Looking Back on 2023

The shutters are going down, the lights are out, the heating is turned off: we’re closing up shop until 2 January 2024. With a big thank-you to all our readers and supporters, we are now going to take a break to recover a bit from this extremely exciting, but also extremely exhausting year. But before that, let’s take a look back at some highlights of this year on the Verfassungsblog. These are the blog posts that are closest to the hearts of the members of the Verfassungsblog team:

Hannah Beck:
“Democracy must be able to withstand this”, I often hear (from academics and politicians) when it comes to a future in which Björn Höcke is Minister President of Thuringia. We have become accustomed to the idea of right-wing extremists making policy. JULIA LESER explains in her article “Mikropolitik des Rechtsrucks” how the AfD is carving out right-wing spaces in our socio-political discourse – and why the democratic parties are helping them to do so.

Maxim Bönnemann:
Verfassungsblog is at its best when authors begin to discuss with each other. When they do so at a high level and in a respectful tone regarding an issue that is (once again) accused of “dividing” society, the full strength of this platform is revealed. For those who would like to see how this can be achieved, I recommend the blog posts of KLAUS FERDINAND GÄRDITZ and SAMIRA AKBARIAN (both in German) on civil disobedience. One text argues that civil disobedience has no place in a democratic constitutional state, while the other argues the opposite. A great topic for debate, and debating is exactly what these two authors do. If you are occasionally tired of discussions about societal “echo chambers”, you will enjoy this exchange on the legality and legitimacy of civil disobedience.

Anja Bossow:
My favorite piece this year was “Supreme Judgecraft“. Written by two leading thinkers in refugee and migration law, CATHERINE BRIDDICK and CATHRYN COSTELLO, the blog analyzes and contextualizes the UK Supreme Court’s momentous holding that the government’s Rwanda policy was unlawful. Rigorous, nuanced and articulate, the piece enables even a reader unfamiliar with the topic to grasp both the legal and political significance of a judgment in a constitutional system that works very differently to the German one. Bonus points for an excellent title which always excites my editorial heart.

Evin Dalkilic:
There are writings that touch you in a way that you carry them with you for quite some time after reading them. That’s how I felt about the article by DÁNIEL KARSAI. He is a human rights lawyer and terminally ill and is fighting for the right to end his life on his own terms before the European Court of Human Rights. With an impressive force and strength, Dániel Karsai manages to write a very personal text without becoming sentimental. Once again, he reminds us of a truth that is as trivial as it is accurate: rules only remain abstract and general until they are applied to us, and they can affect us all in very different ways.

Klaas Müller:
I would like to give credit to the discussion on the CEAS reform “Europas Werk und Deutschlands Beitrag” (MAXIMILIAN PICHL), “Showdown zur Asylpolitik in Brüssel” (DANIEL THYM) and “Grenzwertige Grenzverfahren” (ISABEL KIENZLE und JONATHAN KIEßLING). As the European Asylum System takes a turn towards restriction, it is important that human rights violations continue to be highlighted within the legal discussion. Especially when the perspectives of the authors diverge widely, the ever present “unconstrained compulsion of the better argument” continues to be the strength of constitutional blogging! (all three texts in German)

Janos Richter:
I was particularly impressed with two articles this year: TORE VETTER‘s “Rule of Law in Custody” (Rechtsstaat in Gewahrsam) and “Pro-Palestine as an Imminent Danger?” (Pro-Palästina als unmittelbare Gefahr?) by CLEMENS ARZT (both in German). Both texts address the increasingly restrictive handling of freedom of assembly by the police and assembly authorities. Instead of adopting a differentiated and proportionate approach, they adopt general decrees, excessive bans and (supposed) “de-escalation through strength”. Against the backdrop of authoritarian actors possibly obtaining decisive positions after the upcoming state elections in Thuringia, Saxony and Brandenburg, this development gives cause for concern as we look ahead to 2024.

Moritz Schramm:
What a year (again). Gasping for breath between all these big and small crises, strangled by strange entanglements and hastily put-together solutions, we often forget to pause and reflect. What actually worked last time? Was this or that quarrel justified? What could we have done differently? With this in mind, PÄIVI LEINO-SANDBERG‘s text on two years of NextGenerationEU was my 2023 highlight. Investigative, journalistic, and with sharp legal acuity, Päivi asks questions that hurt but are necessary, thus revealing the stretch marks and growing pains of European unification.

Maximilian Steinbeis:
My blog post of the year 2023 is what TAMAR HOSTOVSKY told me on February 13th about the key role of Israeli legal academia in mobilizing mass resistance against the Netanyahu government’s subjugation of the independent judiciary. After the horror of October 7th and in the midst of the horrible Gaza war, this almost seems like something from another era. But the inspiration is timeless. Legal academia matters in the defense against global authoritarian populism. That is a lesson we can learn from Israel.

Friedrich Zillessen:
For me, one of this year’s events was Robert Sesselmann’s election as district administrator in Sonneberg, southern Thuringia – also because it coincided with launching the Thuringia Project. After the election, the AfD politician, who after all sits on the board of the “proven right-wing extremist” state party, passed a so-called constitutional loyalty test. In his blog post, MICHAEL BRENNER aptly shows the extent to which this regulation in local election law is mere lip service to “militant democracy” that does not stand up to any practical test. We will probably also see next year just how much “legal tinsel” the instruments of Germany’s militant democracy are. We should not rely on them.