@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} } @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} } @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{Baade2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Baade, Bj{\"o}rnstjern}, title = {Fake News and International Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {18}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42238}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422383}, pages = {23}, year = {2018}, abstract = {In light of current efforts at addressing the dangers of fake news, this article will revisit the international law relevant to the phenomenon, in particular the prohibition of intervention, the 1936 International Convention on the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace, and the 1953 Convention on the International Right of Correction. It will be argued that important lessons can be learned from the League of Nations' (LON) efforts in the interwar period and the UN's activities in the immediate post-WWII era, while taking into account the new challenges that arise from modern communication technology. Taking up the LON's and UN's distinction between false and distorted news, the international legal framework will be tested, in particular, against the coverage of the 2016 'Lisa case' by Russian Government-funded media. This coverage is widely considered to be fake news aimed at destabilizing Germany's society and institutions. The article argues that false news can be subject to repressive regulation in a sensible manner. Distorted news, however, will have to be tolerated legally, since prohibitions in this regard would be too prone to abuse. A free and pluralist media, complemented by an appropriate governmental information policy, remains the best answer to fake news in all its forms. Due diligence obligations to fact-check, transparency, and remedies that are effective despite difficulties in attribution, and despite a lack of universal acceptance, could likewise be conducive.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BaganzdeTeresaLinggetal.2023, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Baganz, Melissa and de Teresa, Aurelia G{\´o}mez and Lingg, Rosana T. and Montijo, Yuriditzi Pascacio}, title = {A critical assessment on National Action Plans}, series = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere}, journal = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere}, number = {13}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam}, address = {Potsdam}, issn = {2509-6974}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-57679}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-576797}, pages = {11}, year = {2023}, abstract = {National Action Plans (NAPs) have been increas-ingly adopted world-wide after the Vienna Dec-laration in 1993, where it was urged to consider the improvement and promotion of Human Rights. In this paper, we discuss their usefulness and success by analysing the challenges present-ed during NAP processes as well as the benefits this set of actions entails: The challenges for their implementation outweigh its actual benefits. Nevertheless, NAPs have great potential. Based on new research, we elaborate a set of recom-mendations for improving the design and imple-mentation of national action planning. In order to effectively bring NAP into practice, we consider it crucial to plan and analyse every state local circumstances in detail. The latter is important, since the implementation of a concrete set of actions is intended to directly transform and improve the local living conditions of the people. In a long-term perspective, we defend the benefit of NAP's implementation for complying obliga-tions set up by HR treaties.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BarkholdtKulaga2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Barkholdt, Janina and Kulaga, Julian}, title = {Analytical Presentation of the Comments and Observations by States on Draft Article 7, Paragraph 1, of the ILC Draft Articles on Immunity of State Officials From Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction, United Nations General Assembly, Sixth Committee, 2017}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {14}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42212}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422128}, pages = {108}, year = {2018}, abstract = {During its sessions in 2016 and 2017 the UN International Law Commission (ILC) debated the question whether the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction is subject to exceptions for international crimes and provisionally adopted a Draft Article 7 on immunity ratione materiae. The following analytical presentation classifies and documents the reactions of States to draft article 7, paragraph 1, as they have been expressed in the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly in 2017.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Berman2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Berman, Franklin}, title = {Authority in International Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {22}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42284}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422843}, pages = {21}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The author discusses the question of authority when determining the content of an international legal rule. Taking Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute as a point of departure, he determines through meticolous analysis what ranks as judicial decisions as well as teachings within the meaning of the norm. The author then proceeds to a number of factors to determine authoritativeness: objectivity, knowledgeability, depth of analysis, and the presence or otherwise of reasoning and, in particular, the persuasiveness of an opinion. In the case of judicial pronouncements, the author points out that the paradox between Article 59 and Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute is only an apparent one. While judgments of the Court are binding only between the parties, it is merely the underlying reasoning that can be taken into account in the context of Article 38(1)(d) if considered persuasive. Without central authority, authoritativenes in international law must always be earned which is also the reason for the lack of an hierarchical order between as well as within judicial pronouncements and learned writings though the former are usually more likely to fulfil the criteria of authoritativeness. In both cases, however, previously acquired reputation of a court or even an individual judge as well as of a learned writer can create a presumption of authoritativeness. On a more general level, the author concludes with a call for a more careful differentiation between the determination of law and its application. Putting the issue discussed into perspective, the author argues that situations of law determination arise, contrary to common understanding, in fact far less often than situations of law application.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Braun2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Braun, Harald}, title = {Berlin - New York}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {11}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42198}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421984}, pages = {17}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Beginning in January 2019, the new German government will face a particular new responsibility for world affairs: provided the elections in June 2018 lead to the desired result, Germany will be an elected member of the UN Security Council for two years from January 2019 until December 2020. However, Germany has been a respected and highly relevant member of the United Nations not only during its terms on the Security Council but also in "normal" times. The present article attempts to shed light on a few aspects of Germany's role in the UN during Merkel's chancellorship with an emphasis on her third term (2014-2017), such as the cooperative relationship between Germany and the UN Secretary-General in important policy fields, Germany's financial contributions to the UN, the impact of Germany's EU membership on its UN membership and the country's efforts with regard to the reform of the Security Council. The paper further provides context for Germany's abstention in the vote on Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya in 2011. It concludes by ascertaining that Germany with its approach of active multilateralism has taken its place as one of the leading nations in Europe and is ready to take on responsibility with its partners to achieve a peaceful and stable world order.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Burchardt2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Burchardt, Dana}, title = {The Functions of Law and Their Challenges}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {17}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42231}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422318}, pages = {29}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This paper illustrates the functional and conceptual variances of law in different contexts. Whereas legal actors on the international level might normatively aim for law to have a similar effect to that of domestic law, the way in which international and supranational law can fulfil these potential functions is different. Accordingly, this paper argues that an awareness with regard to the particularities and challenges that the potential functions of law encounter in the international and supranational context is needed. Moreover, it suggests an analytical lens to conceptually frame and locate current developments, offering a broader perspective on, or even an element of explication for, the apparent crisis that law is currently facing on the international and supranational scale. After describing the potential functions of law on an abstract scale and grouping them into analytical categories, the paper uses these categories as a lens in order to assess in which way international law can fulfil these potential functions, where priorities regarding certain functions might differ and where some aspects of these functions are challenged when law is made and applied in the international and supranational sphere.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Buser2016, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Buser, Andreas}, title = {Colonial Injustices and the Law of State Responsibility}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {4}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42054}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-420541}, pages = {30}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Caribbean States organised in CARICOM recently brought forward reparation claims against several European States to compensate slavery and (native) genocides in the Caribbean and even threatened to approach the International Court of Justice. The paper provides for an analysis of the facts behind the CARICOM claim and asks whether the law of state responsibility is able to provide for the demanded compensation. As the intertemporal principle generally prohibits retroactive application of today's international rules, the paper argues that the complete claim must be based on the law of state responsibility governing in the time of the respective conduct. An inquiry into the history of primary (prohibition of slavery and genocide) as well as secondary rules of State responsibility reveals that both sets of rules were underdeveloped or non-existent at the times of slavery and alleged (native) genocides. Therefore, the author concludes that the CARICOM claim is legally flawed but nevertheless worth the attention as it once again exposes imperial and colonial injustices of the past and their legitimization by historical international law and international/natural lawyers.}, language = {en} }