Internationales Menschenrechtsrecht und supranationaler Rechtsschutz durch internationale Gerichte, Verträge und Überwachungsmechanismen. Im Gegensatz zu nationalen Grundrechten liegt der Fokus auf internationalen Rechtsinstrumenten, der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und UN-Menschenrechtsmechanismen.
Brazil is suffering under the corona pandemic, while the president (mis)governs the country by denying scientific evidence. Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic seems a good time to explore the right to science and how it might help in this situation.
Why is Viktor Orbán suddenly making nice with the ECJ and closing the Röszke camp? I don't know. But I have some suspicions.
It is mistaken to conceive of COVID-19 principally as a threat whose eradication necessarily requires rights to be sacrificed. Rather, human rights standards and principles offer a means of transparently balancing competing interests and priorities in the cauldron of COVID-19 decision-making – and rights-respecting measures which secure public confidence are likely to be more effective and sustainable over time than arbitrary or repressive ones.
Im Koalitionsvertrag heißt es: „Völkerrechtswidrige Tötungen lehnen wir kategorisch ab, auch durch Drohnen.“ Dennoch hat die Bundeswehr bewaffnungsfähige Drohnen geleast – wenn auch ohne die dazugehörigen Waffen. Die Bundesregierung beteuert zwar, die Drohnen nur rechtmäßig einsetzen zu wollen, vertritt aber völkerrechtliche Auffassungen, die sowohl Gerichte als auch weite Teile der Wissenschaft (hier und hier) als rechtswidrig einstufen. Solange sich das nicht ändert, sollte von einer Bewaffnung der Drohnen abgesehen werden. Andernfalls würde die Bundeswehr ein Werkzeug an die Hand bekommen, das es anderen Staaten bereits erleichtert hat, das Völkerrecht zu brechen.
Does the pandemic require derogation from human rights treaties? This question has sparked significant debate, notably spurred by Alan Greene’s provocative argument that failing to derogate would denature ordinary human rights law and leave the start and end points of the crisis unclear. Others disagree: Scheinin argues the principle of normalcy, contained in General Comment 29, should continue to apply. Only where ordinary human rights provide inadequate flexibility should derogation be considered, and even then the principle should continue to limit the derogations. Several analyses have complemented this debate, analysing the ECtHR’s practice (Molloy), the detail of the European derogations ... continue reading
Österreich hat aufgrund der grassierenden Coronapandemie de facto einen Einreisestopp für Asylwerber*innen erlassen. Diese (völker-)rechtswidrige Vorgehensweise scheint für nicht viel Empörung zu sorgen, da in Österreich bekanntlich das Recht der Politik folgt. Dass dadurch aber ein EU-Mitgliedstaat die Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention mit Füßen tritt und das Asylrecht aussetzt, sollte – vor allem auch aus juristischen Kreisen – zu einem lauteren Aufschrei führen. In der Folge wird daher gezeigt, inwiefern die österreichische Praxis sowohl völkerrechtswidrig ist als auch dem nationalen Recht widerspricht.
While the pandemic is global, the challenges the individual regions are currently facing in their combat against COVID-19 are different and specific. In Latin America, the combat is embedded in a context of deep social and economic inequality, systematic violence and poverty. As the crisis is likely to exacerbate these structural inequalities it is clear that its implications must be examined in the light of human rights and in the light of intersectionality.
As has been highlighted by other contributors to this Symposium, emergency decrees have already been used to achieve political ambitions beyond addressing COVID-19 in places like Hungary or Bulgaria. While states bear the responsibility of protecting their nations, modern day international human rights law is designed precisely to protect people from governments that abuse their powers. What limits does international human rights law impose on governments during emergencies? Can they be enforced? And how does COVID-19 fit in these conceptualizations?
The United States Supreme Court is expected to soon deliver its judgment in the first transgender rights case before it. In the absence of federal laws protecting transgender persons from discrimination, the case revolves around the question whether the prohibition of discrimination ‘because of … sex’ transgender discrimination. The US Supreme Court appears to turn this into a question of political deliberation, bathroom policies and dress codes. The ECJ, on the other hand, instead of getting lost in policy discussions, has already in 1996 recognized the protection of transgender persons against discrimination based on the core constitutional principle of equality. The ECJ’s approach does in fact have a foothold under US case law and the US Supreme Court could seize the opportunity to bring transgender persons closer to enjoying the same rights as the general population.
As COVID-19 spread across the world, the first reported case in Africa was not until 27 February 2020 in Nigeria; six days later the South African National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) confirmed the first case in South Africa. Since then, cases have increased steadily and the first death in South Africa was recorded on 27 March 2020. COVID-19 has shown its potential devastating impact elsewhere, but it is a particular cause for concern in South Africa.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters