05 November 2020
,

Corona Constitutional, Folge #50: Warum Trump klagt

Die Wahl in den USA ist gelaufen, und es sieht doch eigentlich nicht schlecht aus für Joe Biden und seine Chancen, Donald Trump aus dem Weißen Haus zu vertreiben. Sollte man meinen. Aber neben diesem Wahlauszählungs-Spektakel läuft parallel noch eine ganz andere Partie, von der man nicht so viel mitbekommt, eine juristische nämlich, und die könnte es sein, die am Ende über Sieg und Niederlage entscheidet. Worum es in diesen Gerichtsverfahren geht, welche Strategie dahintersteckt und was das alles für die demokratische Verfassung im ältesten und größten demokratischen Verfassungsstaat bedeutet, darüber rede ich heute mit der Anwältin ANJA VON ROSENSTIEL, die in Boston lebt und in den letzten Monaten im Wahlkampfteam von Joe Biden mitgearbeitet hat und dieses juristische Spiel, das die Republikaner im Augenblick treiben, aus der Nähe verfolgt.

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

04 November 2020
, , , ,

LawRules #7: We need to talk about Legal Education

We need to talk about legal education. As the last couple of episodes of our podcast have demonstrated, preserving the rule of law depends to a large quantity on people working in legal professions. What prosecutors, judges, attorneys, and, to a large degree, people working in the executive branch have in common, is a law degree. This means that we have to turn to legal education itself in order to find answers to the question how rule of law systems may remain or become resilient against authoritarian backsliding. Are current legal education systems in the EU equipped for this task? How are they affected by the turn to authoritarianism and illiberalism in a number of member states? And what are intrinsic shortcomings of academic and professional legal education? This is what we talk about in this week's episode with our distinguished guests.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

28 Oktober 2020
, , , ,

LawRules #6: We need to talk about Attorneys

Attorneys are not on everyone's mind when they think about the rule of law. The European Commission gave a prime example for that when it remained conspicuously silent about the role of lawyers in its recent Rule of Law report. Yet, attorneys play just as important a role in preserving the rule of law as other parts of the judicial system do. What's more: Where they are at risk of being prosecuted for doing their jobs, the erosion of the rule of law is imminent. We talk about attorneys with our distinguished guests in this week's episode of our podcast, co-hosted by the German Bar Association, We Need to Talk About the Rule of Law:
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

23 Oktober 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #49: Vom Sinn und Zweck des Datenschutzes

Die SPD und die Union haben sich diese Woche auf die Einführung eines Bundestrojaners für Geheimdienste geeinigt. Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat Anfang des Monats einmal mehr die Vorratsdatenspeicherung für unvereinbar mit europäischen Grundrechten erklärt und seit Mitte des Jahres ist das Privacy Shield, die Rechtsgrundlage für den transnationalen Datenverkehr, gekippt. Erik Tuchtfeld bespricht mit RALF POSCHER, Direktor des Max-Planck-Instituts zur Erforschung von Kriminalität, Sicherheit und Recht, das Ziel und die Funktion des Datenschutzes und die Gefahren durch Massenüberwachung.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

22 Oktober 2020
, , ,

LawRules #5: We need to talk about Prosecutors

Public prosecutors decide whether a criminal suspect is investigated. Or not. They decide whether a person is indicted and whether there will be a trial. Or not. If you control them, you can make your opponents' life miserable and let your friends run free. On the other hand: If prosecutors don't have to answer to politics at all, who will hold them accountable? This is what we discuss with these distinguished guests in this week's episode:
ONE COMMENT

One Comment

  1. Danai Emmanouilidis Mo 26 Okt 2020 at 16:16 - Reply

    Es wäre interessant eine Folge mit ähnlicher Fragestellung zum Prosecutor beim internationalen Strafgerichtshof zu machen 🙂

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

14 Oktober 2020
, , ,

LawRules #4: We need to talk about Procedural Law

Courts don't just exist. They are shaped by organisational and procedural rules which are enacted by the legislative – and can be abused accordingly. Court packing schemes and tampering with the retirement age of judges are just two examples of such abuse. On the other hand, sometimes the judiciary is indeed in need of reform, e.g. when they no longer manage to deliver judgments in a timely fashion. How do you distinguish "good" judicial reforms from "bad" ones? Is there such a thing as a "good" court packing scheme? Our distinguished guests for this week’s episode are: CHRISTOPH MÖLLERS, a Professor of Public Law and Jurisprudence at Humboldt University of Berlin and a former judge at the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, MARIAROSARIA GUGLIELMI, the Vice President of the judges association Magistrats Européens pour la Démocratie et les Libertés, and ANDRÁS BAKA, for 17 years a judge at the European Court of Human Rights and then President of the Hungarian Supreme Court until he was forced out of office by the FIDESZ governing majority in Hungary.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

