Im Falle eines AfD-Verbots ist mit einem Beschwerdeverfahren nach Art. 34 EMRK zu rechnen, wodurch die völkerrechtlichen Maßstäbe für ein Verbotsverfahren virulent werden. Das BVerfG scheint von einem Gleichlauf zwischen der Potentialität mit dem pressing social need des EGMR auszugehen. Dass sich im Detail dennoch Unterschiede finden, sollte schon jetzt in den Überlegungen zum nationalen Verfahren eine Rolle spielen.
Law can be viewed not as a universal (or European) science but, following Geertz, as local knowledge. To illustrate the relevance of this perspective for understanding EU law, its effects, and the limits of integration through law, this text draws on the findings of a “classical” comparative study on the application of proportionality as an EU law principle in three national contexts: France, England, and Greece. This type of approach has the potential to evolve – and indeed is already evolving – into an interdisciplinary exploration of the diverse ways in which EU law is understood, applied, and experienced in settings as varied as the Paagalayiri market in Ouagadougou, the train-line connection between Paris and Marseille, or the camp of Moria on Lesvos.
Die Kriege in der Ukraine und im Nahen Osten prägen unsere Gegenwart. Für viele symbolisieren sie die Auflösung der internationalen Rechtsordnung. Angesichts der Handlungsunfähigkeit des UN Sicherheitsrates erstarkt dabei das Selbstverteidigungsrecht nach Art. 51 SVN mit seinen Schranken der Erforderlichkeit und Verhältnismäßigkeit zum entscheidenden Maßstab für die Einhegung militärischer Gewalt. Doch kann der unbestimmte Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz in einem dezentralen Rechtssystem überhaupt Steuerungswirkung entfalten?
Im Israel-Gaza-Konflikt nach dem Terrorangriff der Hamas vom 7. Oktober 2023 hat sich die Frage der Verhältnismäßigkeit vielfach gestellt. Aber auch im Blick auf die (zweite) Amtseinführung von Donald J. Trump als US-Präsident am 20. Januar 2025 und die von ihm angekündigten massiven Zollerhöhungen in Richtung Kanada, Mexiko und China drängt sich die Frage auf, ob es dafür von Völkerrechts wegen Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrenzen gibt. Ob Verhältnismäßigkeit ein allgemeines Prinzip des Völkerrechts darstellt, das sich hier fruchtbar machen ließe, ist jedoch umstritten.
On 29 November 2024, the Australian federal Parliament enacted a world-first law, which imposed a minimum age for access to most social media sites in the country. The law will not come into full force for at least twelve months, to give time to social media platforms to devise appropriate methods for verifying the ages of users. The law might be a rare example that fails the proportionality test. Social media companies have the means and incentive to mount a constitutional challenge to find out; surely they are going to do so.
Is general and indiscriminate data retention permissible under the EU fundamental rights framework? In La Quadrature du Net II, the Court tilts the metaphorical scale towards data retention. The take-away could contribute to the enlargement of privatised surveillance that rests on a generalised pre-emptive data retention scheme. The ECJ’s findings could cement intrusive practices emerging from the counter-terrorism narrative to regular state practice at the expense of fundamental rights protection.
Mass data retention is all about proportionality. The threat level determines the proportionality of the means – both of which are subject to the perpetual flux of time. Data retention is intended to protect victims of digital crimes. To protect freedom online, our security services urgently need to be able to access stored IP addresses. The alarming developments in our security situation are calling many certainties from the past into question. This also involves a re-evaluation of traffic data retention.
On January 1, 2024, the Israeli Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment prohibiting judicial review of actions of the government, the prime minister, or any minister based on the “reasonableness” doctrine. The judgment illustrates how societal and judicial vigilance in recognizing “early warning” signals of potential “constitutional capture” may play a significant role in battling such processes. However, notwithstanding this judgment and the halting of the legislative process, the threat of democratic backsliding in Israel persists. The ongoing war has, in fact, paved the way for further anti-democratic measures, some of which were upheld by the very same Court that struck down the anti-reasonableness amendment.
In two recent Latvian cases concerning the Russian-speaking minority decided respectively in September and November 2023, the ECtHR made clear that protection of constitutional identity has now been elevated to a legitimate aim for a differential treatment under the Convention. This post explores how the protection of constitutional identity has been deployed to enable a collective punishment by association with a former occupier, and how the ECtHR’s reasoning has effectively endorsed such a punishment, which is unbefitting of a liberal democratic system the ECHR aspires to represent. Until the three cases were decided, no liberal European democracy could argue without losing face that suppressing a large proportion of its population was its constitutional identity – one of the goals of its statehood. Today, this claim is seemingly kosher, marking a U-turn in the understanding of what the European human rights protection system is for minorities in Europe.
Yesterday, on September 12th, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting en banc, heard eight petitions challenging a hotly contested constitutional amendment. The Court has rarely sat en banc in the past, and this is the first time that it sits in a composition of fifteen justices, attesting to the importance that the Court attributes to this decision. The amendment modifies Basic Law: the Judiciary, which protects judicial independence, lays out the process of judicial selection for all the state courts and grants the Supreme Court the authority to supervise state action when the Court convenes in its capacity as a High Court of Justice. In this blog, I will explain each side’s arguments and the strategic considerations behind the Attorney General’s unprecedented move to push the Court to explicitly invalidate a constitutional amendment. I will show how both sides ultimately found themselves dragged into a game of chicken from which they could not back down.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters