A Borderline Case 

On 28 November 2023, Finland decided to close all its land border crossing stations to Russia due to the latter's apparent instrumentalization of migrants. That a foreign power, which conducts war elsewhere in Europe, directly engages in unfriendly acts against the EU’s (as well as NATO’s) eastern flank highlights the issues of national security involved. The situation is part of a broader European dilemma but presents certain idiosyncracies. How is an EU Member State such as Finland, respectful of the rule of law, to respond to such unfriendly acts which intrumentalize the vulnerable position of asylum seekers whose rights must, in principle, be observed at all times? This brief post addresses some of the legal issues involved in the currently unfolding situation.

‚Steadfast and Unreserved‘

On 24 November 2023, the Barcelona City Council passed a resolution, suspending diplomatic ties with Israel, until a permanent ceasefire is established. While this may not reflect the stance of the Spanish government, it has nevertheless condemned ‘the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians’. As more EU States (such as Belgium, France, and Ireland) have raised their concerns regarding Israel’s continuous military operations in Gaza, Germany has remained steadfast in its ‘unwavering’ and ‘unreserved’ support for Israel. To the extent that Israel has failed to comply with international humanitarian law (IHL), Germany’s position might amount to a breach of its obligation under common Article 1 (CA1) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (GC) to ‘ensure respect’ for IHL. While this obligation is incumbent on all States parties to the GC, this post focuses on Germany due to its particularly affirmative position with respect to Israel’s conduct.

Limited Success

On 11.11 Australia and Tuvalu concluded a treaty on establishing the ‘Falepili Union,’ which deals with three pressing matters (art.1): climate change adaptation, collective security, and a new human mobility pathway. Hailed as ‘groundbreaking’, and ‘the most significant Pacific agreement in history,’ the Treaty certainly constitutes a profound step forward in building climate-resilient international relations, especially with its contributions to international migration law and international law on statehood. However, it also falls short in several instances, especially in fully respecting Tuvaluan equality in relation to Australia.

Undermining the Energy Transition

Australia is confronted with three multi-billion dollar investment treaty claims from a mining company. The basis for two of the claims is a judgment from the Queensland Land Court, in which the court recommended that no mining lease and environmental authority should be granted to a subsidiary of the claimant for its coal mine. The investment treaty arbitration serves as another illustration of how the international investment protection system poses a threat to an urgent and just energy transition. In this blog post, I explain the background of the investment treaty claim, the decision of the Queensland Land Court, and argue that the Court’s decision is an important precedent for the connection between coal, climate change, and human rights.

Biden, Bletchley, and the emerging international law of AI

Everyone talks about AI at the moment. Biden issues an Executive Order while the EU hammers out its AI Act, and world and tech leaders meet in the UK to discuss AI. The significance of Biden’s Executive Order can therefore only be understood when taking a step back and considering the growing global AI regulatory landscape. In this blogpost, I argue that an international law of AI is slowly starting to emerge, pushing countries to adopt their own position on this technology in the international regulatory arena, before others do so for them. Biden’s Executive Order should hence be read with exactly this purpose in mind.

Voting To Annex?

On December 3, Venezuelans will vote in a referendum on the annexation of Esequibo to the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This blog post argues that the referendum has implications for both domestic constitutional law and international law. Since the referendum cannot have any practical effect under international law, it also violates the voters’ constitutional right to participate freely in public affairs. By prioritizing solely the interests of Venezuela over the sovereignty of Guyana, the referendum might be contrary to the principles of peaceful dispute settlement and the prohibition of force, as stipulated in the United Nations Charter. It could also challenge the established legal doctrine of state consent and infringe upon the principle of prioritizing international obligations over national law.

How the War in Gaza May Upend Israel’s Constitutional Limbo

The war in Gaza serves, this blog post argues, as the final nail in the coffin of Netanyahu's judicial overhaul. The Israeli political climate, relentless opposition and the political fallout after Hamas' surprise attack on Israel and the current war thwarted the judicial overhaul. However, populism is far from overcome. Therefore, the current failed judicial overhaul remains a warning sign for the democracy-seeking public in Israel and should raise demand for constitutional entrenchment of the democratic values of the Israeli state. As the judicial overhaul of 2023 has shown us – democracy is not safe if it hangs by the thread of a simple majority in parliament.

Halembas Mandat

Am Morgen der konstituierenden Sitzung des Parlaments vollstreckt die Polizei einen Haftbefehl durch Inhaftierung eines gewählten Abgeordneten – das ist weder ein Vorgang aus dem Frühjahr 1933 im Umfeld der Verabschiedung des sog. „Ermächtigungsgesetzes“ noch eine willkürliche und politisch motivierte Einschränkung des Mandats. Es handelt sich schlichtweg um den Vollzug einer richterlich angeordneten strafprozessualen Maßnahme gegen einen Beschuldigten, um die Durchführung eines möglichen späteren Strafverfahrens zu sichern, die ihrerseits an besondere Voraussetzungen geknüpft und nicht etwa in das Belieben der Staatsanwaltschaft gestellt ist. Der gesamte Vorgang zeigt das Funktionieren eines rechtsstaatlich verfassten Gemeinwesens und offenbart zugleich die Bestrebungen der AfD (nicht etwa nur in Bayern), unter vermeintlich zutreffenden Erwägungen und Stichworten den Rechtsstaat auszuhöhlen und in seiner Substanz zu beschädigen.

Fighting Impunity Through Intermediaries

The 24th of February 2022 lastingly altered Europe’s security architecture. The European Union and its member states have continued to support Ukraine in a multitude of ways, including direct financial assistance, political support in relevant international fora, far-reaching sanctions against Russian citizens and businesses, and massive arms supplies. What has, however, remained ambiguous is within which (legal) framework the EU has provided different means of support towards Ukraine. In other words: what legal principle – that may also be derived from its treaty framework – determined and guided EU support towards Ukraine? This contribution argues that at least certain streams of EU assistance for Ukraine in countering the Russian Federation’s aggression – namely those aimed at ending impunity for international crimes – have been organized within a distinct rule of law context.

Hamas‹ Atrocities, Israel’s Response, and the Primacy of International Law to Protect Civilians

In light of the atrocities committed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad fighters in Israel on October 7, 2023 and the days thereafter, and against the backdrop of Germany’s historical responsibility, the German government and German politicians have unanimously expressed solidarity with Israel and emphasized its right to self-defense. Following the October 17, 2023 call by Kai Ambos for a differentiated debate, we explain which international humanitarian law precautions are relevant and what German policy can contribute to contain the escalation of violence as well as the suffering of the civilian population in the immediate conflict and in the future.