Why the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction Doctrinally Attaches to Israeli and Russian Nationals
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.
Continue reading >>
Ukraine, the Netherlands and 26 Third States Without Russia Before the ECtHR
The hearing in the case of Ukraine, the Netherlands v Russia lasted four hours and twenty-five minutes. more than double than an “ordinary” Grand Chamber hearing. These four hours and twenty-five minutes are an important milestone in what is undoubtedly one of the most important set of cases in the history of European Convention on Human Rights. They cover more than ten years of Russian activities in Eastern Ukraine, including the open war of aggression since February 2022. The number of third parties involved in the proceedings likewise renders the case extraordinary.
Continue reading >>
No Backdoor for Mass Surveillance
Bulk data retention is the evergreen of European security policy. On February 13, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – once again – ruled in Podchasov on Russia’s collection of and access to citizens’ private communication. The Court made it clear that weakening the encryption of all citizens cannot be justified. This sends an important message not only to the Russian state, but also to other European governments that contemplate installing “backdoors” on encrypted messenger services like Telegram, Signal or WhatsApp.
Continue reading >>
The EU’s Eastern Border and Inconvenient Truths
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, alongside with the EU’s confrontation with Russia’s ally Belarus, however, has deeply impacted the securitisation of migration within the EU. Highly politicised conflict-related securitisation narratives have rarely found their way so swiftly into Member States’ domestic migration and asylum laws, leading to open and far-reaching violations of EU and international human rights law. Hardly ever before have ill-defined concepts and indiscriminate assumptions been so broadly accepted and used to shift from an individual-focused approach to blanket measures stigmatising, dehumanising and excluding entire groups. And rarely before have radical changes of this kind received so little criticism - a deeply unsettling and dangerous trend.
Continue reading >>
The Curious Fate of the False Claim of Genocide
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered another blow to Ukraine’s litigation strategy. The ICJ only confirmed its jurisdiction for considering Ukraine’s narrow claim that it had not committed genocide in Donbas. As we have previously argued, given the expected modest outcome of the case for Ukraine, it would make sense for Ukraine to expand its litigation strategy beyond the false claim of genocide. Ukraine may consider lodging a new lawsuit before the ICJ under the Genocide Convention, alleging that Russia breached the Convention by committing genocide against Ukrainians as a protected national group.
Continue reading >>
Why the Russian Constitution Matters
Russia’s failure to become a democracy after the collapse of the Soviet Union is not an inevitable product of its history. On the contrary, it has been shaped by the adoption of a constitutional system of centralised power in the office of the president. Long term democratic reform will require more than just Putin leaving the office of the presidency. Avoiding a system of ‘Putinism without Putin’ will also require a new Russian constitutional foundation that breaks with centralisation and reshapes the later structural chapters of the constitution to balance power between institutions.
Continue reading >>
A Shortcut at the Expense of Justice
On 31 January 2024, the International Court of Justice rendered its judgment on the merits of a case initiated by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in 2017. Ukraine alleged numerous violations by Russia of two treaties: the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This blog post provides a brief overview of the decision and argues that the Court sidestepped the task of reconstructing what has happened in reality via judicial fact-finding. This approach comes at the expense of several legal errors. The harsh realities of the conflict and, most importantly, the human suffering on the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia seem far removed from the grandeur of the Peace Palace.
Continue reading >>Teaching Human Rights in Russian Legal Education
The growing mistrust towards the West in Russia since the early 2000s, as well as general disillusionment with the results of political transition and economic reforms, along with the aggressive anti-human rights propaganda of the Russian regime for a long time, has led to a perception of human rights as a "Western theory" that does not fit the Russian people. This context made it easy in the 2010s to weaponize human rights in the Kremlin’s foreign policy rhetoric and subsequent direct aggression; the rhetoric of "protecting human rights" became the justification for both the annexation of Crimea and the initiation of full-scale aggression against Ukraine.
Continue reading >>
Can the Russian Constitution Still Strike Back?
Three decades after the adoption of the Russian Constitution, we must admit that it has not become an effective safeguard against the usurpation of power and state terror. The conditions under which the Russian Constitution could have served as a secure barrier to the revival of authoritarianism and state terror is a profound question warranting a separate discussion. I suggest that we should look a few steps ahead and imagine an optimistic scenario of a new attempt to establish democracy and rule of law in Russia – regardless of how improbable such a scenario may seem at present. One of the priorities of such an attempt will be to overcome impunity for the perpetrators of crimes of the Putin regime.
Continue reading >>
What Went Wrong and What Could be Done?
The question should perhaps be “what went right?”. I argue that for more than 30 years, as a result of a key provision in the Constitution, and the work of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (CCRF) there were many positive changes to Russian law and practice. These advances were only possible as a result of Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe and ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But that chapter in Russia’s constitutional history has been closed.
