Towards a Bundle of Duties
This week’s decision in Shell v Milieudefensie from the Hague Court of Appeals seemed like a blow to climate litigation: Milieudefensie was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing the Court that it could transpose a global requirement for 45% emissions reductions by 2030 into an obligation for a particular actor. Yet, the Court of Appeals decision marks considerable progress in how we understand the civil liability of large Dutch economic actors for their contributions to climate change.
Continue reading >>
Litigating the EU-Turkey Deal
Earlier this year three Dutch NGOs sued the Netherlands for approving and carrying out the EU-Turkey deal. They argue that the Dutch government should be held responsible for the dire conditions under which asylum seekers have been held under on Greek islands since the deal has been concluded, which have repeatedly been found to violate human rights. In this blog, I sketch the context of litigation surrounding the EU-Turkey deal which has driven the NGOs to sue in the Dutch national legal system and explain the promise and pitfalls of the rise of strategic litigation in the sphere of migration and asylum law.
Continue reading >>
La Oroya and Inter-American Innovations on the Right to a Healthy Environment
In La Oroya v. Peru, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared Peru responsible for violating several rights, including the right to a healthy environment, due to the environmental degradation and health crises in La Oroya—one of the world’s most polluted cities. Regarding the right to a healthy environment, the Court addresses for the first time pollution in air, water, and soil—marking a departure from previous cases that primarily focused on communal property rights and deforestation—and even goes as far as to refer to the right to a healthy environment as jus cogens. Such innovations would have not been possible without the ever-expanding horizon of Inter-American case law and approaches.
Continue reading >>
Third Time’s A Charm?
The second process to draft a new constitutional text in Chile ended on November 7. A referendum to be held on December 17 will decide upon the fate of the constitutional proposal that resulted from it. Polls indicate that the proposal will be rejected, even if the option in favor of the proposal has been gaining support lately. Irrespective of the outcome of the referendum, it might be fair to say that this second version of the constituent process has already failed. In particular, I argue that just like the first draft, the second proposal seeks to constitutionally entrench the goals of the political factions that held the majority within the drafting organ, instead of providing a constitutional framework that would allow for broad self-governance based on the democratic principle.
Continue reading >>
The Magic Bullet That Isn’t!
Article 17 of the European Union's Copyright Directive fails to effectively safeguard copyright exceptions, which can gravely undermine users’ freedom of expression in the digital public sphere. Against this backdrop, the enactment of Article 14 of the Digital Services Act offered fresh hope. Could it be the eagerly awaited ‘magic bullet’ that ensures effective protection of user rights to rely copyright exceptions to parody and quotation on social media platforms? The possibility of such an outcome is doubtful.
Continue reading >>
Solidarity on Solidarity Levies and a Choice of Energy Mix
The Council of the European Union has adopted a series of increasingly controversial measures to deal with the energy crisis. These measures - based on the little used Art 122(1) TFEU- are in part linked to the Commission’s REPower EU plan, which aims to end Europe’s reliance on energy imports from Russia and accelerate Europe’s clean energy transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. With each successive measure the powers of the Commission have expanded to intervene on the supply as well as the demand side of Europe’s electricity and gas markets.
Continue reading >>
Why End-User Consent Cannot Keep Markets Contestable
A central source of Big Tech gatekeepers’ power is their encompassing access to individuals’ personal data. The prohibition of Article 5(a) of the proposed Digital Markets Act, therefore, is a welcome attempt to limit the private power over data held by gatekeeping platforms. However, end-user consent cannot be regarded as an adequate safeguard for keeping data-driven markets competitive.
Continue reading >>