Articles for category: Deutschland

Der Burkini ist die Lösung: Schwimmunterricht auch für Muslima

Es kommt nicht oft vor, dass ein Akt der Modeschöpfung die Verfassungsrechtslandschaft verändert. Der Burkini hat das geschafft, wie das heutige Urteil des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts zum koedukativen Schwimmunterricht beweist. In dem Fall geht es wieder mal um eine muslimische Schülerin, die eine Befreiung vom Schwimmunterricht beantragt hatte, um sich nicht im Badeanzug zeigen und keine Jungs in Badehose sehen zu müssen. Ihr Grundrecht auf Glaubensfreiheit aus Art. 4 GG kollidiert aber mit dem staatlichen Erziehungsauftrag aus Art. 7 I GG: Der erlaubt dem Staat, eine Schulpflicht einzuführen und durchzusetzen und dabei festzulegen, was in der Schule passiert – auch gegen den ... continue reading

11. September 2013

Military Strikes against Syria would be illegal

A military strike by any State against Syria for alleged use of chemical weapons would be illegal under international law unless it had been previously sanctioned by the United Nations, regardless of whether the use of chemical weapons has been proven or not. Neither the U.S. President nor the Congress is entitled to take punitive action against Syria.

5. September 2013

Schadensersatz für Kriegsopfer: Verfassungsrichter rufen BGH zur Ordnung

Die schlechte Nachricht ist: Die zivilen Opfer des NATO-Angriffs auf die Brücke von Varvarin bekommen nichts vom deutschen Staat. Heute hat eine Kammer des Zweiten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts bekannt gegeben, dass sie die Verfassungsbeschwerden der Kläger nicht zur Entscheidung annimmt. Damit schließen sich nach vierzehn Jahren die Akten über ein ziemlich dunkles Kapitel in der jüngeren Geschichte des Kriegsvölkerrechts. Die gute Nachricht ist : Dass der Bundesgerichtshof vor lauter Eifer, den Staat vor der Haftung für sein militärisches Tun zu bewahren, zu dessen Gunsten auch noch die Regeln der gerichtlichen Überprüfbarkeit staatlichen Handelns und der Verteilung der Beweislast im Staatshaftungsprozess ... continue reading

3. September 2013

„The Guardian does not appear intimidated“: On Freedom of the Press in the UK

In Germany, a lot of people were rather shocked about last week’s news of the British government cracking down on the Guardian to have them destroy their Snowden hard drives. That seemed to be a full-blown attack on the freedom of the press, perhaps even more so than the arrest of David Miranda the day before. Some commentators have even compared the case to our own Spiegel affair back in the 60s. Do you think there is reason for concern as to the state of freedom of the press in the UK? Gavin Phillipson, constitutional lawyer from Durham, explains why the government is more afraid of the press in the UK than the press of the government.

28. August 2013

»Colorblindness is the norm«

On August 12, 2013, in a decision much welcomed by civil rights organizations, the US District Court of New York decided in Floyd vs. City of New York that the “stop and frisk” practice of the New York police violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Judge Shira Scheindlin explained: Routine stops of African Americans and Hispanics constitute a form of “indirect racial profiling.” The City of New York is appealing the decision. On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Fisher vs. University of Texas came as a relief to civil rights activists, who had feared that affirmative action would be ruled unconstitutional. To promote diversity on campus, the University of Texas weighed belonging to a racial minority, as well as grades and other qualifications, when making admissions decisions. A rejected White applicant had gone to court because she felt racially discriminated against by this admission policy. The case was relegated back to the State Court. Doris Liebscher and Carl Melchers asked Ian Haney-López how these court decisions related to social and legal discourse on racism in the United States.

27. August 2013

Miranda’s Rights: A Guide for the Perplexed Citizen

David Miranda, the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained at London Heathrow airport on 18 August 2013 under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was in transit between Berlin and Rio de Janeiro, carrying what appears to have been leaked classified material used for journalistic purposes. He was questioned without a lawyer, searched in person and his possessions (computer, phone, video games, other items), and his possessions were retained for a period that may not exceed seven days. His detention raises an important point for the public about what rights a citizen or foreign national would have in such a situation, and whether and how such rights might be enforced in the courts. To answer that general, to some extent abstract question, I have made some factual assumptions that would cast the government’s actions in Miranda’s case in a dark light. The relevant question for many is about the legality and constitutionality of taking predatory action against someone assisting a journalist to publish leaked information about surveillance that is highly embarrassing for the government. The following discussion provides a set of answers to basic questions the concerned citizen might ask, and while it can at times get technical and lengthy, it is meant especially for the lay reader or junior lawyer who wants more nuance than what is available in the mainstream press.

22. August 2013

Petition für „Rechtskulturen“: Jetzt unterschreiben!

Wissenschaftler aus aller Welt und allen Disziplinen kommen für ein Jahr in Berlin zusammen, um mit ihren verschiedenartigen Forschungsansätzen zum Phänomen Recht miteinander ins Gespräch zu kommen. Was könnte wissenschaftspolitisch fruchtbarer, zeitgemäßer und innovativer sein als das? Der Berliner Senat jedoch scheint das anders zu sehen und will dem Programm „Rechtskulturen“ die Mittel streichen. Warum das falsch ist, ist

22. August 2013