Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte des Völkerrechts, einschließlich der Integration völkerrechtlicher Normen in nationale Verfassungsordnungen, Vertragsabschlussbefugnisse, völkerrechtliche Verpflichtungen und verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen internationaler Bindungen. Umfasst die Schnittstelle zwischen nationalem Verfassungsrecht und völkerrechtlichen Verpflichtungen.
The decades-long campaign for recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967-occupied territory meets the international system, however flawed, where it is. Its selling point is simple: an independent Palestinian state is the most attainable way, if not the only way, to restore integrity and dignity to the Palestinian people while maintaining a minimum standard of order.
The trauma of Auschwitz continues to reverberate in the collective consciousness of Israelis and manifests in Israeli laws across several primary domains. However, the primary impact of the Holocaust trauma on Israeli constitutional law has been the concerted efforts to prevent Israel from descending into a fascist, racist regime akin to Germany in the 1930s. The incorporation of the concept of Intolerant Democracy, which occupies a central role in Israeli constitutional law, was explicitly inspired by German history.
For this symposium essay, I will focus on the Jewish past, with its tragedies extending beyond and preceding the Holocaust as a master narrative unfolded by mnemonic constitutionalism. Specifically, I will reflect on how citizenship laws – as the foundational cluster of constitutional law in liberal democracies, including the countries without a formal constitution – have built constitutional ontologies upon the Jewish past and the “never again” theme through three central examples involving “Jewish citizens”.
In the Soviet Union and later in Russia, reference to World War II played a central role in the decades after 1945. The “never again” narrative in Russia takes a very specific form: The focus is not on the Holocaust but on the Victory in the “Great Patriotic War” against fascism, the increase of power and status in the international system that this has brought, and the perpetuation of the present and timeless actuality of war in a mostly imperial and post-imperial context. The discourse on Victory against fascism undergoes a paradoxical development, from a way of commemorating collective trauma to the justification and glorification of new wars.
Nach den vielbeachteten Entscheidungen des Internationalen Gerichtshofs (IGH) über einstweilige Anordnungen im Gaza-Konflikt erweckte das Gutachten vom 19. Juli 2024 zur Illegalität der israelischen Besatzung ein verhältnismäßig geringes Medienecho. Dies steht im eklatanten Gegensatz zu seinem Inhalt. Der internationale Gerichtshof bewertete nämlich kurzerhand die gesamte israelische Besatzung des palästinensischen Gebiets, einschließlich Gaza, für rechtswidrig. Dies dürfte erhebliche völkerrechtliche, völkerrechtspolitische, geopolitische und erinnerungspolitische Konsequenzen nach sich ziehen.
“Never Again” is one of those slogans on which practically everyone can agree. How can one not? (Unless you belong to the flat-earth Holocaust-denial lunatic fringe). When we use “Never Again” it is, of course, a shorthand to the enormity of German National Socialism. The pledge “Never Again” is absolute in time: Never again. It is absolute in space too: “That” cannot and should not ever take place anywhere. It is universal: It bridges Left and Right, North and South, Rich and Poor. Standing at the barricades under the “Never Again” banner is both powerful and self-empowering. But herein lies its potential for abuse. What exactly is the “that” which must never happen again?
“Never again” is, first and foremost, a story. It’s a story about our collective fears, anxieties, and aspirations, those moments and events that we have promised ourselves that will never be repeated. The Jewish story is interwoven with the Holocaust—the killing of six million Jews in Europe and the urgency of the re-establishment of a Jewish state to solve the problem of Jewish homelessness. Yet the constitutional and international meaning of “never again” depends on one’s position and point of view, and it changes over time. The chain reaction that began with the horrors of WWII continues to drive constitutional and international agendas. It is clear that “history talks,” but in which direction?
The classical Hobbesian critique of international law famously asserts that “covenants, without the sword, are but words.” Accordingly, given Israel’s persistent non-compliance with the ICJ’s provisional measures in South Africa v. Israel, on 29 May 2024, South Africa requested “the Security Council to give effect to the Court’s judgments” under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute. This post shows why the discussions on whether the Council lacks the statutory authority to supervise and enforce the Court’s provisional measures under the ICJ Statute overlook the broader point. Namely, the Order on provisional measures is the perfect legal evidence for the Council to trigger its powers under Chapter VII and thus end the humanitarian calamity in Gaza.
As the storm of ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for arrest warrants loomed and landed on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, ardent supporters of Israel within the U.S. and U.K. governments and beyond appear to have seized upon a jurisdictional objection. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is reported as saying that the “ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter.” The U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron is reported to have said the same thing. There is a basic flaw, though, in the treaty-based objection to the ICC jurisdiction as has been made. It ignores the nature of the mandate of international criminal tribunals as mechanisms for the effective preservation of the basic fabric of the international order.
This article is an attempt to add layers to the discussions of ongoing mass atrocities committed in several parts of the world by discussing an under-reported situation of large scale violence unfolding in Sudan since April 2023, in the hope that the ‘international community’ can address multiple catastrophic situations with similar urgency, mobilise for justice for all peoples, end the culture of impunity, and eventually shift the discourse towards the structural causes of such large-scale violence in different parts of the world.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters