@article{Streck2020,
  author    = {Streck, Charlotte},
  title     = {Filling in for Governments?},
  series = {Journal for European Environmental \& Planning Law},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Journal for European Environmental \& Planning Law},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Martinus Nijhoff Pub},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1613-7272},
  doi       = {10.1163/18760104-01701003},
  pages     = {5 -- 28},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change abandons the Kyoto Protocol's paradigm of binding emissions targets and relies instead on countries' voluntary contributions. However, the Paris Agreement encourages not only governments but also sub-national governments, corporations and civil society to contribute to reaching ambitious climate goals. In a transition from the regulated architecture of the Kyoto Protocol to the open system of the Paris Agreement, the Agreement seeks to integrate non-state actors into the treaty-based climate regime. In 2014 the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Peru and France created the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (and launched the Global Climate Action portal). In December 2019, this portal recorded more than twenty thousand climate-commitments of private and public non-state entities, making the non-state venues of international climate meetings decisively more exciting than the formal negotiation space. This level engagement and governments' response to it raises a flurry of questions in relation to the evolving nature of the climate regime and climate change governance, including the role of private actors as standard setters and the lack of accountability mechanisms for non-state actions. This paper takes these developments as occasion to discuss the changing role of private actors in the climate regime.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Berger2020,
  author    = {Berger, Juien},
  title     = {International investment protection within Europe},
  series = {Routledge research in finance and banking law},
  journal   = {Routledge research in finance and banking law},
  publisher = {Routledge},
  address   = {London},
  isbn      = {978-0-367-61063-0},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {238},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {The steadily rising number of investor-State arbitration proceedings within the EU has triggered an extensive backlash and an increased questioning of the international investment law regime by different Member States as well as the EU Commission. This has resulted in the EU's assertion of control over the intra-EU investment regime by promoting the termination of bilateral intra-EU investment treaties (intra-EU BITs) and by opposing the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in intra-EU investor-State arbitration proceedings. Against the backdrop of the landmark Achmea decision of the European Court of Justice, the book offers an in depth analysis of the interplay of international investment law and the law of the European Union with regard to intra-EU investments, i.e. investments undertaken by an investor from one EU Member State within the territory of another EU Member State. It specifically analyses the conflict between the two investment protection regimes applicable within the EU with a particular emphasis on the compatibility of the international legal instruments with the law of the European Union. The book thereby addresses the more general question of the relationship between EU law and international law and offers a conceptual framework of intra-European investment protection based on the analysis of all intra-EU BITs, the Energy Charter Treaty and EU law, as well as the arbitral practice in over 180 intra-EU investor-State arbitration proceedings. Finally, the book develops possible solutions to reconcile the international legal standards of protection with the regionalized transnational law of the European Union},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{AharonBrillFonsecaetal.2020,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Aharon, Itzik and Brill, Antonia and Fonseca, Philip and Vandchali, Azin Alizadeh and Wendel, Nina},
  title     = {The Protection of Women Human Rights Defenders and their Collective Actions},
  series = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  journal   = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  number    = {10},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-44427},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-444278},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {This paper evaluates the construction of the rights of human rights defenders within international law and its shortcomings in protecting women. Human rights defenders have historically been defined on the basis of their actions as defenders. However, as Marxist-feminist scholar Silvia Federici contends, women are inherently politicised and, moreover, face obstacles to political action which are invisible to and untouchable by the law. Labour rights set an example of handling such a disadvantaged political position by placing vital importance on workers' right to association and collective action. The paper closes with the suggestion that transposing this construction of rights to women would better protect women as human rights defenders while emphasising their capacity for self-determination in their political actions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Psilogenis2020,
  author    = {Psilogenis, Christos},
  title     = {The right of the peoples to peace and security under the UN Charter},
  volume    = {2020},
  publisher = {Ekdosis Vivliekdotiki},
  address   = {Aradippou},
  isbn      = {978-9963-675-69-2},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {537},
  year      = {2020},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Lahmann2020,
  author    = {Lahmann, Henning},
  title     = {Unilateral Remedies to Cyber Operations},
  publisher = {Cambridge University Press},
  address   = {Cambridge},
  isbn      = {978-1-108-47986-8},
  doi       = {10.1017/9781108807050},
  pages     = {325},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Addressing both scholars of international law and political science as well as decision makers involved in cybersecurity policy, the book tackles the most important and intricate legal issues that a state faces when considering a reaction to a malicious cyber operation conducted by an adversarial state. While often invoked in political debates and widely analysed in international legal scholarship, self-defence and countermeasures will often remain unavailable to states in situations of cyber emergency due to the pervasive problem of reliable and timely attribution of cyber operations to state actors. Analysing the legal questions surrounding attribution in detail, the book presents the necessity defence as an evidently available alternative. However, the shortcomings of the doctrine as based in customary international law that render it problematic as a remedy for states are examined in-depth. In light of this, the book concludes by outlining a special emergency regime for cyberspace.},
  language  = {en}
}