@article{UlfsteinZimmermann2018,
  author    = {Ulfstein, Geir and Zimmermann, Andreas},
  title     = {Certiorari through the Back Door?},
  series = {The Law \& Practice of International Courts and Tribunals},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {The Law \& Practice of International Courts and Tribunals},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Brill},
  address   = {Leiden},
  issn      = {1569-1853},
  doi       = {10.1163/15718034-12341381},
  pages     = {289 -- 308},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {In its Burmych and Others v. Ukraine judgment of October 2017 the European Court of Human Rights dismissed more than 12,000 applications due to the fact 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 European Convention on Human Rights, as well as those concerning the interrelationship between the Court and the Committee of Ministers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Zimmermann2018,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas},
  title     = {A victory for international rule of law?},
  series = {Journal of international criminal justice},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Journal of international criminal justice},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1478-1387},
  doi       = {10.1093/jicj/mqy008},
  pages     = {19 -- 29},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {On 14 December 2017, the Assembly of States Parties of the Rome Statute decided to activate the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. In doing so, it however seems to have rescinded the Kampala amendment adopted in 2010, and in particular, the need for State Parties to eventually opt out from the Court's aggression-related jurisdiction. This reversal, while being more in line with the Rome Statute than the Kampala amendment itself, raises new (and old) and challenging legal questions which are highlighted in this article.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannBoos2018,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Boos, Felix},
  title     = {Bringing States to Justice for Crimes against Humanity},
  series = {Journal of international criminal justice},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Journal of international criminal justice},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1478-1387},
  doi       = {10.1093/jicj/mqy053},
  pages     = {835 -- 855},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Draft Article 15 of the International Law Commission's project on crimes against humanity — dealing with the settlement of disputes arising from a proposed convention — attempts to strike a balance between state autonomy and robust judicial supervision. It largely follows Article 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which renders the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conditional upon prior negotiations. Hence, the substance of the clause can be interpreted in light of the recent case law of the ICJ, especially in the case Georgia v. Russia. In addition, this contribution discusses several issues regarding the scope ratione temporis of the compromissory clause. It advances several proposals to improve the current draft, addressing its relationship with state responsibility — an explicit reference to which is currently missing — as well as the relationship between the ICJ and a possible treaty body. It also proposes to recalibrate the interplay of the requirement of prior negotiations with, respectively, the possibility of seizing a future treaty body and the indication of provisional measures by the ICJ.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}