@techreport{Devaney2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Devaney, James Gerard}, title = {Selecting Investment Arbitrators}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {33}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43579}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435797}, pages = {27}, year = {2019}, abstract = {This paper focuses on one particular issue which has arisen in the course of the ongoing debate on the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), namely that of the appointment of arbitrators. Taking as its starting point that there now exists tentative consensus that the present system for the appointment of arbitrators either causes or exacerbates certain problematic aspects of the current ISDS system, the paper explores one option for reform, namely the introduction of an independent panel for the selection of investment arbitrators. In doing so, it is argued that a shift in the normative basis of the rules governing appointments is required in order to accommodate the principles of party autonomy and the international rule of law. Such reform, while not completely removing the initiative that parties presently enjoy, is the most efficient way to introduce rule of law considerations such as a measure of judicial independence into the current appointments system. This, it is argued, would in turn help to address some of the problematic features of the appointment of arbitrators in ISDS.}, language = {en} } @techreport{KriegerPueschmann2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Krieger, Heike and P{\"u}schmann, Jonas}, title = {Securing of Resources as a Valid Reason for Using Force?}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {31}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43573}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435738}, pages = {24}, year = {2019}, abstract = {A growing demand for natural resources embedded in current changes of the international order will put pressure on states to secure the future availability of these resources. Some political discourses suggest that states might respond by challenging the foundations of international law. Whereas the UN Charter was inter alia aimed at eliminating uses of force for economic reasons, one may observe an on-going trend of securitization of matters of resource supply resulting into the revival of self-preservation doctrines. The chapter will show that those claims lack a normative foundation in the current framework of the prohibition of the use of force. Moreover, international law has sufficient instruments to cope with disputes over access to resources by other means than the use of force. The international community, therefore, must oppose claims that may contribute to normative uncertainties and strengthen already existing instruments of pacific settlement of disputes.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Kulaga2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kulaga, Julian}, title = {A Renaissance of the Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus?}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {32}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43578}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435788}, pages = {21}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Once the "popular plaything of Realpolitiker" the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus post the 1969 VCLT is often described as an objective rule by which, on grounds of equity and justice, a fundamental change of circumstances may be invoked as a ground for termination. Yet recent practice from States such as Ecuador, Russia, Denmark and the United Kingdom suggests that it is returning with a new livery. They point to an understanding based on vital States' interests--a view popular among scholars such as Erich Kaufmann at the beginning of the last century.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Pellet2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Pellet, Alain}, title = {Values and Power Relations - The "Disillusionment" of International Law?}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {34}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43581}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435819}, pages = {15}, year = {2019}, abstract = {This paper - which is based on the Thomas Franck Lecture held by the author at Humboldt University Berlin on 13 May 2019 - argues that the most likely development of international to be expected will be the coexistence of two "legal worlds". On the one hand, an inter-State law brutally regulating political relations between human groups whitewashed by nationalism; on the other hand, a transnational or "a-national" law regulating economic relations between private as well as public interests. Further, the paper argues that there are two obvious victims - of very different nature - of this foreseeable evolution: the human being on the one hand, the certainty and effectiveness of the rule of law itself on the other hand.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Neugebauer2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Neugebauer, Konrad}, title = {Holding Domestic Judges Accountable under International Criminal Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {36}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43587}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435877}, pages = {31}, year = {2019}, abstract = {This article explores, whether domestic judges might be held accountable under international criminal law (ICL). To date, international criminal justice has almost entirely focused on prosecuting political or military leaders. The Justice Case tried before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1946 marks the most prominent exception. Prior to it, the judiciary - otherwise considered the epitome of justice - had mutated into a murderous machinery under Nazi rule. Judicial decisions do have far-reaching implications possibly constituting or contributing to international crimes. This holds true in a wide range of cases, for instance on practices of warfare and torture, on the use of certain weapon technologies, or on policies relating to minorities or racial segregation. I argue that domestic judges are accountable when engaging in international crimes. The article delves into technical aspects of criminal law; as well as the notions of judicial independence and immunity. While guaranteeing the rule of law, these two notions challenge the core idea of ICL: its equal application vis-{\`a}-vis all perpetrators of international crimes irrespective of official capacity. In order to differentiate due judicial conduct and its abuse in violation of ICL, I suggest a threshold a judicial act needs to exceed for entailing accountability for an international crime.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Sandholtz2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Sandholtz, Wayne}, title = {Resurgent Authoritarianism and the International Rule of Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {38}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43589}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435899}, pages = {31}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Modern rule of law and post-war constitutionalism are both anchored in rights-based limitations on state authority. Rule-of-law norms and principles, at both domestic and international levels, are designed to protect the freedom and dignity of the person. Given this "thick" conception of the rule of law, authoritarian practices that remove constraints on domestic political leaders and weaken mechanisms for holding them accountable necessarily erode both domestic and international rule of law. Drawing on political science research on authoritarian politics, this study identifies three core elements of authoritarian political strategies: subordination of the judiciary, suppression of independent news media and freedom of expression, and restrictions on the ability of civil society groups to organize and participate in public life. According to available data, each of these three practices has become increasingly common in recent years. This study offers a composite measure of the core authoritarian practices and uses it to identify the countries that have shown the most marked increases in authoritarianism. The spread and deepening of these authoritarian practices in diverse regimes around the world diminishes international rule of law. The conclusion argues that resurgent authoritarianism degrades international rule of law even if this is defined as the specifically post-Cold War international legal order.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Sandholtz2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Sandholtz, Wayne}, title = {Human Rights Courts and Global Constitutionalism}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {35}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43583}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435831}, pages = {30}, year = {2019}, abstract = {International courts regularly cite each other, in part as a means of building legitimacy. Such international, cross-court use of precedent (or "judicial dialogue") among the regional human rights courts and the Human Rights Committee has an additional purpose and effect: the construction of a rights-based global constitutionalism. Judicial dialogue among the human rights courts is purposeful in that the courts see themselves as embedded in, and contributing to, a global human rights legal system. Cross-citation among the human rights courts advances the construction of rights-based global constitutionalism in that it provides a basic degree of coordination among the regional courts. The jurisprudence of the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC), as an authoritative interpreter of core international human rights norms, plays the role of a central focal point for the decentralized coordination of jurisprudence. The network of regional courts and the HRC is building an emergent institutional structure for global rights-based constitutionalism.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Nolte2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Nolte, Georg}, title = {How to Identify Customary International Law? - On the Final Outcome of the Work of the International Law Commission (2018)}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {37}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43588}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435884}, pages = {22}, year = {2019}, abstract = {How to identify customary international law is an important question of international law. The International Law Commission has in 2018 adopted a set of sixteen conclusions, together with commentaries, on this topic. The paper consists of three parts: First, the reasons are discussed why the Commission came to work on the topic "Identification of customary international law". Then, some of its conclusions are highlighted. Finally, the outcome of the work of the Commission is placed in a general context, before concluding.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Jo2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Jo, Hyeran}, title = {Rise and Decline of International Rule of Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {39}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-43590}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-435900}, pages = {20}, year = {2019}, abstract = {This paper assesses the rise and decline of international rule of law in the case of non-state armed actors. Both signs of rise and signs of decline of international rule of law show in the case of non- state armed actors. Signs of rise include the expansion of coverage of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law, as well as international legal argumentation and rhetoric made by non-state armed groups. Some non-state armed actors express that they are governed by IHL in public statements or bilateral agreements with international actors, partly acknowledging universality of international humanitarian norms, and sometimes act as such. Signs of decline in the international rule of law also show - although some of them can be seen as business-as-usual - privileging of military advantage, instrumental use of international law (as justification and local interpretations), as well as conflicting understanding of IHL between local and global norms. The multiplicity of non-state actors also portends the decline of international rule of law, with the proliferation of many non-organized groups without legitimacy-seeking motivations.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Krieger2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Krieger, Heike}, title = {Populist governments and international law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {29}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42686}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426863}, pages = {29}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines in how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. This is, however, not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: In the political sphere their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted. In the legal sphere populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of nonintervention and foreign funding for NGOs.}, language = {en} } @techreport{KriegerLiese2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Krieger, Heike and Liese, Andrea Margit}, title = {A Metamorphosis of International Law?}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {27}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42608}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-426088}, pages = {26}, year = {2019}, abstract = {The paper aims to lay out a framework for evaluating value shifts in the international legal order for the purposes of a forthcoming book. In view of current contestations it asks whether we are observing yet another period of norm change (Wandel) or even a more fundamental transformation of international law - a metamorphosis (Verwandlung). For this purpose it suggests to look into the mechanisms of how norms change from the perspective of legal and political science and also to approximate a reference point where change turns into metamorphosis. It submits that such a point may be reached where specific legally protected values are indeed changing (change of legal values) or where the very idea of protecting certain values through law is renounced (delegalizing of values). The paper discusses the benefits of such an interdisciplinary exchange and tries to identify differences and commonalities among both disciplinary perspectives.