The state of international law is dire – or so we are told these days, not only here but across the globe. Norms are flouted, judgments ignored, and courts face sanctions. Germany’s role, too, is changing. Once a proud advocate of a “rules-based international order”, the Federal Republic now finds itself increasingly accused of applying “double standards” and showing, at best, only selective commitment to complying with binding law. What is it like to teach international law in Germany in times like these? How are the scholars of this discipline faring – a discipline that some regard as being in existential crisis, and that many agree is under immense strain?

We reached out to dozens of German professors of international law to hear how they are feeling. The responses range from confidence and optimism to bewilderment and resignation. Because our aim was to capture a general mood rather than highlight individual voices, we are presenting the answers anonymously – unfiltered, unabridged, and at times surprising:

“The mood is bleak, the world is falling apart, and international law seems to be effective only where it causes damage.”

“A crisis of international law? Hardly. International law remains the only language that still carries weight in this catastrophic world – mere invocation of it leaves government spokespeople fumbling for words and exposes the hypocrisy of those in power. Anyone who understands the conditions for the right of self-defence applies in the law of armed conflict, who knows when hospitals, nuclear facilities, or civilians may lawfully be targeted, or who is familiar with the procedural rules of the International Court of Justice, has something powerful to counter the rhetoric of power, raison d’état, expediency and false morality. Long criticised, and often with good reason, international law has unexpectedly become one of the most effective tools for justice. No wonder it is under attack. What is labelled as a ‘crisis of international law’ is, in truth, a crisis of a world unable to bear its objections. It is the responsibility of international lawyers to articulate those objections clearly – again and again.”

“I am shocked by how many colleagues have developed a deep sense of detachment from the breakdown of international law, or else have simply fallen into cynicism and resignation. But what we need is neither indifference nor mere crisis diagnosis – we need to look ahead. What is necessary is a critical, multi-perspective, comparative approach to international law as a global phenomenon with all its challenges, without losing faith in its strengths. We owe it to the next generation and to our students to trust that these crises can be resolved. Ukraine is defending international law, and parts of Iranian and Russian civil society are already working towards rebuilding their states on democratic and rule-of-law foundations for the moment when the enemies of international law are defeated. I wish we would put our fears and frustrations aside more often and support them more actively in this work.”

“These are such disruptive times that they mark a change of epoch. It is deeply unsettling to witness international law being violated. That makes teaching and research all the more important. International law will not disappear, but how it will evolve in the coming years remains uncertain. To ensure that Europe and Germany are relevant in this transformation, skilled international lawyers will continue to be needed. Let’s not forget that even so-called ‘deals’ between states are international treaties; and not all states violate international law. Therefore: keep researching, keep teaching, keep tracing the lines of development – but also make visible the political room for manoeuvre that exists within the legal framework. Do all this, even if it is frustrating to see the same questions debated over and over again without real ‘progress’. I completed my doctorate in 2000 on protecting the environment in armed conflict. In the 25 years since then, there has been scarcely any progress – no significant development of the legal norms or doctrines for better environmental protection during war. And now even the most fundamental norms are being broken once more.”

“Wavering between hope and despair. For someone whose legal thinking was shaped by international law in the 1990s, the ongoing, blatant violations of the most fundamental norms – and above all, the complete exclusion of legal reasoning from discussions about war, annexations, and tariffs – are deeply shocking. This is not about a ‘return to the normal’ after the supposed ‘excesses’ of the 1990s. It is about accompanying and processing the global shifts in military, economic, and political power through law. The structural tasks of (international) law must therefore be critically examined, and the renewal of its substance must be intellectually prepared. My conclusion: I remain committed to my work of treating international law as law, and not allowing it to become a mere plaything – neither for criminal heads of state nor for hypercritical discourses that dismiss international law merely as a cloak for Northern hegemony. That said, I may yet retreat entirely into disciplines that view law from the outside – or reinvent myself as an activist.”

“Anyone who has dedicated their life to international law has always needed strong nerves to bridge the considerable gap between appearance and reality. Although this gap has narrowed with the end of the Cold War, it has recently widened again significantly. We therefore need to be especially committed now to keeping the basic assumptions of international law from the UN era alive in the public consciousness as imperatives of global reason, and to defend them against attacks – including from within our own camp. Future generations will hold us accountable for this.”

