@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} }