Von Worten zu Taten

Am 23. Juni 2025 trafen sich die 27 Außenminister der Europäischen Union (EU) in Brüssel, um über die Zukunft des Assoziierungsabkommens mit Israel (AA EU–Israel) zu beraten. Das Außenministertreffen selbst führte zu keiner Entscheidung über eine mögliche Aussetzung des Abkommens. Gemäß Art. 21 EUV ist die EU jedoch verpflichtet, im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht zu handeln und bei festgestellten Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf der Grundlage des AA EU–Israel zu reagieren. Andernfalls riskiert die EU, gegen ihr eigenes Primärrecht zu verstoßen.

Ein Verbrechen sucht ein Gericht

Russlands Angriffskrieg gegen die Ukraine verletzt das Gewaltverbot der UN-Charta in aller Deutlichkeit, bleibt strafrechtlich allerdings bislang ungesühnt. Der Europarat und die Ukraine reagieren mit einem Sondertribunal, das hochrangige Verantwortliche für das Verbrechen der Aggression zur Rechenschaft ziehen soll – trotz politischer und verfassungsrechtlicher Hürden. Es bündelt internationale Unterstützung und setzt ein starkes Zeichen gegen Straflosigkeit bei Angriffen auf die internationale Rechtsordnung. Ein ungewöhnlicher Schritt, der das Völkerstrafrecht grundlegend herausfordert.

An Ecofeminist Approach to EU Biodiversity Law

This blog post aims at briefly addressing the issue of hunting as it is regulated in EU biodiversity law using legal ecofeminism as method of analysis. It starts from a reflection on ecofeminism as related to hunting, then argues that EU law, including the EU Charter is inherently anthropocentric, and highlights the ambiguities of EU biodiversity law. By referring to a judgment rendered by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the conservation of wolves in 2019, this post encourages an ecofeminist legal reading of EU biodiversity law. E

The Antagonistic Unity of Copyright and Freedom of the Arts

On 17 June 2025, Advocate General Emiliou delivered his opinion in the second referral of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) to the CJEU in the case “Pelham” – also known as “Metall auf Metall” (Case C-590/23). He defines “pastiche” – currently the most controversial concept of European copyright law – and makes a fundamental statement on EU copyright law and its relationship to freedom of the arts as guaranteed by Art. 13 CFR.The InfoSoc Directive, which is at the heart of EU copyright law, is too restrictive with regard to the artistic use of copyright-protected works and therefore not compatible with the Charter’s freedom of the arts. Emiliou’s opinion is a breakthrough. It grounds copyright in freedom of the arts and paves the way for a new perspective on the relationship between copyright and artistic freedom.

Constitutional Awakening of Values

On 5 June 2025, AG Ćapeta delivered her opinion in case C-769/22, raising a pivotal question for the EU’s constitutional future: Can Article 2 TEU serve as a standalone provision in infringement proceedings? While the issue has sparked debate – including on this blog – this post defends the Opinion as a constitutionally coherent and necessary step to safeguard the Union’s foundational values. It argues that AG Ćapeta’s approach is firmly rooted in existing case law and offers a compelling legal framework to address democratic backsliding. The post focuses on her use of the “good society” concept and the proposed “negation of values” test, examining their normative grounding and practical significance within EU law.

Rights for Non-Humans in EU Law

The recognition of animals and nature as potential rights holders has long been a controversial proposition within European legal discourse. However, we believe that the EU legal order is more hospitable to such recognition than one might expect. In a recent article, we argued for a rights-based reinterpretation of EU animal welfare and environmental protection laws. EU constitutional and secondary laws can be construed as entailing legal rights for non-human entities – even if these rights are not explicit the texts. We consider how the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other EU legal acts may support a post-anthropocentric vision of Union law.

Animals and the EU Charter

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights remains silent on animal rights, even as a growing number of constitutions worldwide now explicitly protect animals. While the EU already recognises animals as sentient beings under Article 13 TFEU, this recognition has yet to translate into meaningful constitutional safeguards. Embedding animal welfare into the Charter would align the Union with global developments and help move its integration project beyond an overly anthropocentric model.

A Wolf’s Right to the Surface of the Earth

The European Union recently changed the legal status of the wolf from “strictly protected” to “protected”. In this contribution, I advocate a different response to the problem that wolves prey on animals kept by humans: the further development of the European ecological network called Natura 2000. The premise of my argument, based on animal rights theory and Kant’s philosophy of law, is that wolves have the right to be on Earth. In the past, humans have tried to eradicate wolves, which is a clear violation of this right. I argue that this historical injustice generates the duty to restore the habitats and natural infrastructure used by wolves.

A European Charter of Fundamental Human Obligations

The effort to anchor animal rights in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights has gained relevance in light of the widespread commodification of animals within the EU’s market-driven integration process. While commendable in principle, incorporating animal rights into the Charter risks serving a largely symbolic function if it diverts attention from the more pressing task of reconfiguring what I take to be the six foundational institutions of private law in capitalist political economy: property, contract, corporation, tort, labor, and consumption. These institutions reinforce the binary between the human subject and the other-than-human object, a division that enables the commodification of non-human beings.