In their latest ‘WHO transformation’ (which began in 2017), the WHO hired at least six consulting firms, praised by the Director-General as the ‘best firms in the world’. Despite their prominent role in WHO processes and reform efforts, there is a clear accountability gap in their role at WHO. Consultant engagement contributes to a trend towards informal governance and public-private collusions in an organization that looks less and less like a public authority.
In the latest episode in a decades-long conversation about militant democracy, the growing electoral success and radicalization of Alternative for Germany have relaunched debates about the appropriateness of restricting the political rights of those who might use those rights to undermine the liberal democratic order. While it is typical for dictatorships to ban parties, democracies also do so, but for different reasons and with compunction. Party bans respond to varying rationales which have evolved over time. However, a ban on the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany would be out of step with more general patterns of opposition to such parties in Europe.
With an estimated 6,9 million deaths and with its enormous scale of economic, social and political collateral damages, the COVID-19 Pandemic has created excessive momentum for re-considering the rules and procedures governing global health – or has it? In this blog contribution, I will discuss the promises and pitfalls of current law-making and law-amending efforts that seek to strengthen pandemic governance post COVID-19 by reflecting on three distinct features of global health as an area of international cooperation.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed systemic problems in the global health system. It revealed that the global health system perpetuates global health inequalities rather than effectively reducing them: The international community, particularly the countries of the Global North, failed to make COVID-19 vaccines widely available to the populations of the world's poorest countries. This blog debate takes stock of the reform debate about a just and decolonizing transformation of the health system. Bringing together scholars from various disciplines, the contributions of this debate ask what a fair global health system could look like and what role the law plays in it.
Oft firmiert die Annahme, dass soziale Ungleichheit politisch umso umstrittener sei, je weiter die Angleichung zwischen den verschiedenen gesellschaftlichen Gruppen vorangeschritten ist, nach ihrem Entdecker als das Tocqueville-Paradox. Im Hinblick auf ein mögliches Verbotsverfahren gegen die AfD ließe sich weniger bildungsbürgerlich, aber durchaus treffend auf ein „Herr Tur Tur-Paradox“ verweisen. Ähnlich wie der Scheinriese aus dem Kinderbuch Michael Endes wirkt das Instrument des Parteiverbots aus der Entfernung sehr imposant – und schnurrt dann aber immer mehr zusammen, je besser sich die Eröffnung eines Verbotsverfahrens vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht begründen ließe.
Die derzeitige Diskussion um ein Verbot der AfD ist ein anschauliches Beispiel dafür, wie sich die Wahrnehmung auch ganz grundlegender verfassungsrechtlicher Institute im Laufe der Zeit verändern kann. Bis in die siebziger und achtziger Jahre des letzten Jahrhunderts war das Parteiverbot bei vielen geradezu verschrien; es galt zusammen mit den Notstandsgesetzen und dem Radikalenerlass als weiteres Repressionsinstrument eines autoritären Staates, als sichtbarer Beleg für dessen immer nur vorgeschobene Liberalität. Aber ob man den Antrag stellt oder nicht, ist eine schwierige Abwägungsentscheidung, die man auch nicht dadurch unterlaufen kann, dass man sie zu einer rechtlichen erklärt oder sie in der Verfassung schon vorweggenommen sieht.
It may sound trivial, but I argue that the technicalities of EU law have been neglected and that an in-depth inquiry is lacking. To see why such an inquiry might be interesting, we must go beyond the traditional understanding of legal technicalities and see them as protagonists in their own right. We need to focus on lawyers’ knowledge practices and to inquire into the transformative power of legal technicalities.
Although EU law touches on several profound and complex ontologies of ways of living and being in the European polity, these meanings are usually not reflected in how lawyers and legal scholars ‘speak’ EU law. The reason for this is that EU law is formulated in a strikingly abstract and univocal way, leaving little room for an in-depth consideration of the different interpretations of the law by reference to the various values and conceptions of the individual and social institutions that it underlies.
Can there be a cultural study of EU law? The notion of legal culture is notoriously tricky. It is both omnipresent and yet seemingly ungraspable. Can we nevertheless hope to dispel the mystery of legal culture, and seize this notion as an object of study? And can it provide a method to improve our understanding of EU law?
I chose for years to consider migrations and borders from a pluridisciplinary perspective. Such a pluridisciplinary approach reveals to be demanding: it needs both to be developed with discipline, and to be opened to wanderings. You have to accept to be confronted with personal controversies, to be faced with internal discourse on the method.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters