@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{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{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{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{Rajput2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Rajput, Aniruddha}, title = {Protection of Foreign Investment in India and International Rule of Law: Rise or Decline?}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {10}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42197}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421970}, pages = {32}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This paper narrates the changes in the Indian policy towards foreign investment and analyses them in the backdrop of overall changes in the field of international law and particularly within the framework of the international rule of law. The policy changes that have taken place in India can be categorised into three periods. The first period commences after independence from colonial rule. This period is intriguing. At the international level, India insisted on national treatment for foreign investment and supported the New International Economic Order. Domestically, however, nationalisation was not pursued, and even when pursued, was not applied to foreign investors. This period continued until the 1990s when India faced serious economic problems and this coincided with the high point of the Washington consensus, often seen as the rise of the international rule of law. During this time, national treatment was abandoned and innumerable investment treaties granting liberal protection were entered into. This process ended abruptly after India lost the first investment case. This turn of events comments the third period, where efforts were made towards balancing between investor protection and conserving regulatory freedom. Although this period may appear to be a decline of the international rule of law, a nuanced approach shows that it is rather a rise. India has not withdrawn from the system of investor protection, as has been done by some other States. This period is characterised by extensive and detailed treaties to replace the prior sketchy treaty provisions. This is a move towards a more rule based investment protection.}, 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} }