@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} } @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{Krieger2016, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Krieger, Heike}, title = {Rights and Obligations of Third Parties in Armed Conflict}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {5}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42073}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-420732}, pages = {23}, year = {2016}, abstract = {This paper will turn into a contribution to a book on community obligations. It focusses on third parties' rights and obligations in armed conflict. It is often said that international law has developed from a legal order which is designed to protect sovereignty to a system which also promotes community interests. This shift is said to be reflected in structural changes of the legal system. The creation of rights and obligations for third parties is generally seen as a part of this perceived paradigmatic shift. Community interests can be furthered either by negative duties of abstention, by an entitlement for third states, or even by duties to take positive measures. Since the shift towards protecting community interests apparently requires some form of cooperation, positive rights and duties to protect and to promote appear to be indispensable. Authors relying on a community perspective often dismiss duties of abstention as an expression of indifference in the face of a violation of a fundamental norm. Solidarity seems to require that third states take a more proactive role in actively enforcing community interests. The paper aims to test this understanding on the basis of an analysis of rights and obligations of third states in armed conflict. In order to argue that duties of abstention of third states are a central instrument for promoting community interests in relation to armed conflicts, the paper will first trace pertinent structural changes in international law. In particular, it will question the extent to which positive rights and obligations of third states have been firmly established in international law. In a second step, this contribution will evaluate the overall tendencies in the ongoing lawmaking process for promoting community interests in relation to armed conflict.}, 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{KriegerNolte2016, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Krieger, Heike and Nolte, Georg}, title = {The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline?}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {1}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-41952}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-419528}, pages = {25}, year = {2016}, abstract = {The paper undertakes a preliminary assessment of current developments of international law for the purpose of mapping the ground for a larger research project. The research project pursues the goal of determining whether public international law, as it has developed since the end of the Cold War, is continuing its progressive move towards a more human-rights- and multi-actor-oriented order, or whether we are seeing a renewed emphasis of more classical elements of international law. In this context the term "international rule of law" is chosen to designate the more recent and "thicker" understanding of international law. The paper discusses how it can be determined whether this form of international law continues to unfold, and whether we are witnessing challenges to this order which could give rise to more fundamental reassessments.}, 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{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{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{Lange2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Lange, Felix}, title = {Challenging the Paris Peace Treaties, State Sovereignty, and Western-Dominated International Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {18}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42251}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422510}, pages = {23}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The genesis of the jus cogens doctrine in international law for long has been associated with a turn to a more value-laden international law after the Second World War promoted by British rapporteurs in the International Law Commission. This paper builds on this narrative but adds two seemingly contradictory story lines. In the 1920s and 1930s German-speaking international legal scholars like Alfred Verdross developed the concept as a tool to renounce the disliked Paris Peace Treaties in the context of more and more aggressive German revision policies. Furthermore, after 1945 Soviet thinkers of the Khrushchev era used jus cogens to criticize Western economic and military integration, while newly independent states regarded the concept as a promising vehicle for distancing themselves from traditional Western international legal notions in the era of decolonization. Hence, instead of embracing a progress narrative, a dark sides-account or a contributionist reading of the history of international law, this paper highlights the multifaceted origins of the jus cogens doctrine.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Lange2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Lange, Felix}, title = {Between Systematization and Expertise for Foreign Policy}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {8}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42189}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421895}, pages = {27}, year = {2018}, abstract = {German international legal scholarship has been known for its practice-oriented, doctrinal approach to international law. On the basis of archival material, this article tracks how this methodological take on international law developed in Germany between the 1920s and the 1980s. In 1924, as a reaction to the establishment of judicial institutions in the Treaty of Versailles, the German Reich founded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. Director Viktor Bruns institutionalized the practice-oriented method to advance the idea of international law as a legal order as well as to safeguard the interests of the Weimar government before the various courts. Under National Socialism, members of the Institute provided legal justifications for Hitler's increasingly radical foreign policy. At the same time, some of them did not engage with v{\"o}lkisch-racist theories, but systematized the existing ius in bello. After 1945, Hermann Mosler, as director of the renamed Max Planck Institute, took the view that the practice-oriented approach was not as discredited as the more theoretical approach of v{\"o}lkisch international law. Furthermore, he regarded the method as a promising vehicle to support the policy of Westintegration of Konrad Adenauer. Also, he tried to promote the idea of 'international society as a legal community' by analysing international practice.}, language = {en} } @techreport{McLachlan2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {McLachlan, Campbell}, title = {The Double-facing Foreign Relations Function of the Executive and Its Self-enforcing Obligation to Comply with International Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {30}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42908}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-429088}, pages = {35}, year = {2019}, abstract = {How does the international Rule of Law apply to constrain the conduct of the Executive within a constitutional State that adopts a dualist approach to the reception of international law? This paper argues that, so far from being inconsistent with the concept of the Rule of Law, the Executive within a dualist constitution has a self-enforcing obligation to abide by the obligations of the State under international law. This is not dependent on Parliament's incorporation of treaty obligations into domestic law. It is the correlative consequence of the allocation to the Executive of the power to conduct foreign relations. The paper develops this argument in response to recent debate in the United Kingdom on whether Ministers have an obligation to comply with international law-a reference that the Government removed from the Ministerial Code. It shows that such an obligation is consistent with both four centuries of the practice of the British State and with principle.}, language = {en} }