@misc{Kiwerska2004,
  author    = {Kiwerska, Jadwiga},
  title     = {Zwischen Mission und Hegemonie : braucht die Welt die F{\"u}hrungsmacht USA?},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-46726},
  year      = {2004},
  abstract  = {The state system cannot renounce to the US superpower as a guarantor for international security. This Polish author describes the US strategy after 9-11 to fight the „war against terrorism": The United States of America is willing to cooperate, but if it seems to be necessary, they act independently. The author points out that the European Union is too weak to emancipate from the US. But even if the hegemonic US does not respect international law and state sovereignty, unilateral engagement is less dangerous for the world's security than US isolationism.},
  language  = {de}
}
@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}
}
@book{OPUS4-62304,
  title     = {Tracing value change in the international legal order},
  editor    = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea},
  publisher = {Oxford University Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  isbn      = {978-0-19-285583-1},
  doi       = {10.1093/oso/9780192855831.001.0001},
  pages     = {xiv, 353},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {International law is constantly navigating the tension between preserving the status quo and adapting to new exigencies. But when and how do such adaptation processes give way to a more profound transformation, if not a crisis of international law? To address the question of how attacks on the international legal order are changing the value orientation of international law, this book brings together scholars of international law and international relations. By combining theoretical and methodological analyses with individual case studies, this book offers readers conceptualizations and tools to systematically examine value change and explore the drivers and mechanisms of these processes. These case studies scrutinize value change in the foundational norms of the post-1945 order and in norms representing the rise of the international legal order post-1990. They cover diverse issues: the prohibition of torture, the protection of women's rights, the prohibition of the use of force, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, sustainability norms, and accountability for core international crimes. The challenges to each norm, the reactions by norm defenders, and the fate of each norm are also studied. Combined, the analyses show that while a few norms have remained surprisingly robust, several are changing, either in substance or in legal or social validity. The book concludes by integrating the conceptual and empirical insights from this interdisciplinary exchange to assess and explain the ambiguous nature of value change in international law beyond the extremes of mere progress or decline.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Arajaervi2017,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Araj{\"a}rvi, Noora},
  title     = {The Rule of Law in the 2030 Agenda},
  series = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  journal   = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  number    = {9},
  issn      = {2509-3770},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42190},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421906},
  pages     = {34},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The rule of law is the cornerstone of the international legal system. This paper shows, through analysis of intergovernmental instruments, statements made by representatives of States, and negotiation records, that the rule of law at the United Nations has become increasingly contested in the past years. More precisely, the argument builds on the process of integrating the notion of the rule of law into the Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in September 2015 in the document Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The main sections set out the background of the rule of law debate at the UN, the elements of the rule of law at the goal- and target-levels in the 2030 Agenda - especially in the SDG 16 -, and evaluate whether the rule of law in this context may be viewed as a normative and universal foundation of international law. The paper concludes, with reflections drawn from the process leading up to the 2030 Agenda and the final outcome document that the rule of law - or at least strong and precise formulations of the concept - may be in decline in institutional and normative settings. This can be perceived as symptomatic of a broader crisis of the international legal order.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Arajaervi2017,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Araj{\"a}rvi, Noora},
  title     = {The Requisite Rigour in the Identification of Customary International Law},
  series = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  journal   = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  number    = {6},
  issn      = {2509-3770},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42074},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-420742},
  pages     = {27},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Over the last few decades, the methodology for the identification of customary international law (CIL) has been changing. Both elements of CIL - practice and opinio juris - have assumed novel and broader forms, as noted in the Reports of the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). This paper discusses these Reports and the draft conclusions, and reaction by States in the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), highlighting the areas of consensus and contestation. This ties to the analysis of the main doctrinal positions, with special attention being given to the two elements of CIL, and the role of the UNGA resolutions. The underlying motivation is to assess the real or perceived crisis of CIL, and the author develops the broader argument maintaining that in order to retain unity within international law, the internal limits of CIL must be carefully asserted.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RockstroemKotzeMilutinovićetal.2024,
  author    = {Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan and Kotz{\´e}, Louis and Milutinović, Svetlana and Biermann, Frank and Brovkin, Victor and Donges, Jonathan and Ebbesson, Jonas and French, Duncan and Gupta, Joyeeta and Kim, Rakhyun and Lenton, Timothy and Lenzi, Dominic and Nakicenovic, Nebojsa and Neumann, Barbara and Schuppert, Fabian and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Bosselmann, Klaus and Folke, Carl and Lucht, Wolfgang and Schlosberg, David and Richardson, Katherine and Steffen, Will},
  title     = {The planetary commons},
  series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
  volume    = {121},
  journal   = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
  number    = {5},
  publisher = {National Academy of Sciences},
  address   = {Washington, DC},
  issn      = {1091-6490},
  doi       = {10.1073/pnas.2301531121},
  pages     = {10},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {The Anthropocene signifies the start of a no- analogue tra­jectory of the Earth system that is fundamentally different from the Holocene. This new trajectory is characterized by rising risks of triggering irreversible and unmanageable shifts in Earth system functioning. We urgently need a new global approach to safeguard critical Earth system regulating functions more effectively and comprehensively. The global commons framework is the closest example of an existing approach with the aim of governing biophysical systems on Earth upon which the world collectively depends. Derived during stable Holocene conditions, the global commons framework must now evolve in the light of new Anthropocene dynamics. This requires a fundamental shift from a focus only on governing shared resources beyond national jurisdiction, to one that secures critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. We propose a new framework—the planetary commons—which differs from the global commons frame­work by including not only globally shared geographic regions but also critical biophysical systems that regulate the resilience and state, and therefore livability, on Earth. The new planetary commons should articulate and create comprehensive stewardship obligations through Earth system governance aimed at restoring and strengthening planetary resilience and justice.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Drescher2024,
  author    = {Drescher, Cedric},
  title     = {Die Bek{\"a}mpfung transnationaler Kriminalit{\"a}t im Kontext fragiler Staatlichkeit},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-62854},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-628542},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XIII, 541, LVIII},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {Die Arbeit „Die Bek{\"a}mpfung transnationaler Kriminalit{\"a}t im Kontext fragiler Staatlichkeit" widmet sich dem Ph{\"a}nomen grenz{\"u}berschreitend t{\"a}tiger Akteure der organisierten Kriminalit{\"a}t die den Umstand ausnutzen, dass einige international anerkannte Regierungen nur eine unzureichende Kontrolle {\"u}ber Teile ihres Staatsgebietes aus{\"u}ben. Es wird untersucht, weshalb der durch die internationale Staatengemeinschaft geschaffene Rechtsrahmen, zur Bek{\"a}mpfung transnationaler Kriminalit{\"a}tsph{\"a}nomene im Kontext dieser fragilen Staaten, nicht oder nur defizit{\"a}r dazu beitr{\"a}gt die Kriminalit{\"a}tsph{\"a}nomene zu bek{\"a}mpfen. Nachdem zun{\"a}chst er{\"o}rtert wird, was im Rahmen der Untersuchung unter dem Begriff der transnationalen Kriminalit{\"a}t verstanden wird, wird der internationale Rechtsrahmen zur Bek{\"a}mpfung anhand von f{\"u}nf beispielhaft ausgew{\"a}hlten transnationalen Kriminalit{\"a}tsph{\"a}nomenen beschrieben. Im darauffolgenden Hauptteil der Untersuchung wird der Frage nachgegangen, weshalb dieser durch die internationale Staatengemeinschaft geschaffene Rechtsrahmen, gerade in fragilen Staaten, kaum einen Beitrag dazu leistet solchen Kriminalit{\"a}tsph{\"a}nomenen effektiv zu begegnen. Dabei wird festgestellt, dass die Genese des internationalen Rechtsrahmens zu einem Legitimit{\"a}tsdefizit desselbigen f{\"u}hrt. Auch die mangelhafte Ber{\"u}cksichtigung der speziellen Lebensrealit{\"a}ten, die in vielen fragilen Staaten vorzufinden sind, wirkt sich negativ auf die Durchsetzbarkeit des internationalen Rechtsrahmens aus. Es wird dargelegt, dass unterschiedlich hohe menschenrechtliche Schutzstandards zu Normenkollisionen bei der internationalen Zusammenarbeit der Staaten f{\"u}hren, insbesondere im Rahmen der internationalen Rechtshilfe. Da gerade fragile Staaten h{\"a}ufig durch eine defizit{\"a}re menschenrechtliche Situation gekennzeichnet sind, stellt dies konsolidierte Staaten im Rahmen der Zusammenarbeit mit fragilen Staaten {\"o}fters vor Herausforderungen. Schließlich wird aufgezeigt, dass auch die extraterritoriale Jurisdiktion und somit die strafrechtliche Verfolgung transnationaler Straftaten durch Drittstaaten mit rechtlichen und praktischen Problemen einhergeht. In einem letzten Kapitel der Arbeit wird der Frage nachgegangen, ob nicht ein alternativer Strafverfolgungsmechanismus geschaffen werden sollte, um transnationale Kriminalit{\"a}tsph{\"a}nomene zu verfolgen, die aus fragilen Staaten heraus begangen werden und wie ein solch alternativer Strafverfolgungsmechanismus konkret ausgestaltet sein sollte.},
  language  = {de}
}