@techreport{KriegerZimmermann2018,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Krieger, Heike and Zimmermann, Andreas},
  title     = {Sentenza 238/2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court and the International Rule of Law},
  series = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  journal   = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  number    = {15},
  issn      = {2509-3770},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42214},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422140},
  pages     = {30},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The German-Italian dispute over the scope of sovereign immunities and claims of reparations for war crimes committed by German armed forces during World War II in Italy is in many ways specific and historically contingent. At the same time, it touches upon a number of fundamental challenges which the international community has to address in the interest of furthering the international rule of law. In this working paper both authors address the question whether the current law of sovereign immunities should be changed or interpreted in a manner as to allow for exceptions from State immunities in cases of grave violations of human rights. While the first part of the paper focusses on the perspective of general international law the second part addresses the question through the lense of European law. Both authors agree that unilateral efforts to push for what many consider a progressive development of international law actually may entail adverse effects for the international rule of law and thus may even contribute to a broader crisis of the international legal order.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{UlfsteinZimmermann2018,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Ulfstein, Geir and Zimmermann, Andreas},
  title     = {Certiorari Through the Backdoor?},
  series = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  journal   = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  number    = {13},
  issn      = {2509-3770},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42205},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-422054},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {In its Burmych and Others v. Ukraine judgment of October 2017 the European Court of Human Rights has dismissed more than 12.000 applications due to the fact that given that they were not only repetitive in nature, but also mutatis mutandis identical to applications covered by a previous pilot judgment rendered against Ukraine. This raises fundamental issues as to the role of the Court within the human rights protection system established by the ECHR, as well as those concerning the interrelationship between the Court and the Committee of Ministers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{ZimmermannBoos2018,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Boos, Felix},
  title     = {Bringing States to Justice for Crimes against Humanity},
  series = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  journal   = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  number    = {12},
  issn      = {2509-3770},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42203},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-422035},
  pages     = {24},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Draft Art. 15 CCAH attempts to strike a balance between State autonomy and robust judicial supervision. It largely follows Article 22 CERD conditioning the jurisdiction of the ICJ on prior negotiations. Hence, the substance of the clause is interpreted in light of the Court's recent case law, especially Georgia v. Russia. Besides, several issues regarding the scope ratione temporis of the compromissory clause are discussed. The article advances several proposals to further improve the current draft, addressing the missing explicit reference to State responsibility, as well as the relationship between the Court and a possible treaty body, It also proposes to recalibrate the interplay of a requirement of prior negotiations respectively the seizing of a future treaty body on the one hand and provisional measures to be indicated by the Court on the other.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Lange2018,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Lange, Felix},
  title     = {Between Systematization and Expertise for Foreign Policy},
  series = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  journal   = {KFG Working Paper Series},
  number    = {8},
  issn      = {2509-3770},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42189},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421895},
  pages     = {27},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {German international legal scholarship has been known for its practice-oriented, doctrinal approach to international law. On the basis of archival material, this article tracks how this methodological take on international law developed in Germany between the 1920s and the 1980s. In 1924, as a reaction to the establishment of judicial institutions in the Treaty of Versailles, the German Reich founded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. Director Viktor Bruns institutionalized the practice-oriented method to advance the idea of international law as a legal order as well as to safeguard the interests of the Weimar government before the various courts. Under National Socialism, members of the Institute provided legal justifications for Hitler's increasingly radical foreign policy. At the same time, some of them did not engage with v{\"o}lkisch-racist theories, but systematized the existing ius in bello. After 1945, Hermann Mosler, as director of the renamed Max Planck Institute, took the view that the practice-oriented approach was not as discredited as the more theoretical approach of v{\"o}lkisch international law. Furthermore, he regarded the method as a promising vehicle to support the policy of Westintegration of Konrad Adenauer. Also, he tried to promote the idea of 'international society as a legal community' by analysing international practice.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Verlaan2018,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Verlaan, Stephanie},