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Wiener2020, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Wiener, Antje}, title = {Norm(ative) Change in International Relations}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {44}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47607}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-476076}, pages = {27}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Current contestations of the liberal international order stand in notable contrast with the earlier rise of international law during the post-cold war period. As Krieger and Liese argue, this situation calls for assessment of the type of change that is currently observed, i.e. norm change (Wandel) or a more fundamental transformation of international law - a metamorphosis (Verwandlung)? To address this question, this paper details the bi-focal approach to norms in order to reflect and take account of the complex interrelation between fact-based and value-based conceptions of norms. The paper is organised in three sections. The first section presents three axioms underlying the conceptual framework to study norm(ative) change which are visualised by a triangular operation to analyse this change in relation with practices and norms. The second section recalls three key interests that have guided IR norms research after the return to norms in the late 1980s. They include, first, allocating change in and through practice, second, identifying behavioural change with reference to norm- following, and third, identifying norm(ative) change with reference to discursive practice. The third section presents the two analytical tools of the conceptual frame, namely, the norm-typology and the cycle-grid model. It also indicates how to apply these tools with reference to illustrative case scenarios. The conclusion recalls the key elements of the conceptual framework for research on norm(ative) change in international relations in light of the challenge of establishing sustainable normativity in the global order.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Baeumler2020, type = {Working Paper}, author = {B{\"a}umler, Jelena}, title = {The WTO's Crisis}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {42}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47601}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-476017}, pages = {34}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The perception of the WTO is currently one of an organisation in crisis. Yet, appraisal varies regarding its extent and seriousness: Is it merely a rough time or are we standing on the edge of destruction? The article will trace developments inside as well as outside the WTO in order to assess the magnitude of the crisis. It will be argued that while certain developments inside the organisation, when seen in accumulation would already warrant serious attention, only together with developments taking place outside of the WTO, the two strands of developments unfold their full potential for the crisis. The overall situation renders the WTO in a difficult position, as it is currently unable to adapt to these challenges, while keeping calm and carrying on might similarly further the crisis. While States might improve and further develop their trade relations in bi- and plurilateral agreements, it is only the WTO that reflects and stands for the multilateral post (cold) war order.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Gulati2020, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Gulati, Rishi}, title = {Judicial Independence at International Courts and Tribunals}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {41}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47599}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-475997}, pages = {32}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The guarantee of judicial independence is undoubtedly one of the most important institutional design features of international courts and tribunals. An independence deficit can adversely impact a court's authority, create a crisis of legitimacy, and undermine the very effectiveness of an international court or tribunal. It can hardly be denied that for an international court to be considered legitimate, a basic degree of independence is a must. An independent judiciary is a precondition to the fair and just resolution of legal disputes. In the context of interstate dispute settlement where the jurisdiction of courts is based on the principle of consent, in the absence of a basic degree of judicial independence, states may not be willing to submit to the jurisdiction of international courts. Comparing and contrasting the International Court of Justice and the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation, I assess whether those international judicial mechanisms possess the basic degree of independence required for a court to be able to maintain its credibility so that it can continue to perform its core function of adjudicating interstate disputes. With both those interstate adjudicative bodies constituting the two leading international courts in terms of participation and the sheer number of cases decided, much may be learned from comparing them. I argue there is a case for bolstering the independence of the ICJ; and without immediate reforms to the Appellate Body's institutional design, its recent demise may become permanent. I conclude that if a basic degree of judicial independence cannot be guaranteed, it is preferable to let a court vanish for a while than to maintain a significantly deficient one.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Jorgensen2020, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Jorgensen, Malcolm}, title = {The United States and the International Law of Global Security}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {43}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47603}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-476030}, pages = {22}, year = {2020}, abstract = {For the United States the 'international law of global security' is, in a unique sense, synonymous with the entire project of constructing global legal order. Uniquely preponderant power enjoyed since the end of the Second World War has allowed US preferences to manifest not merely in specific rules and regimes, but in purposive development of the entire structure of global legal order to favour American security interests. Perceptions of a recent decline in this order now find expression in advocacy for a 'liberal' or 'rules-based' international order, as the claimed foundation for global prosperity and security. This working paper seeks to map out the parameters of US contributions to the global security order by