++++++++++Advertisement++++++++++++

Der Verfassungsblog sucht Verstärkung: Kommunikationsmanager*in (m/w/d).

Du möchtest in diesen dunklen Zeiten etwas für die Demokratie tun? Dich lockt die Aussicht auf einen sinnstiftenden, anspruchsvollen Job in einem kreativen jungen Team? Du willst anpacken, statt immer nur zu jammern? Dann bewirb dich als Kommunikationsmanager*in und übernimm die Verantwortung für die Kommunikation und das Fundraising beim Verfassungsblog.

Alle Informationen zu der Stellenausschreibung findest du hier.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“The future of international law is at stake. How politics positions itself – whether it respects international law, bends it beyond recognition, or disregards it altogether – will determine not only the fate of international law but also that of liberal democracy itself. All of this is connected to a choice: do we side with authoritarian regimes that see human rights as an inconvenience, or do we support the shrinking group of democratic states governed by the rule of law? The less the international community demands democratic accountability and legal standards, the easier it becomes for authoritarian forces to gain ground at home. The more a government pursues an aggressive, rule-breaking foreign policy, the stronger the temptation to roll back democratic and legal checks domestically. The Gaza conflict has already made this painfully clear: if the German government were not shielding Israel’s serious violations of international law, there might be room for open discussion – without the sharp rise in repression we have seen as a result.”

“International law is under immense pressure. The most recent example is the justification of the attack on Iran under Article 51 of the UN Charter – without any concrete examination or legal reasoning. Friedrich Merz speaks of the ‘dirty work’ that Israel is supposedly doing on our behalf. The end justifies the means; and none of this has anything left to do with international law. With which credibility can we invoke international law against Russia, then? Anyone who seeks to justify this – as well as the ongoing violations of international law in Gaza – should at least be honest and admit: international law no longer matters.”

“International law is – and remains – the ius necessarium. We need international law, but international law also needs us. More than anything, we need more international law, not less. Its norms are increasingly being called into question – through armed conflict, power politics, and the erosion of multilateral commitments. That’s precisely why it is essential to equip students with a reflective understanding of how law functions in international relations and why it matters. In this context, research must do more than offer analysis: it should provide guidance and contribute to strengthening a just, rules-based international order. The current upheavals challenge us not only to explain international law, but to help shape it. Let’s take care of international law.”

“I’m frustrated with international law.”

“International law has always been challenged by powerful states which openly defied it. What seems new to us – the possibility that countries like the United States or even Germany are distancing themselves or could distance themselves from the rules-based international order – is neither unprecedented nor unique. I am encouraged by the fact that public interest, among politicians, activists and, above all, students, in ‘what international law says’ is not waning. Hence, we cannot afford to be cynical or resigned. Too much is at stake, and every day people risk their freedom, their health and, in some cases, their lives for fundamental principles of international law such as peace, global justice, human rights and sustainability. To put it simply: if not now, when?”

“It saddens me how selectively the new German government applies international law. Other states are expected to execute ICC arrest warrants – Germany is not. Israel claims to act in self-defence without an imminent attack (which is unlawful), and the Chancellor praises its courage. As an international lawyer, it is easy to be pigeonholed – into one camp or the other. And anyone who speaks publicly in the media about Gaza, Iran, or Ukraine can more or less expect threatening phone calls the very next day. Politics must take a clearer stance in protecting us, the community of international lawyers. But of course, we ourselves bear some responsibility for this situation, as well. The constant calls to boycott events or institutions simply because opinions are voiced there that we do not approve of – those are not helpful at all. After all, the special protection granted by Article 5(3) of the German Basic Law applies to us as scholars, not as activists.”

“International law is about much more than just war and peace. It is by no means dead, though undoubtedly under pressure. It is up to all of us – teachers and students alike – to ensure that it continues to have impact. Despair has never been a solution. So, dear students: study international law and help keep it alive!”