  title     = {Male victims of wartime sexual violence: an ignored phenomenon},
  series = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  journal   = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2509-6974},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412632},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The phenomenon of male-to-male sexual assault undoubtedly occurs, both in domestic and conflict contexts. There is a small but growing discourse supporting the analysis of this phenomenon, however it remains significantly limited and its growth disproportionate to the concerns it warrants. The international law, NGO and State actors are largely responsible for this inhibition, predominately attributable to their intent in preserving the feminist and patriarchal values on which their institutions are founded. The strength with which the feminist discourse has embedded itself into the agendas of relevant actors is obstructing attempts at unbiased analysis of gender-based violence and the development of a discourse dedicated to understanding male sexual assault. It appears to be a prevailing sector-wide perception that females are the only victims of sexual violence and that creating space for a discussion on male-sexual assault will detract worth from the feminist discourse on female sexual assault. This paper discusses the means in which the sectors ignorance towards male sexual assault manifests and the harmful implications of ignoring this phenomenon. The author uses contextual analyses from development, international law, and cultural examples.},
  subject      = {Geschlechterrolle},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{VasquezCarruthers2018,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Vasquez Carruthers, Juan Francisco},
  title     = {UNHCR and the European refugee crisis},
  series = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  journal   = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  number    = {5},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-410429},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Since 2015, the European Union has struggled to deal with the influx of refugees coming into its territories. The number of institutions involved in designing a competent response approach, com-bined with the unilateral and uncoordinated state reactions, have left unclear where to look for when searching for answers and new alternatives. Can the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) take a leading role in solving this and future crises? After a brief recapitulation of the crisis, an analysis of UNHCR's statue, relationship to international law, and doctrine will put this question to the test while exploring options that are not only available but also feasible in a system where politics trump both legality and morality. If UNHCR is to play an active role in fu-ture refugee policies and become the lead agency it once was, a new daring and innovative approach has to emerge in order to readapt to the power relations that prevail in the twenty-first century.},
  subject      = {V{\"o}lkerrecht},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{Mougeolle2018,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {Mougeolle, Paul},
  title     = {Due diligence von Staaten und Unternehmen bez{\"u}glich des Menschenrechts- und Umweltschutzes},
  series = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  journal   = {Staat, Recht und Politik - Forschungs- und Diskussionspapiere},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {2509-6974},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-405806},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Dieses Promotionsvorhaben wird versuchen den Begriff der Due-Diligence im Rahmen des Menschenrechts- und Umweltschutzes weiterzuentwickeln. Dieser Terminus verweist auf einen vern{\"u}nftigen Verhaltensstandard und wird {\"o}fters zum Sch{\"a}digungsverbot in Verbindung gebracht. Ein bekanntes Synonym daf{\"u}r ist die „Sorgfaltspflicht". Nach dieser Norm m{\"u}ssen alle voraussehbaren Verletzungsrisiken (Personen-, Sach- und Umwelt) durch die Ergreifung von allen n{\"o}tigen und angemessenen Maßnahmen vorgebeugt werden (s. z.B. Trail-Smelter und Korfu-Kanal Entscheidung). Dieser Begriff wird gegenw{\"a}rtig weltweit verwendet um Globalisierungsprobleme zu adressieren, wie z.B. der mangelnde Klimaschutz oder die mangelnde Reglementierung von Transnationalen Unternehmen. Die Emergenz dieser offenen und allgemeinen Norm ist eindeutig und wird durch die Tatsache erleichtert, dass sie in viele Rechtssysteme vorhanden ist. Zum Beispiel, in dem bekannten Urgenda v. Holland Fall, fordert der Gerichtshof von Den Haag vom Staat eine angemessenere Aufsicht im Klimaschutz, da die urspr{\"u}nglichen Reduktionsziele von Treibhausgasemissionen nicht die wissenschaftlichen Anforderungen entsprachen. Dieser Fall hat viele andere Klagen inspiriert. Der franz{\"o}sische Gesetzgeber verpflichtet dar{\"u}ber hinaus seit kurzem mit dem Gesetz zur „devoir de vigilance" herrschende Unternehmen zur Ver{\"o}ffentlichung eines ‚Sorgfaltsplans', so dass die Auswirkungen des gesamten Unternehmens auf die Menschenrechte und die Umwelt effektiv vorgebeugt werden. Dieses Gesetz hat auch die letzten UN-Vertragsverhandlungen bzgl. Multinationalen Unternehmen gepr{\"a}gt. In Anbetracht dessen, wird diese rechtsvergleichende Studie die Verrechtlichung der Norm und ihre Verbreitung in anderen Rechtssysteme untersuchen, so dass der Menschenrechts- und Umweltschutz effektiv gew{\"a}hrleistet werden kann, auch wenn die Politik und Unternehmen es verhindern wollen.},
  subject      = {V{\"o}lkerrecht},
  language  = {de}
}