The state as mediator – From fundamental rights as defensive rights to a strengthening of the objective dimension of fundamental rights

Workshop and publication

Project managers: Prof. Dr. Klaus Günther and Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach

Project description

While the dogma that fundamental rights are primarily defensive rights against the state still seemed unchallenged in constitutional court rulings and literature, fundamental rights have undergone a shift in meaning. For some time now, the focus has been on other dimensions resulting from the changed role of fundamental rights in society. The main reasons for this are an increased willingness of private individuals to enter into conflict with one another, the withdrawal of the state from many of its former tasks and an increasing abandonment of public spaces. The constitutionalization of private law may also have had an impact. In the current debate on the constitutionalization of criminal law, there is talk of the state’s duty to protect and its responsibility to protect fundamental rights against violations by third parties, including through criminal law.
This transformation has become most apparent in the area of the former secrecy of correspondence, post and telecommunications (Art. 10 GG). Formerly directed primarily against the inspection of private communications, the transmission and potential control of which were equally in the hands of the state, the primary concern today is the responsibility of intermediaries (telecommunications companies) to protect the users of their services from each other or from private third parties.

This observation can be transferred from the area of Article 10 of the Basic Law, for which it is not new, to almost all fundamental rights. The general right of personality requires protection not only against state access, which has been made subject to strict legal requirements – certainly induced by fundamental rights – but also against participants in the so-called social media and other players in the big data industry. The fundamental rights to freedom of expression and artistic freedom have long since ceased to be about protection against state censorship, but rather only about weighing up disputes between private individuals in which these rights are juxtaposed with personal rights and the civil courts have to arbitrate. In the freedom of religion, disputes are conducted between members of different religions and world views, and the constitutional courts use school administrations as arbitration bodies. Even freedom of assembly (Article 8 of the Basic Law) is today less a right that has to be defended against the state than the arena of police mediation strategies with regard to conflicts between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators or between demonstrators and companies.

Even if the observation that the meanings of the individual protective functions of fundamental rights have shifted is no longer entirely new, the developments described above as examples have given them increased significance, the consequences of which are not yet foreseeable in terms of state and constitutional law.

The central hypothesis of the project is that this is no longer a selective and area-specific shift in meaning, but a widespread one, and that the state is increasingly assuming a new function as arbitrator and mediator in conflicts between holders of fundamental rights. As a first step, the project will examine whether these observations are correct and whether the claimed generalization is accurate. It may also be possible to extend the examples mentioned and place them in a comparative or international perspective (then of human rights). Frequently, the private actors against whom fundamental rights would have to be positioned will be foreign or multinational companies. Individual sector-specific contributions on these topics would be of interest, which could be brought together in a joint workshop. It would then be clearer whether the project has a future.

In addition, the question arises as to what follows from the observations outlined above. For while the legal consequences of violations of the fundamental right to respect vis-à-vis the state are clearly identifiable (an unjustified act of sovereignty must be annulled), the state’s duties to act with regard to its role as arbitrator are less canonized, therefore more difficult to describe and also not justiciable to the same extent. However, it is also possible that a narrowing of the connection between the state’s duty to protect and the judicial standard of review is taking place. In any case, the most challenging of the questions that arise would be what effects all this has on the theory of the state and the constitution.

News from the research center

News
24.06.2025

New series “Vertrauensfragen” in the Frankfurter Rundschau initiated by Hendrik Simon

Democracy thrives on debate - if it serves the joint search for solutions. There is often a problem with this cooperation. The new FR series “Vertrauensfragen”, initiated by Hendrik Simon (Research Institute Social Cohesion (RISC) Frankfurt location at Goethe University's Research Centre Normative Orders ), examines why this is the case and how we can do better.

more information ›
Publication
23.06.2025 | Working Paper

Untrustworthy Authorities and Complicit Bankers: Unraveling Monetary Distrust in Argentina

Moreno, Guadalupe (2025): “Untrustworthy Authorities and Complicit Bankers: Unraveling Monetary Distrust in Argentina”. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies Discussion Paper 25/3.

more information ›
Event
15.07.2025 | Frankfurt am Main

Klimaethik - Ein Reader

Book Presentation

Presentation of the book with Lukas Sparenborg (Research Associate at the Institute of Political Science at Goethe University) and Prof. Dr. Darrel Moellendorf (Professor of International Political Theory and Philosophy at Goethe University, Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg, Member of the Research Centre Normative Orders)

more information ›
Event
14.07.2025 | Frankfurt

Utopie und Aufbruch der 1968er – Was von politischer Rebellion und individueller Selbstbefreiung geblieben ist

Panel Discussion

The panel discussion with Rainer Langhans, Christa Ritter, who has been a member of Langhans' self-awareness group since 1978, and the social philosopher Martin Saar is dedicated to utopian ideas that emanated from the 1968 movement and sheds light on its ideals, impulses, individual and socio-political after-effects.

more information ›
Event
10.07.2025 | Frankfurt am Main

Territorial Justice by Lea Ypi

Workshop

Workshop on the new book by Lea Ypi (LSE). With, among others: Andrea Sangiovanni and Ayelet Shachar.

more information ›
Event
01.07.2025 | Brussels

Europa in einer multipolaren Welt – Wie kann die EU den Herausforderungen gegenüber Großmächten begegnen?

Crisis Talk

Impuls von Prof. Dr. Nicole Deitelhoff mit anschließender Podiumsdiskussion

more information ›
News
22.05.2025

Does deliberative democracy have a future in the age of oligarchs, autocrats and patriarchs?

On June 3, Prof. Simone Chambers will give a lecture on the value of democracies and the future of the form of government.

more information ›
Publication
19.05.2025 | Anthology

Klimaethik. Ein Reader

Sparenborg, Lukas; Moellendorf, Darrel (Hrsg.) (2025) : Klimaethik. Ein Reader. Suhrkamp.

more information ›