Articles for category: Focus

Common but Differentiated Responsibility in Climate and Genocide Cases

The search for a more equitable and legally binding responsibility distribution mechanism in global refugee protection starts with the question what responsibility states bear for the protection of refugees and other forced migrants outside of their territory. Here I discuss two potential avenues within international law: the operationalised international law principles of cooperation and solidarity, based on their application in climate cases; and the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine from international humanitarian law. The distribution mechanism they both apply might be useful to establish and define extraterritorial protection obligations of states towards refugees.

Due Diligence in International Law

This contribution determines to what extent the international law obligations of due diligence, the no harm principle or the principle sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas can be relied upon today to advance extraterritorial obligations of states towards migrants. Crucially for this purpose, the due diligence obligation is not limited to individuals within the jurisdiction of a State. Rather, States must ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause serious harm to individuals in the territory of another State or to common interests of the international community.

An Inconvenient Truth? Fascism and Ethno-Nationalism

India’s modern history has been profoundly shaped by a concern that nationalism can lead to mass violence and atrocity, if not genocide. This preoccupation was also shaped by the experience of World War II. Indian politicians and thinkers often referred to the experience of Nazism in making the case for India to intervene and prevent an impending genocide in what was then East Pakistan. While the intervention led to the creation of an independent state of Bangladesh, it was also a case in which invocation of the holocaust and “Never Again” was apt.

›One, No One, One Hundred Thousand‹

States use mechanisms such as visas, maritime interdiction operations, pushback practices to unsafe countries to prevent migrants from reaching their shores, applying for asylum, or invoking fundamental rights guarantees. This raises the question of whether and to what extent States have extraterritorial obligations towards migrants who have not yet reached the territory of destination countries. By focusing on recent practices in the Mediterranean, this post addresses this overarching question.

Beyond Borders

The question of extraterritoriality has found a very particular application in contexts of migration. This renders the questions of which state has to fulfill human rights obligations while a migrant is on the move and to what extent very pressing ones. This symposium examines what the existing criteria for attribution exactly mean for states’ extraterritorial obligations and responsibility in a migration context and whether arguments from other fields of law could either inspire or be implemented beyond their respective borders.

Influences of the Holocaust on the Constitutional Law of Israel

The trauma of Auschwitz continues to reverberate in the collective consciousness of Israelis and manifests in Israeli laws across several primary domains. However, the primary impact of the Holocaust trauma on Israeli constitutional law has been the concerted efforts to prevent Israel from descending into a fascist, racist regime akin to Germany in the 1930s. The incorporation of the concept of Intolerant Democracy, which occupies a central role in Israeli constitutional law, was explicitly inspired by German history.

Jewish Past, Mnemonic Constitutionalism and the Politics of Citizenship

For this symposium essay, I will focus on the Jewish past, with its tragedies extending beyond and preceding the Holocaust as a master narrative unfolded by mnemonic constitutionalism. Specifically, I will reflect on how citizenship laws – as the foundational cluster of constitutional law in liberal democracies, including the countries without a formal constitution – have built constitutional ontologies upon the Jewish past and the “never again” theme through three central examples involving “Jewish citizens”.

Never Again – Ever Again

The “Never Again” is the desperate evocation of something impossible. Nothing prevents people from expanding the arsenal of their crimes with ever newer, ever more artificial, more scientific methods and instruments, and from using them. Just as grass and flowers mercifully spread over the ruins of the ovens, the fields fertilized with ashes, all attempts to bear witness to the crimes, to keep memory alive as a warning, dissolve into the history of the victors, which has dominated everything else in all times of human history.

The »Never Again« Imperatives in Chinese Constitutions

This essay aims to provide a Chinese perspective on the question of traumas and the Never Again imperative. It will first place the question in the long history of constitution-making in China, taking the view that constitutional narratives are context-driven, shaped by particular historical processes, and addressing particular historical concerns of respective nation-states, each with its trauma and Never Again imperatives. This essay then brings the current 1982 constitution into focus, highlighting the trauma it is designed to address and assessing the sincerity and effectiveness of the commitment.

Never Again in Russia

In the Soviet Union and later in Russia, reference to World War II played a central role in the decades after 1945. The “never again” narrative in Russia takes a very specific form: The focus is not on the Holocaust but on the Victory in the “Great Patriotic War” against fascism, the increase of power and status in the international system that this has brought, and the perpetuation of the present and timeless actuality of war in a mostly imperial and post-imperial context. The discourse on Victory against fascism undergoes a paradoxical development, from a way of commemorating collective trauma to the justification and glorification of new wars.