppositional cries of judicial overreach around the separation of powers, or if it is more an unexceptional case of “move on, nothing to see here.” My argument is that the judgment is mostly the latter but that it has what, in computer gaming terms, is known as an “Easter egg” – a hidden element included by the developers to surprise and reward those who look carefully. That could turn out to be more controversial.

Subordination and Arbitrariness in Citizenship Law

In 2019, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party returned to power in India. The Bharatiya Janata Party oversaw the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (‘CAA’) which gave Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian (but not Muslim) migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan a fast-tracked pathway to Indian citizenship. This post argues that the CAA is unconstitutional, and uses it as an example to clarify two important under-theorised Indian constitutional principles: anti-subordination and arbitrariness.

Historic and Unprecedented

The three much-awaited judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 9 April 2024 are truly historic and unprecedented. In Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber established that climate change is 'one of the most pressing issues of our times' and poses a threat to human rights. With this ruling, the Court confirmed that States have a positive obligation to adopt measures to mitigate climate change under Article 8 ECHR, the right to family and private life. The judgments will undeniably set the tone for climate litigation in the years to come. It will impact both litigation and other procedures before other international courts.

The Transformation of European Climate Change Litigation

In a transformative moment for European and global climate litigation, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled today that the state has a positive duty to adopt, and effectively implement in practice, regulations and measures capable of mitigating the existing and potentially irreversible future effects of climate change. In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”), the Court held that by failing to put in place a domestic regulatory framework for climate change mitigation, the Swiss government violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for private and family life. The judgment is a milestone for human rights protection.

Amending the Constitution Without Deliberation

India is undergoing a “deliberation backsliding”. Since the current government was elected to office in 2019, only 13% of all government bills introduced in Parliament were referred to Parliament Committees for detailed study, scrutiny and stakeholder consultations. While the deliberation deficit is concerning with respect to ordinary government bills, it becomes alarming with respect to bills which seek to amend the Indian Constitution. In this blog post, I argue that the promise of deliberative democracy in India is coming undone, which sets back the project of constitutionalism in India.

Reimagining Indian Federalism

As India’s new dominant party system coalesced after 2014, the country entered a phase of centralisation. India has always had federalism with a strong centre, but from the late 1980s to the mid-2010s, political and economic regionalism and national coalition governments encompassing national and regional parties produced an appearance of deepening federalisation. Since 2014, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) became the first party in over 25 years to win an outright parliamentary majority, the twin pillars of political centralisation under a dominant party system and economic concentration, have once again drawn attention to the contested nature of India’s federal contract.

Die Pflicht zum Demokratieschutz

Wenn über die wehrhafte Demokratie gestritten wird, ist der Ruf nach einer starken Zivilgesellschaft nicht fern. „Verfassungsschutz von unten“, „wehrhafte Demokratie light“, „ziviler Verfassungsschutz“, „intellectual militancy“ oder „konfliktfähige Zivilgesellschaft“ lauten die Forderungen. Fast alle Diskussionsbeiträge der laufenden Debatte haben gemeinsam, dass sie die Zivilgesellschaft in die Pflicht nehmen. Dabei ist es der Staat, der primär in die Verantwortung genommen werden muss. Sowohl Verfassungsrecht als auch Unionsrecht konkretisieren eine staatliche Pflicht zum Demokratieschutz. Entsprechend ist es staatliche Aufgabe, zivilgesellschaftliche Räume zu stärken und zu schützen.

Anna Julia Cooper

Dr. Anna Julia Cooper was born into slavery at a time, when the 1831 Act prohibited the teaching of literacy to enslaved people in North Carolina in order to prevent rebellion and emancipation. Despite this, she was the fourth (known) Black female Ph.D. and the first African American woman to receive a doctorade from the Sorbonne University. She is still considered a mother of Black feminism and a formidable writer, activist, and educator.