@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}
}
@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}
}
@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}
}