07 Oktober 2020
, , ,

LawRules #3: We need to talk about Disciplinary Proceedings

Judges, as all other people, sometimes misbehave. In that case, a procedure needs to be in place to examine if a sanction is required and, if so, to impose it. Disciplinary procedures, however, can be misused by an authoritarian government as blunt yet efficient tool to force the independent judiciary into submission. The most striking case in point is, once again: Poland. Judge Igor Tuleya is facing removal from office and worse for having crossed the government once too often in his discharge of his judicial duties. And he is not the only one. Our distinguished guests for this week's episode are: NINA BETETTO, a judge of the Slovenian Supreme Court and the President of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), ADAM BODNAR, the outgoing Human Rights Commissioner of the Republik of Poland, and SUSANA DE LA SIERRA, a professor of administrative law at the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Toledo, Spain.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

30 September 2020
, , ,

LawRules #2: We need to talk about Judicial Nominations

It's easy to agree that judicial independence is important – but who gets to be a part of the judiciary, who gets promoted to which court and who enters the highest ranks is a decision that has to be taken by someone, and a lot depends on who that someone is. Controlling judicial nominations is one of the key elements in all authoritarian takeover strategies which have been implemented in recent years in Poland, in Hungary and elsewhere. This is what we will discuss with our three distinguished guests today. FILIPPO DONATI is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Florence, a lay member of the Concilio Superiore della Magistratura of Italy and since June of this year the president of the European Network of Councils of the Judiciary. JOANNA HETNAROWICZ-SIKORAis a judge at the district court of Slupsk in northern Poland and a member of the board of the independent judges’ association IUSTITIA. CHRISTIANE SCHMALTZ is a judge at the highest German civil and criminal court, the Bundesgerichtshof.
START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

23 September 2020
, , ,

LawRules #1: We need to talk about Constitutional Courts

Constitutional courts are under attack in many countries in Europe and beyond. Why? And why now? What can be done to protect them, and what are the most important conditions for constitutional courts to function?

These are the questions we discuss in the first episode of the new podcast on the rule of law in Europe we and DAV have launched, with three distinguished guests, two of them former constitutional judges with first-hand experience on these matters, and one a scholar who has written an outstanding book on the German Bundesverfassungsgericht.

STANISLAW BIERNAT was the Vice President of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal while the government launched its takeover campaign against the court.

PEDRO CRUZ VILLALON, former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, was a Judge at and President of the Spanish Constitutional Court, which has suffered greatly in recent years in the Catalan secession drama.

MICHAELA HAILBRONNER is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Gießen and an expert on the probably most influential constitutional court in Europe, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht.

ONE COMMENT

One Comment

  1. R Dooley Sa 26 Sep 2020 at 09:27 - Reply

    Very worthwhile discussion – thank you.

    I would appreciate hearing more detail on Professor Hailbronner’s three conditions for a functional constitutional court.

    Her response was quite nuanced and seemed to advocate an active political role for the court that, from my perspective, would conflict with the appearance of impartiality courts have traditionally striven to maintain.

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

17 September 2020

We need to talk about the Rule of Law

What is our new podcast going to be about? What is the concept behind "We need to talk about the rule of law"? What do we want to achieve with this podcast? Why is this urgent? Listen to the Trailer to find out!

2 COMMENTS

2 Comments

  1. Benjamin Do 17 Sep 2020 at 11:45 - Reply

    I do not find this Podcast on my App (Overcast). Is there already a podcast URL?

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

09 September 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #48: La République in Nöten

150 Jahre wird die französische Republik alt in diesen Tagen. Eine Republik, wechselnde Verfassungen: Die aktuelle gilt seit 1958, aber in Frankreich wächst immer mehr das Gefühl, dass es so nicht weitergehen kann. Was davon mit Präsident Macron als Person zu tun hat und was mit seinem Amt, was die letzten verfassungsrechtlichen Reformversuche zu der aktuellen Misere beigetragen haben und was passiert, wenn 2022 womöglich die solchermaßen verfasste Macht im Staat Marine Le Pen in die Hände fällt – das diskutiert Max Steinbeis mit dem Historiker und Politikwissenschaftler Patrick Weil von der Pariser Sorbonne.

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

03 September 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #47: Eine epische Schlacht

Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google – dass diese vier Konzerne ein Maß an Macht auf sich konzentrieren, das nicht nur wirtschaftlich, sondern auch politisch ein Riesenproblem ist, wissen wir längst. Ihnen gehören die Plattformen, die wir jeden Tag benutzen – oder benutzen müssen, weil sie der öffentliche Raum sind, in dem wir uns bewegen und kommunizieren. Der Gaming-Konzern Epic stellt die Monopolstellung und Beherrschung dieses Raums durch wenige private Konzerne nun durch eine Klage in Frage. Was da passiert, was dabei auf dem Spiel steht und welche Rolle das Kartellrecht dabei spielt, das diskutiert Max Steinbeis mit Nikolas Guggenberger, Experte in den Bereichen der Schnittstellen von Recht und Technologie.