Continue reading >>
Legitimizing Authoritarian Transformation
In the early 1990s, the Constitutional Court of Russia (RCC) was viewed as an important institution for protecting human rights and facilitating the democratic transition. However, the good intentions of the constitutional drafters were insufficient to overcome the country’s totalitarian legacy and practices. An examination of the RCC’s evolution over three decades reveals two significant trends: Firstly, the RCC transformed into a machine for legitimizing laws designed to dismantle political competition, civil society, and civil liberties. Secondly, this dynamic did not prevent the RCC from losing its independence and political weight after the constitutional amendments of 2020. In this blog post, I will provide a brief overview of the RCC’s most controversial decisions over the past 30 years, along with the measures taken to destroy independent constitutional review in Russia.
Continue reading >>
Women’s Rights and the Russian Constitution
Since the beginning of Russia’ aggression against Ukraine, the government’s rhetoric has become more conservative and nationalistic. In 2022-2023, Russia witnessed the introduction of a slew of oppressive legislation directly violating human rights. Against the backdrop of Putin’s focus on the fight against the ‘enemies’ and Russia’s isolation due to ‘fighting for the right cause’ women once again became the target of regulation with a steady and consistent assault on their human rights, particularly reproductive rights. Moreover, as women actively participate in anti-war protests, the authorities have been treating women more harshly during arrest, trial and sentencing as various reports show. Nevertheless, women continue to fight for their rights and freedoms in courts and on the streets, hoping for change.
Continue reading >>
Regime Adaptation Within Russia’s Judicial Elites
The case of Valery Zorkin, chairman of the Russian Constitutional Court, shows how elites prioritize their own survival and therefore do not oppose a repressive and aggressive regime, most likely because they fear revenge from liberal peers and victims of the system. And since the war against Ukraine, elites have another reason to stay loyal. For those who fear being held responsible for a war of aggression and war crimes, Putin is the only “guarantor of stability.”
Continue reading >>
Paving the Way for Violence
The negative effects of the 1993 conflict prevailed over the benefits from the end of a confrontation. Its outcomes raised a major barrier to the democratization of Russia and paved the way for the use of violence as a means of preserving power. This conflict contributed to the maximization of presidential power and to the weakening of checks and balances in the constitution, which included significant authoritarian potential. The political order established in Russia after the 1993 conflict largely determined the subsequent trajectory of Russian political evolution and its drift towards a personalist authoritarian regime.
Continue reading >>
Constitutional Identity vs. Human Rights
In two recent Latvian cases concerning the Russian-speaking minority decided respectively in September and November 2023, the ECtHR made clear that protection of constitutional identity has now been elevated to a legitimate aim for a differential treatment under the Convention. This post explores how the protection of constitutional identity has been deployed to enable a collective punishment by association with a former occupier, and how the ECtHR’s reasoning has effectively endorsed such a punishment, which is unbefitting of a liberal democratic system the ECHR aspires to represent. Until the three cases were decided, no liberal European democracy could argue without losing face that suppressing a large proportion of its population was its constitutional identity – one of the goals of its statehood. Today, this claim is seemingly kosher, marking a U-turn in the understanding of what the European human rights protection system is for minorities in Europe.
Continue reading >>
Challenging the ‘Post-Soviet’ Label and Colonial Mindsets
The international discourse long depended on the term ‘post-Soviet’ to refer to the 15 sovereign states that emerged and re-emerged from the Soviet Union following its dissolution in 1991. The list includes European and Asian countries with contrasting backgrounds. Rooted in the context of the Cold War, the term fails to capture the crucial ongoing metamorphosis and challenges of these states for the past thirty years. For Lithuania and the Baltic region at least, the NATO Summit in Vilnius in July 2023 is a chance to emphasize the strong European identity and to challenge the deep colonial mindsets, which overlooks Eastern European perspectives in favor of those built in Moscow since the beginning of the 20th century.
Continue reading >>Weaponizing Russia’s Memory Law
Russia is increasingly using its “memory law” to put pressure on potential critics of the Russian attack on Ukraine. While it is being used to crack down on anti-war dissenters, it also provides a (false) pretext of a legitimate societal cause for its application. In this way, the laws are used to create a mood of paranoia and fear among the population, and a feeling as if the country were in a besieged fortress.
Continue reading >>
Wagner ist keine Söldnertruppe
Spätestens seit Wagners Putsch-Versuch von letztem Samstag gerät die Gruppe immer stärker in den Fokus der Öffentlichkeit. Dabei nimmt das Interesse an Söldnern und die Forderung nach ihrer Kontrolle und Verboten von allen Seiten zu. Die Mitglieder der Gruppe Wagner sind jedoch keine Söldner. Sie sind private military contractors (PMCs) – und damit eine weitaus größere Bedrohung für das Gewaltmonopol, die Einhaltung des humanitären Völkerrechts und den Schutz von Betroffenen. Echte Regulierung von PMCs ist nicht erst seit Wagners brutalem Einsatz bitter nötig. Jetzt könnte sich zuletzt durch den gescheiterten Staatsstreich das erste M