04 July 2024
All Eyes on Sudan (too)
This article is an attempt to add layers to the discussions of ongoing mass atrocities committed in several parts of the world by discussing an under-reported situation of large scale violence unfolding in Sudan since April 2023, in the hope that the ‘international community’ can address multiple catastrophic situations with similar urgency, mobilise for justice for all peoples, end the culture of impunity, and eventually shift the discourse towards the structural causes of such large-scale violence in different parts of the world. Continue reading >>
0 
01 July 2024
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 >>
0
12 June 2024
More of the same or true evolution?
While rights holders are not expressly mentioned as a group of stakeholders in CSDDD, the adoption of this important legislation creates a significant opportunity to involve rights holders to define how the content of the stand-alone article on stakeholder engagement can be filled with legal meaning by soliciting them directly. Continue reading >>
0
01 June 2024
Dividing the Indivisible
The absence of a number of important human rights instruments from the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, notably for indigenous peoples’ and migrants’ rights, are serious omissions and must be rectified at the EU level during the first review of the directive. Given the status of the CSDDD as a directive, Member States also have the freedom to add these missing instruments during national transposition and should do so in order to further honour their commitments under the UNGPs. Continue reading >>
0
30 May 2024
A Comparative Analysis between the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the French and German Legislation
This blog post offers an initial comparative glimpse of the most important changes that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will bring for the respective mandatory human rights and environmental (HREDD) legislation in Germany and France. While both the French Duty of Vigilance Law and the German Supply Chain Act already require effective HREDD, the CSDDD goes a long way in strengthening the requirements and bringing them more in line with international standards. Continue reading >>
0
29 May 2024
Administrative Enforcement of Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation
Mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation such as the new EU’s Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) have received praise and critique in practice and scholarship. This contribution assesses the regime of administrative enforcement contained in the CSDDD and asks if it meets the standards of effective remedy. Continue reading >>
0
17 April 2024
India’s Push-and-Pull on Reproductive Rights
For a piece mapping India’s push-and-pull on reproductive rights – the expanse of its protection and the edges it comes up against – history is a good place to start. Rights in the reproductive sphere are relatively new to India. While India enacted a seemingly liberal abortion legislation as early as 1971, concerns about women’s rights were hardly the drivers behind it. Women’s bodies were a means to achieve the State’s end of population control. It is difficult to justify if women were truly seen as rights-holders. Did this change in recent years? Continue reading >>
0
04 March 2024
Re-Imagining the European (Political) Community through Migration Law
The constant portrayal of migration as an exceptional and problematic phenomenon fuels public anxieties and makes deterrence and harshness seem like the only effective political approaches to managing global migration. By contrast, positive visions of how a society of immigration needs to look like for all members of society to benefit are scarce. Yet to counter apocalyptic scenarios, we need not only such a positive vision but also a theory of societal action that helps to realize it. This blog post offers such a vision and theory that is grounded in the normative and legal framework of the European Union. It argues that we should conceptualize the European society as an inclusive, participatory, and self-reflexive community that is based on constitutional principles as enshrined in Art. 2 TEU. To realize this vision, we must understand practices of claiming and defending human rights not as an overreach into the political latitude of the legislator but as a joint practice of (political) community-building. Continue reading >>28 February 2024
The Future of Legal Struggles
The year 2023 was not a good year for the rights of asylum seekers. The decision about a new legal framework for the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was described as a "historic moment" (Ylva Johansson), but in fact works as a programme of disenfranchisement. If the pursuit of progressive positions are blocked in the political arena, actors shift their strategies to the judicial field. Even before the summer of migration 2015, successful legal struggles had a significant impact on European migration policy. Push-backs on the high sea were prohibited and transfers of asylum seekers to inhumane conditions under the Dublin system were prevented. The draft for the new CEAS are characterised by attempts to circumvent the consequences of these judgements. In this blogpost, I will discuss what the future of legal struggles within the framework of the new CEAS might look like. Continue reading >>
0
27 February 2024
Understanding European Border Management
This contribution highlights how European border management disrupts conventional state-centric understandings thereof, while fostering impunity for human rights violations in its enforcement. EU borders are increasingly controlled in a supranational fashion by a panoply of different actors with different legal mandates and obligations, expanding within and beyond the physical frontiers of Member States. In addition, new technologies and the political turn to the logic of ‘crisis governance’ are contributing to changing the traditional practice of border controls, with a multiplicy of actors being involved in a complex dynamic of securitization. The actors, practices and the legal framework governing European border controls are rapidly changing; yet underlying linear and territorial assumptions and liability regimes remain unchanged perpetuating serious human rights shortcomings. Continue reading >>
0