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

27 August 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #46: Diktatoren haben es auch nicht immer leicht

In Belarus kämpft Alexander Lukaschenka mit ungezügelter Brutalität um seine Macht. Und ob es ihm gelingt, sie zu behalten, davon hängt auch für den russischen Präsidenten Vladimir Putin ungeheuer viel ab. Im gleichen Moment wird Putins schärfster Kritiker Alexei Navalny mit einer akuten Vergiftung ins Krankenhaus eingeliefert und dann nach Deutschland ausgeflogen. Wie hängt das zusammen? Ist der Anschlag ein Zeichen von Stärke oder von Schwäche? Diese Fragen diskutiert Max Steinbeis mit der Politikwissenschaftlerin und Russland-Expertin Silvia von Steinsdorff von der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

ONE COMMENT

One Comment

  1. Max Gutbrod So 30 Aug 2020 at 13:02 - Reply

    Mit der beste Kommentar, den ich gesehen habe, weil er weiter denkt, und dennoch geht er m. E. nicht weit genug.
    In autoritären Staaten geht es im wesentlichen auch um den Kampf von Gruppen innerhalb der Staaten. Die weißrussische Opposition sieht besonders schön aus, ihre Reichweite in die Macht- und insbesondere Sicherheitseliten ist aber sehr gering. Deshalb sind ihre Chancen auch weit geringer als die des Maidan.
    Die Machteliten geben daher Warnschüsse ab. Darunter zählen m. E. die Vorgänge um die Wagner-Gruppen in Weißrussland und die um Nawalny. Nawalny und Skripal eignen sich dafür besonders gut, weil der Kreml sich durch das Agieren nach den Anschlägen zwar den Eindruck erweckt, er habe alles geplant, und damit Gegner verschreckt, aber die Nachweise gegen ihn so indirekt sind, dass die üblichen Verdächtigen (AfD, RT, Lawrow, Peskov) sich darüber lächerlich machen können. Zudem lenkt das Theater um Nawalnij davon ab, dass sich Russland in den letzten Tagen ganz konsequent für Eingreifen positioniert hat und die Infiltration der Sicherheitskräfte wahrscheinlich schon erfolgt ist. Diese können, je länger, desto mehr, gar nicht mehr zurück, weil sie ja Schuld auf sich geladen haben. Möglicherweise ist die Kreml-Strategie sogar, Lunkashenko erst einmal zum Überlegen zu verhelfen, ihn nach einigen Jahren abzuräumen und Weissrussland in absehbarer Zeit nach Russland einzugliedern. Die Strategie in Khabarovsk wird ähnlich sein und ist im Zusammenhang mit den Kommunalwahlen letztes Jahr erprobt worden: Lasst sie demonstrieren, gegen Herbst-Winter werden sie drangsaliert und dann teilweise gekauft, teilweise eingelocht.
    Gegen das alles sind die üblichen westlichen Sanktionen kontraproduktiv: Wenn die jeweils Sanktionierten nicht mehr in Baden-Baden, der Schweiz oder Courchevel feiern können werden sie sich Feiergelegenheiten im sowjetischen Raum oder in Asien aufbauen und noch abhängiger von der jeweils herrschenden Macht. Wenn aber Wirtschaftsverbindungen allgemein wegen Sanktionen nachlassen ist auch die Chance geringer, dass es Leute wie die derzeit in Weißrussland Handelnden versuchen. Was der Westen tun könnte wäre Amnestiemodelle bereit stellen, um die mafiotische Spirale der Sicherheitskräfte zu unterbrechen. Ansonsten kann er nur so viel echte (der Petersburger Dialog ist m. E. wohl nciht wirklich echt in diesem Sinne) Foren für den Dialog herstellen.

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

19 August 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #45: Europas letzter Diktator?

Das System in Weißrussland schwankt. Die Belarussen wollen ihren Staatschef Lukaschenko loswerden. Nehmen wir an, sie würden ihren Plan erfolgreich in die Tat umsetzen: Wie ginge es dann mit Belarus weiter? Was würde aus der Verfassung Weißrusslands? Und welche Auswirkungen hatte die bereits verstrichene Amtszeit des angeblich "letzten Diktators Europas" auf umliegende Staaten wie Polen, Serbien oder Ungarn? Uladzislau Belavusau hat Antworten – die er mit Max Steinbeis im Podcast-Interview teilt.

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.

15 Juli 2020
,

Corona Constitutional #44: Was jetzt auf Polen zukommt

Die Präsidentschaftswahl in Polen ist gelaufen, alle haben artig dem Amtsinhaber Andrzej Duda zur zweiten Amtszeit gratuliert, als sei das einfach nur eine demokratische Wahl wie jede andere. Dass sie das nicht war, sondern vielmehr die letzte, nunmehr verpasste Ausfahrt vor dem endgültigen Umbau Polens in eine Autokratie, erfährt man, wenn man mit Leuten wie WOJCIECH SADURSKI redet. Der ist seit vielen Jahren Professor für Rechtstheorie an der Universität Sydney und als solcher ein Gelehrter von Weltruf, aber auch in seinem Heimatland Polen wissenschaftlich und öffentlich sehr präsent – so sehr, dass ihn die Regierungspartei PiS und ihre Verbündeten mit mehreren Gerichtsverfahren überzogen haben. Mit ihm spricht Max Steinbeis in der heutigen Folge unseres Krisenpodcasts über die freie Bahn, die die PiS-Regierung jetzt hat für ihre autoritären Pläne.

START THE DISCUSSION

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.