A running joke in the pro-democratic military analyst community is about ridiculing the messages of pro-Russian experts who are pretending that the Russian defeat in the battle of Kyiv was "just a feint". I am afraid that the European Commission just walked into a similar strategic blunder with its deal with the Polish government on the recovery fund and the Supreme Court.
The expansion of the EU counter-terrorism acquis has signified what I have called the preventive turn in European security policy. Preventive justice is understood here as the exercise of state power in order to prevent future acts which are deemed to constitute security threats. There are three main shifts in the preventive justice paradigm: (i) a shift from an investigation of acts which have taken place to an emphasis on suspicion; (ii) a shift from targeted action to generalised surveillance; and, underpinning both, (iii) a temporal shift from the past to the future.
Die Ausweitung der EU-Befugnisse im Bereich der Terrorismusbekämpfung steht für die präventive Wende in der europäischen Sicherheitspolitik. Unter Präventivjustiz wird hier die Ausübung staatlicher Macht verstanden, um zukünftige Handlungen zu verhindern, die als Sicherheitsbedrohung angesehen werden. Im Paradigma der Präventivjustiz gibt es drei Hauptverschiebungen: (i) eine Verlagerung von der Untersuchung von Handlungen, die stattgefunden haben, hin zu einer Betonung des Verdachts; (ii) eine Verlagerung von gezielten Maßnahmen hin zu allgemeiner Überwachung; und, was beide untermauert, (iii) eine zeitliche Verlagerung von der Vergangenheit in die Zukunft.
Von Terrorismus und Wirtschaftskrise bis hin zu COVID-19 und Klimawandel: In den ersten Jahrzehnten des 21. Jahrhunderts sind die Demokratien von Krise zu Krise getaumelt und haben rechtliche und politische Maßnahmen ergriffen, um der jeweiligen Bedrohung zu begegnen. Viele dieser vermeintlichen Notfallmaßnahmen sind jedoch zu dauerhaften Maßnahmen geworden, die die Legitimität sowohl der von der Notfallmaßnahme betroffenen Verfassungsnormen als auch der Notfallmaßnahme selbst in Frage stellen. Dieses Plädoyer für den Notstand muss jedoch hinterfragt werden.
From terrorism and economic crisis, to COVID-19 and climate change; the first decades of the 21st Century have seen democracies lurch from crisis to crisis, implementing legal and political responses to tackle the threat at hand. Many of these ostensibly emergency responses have, however, become permanent, raising profound challenges to the legitimacy of both the constitutional norms impacted by the emergency response, and the emergency response itself. This plea to emergency must, however, be interrogated; Ultimately, what is key to understanding permanent emergencies is not the threat but the decision-maker that claims such an emergency exists.
The 9/11 attacks triggered a new practice of and renewed interest in emergency powers. Without doubt, the United States were at the forefront of the enhanced exercise of such powers, but France is a very interesting example of the many issues and challenges raised by states of emergencies' normalization. France has been governed under a state of emergency for more than half of the time that has elapsed since the attacks of 13 November 2015.
The Rule of Law requires that the law be a reliable and non-oppressive guide to how citizens should act: as such, the laws governing every citizen must be rationally knowable and voluntarily followable (and, by extension, open to rational challenge and justification). Tendencies in counter-terrorist legislation clearly run counter to the Rule of Law thus understood. Every move away from knowable and followable laws is a move away from it.
In a preliminary ruling of 29 March 2022, in case C-132/20 Getin Noble Bank, the CJEU answered questions on judicial independence of judges appointed under an undemocratic regime and of judges appointed before 2018 in an allegedly flawed process. Taking a highly formalistic approach, the Court seeks to preserve judicial dialogue between itself and the national judges – at the expense of the rule of law and judicial independence.
Amid the pandemic and the war in the Ukraine, Canada had a quiet emergency. On 14 February 2022, the federal government used the Emergencies Act to respond to a three week occupation of the Parliament building and various border blockades. This was a mild and quick emergency, as far as emergencies go. Mild emergencies that arguably respect rights are better than severe emergencies that do not, yet there is cause for concern.
Inmitten der Pandemie und des Krieges in der Ukraine herrschte in Kanada ein stiller Notfall. Am 14. Februar 2022 nutzte die Bundesregierung das Notstandsgesetz, um auf eine dreiwöchige Besetzung des Parlamentsgebäudes und verschiedene Grenzblockaden zu reagieren. Es handelte sich um einen vergleichsweise milden und schnellen Notfall. Milde Notfälle, bei denen Rechte angeblich Beachtung finden, sind besser als schwere Notfälle, bei denen dies nicht der Fall ist. Dennoch besteht Anlass zur Sorge.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters