Recent studies suggest that online abuse directed at politicians can have negative effects on their public engagement and continued participation in politics. This article considers the broader consequences of such online abuse by testing whether exposure to online abuse of politicians also decreases the prospective political participation of ordinary citizens. In a preregistered survey experiment with 2,000 participants from Denmark, we find that exposing citizens to cases of online abuse of politicians does not have any statistically significant, or substantively meaningful, negative effects on citizens’ prospective political participation. This result holds across multiple measures of political participation and when distinguishing citizens by their gender and level of conflict avoidance. If anything, exploratory analyses indicate that online abuse of politicians may in some cases mobilize citizens who have been bystanders to such abuse.

Analysis of proportionality in the context of Article 5 TEU after the PSPP judgment – Bundesverfassungsgericht challenging Court of Justice to control European Central Bank’s motives – Doctrinal tradition of ‘smoking out’ illicit motives through proportionality – Article 5(4) TEU: proportionality of exercise of competences, primarily safeguarding member states’ autonomy – Court of Justice case law on proportionality: deferential standard of review towards measures of EU institutions – Bundesverfassungsgericht case law on federal competences and municipal autonomy: less deferential but still respectful standard of review – PSPP inconsistent with case law and with Article 5 TEU – Balancing-stage of proportionality unsuitable for motive control

The article analyses the individual communications of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) on how the latter conceptualizes equality under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It finds an implicit taxonomy in the case law that is not reflected in the doctrinal formulae that the HRC applies. The argument proceeds in several steps: First, I argue that the concept of equality in human rights treaties depends heavily on its operationalization by courts and quasi-judicial bodies, like the HRC. Second, I analyse the doctrinal formulae that the HRC has developed in order to specify equality. I argue that the doctrine is rather inconsistent and does not give significant guidance for resolving actual cases. Third, I present the results of a systematic analysis of the case law of the HRC. The latter shows a rather stable pattern which is not reflected in the doctrinal formulae: The best predictor whether the HRC finds a violation of Article 26 ICCPR or another equality norm of the Convention is the existence of a suspect criterion on which the challenged distinction was based. There are only very few cases in which a violation is found in the absence of a suspect criterion. The majority of these cases arguably concern arbitrary state actions. At the same time, the HRC has only rarely held that a state has not violated an equality norm despite the existence of a suspect criterion.

On May 5, 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued the PSPP decision, sending shock waves through the European Union. This contribution analyzes the consequences of the PSPP decision for the future relationship between the German FCC and the CJEU and for European integration as a whole. The article consists of four parts. First, I will provide some context and model the interaction between domestic and international courts from a rational choice perspective. Second, I will recapitulate some core aspects of the relationship between the German Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU in particular. I argue that the relationship between both courts had evolved into a strategic equilibrium in which it was costly not to respect the decision of the other party. The third section then looks for reasons why Karlsruhe nevertheless deviated from this equilibrium despite the significant costs involved. The fourth section, finally, considers the way ahead and analyzes what possible consequences for the future relationship between the Federal Constitutional Court and the CJEU.

Robert Alexy is one of the most prominent proponents of proportionality in international legal scholarship. His theory has two dimensions. On the one hand, it is a normative defense of balancing. On the other hand, it seeks to provide a reconstruction of the case law of the German Federal Constitutional Court. This Article focuses on the reconstructive part of his theory. It argues that his reconstruction of the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court is only partly accurate. In particular, it does not provide a suitable reconstruction of the decisions in which the Court finds a statute to be inconsistent with the constitution. For this reason, the normative critique of Alexy’s theory does not necessarily translate into a critique of the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court’s application of proportionality or even the proportionality doctrine itself. Instead, it targets only one specific interpretation of proportionality.

“Our Constitution … is called democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.” This statement by Thukydides preceded the preamble of the draft constitutional treaty elaborated by the European Convention. Although not adopted by the intergovernmental conference, the proposed introduction illustrates that the Convention intended to attribute a central role to the concept of democracy – at least symbolically.

In their contribution in this issue Mattias Derlén and Johan Lindholm use social network analysis to show that the European Court of Justice is a precedent-driven constitutional court that is comparable to the US Supreme Court with regard to the citation of precedents. The article and its use of network analysis as a method provoked a lively debate on the editorial board of the German Law Journal about comparative law theory and methods generally and the place of empirical (including network) analyses in the comparative law discipline. For this reason, the editorial board commissioned this “special section” of contributions dedicated broadly to approaches to comparative law. In his essay in this section, for example, Jens Frankenreiter offers a detailed assessment of Derlén's and Lindholm's analysis. In this piece, we take a broader perspective and look at the utility and the limits of network analysis for legal scholarship generally.

The principle of proportionality is on the rise. A growing number of constitutional and international courts refer to some form of proportionality in their jurisprudence. At the same time, the principle is receiving more and more attention in international legal scholarship. Yet proportionality has not remained uncontested. In particular, some scholars have severely criticized the core of the proportionality test, which involves a balancing of competing values. This balancing is accused of being irrational because it requires placing incommensurable values on the same scale. In a famous dictum, Judge Scalia once claimed that balancing competing constitutional values is like determining “whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy.”

On 6 September 2012, the European Central Bank (ECB) published a press release on “Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions.” In this press release, the ECB announced that it would purchase bonds of Member States participating in the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF)/European Stability Mechanism (ESM) program on the secondary sovereign bond markets under certain conditions. Furthermore, it gave notice that there were no ex ante quantitative limits on the size of these outright monetary transactions (OMT). This OMT announcement of the ECB was challenged before the German Constitutional Court. In a 6:2 decision, the Court raised doubts with regards to the compatibility of the actions announced in the OMT press release with the rules governing the mandate of the ECB in the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling.

The process of norm evolution and development in international law has been highly debated in recent international law and international relations scholarship. However, the debate focuses primarily on states or non-state actors as the agents responsible for shaping international law. In contrast, the role of the judiciary is often neglected in the debate. It is an open secret, though, that courts are not merely Montesquieu's bouche de la loi, impartial arbiters, who apply and interpret exogenous norms. Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke have already pointed out that decisions for concrete cases can hardly be derived from abstract legal concepts by the mere exercise of logical deduction. Instead, the application of legal provisions often involves the development of the applied norm itself. This not only applies in the domestic setting, but is also valid in the international arena. This contribution will deal specifically with lawmaking by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Does evidence help politicians make informed decisions even if it is at odds with their prior beliefs? And does providing more evidence increase the likelihood that politicians will be enlightened by the information? Based on the literature on motivated political reasoning and the theory about affective tipping points, this article hypothesizes that politicians tend to reject evidence that contradicts their prior attitudes, but that increasing the amount of evidence will reduce the impact of prior attitudes and strengthen their ability to interpret the information correctly. These hypotheses are examined using randomized survey experiments with responses from 954 Danish politicians, and results from this sample are compared to responses from similar survey experiments with Danish citizens. The experimental findings strongly support the hypothesis that politicians are biased by prior attitudes when interpreting information. However, in contrast to expectations, the findings show that the impact of prior attitudes increases when more evidence is provided.