uncovering the strategic and political foundations of its engagement with the international law of global security. The paper begins by reflecting on competing US conceptions of the relationship between national security and global order as they evolved across the twentieth century. The focus then turns to three significant trends defining the contemporary field. First are US attitudes toward multilateral institutions and global security, and the ongoing contest between beliefs that they are mutually reinforcing versus beliefs that US security and global institutions sit in zero-sum opposition. Second is the impact of the generational 'War on Terror', which has yielded more permissive interpretation and development of laws governing the global use of violence. The final trend is that towards competitive geopolitical interests restructuring international law, which are evident across diverse areas ranging from global economics, to cybersecurity, to the fragmentation of global order into spheres of influence. Looking ahead, a confluence of rising geopolitical competitors with divergent legal conceptions, and conflicted domestic support for the legitimacy and desirability of US global leadership, emerge as leading forces already reshaping the global security order.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BarkholdtReiners2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Barkholdt, Janina and Reiners, Nina}, title = {Pronouncements of Expert Treaty Bodies}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {40}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47588}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-475886}, pages = {26}, year = {2019}, abstract = {While some pronouncements of expert treaty bodies have been considered 'key catalysts' for the development of international human rights law, others are only selectively referred to in legal practice. This article argues that the varying normative impact is due to the informal character of pronouncements. In the absence of treaty provisions specifying their legal effect, practitioners tend to rely on different factors and arguments when either drawing on or rejecting certain pronouncements. Scholars in turn face difficulties when trying to identify explanatory patterns within this diverging practice as the informal character confronts both international lawyers and international relations scholars with their respective methodological 'blind spots'. In light of these intradisciplinary challenges, this article explores the extent as to which an interdisciplinary approach helps to assess the reasons for the varying impact of pronouncements. After analysing the factors determining their legal significance on the basis of State practice and the academic debate, this article identifies the drafting process as a factor which promises to be particularly insightful when explored from an interdisciplinary perspective and sketches out a framework for future research.}, 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{McLachlan2020, type = {Working Paper}, author = {McLachlan, Campbell A}, title = {Populism, the Pandemic \& Prospects for International Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {45}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-48347}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-483479}, pages = {31}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Populism has fatally weakened the world's ability to respond to COVID-19, by undermining the capacity of the structures and mechanisms of international law to address the pandemic. The pandemic has exposed as a fallacy a key tenet of populism - to protect the 'people' of a nation from external forces, including international law. In fact international law, through the principle of self-determination, enshrines the ability of peoples to determine their own political organization. But this does not preclude agreement at the international level on matters of common interest to humanity as a whole that require community action. The prevention of infectious disease is just such a case, which states have long agreed could not remain solely the preserve of national polities, but requires a common international response. This paper, placing the current crisis in light of the development of international health law, critically examines the response of key populist governments to COVID-19 in order to address the larger issue of the implications of populism for the fate of international law.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Jorgensen2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Jorgensen, Malcolm}, title = {Equilibrium \& Fragmentation in the International Rule of Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42282}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422829}, pages = {39}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Seeming consensus has formed among legal scholars and practitioners that a rising China seeks changes in rules and institutions of international law. Yet, attendant accounts of how such changes may and already do restructure global legal order remain relatively underdeveloped. An observed rise in the international rule of law during immediate post-Cold War years has now been disrupted by a confluence of regional shifts in geopolitical power and contestation of law's normative foundations by newly empowered states. In these circumstances, advocates for stability and continuity in variations of the "liberal international order" or "rules-based order" have sought to defend the authority and resilience of universally defined international legal norms against various regional challenges to the boundary between law and politics. Yet, as both global power and universal conceptions of law fragment, so too will the presumed equilibrium between international law's political and normative foundations. Signs of fragmentation are now conspicuously playing out in East and Southeast Asia, where the relative rise of China is amplified by alternative Chinese conceptions of foundations and purposes of global legal order. This working paper introduces the concept of "geolegal power" to describe the competitive logic of a territorially bounded leading state restructuring interpretation and development of legal rules and institutions, which is emerging more explicitly within regional subsystems. Fragmentation of the international rule of law by a rising Chinese "geolegal order" is demonstrated by contested maritime rules in three key areas: freedom of navigation; third-party and judicial settlement; and, territorial claims under UNCLOS. Evidence that China is carving out an effective subsystem of rules designated as "law" in the most consequential of security and geopolitical domains poses a critical challenge to the structure of a unified and universal system of international law. Legal scholars and practitioners must better grasp reconfiguring foundations of international law in order to address rising orders of "geolegal power", in which the regional meaning and operation of law is no longer reconcilable within the terms of an "international" rule of law.}, 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} }