The ECtHR as a drowning ›Island of Hope‹?‹ Its impending reversal of the interpretation of collective expulsion is a warning signal

The outcome of the case ND and NT v. Spain currently pending before the Grand Chamber may determine the future course of the Court in other migration policy cases. It will show whether the ECtHR still deserves its title as an ‘island of hope in stormy times’ or whether this island is drowning under the pressure of some of its Member States.

A National Emergency on the Border?

Declarations of emergency are in bad odor in modern constitutional democracies. the U.S. Constitution makes no provision for emergency declarations. And while the Constitution’s guidance is cryptic at best on many separation-of-powers issues, it couldn’t be clearer that Congress—not the President—has the power to appropriate funds. So: can he really do that? The better argument is that he cannot, but it’s not so open-and-shut a matter as you might suppose.

Streit um die »Grenzöffnung«: Mehr Fragerechte und Klage­möglich­keiten für Abgeordnete?

Seit September 2015 spaltet der Streit um die sogenannte „Grenzöffnung“ für Flüchtlinge die Republik. Politisch soll nun zumindest bei der CDU der Versuch einer internen Aufarbeitung durch die Debatte zweier Rechtswissenschaftler erfolgen. Am Köcheln gehalten wird der Streit nicht zuletzt durch die Ungewissheit, wie genau und auf welcher Rechtsgrundlage die Bundesregierung gehandelt hat. Was Not tut, ist ein Klagerecht für Bundestagsfraktionen auf eine objektive Rechtmäßigkeitskontrolle vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht.

A Citizenship Maze: How to Cure a Chronic Disease?

European Union (EU) citizenship is in crisis. If the Eurozenship debate, composed of experts on EU citizenship, is analogized to a doctor’s diagnosis, the outcome is more extensively polarized than initially thought—a chronic disease, not just a temporary disorder. As I follow the debate, it is no longer clear what the problem is—there seem to be too many, real and imaginary—or how to heal it. Some issues seem to be “genetic,” part of the EU’s DNA, yet others resemble a concrete illness that may be cured, so the argument goes, by a “doctor's prescription,” which in law means a legal design.

Member State and EU Citizenships Should be Strengthened Rather than Disentangled

While perhaps appealing as a gesture towards addressing problems such the anticipated deprivation of rights following Brexit, statelessness, or wide variation in Member State naturalization and denaturalization policies, these proposals are impracticable in the absence of international recognition of EU citizenship (which would normally require recognizing the EU as a state, which in turn should normally mean that the Member States cede competence over citizenship), challenge deeply rooted national stories of peoplehood with an emerging story of European peoplehood, and risk undermining fragile public support for EU rights.

EU Citizenship as an Autonomous Status of Constituent Power

I would argue, however, that Kostakopolou’s argument for a “co-determined Eurozenship” would not go far enough in realising the potential of the status. This post develops this argument first by grounding the normative appeal of autonomous EU citizenship in the context of Member State withdrawal. Next, it is suggested that the co-determination of the status by Member States and the EU institutions would be incompatible with the current legitimacy foundation of the EU. The post concludes by considering the more radical alternative of EU citizenship being made autonomous so that individuals can exercise constituent power to re-establish these foundations of the European Union constitutional order.