Scholars have increasingly discussed the concept of European Militant Democracy, that is, the EU’s defense of Article 2 TEU values against defiant Member States. But does EU law have anything to say about national militant democracy, specifically on measures such as bans of political parties? The possible role that EU law has to play in this area has so far been overlooked. Using the proposed ban of the AfD as an example, this Article discusses whether and under what circumstances EU law is applicable to national party bans. Arguing that national political parties fulfill an essential function for representative democracy in the EU, the Article finds that EU law is applicable to national party bans both within the context of elections to the European Parliament as well as in purely internal situations. Arguing that the concept of democracy in Article 2 TEU nevertheless allows for militant democratic measures such as party bans, this Article then carves out specific standards that national party bans must comply with as a matter of EU Law.

Richard Abel’s five-volume book series, Defending American Democracy (2025), offers key insights into the transformation of a liberal democracy under modern, legalistic autocratic rule. As an in-depth study of President Donald Trump’s first term in office, it outlines how the Trump administration challenged and subverted laws and legal principles, exploiting the gaps in our democracy exposed by his predecessors. With an executive branch actively working beyond constitutional boundaries, Abel highlights one of the most pressing questions of our day—what do we do now? This review essay aims to respond to part of this question by contributing to emerging scholarship on resistance to autocracy and authoritarianism. It proceeds in two parts. The first part draws from and develops Abel’s accounting of resistance to autocracy in the United States. In doing so, it extracts a generally applicable typology of resistance methods and how they manifest under state repression or persecution. The second part of this essay adapts these categories and raises examples within electoral democracies that are facing similar conditions. In contemplating resistance “success stories” in similarly situated nations, the review essay aims to direct further attention to shared strategies for democratic resilience during a global decline in the rule of law.

The article explores the complex interface between international agreements concluded jointly by the European Union and its Member States (mixed agreements) and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. Case law remains unclear and appears fraught with inconsistencies. The article aims to mitigate the uncertainty and identify common principles, proposing a concrete approach to establishing the Court’s jurisdiction in the mixity context. It further explains the underpinnings of the Court’s highly contextual expansion of its jurisdiction. This is understood—though not uncritically—as an effort to fill gaps in judicial protection and ensure the autonomy of the EU legal order.

Why do poor caregivers resist rights-based framings of their situation even when directly exposed to institutionalized rights discourses? Drawing on 44 in-depth interviews with caregivers, care recipients, and officials from Chile Cuida, a state assistance program grounded in the right-to-care framework, this article examines the rights consciousness of long-term, intensive caregivers in Santiago, Chile. We find that, despite significant political exposure to rights discourses, caregivers consistently frame their experiences in terms of familial duty rather than entitlement. Building on rights-consciousness literature, we identify three mechanisms that explain this pattern: cultural incompatibility, whereby caregivers resist framings that appear to contradict familial obligations; familial overspilling, whereby family-based relational expectations are projected onto bureaucratic actors; and bridging strategies, whereby caregivers invoke alternative cultural sources of entitlement – particularly notions of state duty toward the poor – to justify receiving assistance without challenging familial dominance. We argue that discursive exposure to rights frameworks is insufficient when it confronts deeply settled familial cultural repertoires, with significant implications for care policy in the region.

Comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, in which all attributes are protected on an equal footing and well-resourced equality agencies are empowered to effectively enforce such obligations, is not common in the Asia-Pacific region. Centring the Asia-Pacific as a critical site of inquiry, this article examines incremental changes to discrimination laws in the region. It draws on discrimination law reform in Australia and Hong Kong to demonstrate how these processes have resulted in piecemeal rather than comprehensive reform, adding to the patchwork nature of discrimination protections and contributing to uncertainty as to the scope and coverage of anti-discrimination laws. Patchwork protections also exacerbate the regulatory burden on duty holders where there are inconsistencies between obligations and differing compliance requirements. This article argues that governments in the region should enact comprehensive legislation prohibiting discrimination, enabling states to meet their international human rights obligations, minimise legislative inconsistencies and potentially provide greater legal certainty to citizens and duty holders alike. This analysis is timely as jurisdictions in the region – such as Singapore and Taiwan – are considering new legislative frameworks prohibiting discrimination.

While the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland has been hailed by many as a landmark in climate change and human rights litigation, the response by Switzerland and many intervening parties has been less favorable. For instance, the Swiss legislative has been very critical in its review of the judgement, claiming it to be “judicial activism.” By dissecting the criticism voiced in the aftermath of the KlimaSeniorinnen judgement and by comparing this case to similar cases by national and international courts in regard to climate change this paper asks whether this is a unique and swiss-specific criticism or if there is an inherent problem when it comes to climate change litigation and the separation of powers. While acknowledging persistent general criticism of the ECtHR, this article concludes that it is likely that the connection to human rights drives such criticism more than the connection to climate change. This might be because human rights, especially in the international context, leave ample room for interpretation and the margin of appreciation doctrine leaves room for disagreement. Additionally, this paper finds that situations of vertical separation of powers are more prone to criticism than horizontal ones.

States have agreed to pursue ambitious environmental goals such as limiting the rise in global average temperature, halting the loss of biodiversity, protecting the oceans, curbing land degradation, and preventing pollution. In implementing these common objectives, some states take measures that have extraterritorial effects. These impacts sometimes lead to criticism from affected countries, which feel that their interests are being violated or neglected. This article analyzes the potential extraterritorial effects of the European Union’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and assesses the complaints lodged by Indonesia against it. It will use the development of the EUDR as a case study to learn about the issues arising from environmental measures with extraterritorial effects designed to implement internationally agreed environmental objectives. It will also attempt to draw some general conclusions on how states can unilaterally advance these goals while respecting the legitimate interests of third countries.