“It is not international law itself that is in crisis, but rather a particular understanding of its legal nature. International law has always been marked by a tension between two foundational conceptions. International legal realism regards states – their interests, goals, and values – as the point of departure and reference for the development of a well-ordered legal world. This held true even for those who did not share these orientations. By contrast, international legal idealism has been guided by visions of a ‘better world’ – however defined – conceiving international law as a project for achieving global justice. A fruitful discipline of international law brought these perspectives into dialogue. Over the past three decades, however, the latter perspective has gained dominance in certain – undoubtedly leading – academic circles. These circles are now being confronted, in brutal fashion, by reality. Rather than lamenting a ‘decline of international law’, we should instead ask how far a discipline of international law can detach itself from the reality of a Hobbesian world of states without rendering itself a futile endeavour.”

“Is it really true that international law is currently in an especially precarious state? And that – as many suggest – Germany’s role in the rules-based international order is shifting? I am not so sure. ‘Double standards’ and the relativisation of international legal obligations have been a defining feature of past decades – and of German foreign policy, too. The rules of the so-called ‘rules-based order’ have always applied more strictly to some than to others. What may be new, perhaps, is that today’s political actors often no longer even bother to conceal these ‘double standards’. (In that sense, there is a parallel with the increasingly open xenophobia now reaching even into the middle classes – something that, of course, has always existed beneath the surface.) And finally – of course! – I lament my own silence. Far more often I should intervene publicly, explain, correct, admonish. And that applies not only, but also, to Gaza.”

“The Post War International Legal Order: 1945-2025 R.I.P. The G7 Declaration relating to the evidently illegal Israeli armed attack against Iran and the German Chancellor’s claim that Israel was ‘doing the dirty work for us’ is shameful. It opportunistically misunderstands the lessons of history to align itself with a criminal Israeli government and a US administration bent on undoing the international order it has been instrumental to bring about and uphold since 1945.”

++++++++++Advertisement++++++++++++

An der Juristischen Fakultät der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen ist am Lehrstuhl für Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte und Bürgerliches Recht von Prof. Dr. Eva Schumann zum 1.Oktober 2025 die Stelle als Wiss. Mitarbeiter*in (w/m/d) – Entgeltgruppe 13 TV-L – mit 50 % der regelmäßigen wöchentlichen Arbeitszeit zu besetzen. Weitere Informationen finden Sie hier.

Bewerbungen sind bis zum 7. Juli 2025 über das Bewerberportal einzureichen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Especially in times like these, when everything seems to be called into question, international lawyers must not let pessimism discourage them, nor retreat, frustrated or even cynical, into a world-weary shell. Against all odds, the rules-based international order needs optimistic voices, voices that have not yet given up on this ideal. And when students in the lecture hall are still eager to engage with international law, it is encouraging – and even a little fun – to help amplify these voices together.”

“Like all law, international law serves both as a means of exercising power and as a tool for balancing interests and protecting the vulnerable. Those who have worked to strengthen its role in promoting justice and shielding the weak have, for some time now, had to endure bitter disappointments. The list of legal violations – including fundamental ones – is long, and in the world of ‘deals’, the law is increasingly reduced to a handmaiden of power. This shakes the very foundations of the existing international order. Given the highly imperfect nature of centralised enforcement mechanisms, this order has (or had?) at its core a mutual trust in a minimal consensus, a trust largely shaped by the shared memory of the two World Wars of the 20th century. Today, that trust is being squandered by key players; the minimal consensus is visibly crumbling. As scholars, we observe, analyse, and critically comment on these developments and reflect on their possible consequences. What gives us hope is the growing interest among students and in the broader public. Clearly, not everyone is indifferent to international law.”

“International law has always been shaken by crises, and the problem of enforcement – especially when powerful states’ interests are at stake – is nothing new. Nor should we be too quick to speak of the failure or irrelevance of international law. After all, it is precisely when international law is violated that it asserts itself as a legal standard of judgment. What is worrying today, however, are three things: first, the sheer scale and intensity of current challenges; second, the growing tendency not even to pretend to take international law seriously, and the lack of attempts to justify state conduct in legal terms; and third, the impression that even in Germany, accusations of violations of international law elicit little more than a shrug from some political decision-makers – or openly countered with the argument: ‘Everyone else ignores the rules, so why shouldn’t we?’ Politics trumps international law; legal arguments are invoked when they support one’s own position and conveniently disregarded when they do not – or are buried beneath political considerations. Still, resignation is not an option. On the contrary, it is more important than ever to call out double standards in the use of international law clearly and publicly. That is why I continue to enjoy teaching international law and am encouraged by the continuing interest and engagement shown by my students.”

“It is short-sighted and foolish to abandon international law in favour of the law of the jungle. This benefits only a few powerful potentates – and even then only at the cost of instability, civil war, or outright war. Unfortunately, it is entirely conceivable that opponents of international law could cause lasting damage to this important civilizational achievement. For me, however, this is all the more reason to advocate for the preservation (and further development) of international law.”

“I find it increasingly difficult to research and teach international law without either becoming disheartened or turning into a cynic. International law has always been a special kind of order, one that depends on the acceptance of states. But I see Louis Henkin’s famous observation – that most states comply with most rules most of the time – as gradually eroding. Yet from my perspective, what we need now more than ever is a peaceful world order grounded in legal structures. Reflecting on and reforming today’s frameworks – for example, making them less Eurocentric – would be an essential task. But that task cannot be fulfilled if states fundamentally turn away from multilateralism.”

“There is no demise of international law and not even a retreat from multilateralism as a general tendency. True, there are some countries, particularly under certain leaders, who have an aversion towards multilateralism. But many other countries, indeed the vast majority, do not retreat from multilateralism. Is international law as such in danger on account of Trump’s or Putin’s retreat from multilateralism? My answer is: no. International law is unkaputtbar. International law is a normative form that is the other side of modern statehood. As long as there is modern statehood in at least two polities on the globe, there will be international law. I do not want to minimize the dangers that we are confronting. But there is no reason to give up. Just one example: Let’s go back 50 years. The Soviet Union’s grip on Eastern Europe was ironclad. Yet, in 1975, all the relevant states for Security and Co-operation in Europe concluded the Helsinki Final Act. The rest, as they say, is history.”

*

Editor’s Pick

by MAXIM BÖNNEMANN

Yes, the law seems fragile. But what breaks doesn’t have to end.
I have just been at the Ukrainian Film Days and saw the film Porcelain War. It’s about the lives of three Ukrainian artists, close to the front – about beauty in times of terror, porcelain within reach of tanks, and culture in the face of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Slava, Anya, and Andrey all resist – some with a brush, some with a gun in hand. Courage and hope flicker between fear and uncertainty. “Porcelain is breakable”, says Slava at one point in the film. “But it can be restored.”

*

The Week on Verfassungsblog

summarised by EVA MARIA BREDLER

The reflections from within German international law scholarship inspire hope, against all odds. Let’s take care of the “unkaputtbar” international law, then.

Since Israel’s airstrikes on Iran a week ago, the two countries have been locked in a cycle of military escalation. The German government was quick to suggest that Israel’s actions might fall under its right to self-defence. But MEHRDAD PAYANDEH (GER) argues that such a position is incompatible with international law.

As international attention turns to Iran, the killing in Gaza continues, with evidence pointing to genocidal intent mounting. ITAMAR MANN (ENG) contributes to a broader discussion of state intent: how does it form and evolve? Genocidal intent, he argues, is not born fully formed – it develops gradually, often unevenly, as a product of action, omission, emotion, and political opportunity; and what may initially be legally justified as self-defence can, in Israel’s case, harden into a campaign of group destruction.

Of course, one cannot read the mind of a state (not even of its head). But, as OR BASSOK (ENG) shows, it is nonetheless instructive to look closely at the inner workings of Israeli state institutions. He observes that the Israeli Supreme Court has recently taken an activist approach in defending democratic structures, while remaining conspicuously silent when it comes to the human rights of Palestinians. This selective engagement, as Bassok notes, is part of a broader pattern he calls “democracy washing”.

Selective enforcement of the law is widespread. In a letter to Alexander Dobrindt, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Michael O’Flaherty criticised German authorities for restricting freedom of expression and assembly in the context of the Gaza protests. And German police officers have voiced concern that they may be breaking the law by following orders to carry out pushbacks at the border. Despite a ruling by the Berlin Administrative Court finding such pushbacks unlawful in the case of three Somali asylum seekers, Dobrindt sticks to the practice. While this may not amount to classical executive disobedience, RAVEN KIRCHNER (GER) sees a new form of institutional resistance to judicial oversight in the “individualisation” of legal conflicts.

Following the Berlin ruling, the three judges involved became targets of severe online threats and defamation. What may appear at first glance as isolated polemics, PHILIPP KÖKER (GER) argues, is in fact part of a broader, systematic attempt to undermine the legitimacy of an independent judiciary.

Similar attempts are at play in Thuringia, where the far-right AfD is obstructing the reconstitution of the judicial appointments committee. But does the leverage actually exist? Must the committee be reconstituted before new judges can be appointed – or is there a transitional solution? For JULIA NEBEL, ROBERT KALINER und JONATHAN SCHRAMM (GER), the German Judiciary Act offers a legal pathway out of the deadlock.

The relationship between parliament and the judiciary was also addressed by the Federal Administrative Court, albeit from a different angle. In its “BDS ruling”, the Court held that administrative courts are not competent to assess the Bundestag’s anti-BDS resolution. However, access to the Federal Constitutional Court remains limited due to high procedural thresholds. NAVID JUNGMANN (GER) sees no cause for alarm: this legal protection gap, he argues, is consistent with the logic and values of the Basic Law.

Questions of values are also at the heart of Advocate General Ćapeta’s striking Opinion in Commission v. Hungary. Building on earlier analyses by LENA KAISER (ENG) and KONSTANTINOS LAMPRINOUDIS (ENG), GEORGIOS ATHANASIOU (ENG) reads the Opinion as a key moment in the evolving jurisprudence of Article 2 TEU – and possibly a signal of a broader shift in the ECJ’s approach to defending fundamental EU values.

Yet values themselves may prove problematic. In a series of so-called “feminist” asylum cases (WS, K and L, AH and FN), the ECJ has made asylum protection conditional on whether applicants have internalised certain “Western” values – particularly gender equality. NARIN NOSRATI and DAVIDE TOMASELLI (ENG) warn that this introduces legal uncertainty and opens the door to ideological instrumentalisation.

Similar concerns are now emerging in Poland, following the election of ultra-conservative candidate Karol Nawrocki. While the result has sparked fresh fears about judicial independence and democratic backsliding, MACIEJ KISILOWSKI and ANNA WOJCIUK (ENG) argue that Polish democracy is not doomed. The only way forward, they suggest, is a new constitutional settlement.

In Hungary, however, such way forward may soon be closed off by law. Former Constitutional Court judge Béla Pokol has proposed establishing an emergency regime designed to protect Hungary’s illiberal system from any future redemocratisation efforts. In response, TÍMEA DRINÓCZI (ENG) advocates for a post-formalist approach to rebuilding democratic governance.

Building democratic governance was the idea behind the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) – the world’s first and only instrument of direct transnational democracy. Since its introduction in 2012, it has enabled citizens from at least seven member states to call on the Union to act – provided they gather one million signatures. But as ALBERTO ALEMANNO (ENG) argues, the growing number of successful yet ineffective ECIs reveals a fundamental mismatch between constitutional recognition of participatory democracy and institutional realities.

++++++++++Advertisement++++++++++++

Musk, Power, and the EU: Can EU Law Tackle the Challenges of Unchecked Plutocracy?

(Edited by Alberto Alemanno & Jacquelyn D. Veraldi)

As calls for an EU response to Musk’s actions grow, the question of whether, why, and how the EU reacts remains open. Is Musk’s conduct problematic in terms of disinformation, electoral integrity, abuse of power, or a combination of these factors? This edited volume unpacks whether and how (EU) law may tackle the existence and exercise of unprecedented plutocratic power. The authors explore a multitude of legal avenues, from freedom of speech to competition law, technology law, data protection to corporate taxation.

Now available as soft copy (open access) and in print!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Could artificial intelligence one day launch its own ECI? Not unlikely. While their acronym already sounds like they’re coming for our jobs, there is growing debate over whether outputs generated by large language models should be protected as “speech”. This is a crucial threshold question for establishing liability and clarifying the legal responsibilities of developers. GIOVANA LOPES and MARCO BASSINI (ENG) examine a recent U.S. court decision and consider under what conditions AI-generated content might fall under the protection of the First Amendment.

Technological innovation is also raising complex questions for criminal law. The recent expansion of DNA analysis to include biogeographical ancestry has sparked controversy. While the promise of “genetic profiling” may sound like progress in criminal investigations, it also carries significant risks of racial bias, misinterpretation, and discrimination. ALINA GORSTEIN and RABEA BENNER (GER) argue that this tool may generate more uncertainty than clarity.

In the U.S., another legal instrument designed to correct injustice is now itself a source of concern – the presidential pardon. Donald Trump increasingly transformed pardons into tools of loyalty and retribution: pardons for friends, threats for foes. DOUGLAS HUSAK (ENG) explores how such transactional uses of presidential power undermine the foundations of American democracy.

In Pakistan, the rule of law is also facing threats. Civilians are once again being tried before military courts, following a Supreme Court decision in May that reversed its own 2023 ruling declaring such trials unconstitutional. MUHAMMAD ASIF KHAN (ENG) argues that this reversal is not the beginning but rather the culmination of a dangerous constitutional shift.

Venezuela appears to be deepening its authoritarian shift. On 25 May, local and parliamentary elections were held, with Maduro’s allies winning by a wide margin. The regime did not need to falsify the outcome – partly because a major segment of the opposition had called for a boycott. According to SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF and SERGIO VERDUGO (ENG), for a beleaguered opposition, the decision to participate in or boycott elections must be guided by both pragmatic and strategic calculations about the remaining possibilities for democratic resistance.

In late May, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights heard Ramos Durand et al. v. Peru, a case concerning mass forced sterilisations in Peru carried out under state authority – often with military involvement – between 1980 and 2000. For PAULINA MACÍAS ORTEGA (ENG), the case has historic potential: it could mark the first time the Court explicitly characterises forced sterilisations as reproductive and thus gender-based violence, contributing to a broader and more inclusive understanding of reproductive rights violations within the regional human rights framework.

Another historic first is the case of T.H. v. Czech Republic, recently decided by the European Court of Human Rights. It is the first case brought by a non-binary applicant. The Court found that sterilisation cannot be required as a condition for legal gender recognition, ruling this a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. Yet SARAH OUŘEDNÍČKOVÁ und ZUZANA VIKARSKÁ (ENG) highlight that the decision is not without flaws: the Court remained silent on Articles 3 and 14, denied compensation, and repeatedly misgendered the applicant.

As part of the “Outstanding Women Project”, JULIA CLARA LIPS (ENG) portrays Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit – a pioneering Indian diplomat and politician who fought British colonial rule at the newly founded United Nations, and who was imprisoned multiple times for civil disobedience (including alongside her daughter).

This week also marked the conclusion of our symposium “GEAS Reform: Halfway to Implementation” (GER). CONSTANTIN HRUSCHKA addresses common misconceptions about the EU’s ban on norm duplication, arguing that the complexity of the reform calls for detailed national implementation – and that careful regulatory technique is key. ANNIKA FISCHER-UEBLER and TANJA ROXANA ROLLETT assess the opportunities and challenges of the new EU-wide monitoring mechanism. Meanwhile, the Commission has already proposed further tightening the rules on “safe third countries”. CATHARINA ZIEBRITZKI explains why removing the connection criterion and the automatic suspensive effect of appeals raises serious legal concerns.

One voice from international legal academia reminded us that “resignation is not a solution”, and that now more than ever, we must clearly and forcefully call out the double standards in the application of international law. We’ll pick up right there next week.

*

That’s it for this week.

Take care and all the best!

Yours,

the Verfassungsblog Team

If you would like to receive the weekly editorial as an e-mail, you can subscribe here.

The post “Wavering Between Hope and Despair” appeared first on Verfassungsblog.