Articles for category: Regionen

A Rejoinder to Citizenship for Sale (Commission v Malta)

In his piece on Citizenship for Sale of 14 April 2024, Joseph Weiler criticizes the European Commission's infringement procedure against Malta's golden passport scheme. He names three reasons why the Commission should (or could) not have brought the case and the Court should not uphold it. While the present reply does not argue that the Court will necessarily find in the Commission's favour, the Commission's legal claim and strategy do not seem to be as (constitutionally) problematic as Weiler make them out to be.

15. April 2024

, ,

Citizenship for Sale (Commission v Malta)

The Maltese “passports for sale” (Golden Passports) was big news a year or two ago but has now disappeared below the radar of public attention. Yet, the mills of justice might grind slowly, but grind they do. The case brought by the Commission against Malta is scheduled to be heard by the CJEU sometime later this year. So, Malta offers passports for sale. Quelle Horreur! I hear you sniffing with disgust and indignation. They sell their citizenship, and hoopla – automatically these new citizens, ipso facto and ipso jure are European Citizens enjoying all the rights and duties which attach to such.

14. April 2024

, ,

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).

12. April 2024

, , , , ,

Climate Litigation Reaches Italian Courts

With Giudizio Universale, climate litigation has found its way to Italy. This case has many aspects in common with the general transnational phenomenon, both in terms of the structure and content of the legal arguments used. The case highlights the difficulties that courts face in view of the high social expectations connected to this kind of proceedings.

12. April 2024

, ,

The High Representative Strikes Again

In March 2024, the High Representative (HR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Christian Schmidt, once again used his “Bonn powers” under the Dayton Peace Agreement which, inter alia, enable him to impose substantial legislation. After a dark warning, he enacted a new package of reforms concerning the electoral process. While these reforms reflect the necessary and desirable changes in the process of the EU accession, concurrently resolving a political stalemate, this schmidtian mode also creates further political cleavages. Nevertheless, arguably a “Smith” has found a fairly clever way forward.

11. April 2024

, , ,

Third Provisional Measures in South Africa v Israel

On March 28, 2024, the ICJ issued its third provisional measures order in South Africa v Israel. The Court ordered further, more pointed, measures towards Israel to ensure the provision of humanitarian aid throughout Gaza. In this blog post, I consider that the right to be heard in the course of this third order has not been fully guaranteed since the ICJ based its ruling on the international reports which were not provided, known, and considered by either of the parties. Moreover, I argue that the ICJ underscored its decision on humanitarian law rather than obligations to prevent genocide.

11. April 2024

, , , , ,

Globuli für Umweltjuristen

Sind Gerichte als Institutionen des einzelfallbezogenen Rechtsschutzes geeignete Einrichtungen zur Bewältigung der Klimakrise? Könnten sie die sicherlich notwendigen gesamtgesellschaftlichen und globalen Transformationsprozesse anleiten? Bernhard Wegener bezieht klar Stellung gegen die „zuckersüße Illusion von Climate Justice“. 

11. April 2024

, ,

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.

11. April 2024

, , ,