Der US Supreme Court hat Präsident Trumps so genannten "Muslim Ban" mit der charakteristischen 5:4-Mehrheit der konservativen Richter aufgehoben, und damit im Prinzip den Einreisestopp für verfassungsgemäß erklärt. Die Entscheidung ist ein wichtiger Moment im Niedergang der US-amerikanischen Demokratie.
We are constantly struggling to make sense of the politics of our time, to understand what links various developments and phenomena that we witness. Bernard E. Harcourt has written a book that offers such an interpretation. In "The Counterrevolution" he explains how the massive collection of data and the increasing militarization of police go together, how the changes in military and foreign policy relate to domestic US politics since 9/11, and where to place President Trump in this picture. At the occasion of his visit in Berlin, Bernard Harcourt was willing to give this brief interview and speak about the theses of his book.
After a pretty disappointing and self-contradictory judgement on the wedding cakes delivered yesterday by the US Supreme Court, the CJEU came up today with the long-awaited decision in the Coman case – putting a thick full stop on a long debate about the interpretation of the term ‘spouses’ under the EU Free Movement Directive. In short, the Court held that the term does cover spouses of the same sex moving to an EU Member State where a gay marriage remains unrecognized. This simple YES is a huge step forward in federalizing the EU constitutional space in a time of multiple crises.
Last week, in Jesner v. Arab Bank, the United States Supreme Court decided that foreign corporations cannot be sued in federal court for human rights violations that occurred outside the US and have no substantial link to the US. The decision is the latest piece of an ongoing debate around the question: just how far can the US meddle in affairs of other countries? More pragmatically, it makes international human rights litigation - a successful counterpart to diplomatic intervention in the past - much more difficult today.
Among the many unwanted gifts Donald Trump has given international law as of yet, this may very well prove to be the worst: the humanitarian reprisal. Forcible countermeasures, so-called reprisals, were standard practice in order to enforce violations of international obligations at least until World War I and continued to be used and accepted even in the inter-war period. Not infrequently, they led to wider military conflicts. Thus, under the post-1945 international legal order established by the UN Charter, reprisals do not constitute licit countermeasures and in fact are covered by the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Seit Januar hält US-Präsident Trump die übrigen Mitglieder des Iran-Atomabkommens mit seinem Ultimatum in Atem: Wenn man nicht bis Mai die „desaströsen Fehler“ des Abkommens korrigiere, verabschiedeten sich die USA davon. Aber lässt das Völkerrecht einen Austritt überhaupt zu?
Der Konflikt um das nordkoreanische Atomprogramm spitzt sich immer weiter zu. Noch bietet das klassische Völkerrecht keine Möglichkeit für die Rechtfertigung eines Militärschlages, beispielsweise durch die USA. Doch die Staatenpraxis zu nuklearen Bedrohungslagen ist in Bewegung.
Emoluments is the word of the hour again in the United States. The past week saw the filing of two new lawsuits alleging that President Trump has violated one or more of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses by accepting payments and other benefits from foreign and domestic governments. What’s significant about the new suits is who the plaintiffs are. One is brought by the state of Maryland and Washington, D.C., the other by 196 members of Congress, all Democrats. Are these the plaintiffs who can get a court to rule, for the first time ever, on what “emolument” means as used in the Constitution?
US President Donald Trump, to the bewildered horror of many, has dismissed FBI director James Comey in the middle of an investigation about his aides' ties to Russia. Some even call this situation a constitutional crisis. We have shot Constitutional Law professor Sandy Levinson four very quick questions and received four equally short answers.
Am gestrigen Nachmittag gab die NSA überraschend bekannt, eine zentrale Komponente ihres globalen Überwachungssystems zu beenden. In der Zukunft will die Behörde nur Emails speichern, die von oder an verdächtige Ausländer gesendet wurden („to or from communications“). Hingegen werden nicht mehr alle Internet-Nachrichten daraufhin gescannt, ob sie Daten verdächtiger Ausländer im Text der Nachricht nennen („about communications“). Weniger Überwachung klingt gut. Und die ersten Reaktionen in den USA sind verhalten positiv, wird damit doch einer zentralen Forderung von BürgerrechtlerInnen entsprochen. Doch was bedeutet der Kurswechsel aus europäischer und deutscher Sicht?
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters