Rethinking Transitional Justice in Sudan

The war that has plagued Sudan since 15 April 2023 is accompanied by massive violations and abuses of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Impunity with the persistence, and indeed rise, of alleged perpetrators is a key dimension of the current war. This is a fundamental challenge to its social fabric, state integrity and regional stability. As such, Sudan’s most recent transition process underlines how transitional justice can fail – and what future efforts must learn.

The Future of International Criminal Law is Domestic

Domestic courts are increasingly stepping in where international institutions falter, becoming key enforcers of international criminal law. The conviction of Syrian doctor Alaa M. in Germany exemplifies the potential of universal jurisdiction to deliver justice beyond borders. While the ICC remains blocked in the Syria situation, national trials offer credible, survivor-driven accountability. Rather than being a fallback, domestic prosecutions are emerging as a central pillar of international criminal justice.

From Erosion to Evisceration

Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case United States v. Skrmetti. As Ryan Thoreson has argued on this blog, the Court’s opinion rolls back existing understandings of sex discrimination in ways that will likely play out in future cases. Building on that insight, I examine how the Court narrows what counts as sex discrimination and strips the concept of stereotypes of its constitutional force. The most troubling aspects of the decision, however, appear in concurrences written by the ultraconservative members of the Court, which confine the reach of equal protection to formal legal classifications alone.

The Erosion of Equal Protection

In United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, reaching that conclusion by construing equal protection jurisprudence in regressive ways. The majority reasoned that the law not only did not discriminate on the basis of sex, but did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status either. This post explains how the Skrmetti decision threatens to narrow the scope of constitutional equality protections in the United States, why it is dangerous for the equality claims of women and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and why it is likely to be so damaging for transgender people targeted by state and federal lawmakers in recent years.

Democracy Washing

The Israeli Supreme Court has recently adopted a highly activist approach in rulings that claim to strengthen the structural foundations of democracy, while neglecting its role in protecting the basic human rights of Palestinians. The stark contrast between the Court’s handling of cases involving Palestinians detained incommunicado and its swift intervention in the dismissal of the Shin Bet Director reflects a deeper pattern in the Court’s recent jurisprudence, one that can be described as “democracy washing”.

Forced Sterilizations on Trial

On May 22, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held a hearing in Ramos Durand et al. v. Peru. This is only the second forced sterilization case before the Court (after I.V. v. Bolivia) and the first addressing a widespread, state-led policy of coercion like Peru’s. For the first time, the IACHR may explicitly characterize forced sterilizations as reproductive violence and thus as a form of gender-based violence, contributing to a broader and more inclusive understanding of reproductive rights violations within the regional human rights framework.

A Door Opened, But Not Fully

On 12 June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in T.H. v. the Czech Republic – the first case brought by a non-binary person. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention for requiring sterilisation as a precondition for legal gender recognition. Yet, the misgendering of the applicant, the Court’s silence on Articles 3 and 14, and the absence of compensation all temper the applicant’s win.

Mit zweierlei Maß

Unmittelbar nach Beginn der israelischen Militärschläge äußerte sich das Auswärtige Amt zu den Angriffen und deutete unter Bezugnahme auf Verletzungen des Atomwaffensperrvertrags sowie die mit dem iranischen Nuklearprogramm einhergehende Bedrohung an, dass die militärischen Maßnahmen Israels vom Recht auf Selbstverteidigung gedeckt sein könnten. Diese Position ist nicht nur völkerrechtlich unhaltbar, sondern trägt auch zu einer gefährlichen Relativierung des völkerrechtlichen Gewaltverbots bei.

“Almost Genocide”

Genocidal intent does not necessarily pop, prefabricated, out of the perpetrator’s state’s head. It emerges – gradually, often unevenly – as a product of action, omission, emotion, and political opportunity. A war that once had legal justification as defence can thus harden into something else: the destruction of a group as such. This is as true in the specific conditions of Gaza, as it is as a matter of principle.

Parlamentarische Frage vs. Schutz vor Rassismus

Parlamentarische Anfragen nach den Vornamen deutscher Tatverdächtiger haben eine unrühmliche Geschichte. 2024 verweigerte der Berliner Senat erstmals die Auskunft, weil er das Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung verletzt sah. Der Berliner Verfassungsgerichtshof hat diese Argumentation nun zurückgewiesen und die Antwortverweigerung als Verstoß gegen Abgeordnetenrechte gewertet – ohne dabei den Rassismus solcher Anfragen zu thematisieren. Dagegen weist das Minderheitenvotum zu Recht darauf hin, dass Diskriminierungsverbote eine verfassungsimmanente Grenze parlamentarischer Informationsrechte bilden.