In 1931 Carl Schmitt published an article titled “the turn to the total state.” The total state that Schmitt describes is not yet a totalitarian state. Germany is still a liberal democracy and the Weimar Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. But the total state Schmitt describes is a state in which the traditional lines between the sphere in which the private law society governs itself and the sphere of state intervention, or the public domain, have been undermined. According to Schmitt, the pluralistic forces of civil society have captured the state and made it an instrument to serve their purposes. Everything is up for grabs politically. It is a state of political mobilization and deep ideological conflict, reflected in the plurality of deeply divided political parties in parliament. It is possible to distinguish between three features, which together illustrate the total prevalence of politics over law underlying “the turn to the total state.”

This article attempts to present a comprehensive and coherent picture of the position occupied by science under the SPS Agreement and in the SPS case law. It claims that the approach adopted by the Appellate Body reflects the explicit language of the SPS Agreement and is predominantly based on a technical paradigm. In consequence, science plays a critical role in distinguishing between legal and illegal SPS measures.

The article argues that such an approach is generally compatible with the text of the SPS Agreement and provides a coherent SPS system. However, it also identifies certain areas, which lack coherence, as certain standards seem to violate the right of the Member States to establish an appropriate level of protection. These are: ascertainability of the risk as a precondition for valid risk assessment; strict specifity of the risk assessment in low-risk situations; the proportionality between the risk identified and the SPS measure; the notion of negligible risks; and the concept of likelihood in the quarantine risk assessments. The article claims that these standards cannot be generally applied in SPS disputes as, in certain situations, they will result in the violation of the right of the Member States to establish an appropriate level of SPS protection. Finally, a number of specific issues, which require resolution, are highlighted, namely the quality of minority scientific opinions, the relationship between the insufficiency of scientific evidence and scientific uncertainty. The article suggests that the ultimate role ascribed to science under the SPS Agreement can be assessed only after an interpretation of those issues is provided by future case law.

The amended German Act against restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen – GWB) has been in force since 1 July 2005. After a long and controversial debate, including a mediation procedure between the Bundestag (Lower House of the German Federal Parliament) and the Bundesrat (Upper House of the German Federal Parliament), and two and a half years after the adoption of Regulation No. 1/2003 in December 2002 the 7th Amendment to the Law against restraints of Competition was finally adopted in June 2005. Interestingly, the delay in passing the 7th Amendment – more than one year after Regulation No.1 came in force – was not so much caused by the fundamental changes that had become necessary in the light of Regulation No. 1. Rather, it was caused by those changes which did not become part of it: the proposed reform of merger control in the newspaper industry. Nonetheless, the latest amendment of the German competition law brought a greater number of fundamental changes than the six previous amendments adopted between 1958 and 1998. More specifically, the 7th Amendment abolished numerous specialties of the German antitrust law, which had been cultivated during previous decades. At the same time, it pointed to the increasing “Europeanization” (or, in other words, the decreasing relevance) of the national competition law that primarily covers the rules regarding anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices and is likely to extend to other areas in the future, such as unilateral conduct and merger control.

On 7 February 2006, a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in the much awaited ‘Ostrava case’, which challenged the placing of disproportionate numbers of Romani children in ‘special schools’ for the learning impaired in the Czech Republic. This practice, widespread across Central and Eastern Europe, amounts in effect to racial segregation and denies Romani children access to a standard of education comparable to their non-Romani peers. The Ostrava case, taking eight months to assemble and seven years to reach judgment day in Strasbourg, represented the centre-piece of the litigation strategy of the Romani rights movement. The decision of the Strasbourg Court to ignore the evidence of indirect racial discrimination by a 6-1 majority represents not only a setback for those working for the improvement of the situation of the Roma – widely acknowledged as the most disadvantaged, discriminated and marginalised group in Europe – but also for the crystallisation of non-discrimination norms in Europe.

In the July 8, 2004 case of Vo v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) dealt with the question of whether the embryo/fetus (“the fetus”) enjoys the protection of the right to life provided by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Below, a pregnant woman lost her fetus due to an error made by the attending doctor, and the Cour de Cassation, the French court of last instance, acquitted the doctor of involuntary homicide on the grounds that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the French Criminal Code. Claiming a violation of her child's right to life within the meaning of the Convention, the woman appealed to the ECtHR. The ECtHR left open the question whether or not a fetus falls within the scope of Article 2; declaring that, even assuming Article 2 was applicable to a fetus, there had been no failure by France to comply with its obligations under Article 2, because the ECtHR deemed the institution of criminal proceedings unnecessary. Rather, it considered the possibility for the applicant to bring an action for damages as sufficient and therefore found that there had been no violation of the fetus's right to life.

Meetings of German-speaking Public Law assistants have, as was explained in Daniel Thym's report on the Bielefeld meeting in 2005, been a long-standing tradition. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Austrian capital has already seen four meetings of this kind, in 1970, 1981, 1994 and now in 2006. More than 150 Public Law assistants from Germany, Switzerland and (needless to say) Austria convened from 21 to 24 February in order to discuss the implications of the general topic “Law and Medicine”. In accordance with the European idea, the circle of participants was not restricted to assistants coming from those three countries but the organizers had successfully encouraged German-speaking assistants from other EU countries to make contributions. Indeed, European law, in terms of contents, also played a major role.