Moving towards a SAFE Defense Policy in Europe

Russia’s attack on Ukraine has presented Europe with new challenges regarding security. As a response, the EU adopted the so-called SAFE Regulation in 2025. It is based on Article 122 TFEU and is intended to accelerate efforts to achieve autonomous defense capability. By choosing this legal basis, the Commission continues a trend which begun in the pandemic and was reinforced during the energy crisis: relying on emergency competences without parliamentary involvement. But whether this exceptional provision can legitimize the profound changes facing the Union is doubtful.

Troops in L.A.

This past weekend, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum that federalized National Guard troops and deployed those troops alongside active-duty marines in response to protests against his aggressive immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. While framed as a response to violence, the order also addresses peaceful protest. The decision to send military forces against civilians engaged in protected First Amendment activity marks a dangerous escalation, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.

Neues nur am Rande

Die große Überraschung blieb aus. Die Verfassungsbeschwerden gegen das Strompreisbremsegesetz von insgesamt 22 Betreibern von Anlagen zur grünen Stromerzeugung wurden zurückgewiesen (Az.:1 BvR 460/23, 1 BvR 611/23). Blickt man allein auf die tragenden Gründe für die Erfolglosigkeit der Beschwerden, hält das Urteil in der Tat wenig Überraschendes bereit. Interessant wird die Entscheidung allerdings in ihren Randbereichen und abseits der tragenden Gründe.

Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Zeit

In Deutschland gilt die Schulpflicht, aber nicht für alle gleich. Gerade Kinder geflüchteter Menschen kommen erst später in den regulären Schulunterricht. Dieser Beitrag beleuchtet die verfassungsrechtlichen Bedenken dieser Praxis und inwieweit der Gesetzgeber hier die Schulpflicht ausgestalten darf, gerade vor dem Hintergund der Kinderrechtskonvention und des Unionsrechts.

The Strictest Asylum Policy Ever?

On 13 September 2024, ahead of the presentation of the State Budget, the new Dutch coalition presented their finalized plan to implement what it has labelled as the strictest admission regime ever in the field of asylum law. To implement its Outline Agreement, titled ‘Hope, Courage and Pride,’ the government plans to rely on an derogation provision in the Dutch Aliens Act 2000. We argue that the provision does not apply to the current situation and that the Dutch government therefore does not have the jurisdiction to render parts of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000 inoperative.

“Very Tight Control”

In 2020, at the height of the Covid crisis, the EU had its 'Hamiltonian Moment'. To overcome the pandemic's economic shock, Member States agreed to back an unprecedented, capital markets-based 750 billion Euro funding scheme to kickstart the European economy. However, since then, it proved surprisingly hard to make sense of where all the money went. Apparently, one main oversight body is a rather informal committee of Member States. Now, internal documents paint a picture of peer scrutiny that remains at a general level, is conducted under tight deadlines, and is strongly limited by scarce resources. They also reveal an evolution of the process to a point what looks much like a mere formality.

Access and Benefit-Sharing Isn’t Equity

It is unsurprising that equity has featured so prominently in the Pandemic Treaty negotiations – the Treaty is a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was characterised by gross inequality between high-income and LMICs. For all the talk at the start of the Treaty negotiation process of equity, of doing things differently in the future, it appears that very little will change. If it works, and there are very good reasons to believe that it will not work, it will at best make sure that a small proportion of vaccines end up where they need to be, and the rest will continue to go to the highest bidder, regardless of need, equity, or justice.

One Health – One Welfare – One Rights

The projected WHO Pandemic Agreement, as currently under negotiation, will most likely contain a detailed prescription of a One Health approach (Art. 1(d) and Art. 5 of the INB negotiating text of 30 October 2023). This contribution examines the legal potential of a One Health approach for laws and policies towards animals raised, kept, and slaughtered for providing meat, milk, fur, and other body products for human consumption. My main argument will be that, taken seriously, the idea of One health defies a hierarchy between the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems. The inner logic of One Health is to exploit the positive feedback loops between safeguarding human, animal, and ecosystem health. This approach should modify the still prevailing unreflected and unchecked prioritisation of measures in favour of human health at the expense of and to the detriment of animal health and life. I will illustrate my claim with two policy examples.

The Silent Disintegration of Global Health Governance?

With an estimated 6,9 million deaths and with its enormous scale of economic, social and political collateral damages, the COVID-19 Pandemic has created excessive momentum for re-considering the rules and procedures governing global health – or has it? In this blog contribution, I will discuss the promises and pitfalls of current law-making and law-amending efforts that seek to strengthen pandemic governance post COVID-19 by reflecting on three distinct features of global health as an area of international cooperation.

Recovery and Resilience Facility two years after – quo vadis EU money?

In 2020, at the height of the Covid crisis, the EU embarked on a new path. It extensively borrowed money at capital markets and handed it out to member states. After two years of implementation, it is now possible to make some preliminary conclusions about how that money is being spent. Reading the reports and listening to the hearings in the European Parliament, it becomes abundantly clear that most of it has very little to do with European policies. Rather, spending goes into mundane national budgetary expenditures that may be useful as such but have little genuine European value and little transformational potential. In a time with pressing common European needs, this is not how it should be.