Wrong to the Core

On May 4, 2022, close to midnight, the Supreme Court of Israel released its judgment in HCJ 413/13 Abu Aram v. Minister of Defense, holding that the Israeli army is permitted to evict eight Palestinian communities in Masafer Yatta, a rural area in the South Hebron Hills in the West Bank, for the stated purpose of establishing a “firing zone” for the IDF. The judgment sealed over two decades of litigation, in which the Court pushed the parties to settle and “compromise.” Unfortunately, the decision in this case is wrong to the core.

Trapped in a Lawless Zone

The treatment of asylum-seekers – predominantly from the Middle East – crossing the Latvian border from Belarus is in sharp contrast with the recent decision of the Latvian government to support at least 23,000 people who have arrived in the country from war-torn Ukraine. Those who have paid the highest price for this policy are people who have been forced to remain in the forest for months under inhuman conditions just to be ultimately returned to their country of origin, an experience that has left most of them severely traumatised.

Can Putin Be Tried in Poland?

The Polish Minister of Justice decided to initiate proceedings against Russia for its military attack on Ukraine and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. This may come as a surprise, especially after the prosecutor at the ICC has already started to act in this matter. But the initiation of proceedings in Poland is mainly symbolic and won't conflict with international investigations. An EU Member State investigating specific individuals for their involvement in a war crime would be a powerful signal. At the same time, the scale and specificity of the crimes in question go beyond the possibilities of a single country and require extensive condemnation and the participation of the international community.

Anything Goes?

Last month, the ECtHR ruled in the case of Johansen v. Denmark on the deprivation of nationality and expulsion for terrorist offenses. It rejected the applicant’s complaint of an infringement of Art. 8 ECHR. The decision underlines the Court’s reluctance to engage with issues raised by deprivations of nationality in terrorism cases. Instead of setting out clear limits on such measures based on the rights guaranteed by the Convention, the Court does not seem to be willing to interfere with measures related to national security, no matter how drastic the consequences for the individual.

Blinded by the Light?

Der von Russland geführte Angriffskrieg in der Ukraine hat ein Thema in die öffentliche Debatte gebracht, welches seit langem nicht mehr so intensiv und kontrovers diskutiert wurde: den Export von Rüstungsgütern. Das ist gut und sollte ein Dauerthema sein, denn Rüstungsgüter sind per se gefährliche Güter, ihr Export ist hochpolitisch und betrifft die Sicherheitsbeziehungen zu anderen Staaten. Sie bedrohen Leib und Leben und ihre Produktion und ihr Export ist strengen Regeln zu unterwerfen. Die derzeit anlaufende sicherheitspolitische Debatte in Deutschland muss daher den Aspekt der Rüstungsexportkontrolle umfassen.

Enlarging the Hole in the Fence of Migrants‹ Rights

With the judgment in A.A. and others v. North Macedonia, the European Court of Human Rights further branches out the creative exception to the prohibition of collective expulsions and turns it into an obligation to offer a place to apply for asylum somewhere at the border. But not only are these legal access points for asylum applications often de facto restricted, the ever more creative exceptions to rights of the Convention and its Protocols threatens the credibility and authority of the Court.

A Backdoor Exit from the European Convention on Human Rights

Russia left the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022. The European Court of Human Rights declared that Russia will remain a Party to the Convention until 16 September 2022. This resolution is inconsistent with applicable termination rules. But even beyond technicalities, it reveals fundamental defects in the design of the ECHR denunciation clause. Forced withdrawal and expulsion from the Council, as mechanisms to sanction severe violations of human rights, should not have the effect of relieving the delinquent State of its conventional human rights obligations.

The Council of Europe as an AI Standard Setter

On 4 April 2022, Member States of the Council of Europe commences negotiations on the world’s first international binding legal instrument in the field of artificial intelligence. The CoE has a large reservoir of both experience and expertise in the field of standard setting, as far as the three key priorities are concerned: promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Given the undisputed need for regulating AI activities, the CoE appears a prime candidate for this undertaking.

The Council of Europe’s Sharp Turn

The Council of Europe (CoE) responded promptly to Russia’s act of aggression against Ukraine first by suspending Russia’s representation rights on 25 February 2022, and then by expelling it on 16 March 2022 in accordance with Article 8 of the Statute. The Committee of Ministers used the Article 8 procedure for the first time in the history of the CoE. This might have crucial implications for the broader CoE context and could make the threat of suspension and expulsion more credible for other member states as well.

A Climate Warrior for the Global South

This review of climate cases in the Global South reflects the potential of the right to a healthy environment in climate justice. Countries in the Latin American region are already leading the fight against climate change through successful judicial battles, relying on the established right to a healthy environment.