Verfassungsinterpretationstheorie, verfassungsrechtliche Methodik, theoretische Grundlagen der Verfassungsanalyse und Verfassungsphilosophie. Umfasst Originalismus, dynamische Verfassungsauslegung, Verfassungskonstruktion und methodische Ansätze der Verfassungsinterpretation. Auf spezifisch verfassungsrechtliche Themen fokussiert, allgemeine akademische Themen sind nun unter Wissenschaft und Recht kategorisiert.
Sitting as a full court, due to the exceptional importance of the case, the Court of Justice has dismissed the annulment actions brought by the Hungarian and Polish governments against the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation. A non-exhaustive account of the main substantive issues addressed by the Court.
Vor Kurzem hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht in einem Kammerbeschluss die vielbeachtete Causa Renate Künast aufsehenerregend abgeschlossen. Die bemerkenswerte Volte der Kammer besteht darin, nicht nur schriftliche Medien wie Facebook vom sprichwörtlichen „Wirtshausgespräch“ scharf abzugrenzen, sondern auch Politiker:innen im Gegensatz zu anderen öffentlichen Personen einen besonderen Schutzbedarf zu attestieren. Der Beschluss lässt dabei mit seiner sich hier andeutenden effektiven "Hierarchievergessenheit" in einem fundamentalen Sinne gespalten zurück.
In der Diskussion zwischen Ute Sacksofsky und Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, an der sich jetzt auch Hans Peter Bull beteiligt hat, treffen zwei grundsätzlich unterschiedliche Weltverständnisse aufeinander. Gärditz nähert sich der Welt und dem in ihr zu beobachtenden Geschehen mit der Konstruktion einer eindeutigen Dichotomie. Für subjektives Empfinden, subjektive Weltdeutungen und Selbstverständnisse ist kein Raum. Die kulturtheoretisch sensibilisierte Sichtweise Ute Sacksofskys hingegen entwirft eine vollständig andere Welt.
Vor einer Woche habe ich einen Blogbeitrag zu „Allgemeine Impfpflicht – ein kleiner Piks, ein großes verfassungsrechtliches Problem“ verfasst. Der Beitrag hat zahlreiche Reaktionen ausgelöst. Teils beruhen diese auf Missverständnissen oder einer ungenauen Lektüre meines Textes. Insbesondere Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz hat mir zu viel Subjektivität, zu starke individuelle Beliebigkeit vorgeworfen – ich hätte mich „verrannt“. Dies gibt Anlass zu einigen Klarstellungen und weiteren Erläuterungen.
In July 2021, the UK government set to work on a new Nationality and Borders Bill. Should this far-reaching amendment acquire statutory force, it will raise important questions about the capacity of the UK constitution to prevent sweeping executive authorisation, even in matters with intense bearing on the most profound human rights and entitlements.
The case of Russia teaches us how dangerous extra-constitutional constitution making can be – and that it should always be just a last resort. No substantive institutional changes should be made outside of the constitutional bounds. Otherwise, there will always be the danger that breaking the rule of law will continue even after constitutional change has taken place. This is precisely what Russian intellectuals and jurists, who supported Yeltsin in 1993, learned under the rule of Vladimir Putin. We should try to avoid repeating their mistakes.
Taking into consideration that the backsliding of Turkish democracy during the last ten to fifteen years happened in a piecemeal and often erratic way, only partially based on constitutional amendments, the reverse process should also be possible by gradual legal and, eventually, constitutional changes. Political pragmatism, based on a clear commitment to basic democratic values and societal reconciliation, might be more important for the sustainable recovery of Turkish democracy than a radical constitutional restart.
Many constitutions, and the liberal values that permeate them, constitute the reaction to the mass atrocities, often in the face of academic silence (if not full-blown endorsement). Therefore, a constitutional law scholar that does not denounce attempts to subvert the constitutional order as such is actually sacrificing the pursuit of legal knowledge at the altar of a misguided – and historically damned – attempt at ‘neutrality’. The sound of academic silence, in the face of constitutional regression, is deafening.
On 10 December 2021, almost exactly five years after its infamous Identity Decision, the Hungarian Constitutional Court was expected by the Government to declare the ECJ Judgement C-808/08 to be contrary to Hungary’s constitutional identity. But as a big surprise for many, the Court dodged the conflict and avoided to offer arguments against the supremacy of EU law to the Hungarian Government. Unlike Poland, it has only just prevented a full-blown conflict with the EU.
Last week, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court published its judgment in the case of the Los Cedros forest, a protected cloud forest of great biodiversity in the Andean mountains of Ecuador. This judgment revokes environmental permits previously granted to two mining concessions in the Bosque Protector Los Cedros reserve. The Court ruled that the mining permits in question had not only violated several constitutional rights of communities in the area but also – most remarkably – the rights of mother nature (Pacha Mama). It specifically granted these rights to the Los Cedros Reserve. But there is still some uncertainty regarding future applications of this unusual, non-anthropocentric legal standard set by the Court to protect the rights of mother nature.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters