No More Need for Doublespeak

19 March 2021

No More Need for Doublespeak

How will Southeast Asian governments react to the violent developments in Myanmar? ASEAN’s non-interference principle is often described as an effective shield against foreign meddling in domestic affairs. In the face of reputational damage and possible economic setbacks, though, ASEAN members had started to refer to human rights, democracy and the rule of law to justify occasional peer pressure – not out of normative conviction but due to strategic considerations. After years of democratic backsliding and declining global expectations, however, these semantic gymnastics are much less required today.

14 April 2020

Lasse Schuldt

Abstract panic: On fake news, fear and freedom in Southeast Asia

In Southeast Asia, which is the world’s most dynamic laboratory of fake news legislation, the corona crisis has put previously created laws to practice and sparked additional legislative activity. The professed goal is to prevent public panic. Recent enforcement actions, however, demonstrate the complete irrelevance of any panic indicators. A falsehood’s panic potential is simply assumed. In short, an abstract panic threat is fought with very concrete measures: Arrests and criminal prosecutions. Cases from across Southeast Asia prove the trend, whereas two decisions in Singapore deserve particular attention.

16 May 2017

Paul Kalinichenko

A Principle of Direct Effect: The Eurasian Economic Union’s Court pushes for more Integration

In a reply to a Belarusian request, the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union decided in one of the most important cases of its history. It formulated the ‘direct effect’ principle in order to coordinate between EAEU law and the domestic legal orders of the EAEU Member States.

27 January 2014

Alexandra Kemmerer

Quergelesen: Gibt es einen “Konstitutionalismus des globalen Südens”?

Die vornehmste Aufgabe einer Verfassung sei es, die Wunden der […]

05 September 2013

Sven Simon

Eine militärische Intervention in Syrien wäre nicht legal

Weder der US-amerikanische Präsident noch der Kongress der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika sind zu einer „Strafaktion“ berechtigt. Die Charta der Vereinten Nationen lässt vom absoluten Gewaltverbot nur zwei Ausnahmen zu, die in Syrien beide nicht vorliegen. Gleichwohl trifft die internationale Gemeinschaft eine Schutzverantwortung gegenüber der Syrischen Bevölkerung. Eine völkerrechtliche Einordnung von Sven Simon.

25 April 2013

Maximilian Steinbeis