Articles for category: Focus

Donald Trump’s Post-9/11 Presidency and the Legacy of Carl Schmitt

Shortly before Trump’s inauguration in 2016, I suggested that the president-elect might prove to be a chief executive in the mode of Carl Schmitt. Trump, though, represented something different. If the early Bush years were characterized by legal interpretations that pushed the edges of executive and sovereign power, Trump’s vision of the presidency was that of a man who had no interest in legal interpretation whatsoever. As he later said of the portion of the Constitution that spells out the details of presidential power, “I have an Article II, which allows me to do whatever I want.”

Terror, Notfälle, drastische Bedingungen und demokratischer Konstitutionalismus

Verfassungen legen die Regierungsbefugnisse fest, aber sie verleihen an sich keine Legitimität, geschweige denn bilden sie die politische Körperschaft, die allein Legitimität verleihen kann. Liberal-demokratische Verfassungen verankern den Respekt vor dem Einzelnen auf unterschiedliche Weise, aber einige Grenzen sind fest und fast universell gezogen. Wenn jedoch eine Regierung, die ihre eigene, ordnungsgemäß konstituierte Rolle als Vertreter der Gesellschaft verrät, stößt sie an eine absolute Grenze der Moral, des Anstands und der Achtung der menschlichen Person und untergräbt sich selbst.

Terror, emergencies, drastic conditions and democratic constitutionalism

Constitutions establish governmental powers, but they do not in themselves confer legitimacy, let alone constitute the body politic that alone can grant legitimacy. Liberal democratic constitutions institute respect for individuals in different ways, but some lines are firmly and almost universally drawn. Torture and mutilation, however, are almost universally condemned in properly liberal societies. But when government, betraying its own duly constituted role as agent of society, turns to torture as a tool to inquire into, protect against and punish even the severest threats to itself and to individual persons, it runs up against an absolute limit of morality, decency, respect for the human person, and undermines itself.

Die Schlangenbeschwörer

Während russische Panzer in die Ukraine rollen, sollten wir uns vor den "Träumern des Absoluten" in unserer Mitte in Acht nehmen. Sie verehren die Exekutive, weil nur eine starke Exekutive in der Lage ist, die kosmopolitischen und menschenrechtlichen Errungenschaften der zweiten Hälfte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts zurückzudrehen. Diese Anbetung hängt jedoch davon ab, dass an der Spitze der Exekutive eine Person steht, die zumindest die wichtigsten Grundsätze ihrer Version des "Gemeinwohls" teilt. Dies erfordert die Befreiung der Exekutive von den Zwängen der Rechtsstaatlichkeit, sowohl international als auch innerhalb des Nationalstaates.

The Snake Charmers

As Russian tanks roll into the Ukraine, we should be wary of these ‘dreamers of the absolute’ in our midst. They worship the executive because only a strong executive is capable of rolling back the cosmopolitan, human rights achievements of the latter half of the twentieth century. But such worship depends on maintaining in power the person at the head of the executive who shares at least the most important tenets of their version of the ‘common good’. That requires not only freeing the executive from the constraints of the rule of law, both internationally and within the nation state. It also requires that democracy be hollowed out in order to ensure that periodic elections return the right person to power.

Terror-Struck

The threat created by jihadist terrorism for freedom of expression is a particularly serious one in that it operates on several levels. It provides an incentive to sacrifice freedom of expression to the fight against terrorism, it impels people to avoid forms of expression that the killers condemn, and it provides political actors with an effective pretext for silencing or censuring certain voices. Genuinely defending this freedom means not giving ground on any of these fronts.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s Multifarious Views on Freedom of Expression

In sport, the fine line between ‘political’ and ‘non-political’ expression is vital because certain expressions could potentially result in disciplinary sanctions. Dubbed as the ‘supreme court of world sport’, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’) is pivotal in interpreting and adjudicating cases involving freedom of expression in international sports. Currently, the CAS jurisprudence tends to fail to provide clear and consistent reasoning.

Neutrality of the Olympic Movement and Freedom of Expression

The relationship between sports and neutrality belongs to the most hotly debated topics in international sports law. This blog post illustrates the application of the neutrality principle in practice and argues that the athletes’ freedom of expression in sports is emerging as a ‘concession’ rather than as a ‘right’, suggesting that a reform of the regulations imposed by the Olympic Movement is urgently needed.