Articles for category: Focus

Solidarity Crimes, Legitimacy Limits

The criminalisation of humanitarianism has become pervasive in the EU over the last two decades. Overbroad definitions of the crimes of facilitation of irregular entry, transit and stay produce well known noxious effects on the human rights of migrants and civil society organisations. Nevertheless, the tendency has been to tighten the rules rather than contesting the EU’s failure to pursue a migration control system that is ‘fair towards third-country nationals’ and constructed ‘with respect for fundamental rights.’ In this blogpost, I argue that the EU legislator’s disregard for the human rights impacts of the facilitation regime constitutes an abuse of power. Legislative measures that have the effect of subverting legally enshrined principles (Arts 2, 6 & 21 TEU) and suppress the rights of civil society and the migrants with whom they engage are incompatible with core democratic premises.

India’s Push-and-Pull on Reproductive Rights

For a piece mapping India’s push-and-pull on reproductive rights – the expanse of its protection and the edges it comes up against – history is a good place to start. Rights in the reproductive sphere are relatively new to India. While India enacted a seemingly liberal abortion legislation as early as 1971, concerns about women’s rights were hardly the drivers behind it. Women’s bodies were a means to achieve the State’s end of population control. It is difficult to justify if women were truly seen as rights-holders. Did this change in recent years?

Mixed Signals for Domestic Climate Law

The climate rulings of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are landmark decisions. However, it is not obvious what they mean precisely for the State parties of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Have we witnessed, in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, a landslide victory for the activists that will revolutionize domestic climate law? Or do the two other decisions in which the Grand Chamber dismissed the applications preponderate?

On the Duarte Agostinho Decision

We may not readily describe Duarte Agostinho as a success. But it does offer an excellent opportunity to clarify what we mean by ‘success’ in this context. Arguably, this depends on our expectations – whether that’s to generate attention, trigger mobilization, seek judicial engagement with an issue, clarify the law, or pursue a given outcome, among others.

The Fabulous and the Fascist

The last ten years have witnessed the gradual collapse of democracy and constitutionalism in India. Where do LGBT rights figure in all this? I contextualize the wins and the losses and discuss why LGBT rights in India are not “under attack” as they have been under authoritarian governments elsewhere.

States‹ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Climate-Related Impacts

States’ extraterritorial jurisdiction was one of the hot topics decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Duarte Agostinho. Strictly speaking, the “lack of it” led the ECtHR to declare the complaint inadmissible with respect to all defendant States except Portugal. This finding is in line with previous ECtHR case law but highlights a gap in human rights protection and creates a mismatch between the ECtHR’s case law and that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

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.