Articles for tag: Article 2 TEURussian State AssetsSolidarität

Overcoming the Hungarian Veto

A Russian victory over Ukraine would make a military confrontation with Europe more likely. To prevent this, the Union must prolong the Russian sanctions, including the freezing of 200 billion EUR in central bank assets. The prolongation of these sanctions requires a unanimous decision pursuant to Article 31(1) TEU. Hungary threatens to obstruct this decision. We propose a way to end Hungary's obstruction. It requires no grand actions, only a few interpretative steps and a narrow political consensus.

Tackling the Union’s “Orbán Problem” Now

The EU is facing an “Orbán problem”. That much is clear. The Hungarian government not only pursues an illiberal domestic agenda that violates the Union’s values in Article 2 TEU, but also cultivates close ties with autocratic regimes abroad, particularly with Russia. The Hungarian government consistently uses its veto powers to block Ukrainian military aid and dilute sanctions against Russia. The Commission should submit a new proposal under Article 7(2) TEU focusing on breaches of solidarity and threats to the Union’s security.

Solidarity Crimes, Legitimacy Limits

The criminalisation of humanitarianism has become pervasive in the EU over the last two decades. Overbroad definitions of the crimes of facilitation of irregular entry, transit and stay produce well known noxious effects on the human rights of migrants and civil society organisations. Nevertheless, the tendency has been to tighten the rules rather than contesting the EU’s failure to pursue a migration control system that is ‘fair towards third-country nationals’ and constructed ‘with respect for fundamental rights.’ In this blogpost, I argue that the EU legislator’s disregard for the human rights impacts of the facilitation regime constitutes an abuse of power. Legislative measures that have the effect of subverting legally enshrined principles (Arts 2, 6 & 21 TEU) and suppress the rights of civil society and the migrants with whom they engage are incompatible with core democratic premises.

The Terrible Plight of Internally Displaced Persons in Central Africa

In a never-ending humanitarian crisis, Central Africa is host to the largest community of internally displaced persons (IDPs). In early November, thousands of new IDPs, including a high number of children, found shelter in overcrowded and unsanitary camps in Goma and Lubero, in the North Kivu provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) fleeing violence in the area, caused by the intensifying fighting between the Congolese armed forces and non-state armed group M23. It is for this reason of permanent insecurity in the area that I argue that the adoption of a specific binding legal instrument could ease the management of the IDPs in the region. The adoption of such an instrument would find one of its foundations in the concept of “solidarity”.

Impfzwang als Institutionenschutz

Einer aktuellen Umfrage zufolge ist die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung gegen eine allgemeine Pflicht zur Impfung gegen COVID-19. Auch Wissenschaft und Politik machen bislang einen Bogen um das Thema. In der Debatte wird auf beiden Seiten oft oberflächlich argumentiert – auf der einen Seite mit einem fragwürdigen Verständnis von „Solidarität“, auf der anderen mit einer verfehlten Vorstellung von individueller Freiheit. Dabei würde eine Impfpflicht, verstanden als solidarischer Beitrag zum Schutz freiheitsermöglichender Institutionen, mit einem liberalen Staatsverständnis durchaus konform gehen.

„Privilegien“ für einige oder Lockdown für alle?

Noch ehe die erste Impfung verabreicht war, entbrannte die Diskussion um eine Differenzierung zwischen geimpften und nicht geimpften Personen. Dürfen geimpften Personen Möglichkeiten eines „normaleren“ Lebens eingeräumt werden, die man nicht geimpften Personen (noch) vorenthält? Oder muss der Staat jegliche Differenzierung verbieten und den Lockdown damit für alle bis zur (möglicherweise gar nicht erreichbaren) Herdenimmunität, aufrechterhalten?

Constitutional Constraints meet Political Pressure

The Finnish Constitutional Law Committee had already in April adopted a critical position towards the COVID 19 crisis measures in the EU. Last week the Committee continued its critical examination. It came to the conclusion that the Eurogroup decision to essentially remove all conditionality from the new loan facility of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is incompatible with the Finnish Constitution and expressed serious doubts about its compatibility with EU law. The Committee also repeated its concerns about the accumulation of financial risks deriving from EU membership.