22 July 2024
“Never Again”
“Never again” is, first and foremost, a story. It’s a story about our collective fears, anxieties, and aspirations, those moments and events that we have promised ourselves that will never be repeated. The Jewish story is interwoven with the Holocaust—the killing of six million Jews in Europe and the urgency of the re-establishment of a Jewish state to solve the problem of Jewish homelessness. Yet the constitutional and international meaning of “never again” depends on one’s position and point of view, and it changes over time. The chain reaction that began with the horrors of WWII continues to drive constitutional and international agendas. It is clear that “history talks,” but in which direction? Continue reading >>
0 
27 April 2020
The Future of Handshaking
When asked about handshaking recently, the U.S.’s lead virologist Dr. Fauci said: ‘I don’t think we should ever shake hands again’, referring to how it would prevent both coronavirus and seasonal influenza. In Europe, where the topic of the handshake has been a landmine in recent years, this medical requirement can lead to a much-needed cultural shift. Continue reading >>30 January 2020
A Political Promise or a Hollow Hope?
If one accepts the proposition that control of the gates is a core feature of state-centred citizenship, what can be the legal implications of urban citizenship, in addition to the ones that already exist? Continue reading >>
0
30 January 2019
A Citizenship Maze: How to Cure a Chronic Disease?
European Union (EU) citizenship is in crisis. If the Eurozenship debate, composed of experts on EU citizenship, is analogized to a doctor’s diagnosis, the outcome is more extensively polarized than initially thought—a chronic disease, not just a temporary disorder. As I follow the debate, it is no longer clear what the problem is—there seem to be too many, real and imaginary—or how to heal it. Some issues seem to be “genetic,” part of the EU’s DNA, yet others resemble a concrete illness that may be cured, so the argument goes, by a “doctor's prescription,” which in law means a legal design. Continue reading >>
0
12 March 2016
The Law of Majorities: A Rejoinder
This has been an instructive discussion that has shed light on some of the most pressing issues of our time. Overall, there is an agreement on the existence of the social entity of the “majority group,” although less on the criteria to identify a majority. Some interesting disagreements are found on the empirical question – whether the majority culture is indeed “needy” (how much, in which field, etc.) – and on the normative question: whether a culturally needy majority should be granted a right to defend its constitutional identity in the immigration context. Continue reading >>16 February 2016