Strasburg Weighs In On Political Persecution In Turkey

In a pivotal judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber, the European Court of Human Rights held that the conviction of a former teacher Yüksel Yalcinkaya violated Articles 6,7 and 11 of the Convention. The applicant Yalcinkaya was a teacher who was dismissed with an emergency decree enacted during the state of emergency rule between 2016 and 2018 and was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for his use of the ByLock app and for his membership in a teachers’ union and an association which were also closed down with an emergency decree. In Erdogan’s ever more repressive Turkey, usage of said app or membership in organizations and unions may lead to arrest. Especially anything that appears remotely related to the oppositional Gulen movement carries the risk of persecution.

Zwischen Schutz, Stigma und Stereotyp

Mit der Einführung des ProstSchG im Jahr 2017 hat der Gesetzgeber in Deutschland neue gesetzliche Verpflichtungen verabschiedet, die die Situation der Prostituierten verbessern und sie vor Ausbeutung und Gewalt schützen sollen. Eine zentrale Bestimmung zur Umsetzung des intendierten Schutzes ist die Anmeldepflicht nach § 3 Abs. 1 ProstSchG, die in mehrfacher Hinsicht eine Belastung für die Anmeldepflichtigen bedeuten kann. Aus einer intersektionalen Perspektive zeigt sich, dass dieser Verpflichtung das im Diskurs verankerte klassistische und rassistische Narrativ der nicht selbstbestimmten migrantischen Sexarbeiterin nicht nur vorausgeht, sondern zugrunde liegt.

Trapped in Gaza

Thousands of Palestinians are amassed at the Rafah border crossing into Egypt – the only land border point from Gaza that is not controlled by Israel. Periodically opened by Egypt to allow at least some aid convoys to enter Gaza, it has been firmly closed to Palestinians seeking to leave Gaza since October 10. Both international refugee and human rights law that bind Egypt make clear that its closure of the Rafah border crossing to all Palestinians – including to those at grave and imminent risk – is an illegal act of refoulement. In this case, it has proved to be an illegal act with truly deadly consequences and must be condemned as such.

When Discrimination is Not Enough

The Supreme Court, India’s apex constitutional court, recently delivered its disappointing decision in Supriyo Chakraborty v Union India (Supriyo), rejecting marriage equality in Indian law. The much-awaited decision was heard by a constitution bench (five judges) of the Supreme Court and dealt with far-reaching questions of both Indian constitutional law and family law. The decision is characteristic of the Indian Supreme Court’s ongoing phase of great deference to the executive and legislative branches but also marks a sharp and worrying break from the court’s otherwise progressive jurisprudence on issues of gender and sexuality.

Die Gräueltaten der Hamas, Israels Reaktion und das völkerrechtliche Primat zum Schutz der Zivilbevölkerung

Angesichts der durch Kämpfer der Hamas und des Palästinensischen Islamischen Jihad (PIJ) in Israel am 7. Oktober 2023 und den Folgetagen begangenen Gräueltaten, und vor dem Hintergrund der historischen Verantwortung Deutschlands, hat sich die Bundesregierung und die deutsche Politik einhellig mit Israel solidarisiert und dessen Recht auf Selbstverteidigung betont. Deutlich leiser sind in der deutschen politischen Debatte hingegen bislang die Stimmen, die betonen, dass Israels Reaktion gleichwohl an die Regeln des humanitären Völkerrechts gebunden ist und Drittstaaten wie Deutschland eine Verpflichtung zukommt, die Verletzung zwingender Regeln des Völkerrechts zu verhindern. Hier soll erläutert werden, welche humanitär-völkerrechtlichen Vorkehrungen relevant sind und was deutsche Politik beitragen kann, um die Austragung von Gewalt sowie die Leiden der Zivilbevölkerung im akuten Konflikt und künftig einzuhegen.    

Moral Absolutism in the Wake of Terrorism

In the light of the terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas against innocent civilians in Israel on October 7th, some contend that “The imperative to protect human dignity only applies absolutely if it applies universally, and it only applies universally if it applies absolutely.” In the face of evil, there is no room for relativism. Hamas’s deliberate attack against innocent civilians is absolutely wrong. Therefore, it should be universally condemned. I agree with the above conclusion. However, I wonder how a universal recognition of an absolute duty of respect for human dignity can help solving the existential conflict confronting Israelis and Palestinians. Ideally, a two-state solution proposed by the international community can be seen as a reasonable and fair compromise. Nevertheless, the reality on the ground is different. This blog post explores the downstream consequences - and hurdles - of moral absolutism in times of war, terror, and existential crisis.

Solidarität mit Israel, aber kein Blankoscheck

Die Taten der Hamas sind in einer ausführlichen Erklärung israelischer Völkerrechtler/-innen, die auch der Verfasser unterschrieben hat, als das benannt worden was sie sind: völkerrechtliche Kernverbrechen, möglicherweise sogar ein gegen die jüdische Bevölkerung Israels gerichteter Genozid. Unter Völker(straf)rechtlern dürfte das weitgehend konsentiert sein, vor allem hierzulande müssen wir uns allerdings selbstkritisch die Folgefrage stellen, wie weit unsere Unterstützung für den militärischen Gegenschlag Israels gehen kann.

Solidarity with Israel, but no Blank Check

The actions of Hamas have been called in a detailed declaration drafted by Israeli international lawyers, also signed by this author, for what they are: core crimes under international law, possibly even amounting to genocide directed against the Jewish population of Israel. This should be beyond dispute among international (criminal) lawyers. Nonetheless, especially in Germany we have to critically ask ourselves the follow-up question of how far our support for Israel’s military counterattack can go.

What is Permissible in the War against Hamas?

What is permissible for the Israeli government to do in response to the murderous attack by Hamas? The answer to this is difficult, not only because blood is boiling and hearts are broken, but also because there is a complex moral dilemma here. In this blog, we hope to offer some guidelines to clarify the issue. We do not claim to provide definitive answers. The required analysis is complex, and it is incumbent upon the Israeli government and the IDF to ensure that the various steps taken are morally justified.

A Hidden Success

Following the EU General Court’s dismissal of the complaint of WS and other asylum seekers against Frontex in its ruling on September 6, 2023, scholarly commentary has largely expressed disappointment. However, a more optimistic way of reading the judgement is also possible. By declaring the lawsuit admissible, the court confirmed that factual misconduct by Frontex can be addressed with action for damages claims – and this in itself is a major step forward in the system of fundamental rights protection in the European Union.