@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{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{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{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} } @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{deWet2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {de Wet, Erika}, title = {Entrenching international values through positive law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {25}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42385}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-423859}, pages = {19}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Underpinning a legal system with certain values and helping to resolve norm conflicts is in domestic legal systems usually achieved through hierarchical superiority of certain norms of a constitutional nature. The present paper examines the question whether jus cogens can discharge this function within the traditionally horizontal and decentralized international legal order. In so doing, it commences with an overview of the historical origins of peremptory norms in legal scholarship, followed by its endorsement by positive law and courts and tribunals. This analysis illustrates that there are lingering uncertainties pertaining to the process of identification of peremptory norms. Even so, the concept has been invoked in State executive practice (although infrequently) and has been endorsed by various courts. However, such invocation thus far has had a limited impact from a legal perspective. It was mainly confined to a strengthened moral appeal and did in particular not facilitate the resolution of norm conflicts. The contribution further suggests that this limited impact results from the fact that the content of peremptory obligations is either very narrow or very vague. This, in turn, implies a lack of consensus amongst States regarding the content (scope) of jus cogens, including the values underlying these norms. As a result, it is questionable whether the construct of jus cogens is able to provide meaningful legal protection against the erosion of legal norms. It is too rudimentary in character to entrench and stabilize core human rights values as the moral foundation of the international legal order.}, language = {en} } @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{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{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{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{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{Kahombo2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kahombo, Balingene}, title = {The Peace and Security Council of the African Union}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {23}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42286}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422864}, pages = {28}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This paper assesses, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the work of the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union (AU) with respect to peace support operations. It seeks to know whether the establishment of the PSC in 2002 is leading or has led to a rise or a decline of collective security in Africa. It is demonstrated that in regard to its relative legal and institutional robustness, the PSC can be perceived as a rise of collective security compared with its predecessor, the Central Organ of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). However, it stagnates in terms of quantity and quality of actions on the ground. The main problem lies in the lack of sufficient operational autonomy from member states and international partners, such as the United Nations. Therefore, the PSC's contribution to the maintenance of peace and security, and so the rise of the international rule of law in Africa is limited. The continent is still a war-torn region, affected by political crises and the expansion of terrorism in many countries. To solve this problem, AU member states should strengthen the PSC's capacity, starting with the quick operationalisation of the African Standby Force. The implementation of the 2016 decision on alternative sources of financing AU's institutions and activities is also a priority. In this regard, the political will of African states that may show that they want to take their organisation more seriously is required. This can further the AU self-reliance policy in collective security though the promotion of African solutions to African problems, and reduce the burden of the United Nations and other non-African actors' interventions in the continent.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Kahombo2016, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kahombo, Balingene}, title = {Africa Within the Justice System of the International Criminal Court}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {2}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41953}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-419537}, pages = {42}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This article re-examines the relationship between Africa and the International Criminal Court (ICC). It traces the successive changes of the African attitude towards this Court, from states' euphoria, to hostility against its work, to regional counter-initiatives through the umbrella of the African Union (AU). The main argument goes beyond the idea of "the Court that Africa wants" in order to identify concrete reasons behind such a formal argument which may have fostered, if not enticed, the majority of African states to become ICC members and actively cooperate with it, when paradoxically some great powers have decided to stay outside its jurisdiction. It also seeks to understand, from a political and legal viewpoint, which parameters have changed since then to provoke that hostile attitude against the Court's work and the entrance of the AU into the debate through the African Common Position on the ICC. Lastly, this article explores African alternatives to the contested ICC justice system. It examines the need to reform the Rome Statute in order to give more independence, credibility and legitimacy to the ICC and its duplication to some extent by the new "Criminal Court of the African Union". Particular attention is paid to the resistance against this idea to reform the ICC justice system.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Kane2016, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kane, Angela}, title = {Abr{\"u}stungsvertr{\"a}ge in der UNO}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {3}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42050}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-420505}, pages = {12}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Das dritte Working Paper in der KFG Working Paper Series analysiert Zustand und Perspektiven v{\"o}lkerrechtlicher Abr{\"u}stungsvertr{\"a}ge unter der {\"A}gide der Vereinten Nationen. W{\"a}hrend die dreißig Jahre zwischen der Kuba-Krise und dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs f{\"u}r die Abr{\"u}stung eine erfolgreiche Periode gewesen seien, seien in den Vereinten Nationen seither außer dem Waffenhandelsvertrag keine weiteren Abr{\"u}stungsvertr{\"a}ge abgeschlossen worden. Die gegenw{\"a}rtige Stimmung sei abwartend bis negativ, obwohl es ein Nachholbed{\"u}rfnis gebe, Abr{\"u}stungsvertr{\"a}ge an die heutigen politischen Gegebenheiten sowie an den Stand der Technik anzupassen. Die Verfasserin schl{\"a}gt als L{\"o}sung vor, durch eine Politik der kleinen Schritte ein besseres Abr{\"u}stungsklima zu schaffen, indem dem Diskurs auf Grundlage zus{\"a}tzlicher Protokolle zu bestehenden Vertr{\"a}gen und notfalls auch durch ein Ausweichen auf andere Gremien eine neue Richtung verliehen werde.}, language = {de} } @techreport{Kleinlein2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Kleinlein, Thomas}, title = {Matters of Interpretation}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {24}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42287}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422871}, pages = {22}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This article analyses, from a methodological and theoretical perspective, how international legal method deals with change. Section 2 sets the stage, develops a legal perspective on change of norms and values in the international legal order and distinguishes between structural change and norm change. This is followed in sections 3 and 4 by an examination of doctrinal categories that provide techniques to process change in international legal practice. International legal method is equipped with several techniques to process—and to conceptualize and evaluate—change: 'Formal' norm change is a matter of the doctrine of sources. International law can also change 'informally' through the shifting meaning of norm texts. Both formal and informal change is a matter of interpretation. Therefore, section 5 aims at theorizing interpretive change. It examines the relationship between the sources of law and legal interpretation as categories of change and analyses theoretical perceptions of interpretive change.}, language = {en} }