Articles for category: Regionen

Von Worten zu Taten

Am 23. Juni 2025 trafen sich die 27 Außenminister der Europäischen Union (EU) in Brüssel, um über die Zukunft des Assoziierungsabkommens mit Israel (AA EU–Israel) zu beraten. Das Außenministertreffen selbst führte zu keiner Entscheidung über eine mögliche Aussetzung des Abkommens. Gemäß Art. 21 EUV ist die EU jedoch verpflichtet, im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht zu handeln und bei festgestellten Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf der Grundlage des AA EU–Israel zu reagieren. Andernfalls riskiert die EU, gegen ihr eigenes Primärrecht zu verstoßen.

12. Juli 2025

, , , ,

The Catalan Amnesty in the Spanish Constitutional Court

On 26 June 2025, the Spanish Constitutional Court ruled that the Amnesty Act “for the Institutional, Political and Social Normalization in Catalonia” is constitutional. The decision appears to reflect a pragmatic rather than a principled understanding of the amnesty – in other words, it treats the amnesty as an instrument to normalise the political situation in Catalonia rather than a measure for redressing possible rights violations resulting from the criminal convictions.

12. Juli 2025

,

The NGO’s Guide to Authoritarianism

It appears that whenever expert civil society organizations release a legal analysis of draft laws that restrict fundamental rights and freedoms, authoritarian governments learn from their mistakes and avoid them in the next round. One could witness such a situation when the Foreign Agents Registration Bill was introduced in the Slovak parliament last spring, and the public watchdog and advocacy organization VIA IURIS tried to stand against this legislation. In one year, the Slovak parliament considered three versions of the Bill, with each version making it more challenging to fight in court.

12. Juli 2025

, , ,

Spanish Judges on Strike

“Save the rule of Law in Spain”, read a banner held by a number of unidentified judges who were demonstrating before the premises of the Spanish Supreme Court, a couple of days ago in Madrid. But save it – from whom? The demonstrators would no doubt reply: from Pedro Sánchez and his government, which has undertaken the first serious reform of the Spanish judiciary since the transition to democracy. But the reform is not the only reason why the Spanish judges have been on strike.

11. Juli 2025

, , , , , ,

Laboratories of Authoritarianism

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause to grant conservative religious parents a constitutional right to remove their children from any classroom where a teacher includes LGBTQAI+ people in the curriculum. In effect, the Court has allowed public schools to discourage mutual tolerance, parents to opt out of Equal Protection, and fringe legal strategists to continue to use children’s constitutional rights as a test case for authoritarianism. In doing so, the erosion of children’s rights becomes the foundation upon which other rights are eroded.

11. Juli 2025

, , , , ,

Zementierte Privilegien

Der erste Senat des Bundesverfassungsgerichts hat in seinem Beschluss vom 25. Juni 2025 entschieden, dass die Pflicht zur Abgabe einer Anschlusszusage bei promovierten wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter*innen gegen Art. 5 Abs. 3 S. 1 GG verstößt. Der Beschluss macht einmal mehr deutlich, dass in Deutschland die Wissenschaftsfreiheit allein aus der Perspektive der Professor*innen betrachtet wird.

11. Juli 2025

, ,

Silencing Children’s Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, 2025. In doing so, it dramatically expanded parental rights over students and education without concern for the rights of children or consideration of pedagogy and curriculum. Instead of addressing the plurality of views around sexual orientation and gender, the Court indirectly, but unsubtly, installs a traditional values framework that imposes norms of heterosexuality, religious fundamentalism and parental micromanagement of curriculum.

10. Juli 2025

, , , ,

Judicial Acquiescence to Presidential Immigration

Mahmoud Khalil, Kilmar Ábrego García, and Rumeysa Ozturk are just a few of the people against whom the second Trump Administration has openly engaged in alarming forms of immigration enforcement. There is an underappreciated way in which the Supreme Court has defanged the judiciary’s systemic ability to confront the executive branch’s illegal immigration behavior: It has failed to draw on U.S. administrative law. In doing so, it has diminished a vital structural judicial check on presidential power – one that lower courts, and even a future Supreme Court, may find increasingly difficult to deploy.

10. Juli 2025

, , , ,