Articles for tag: DiskriminierungEntzug der StaatsbürgerschaftEthnic DiscriminationNiederlandeRacial DiscriminationStaatsangehörigkeitStaatsbürgerschaft

The Nationality Lottery

On 24 March 2025, the Amsterdam District Court issued a consequential judgement on deprivation of nationality after a terrorist conviction. The ruling stated that the Dutch government could not revoke the nationality of a person convicted of terrorism-related crimes, declaring it a violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin. The judgement marks a departure from previous case law established by the Council of State – the highest administrative court in the Netherlands – as it reconceptualizes the issue of deprivation of nationality as one of direct discrimination based on ethnic origin. However, it fails to provide a clear explanation for its reasoning and seems to conflate nationality with ethnicity.

Grüße aus den Niederlanden

Am 29. Januar 2025 stimmte der Bundestag über Anträge der Union zur Verschärfung der Migrationspolitik ab. In einem bislang beispiellosen Tabubruch in der Nachkriegsgeschichte der deutschen Politik nahmen Union und FDP erstmals Stimmen der extrem rechten AfD in Kauf. Ein Blick über die Grenze in die Niederlande zeigt, was passiert, wenn Mitte-rechts-Parteien der radikalen Rechten die Hand reichen. Statt sie zu schwächen, legitimiert und stärkt es sie.

Into Reverse Gear

The recent Hague Court of Appeal judgment, in the appeal brought by Shell against the first instance decision in favour of the NGO Milieudefensie, held that Shell is legally obliged to reduce its scope 3 emissions, but did not order Shell to reduce them by 45%, or indeed any percentage. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on climate change litigation against corporations beyond just the Netherlands. That impact will be all the greater if the losing parties, Milieudefensie and others, do not appeal.

Towards a Bundle of Duties

This week’s decision in Shell v Milieudefensie from the Hague Court of Appeals seemed like a blow to climate litigation: Milieudefensie was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the Court that it could transpose a global requirement for 45% emissions reductions by 2030 into an obligation for a particular actor. Yet, the Court of Appeals decision marks considerable progress in how we understand the civil liability of large Dutch economic actors for their contributions to climate change.

Lessons of a Landmark Lost

On 12 November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal in Shell v Milieudefensie set aside the preceding 2021 judgment which held Shell responsible for its contribution to climate change. The 2021 judgment was widely heralded (though also critiqued) as groundbreaking and a precedent that could be followed elsewhere. While the Appeal judgment is unlikely to receive similar praise from climate activists, it contains important lessons regarding the responsibility of multinational companies for their contributions to climate change.

A Piece of Advice

In this blog post, we discuss two pieces of advice about the legal and political consequences for the Netherlands arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. These are the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion of July 2024 and the Advisory Letter from the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs of October 2024. Both pieces of advice provide concrete recommendations, many of which, in our view, require fundamental changes in the current Dutch policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Dutch Government is constitutionally obliged to provide a meaningful response to both these pieces of advice. So far, however, it has failed to do so.

A Collision Foretold

On 16 May, four Dutch parties presented a new governing agreement (Agreement). The four parties PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB will form one of the most right-wing governments in Dutch history. They vow to impose the strictest migration policy to date. The proposed migration measures under the Agreement endanger the fundamental rights of migrants and people applying for international protection. The plan also put the Netherlands on a collision course with the EU as many of the measures are contrary to the provisions in the EU Migration Pact, which was adopted last week.

Dutch Court Halts F-35 Aircraft Deliveries for Israel

In a landmark decision, the Hague Court of Appeal ordered the Dutch government on 12 February 2024 to stop supplying Israel with F-35 fighter jet parts because there was a “clear risk” that serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) would be committed with the aircraft in Gaza. In their unanimous decision, the three judges relied on the European Union (EU) Common Position on Arms Exports and the Arms Trade Treaty as they apply to Dutch law, which outline criteria against which military exports must be assessed to determine the risk of abuse. The judgment made important findings on the nature of these risk assessments, which may have significant implications in future litigation.

Dutch Rule of Law Alert

It is never a good sign when Viktor Orbán celebrates the election results of another country. Last Wednesday was one of those days. For the first time in the history of Dutch politics, a far-right party became by far the biggest party in the Dutch parliament. It is bad news in many respects, and even more, because the Dutch constitutional system knows a lack of formal rule of law safeguards. In contrast to countries such as Italy or Germany, the Dutch constitutional system is not prepared for a democratic move to the anti-liberal far right.

COVID-19 in the Netherlands: of Changing Tides and Constitutional Constants

Along with Covid, the Government’s response, and the growing public unrest, came a continuing string of constitutional questions and developments, that is unlikely to diminish anytime soon. Building on the abovementioned Verfassungsblog post, we will discuss the main constitutional Covid-19 highlights, largely chronologically. Throughout we will pay particular attention to three recurring and interrelated themes: the evolving role of Parliament in shaping the political and legal response to Covid-19, the relevance and varying intensity of judicial control in pandemic times, and the omnipresence of fundamental rights concerns.