Is there a positive obligation on Russia to legalise same-sex unions under the European Convention on Human Rights?
The communicated case of Fedotova and Shipitko v. Russia
On 2 May 2016, the European Court of Human Rights communicated the case of Irina Borisovna Fedotova and Irina Vladimironova Shipitko v. Russia (no. 40792/10). The complaints lodged by three same-sex couples concern the inability of same-sex couples to register for marriage under Russian legislation and the lack of other means of giving legal status to the relationship of same-sex couples, as marriage is the only legally recognised union in …
Can global solutions avoid contributing to the legal production of superfluity?
I have argued in the previous post, how states’ regulation of borders and the global question of responsibility sharing relate: Not only does the securization of borders in one place shift responsibility for refugees to other states. Strategies of containment have shaped today’s international structure of protection much more generally, including the growing role of humanitarian actors and the corresponding expansion of humanitarian reason in reactions to displacement. These dynamics …
Law’s production of superfluity as an analytical lens
When the German Minister of the Interior a few weeks ago announced that “the refugee crisis has not been resolved, but its solution is on a very good way”, he was obviously not speaking about the global situation. He was referring to the situation in Europe and particularly in Germany, where after the successive closure of the Balkan route and the agreement between the EU and Turkey in March (as …
Nach der Krise ist vor der Krise. Auf die Finanzkrise folgte die Flüchtlingskrise und stellte die Europäische Union erneut vor die Zerreißprobe. Aufgrund der intern nicht überwindbaren Meinungsverschiedenheiten hat die EU die Flüchtlingskrise durch eine Vereinbarung mit der Türkei in ihre Peripherie verschoben.
A turning point for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
On May 23, 2016, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) published a press release giving notice of an immediate financial crisis leading to the “suspension of hearings and imminent layoff of nearly half its staff.” The IACHR asserted that this situation arose as a result of the Organization of American States (OAS) member states’ failure to support the fulfilment of the Commission’s mandate. The IACHR’s budget deficit is, nevertheless, …
Türkei diskriminiert 20 Millionen Aleviten
Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat in seinem jüngsten Urteil İzzettin Doğan und andere gegen die Türkei (Urt. v. 26. April 2016, Beschwerde-Nr. 62649/10) die Finanzierung und Organisation des religiösen Lebens von Aleviten in der Türkei untersucht und festgestellt, dass der Konventionsstaat im Umgang mit dem Alevitentum gegen die Religionsfreiheit gemäß Art. 9 EMRK und das Diskriminierungsverbot gemäß Art. 14 EMRK verstößt.
A Small Step in the Right Direction
The decision On 21st March 2016 Trial Chamber III of the International Criminal Court (ICC) found Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Bemba) guilty for murder and rape as a war crime and crime against humanity, as well as pillaging as a war crime, committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) in the period between 2002-2003.
On periodization and the 1990s as crystallization point for contemporary International Law
The international legal order finds itself in turmoil. The crises in Ukraine and Syria, the questioning of the authority of the ECtHR, the opposition against the ICC by African states and the rise of global terrorism can all be interpreted as crisis symptoms justifying the need for a (re-)assessment of the current state and future of International Law.
In theater, the peak of a play in which all strings of the story converge and the intrigue is resolved, is called the climax. With its verdict against Radovan Karadžić, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has come to its climax.
In its recent decision (in German, press release in English) on Mr R the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG or the Court) rejected an extradition request pursuant to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The Court invalidated a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf to extradite Mr R to Italy under the EAW because the decision would violate human dignity as protected by Art 1(1) of the German Constitution.