Nicht ermittelbar
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (674)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (245)
- Part of a Book (144)
- Review (86)
- Doctoral Thesis (82)
- Conference Proceeding (31)
- Other (12)
- Report (7)
- Working Paper (7)
- Postprint (4)
Keywords
- Digitalisierung (9)
- digitalization (6)
- Verwaltung (5)
- artificial intelligence (5)
- Dialektik (4)
- Industrie 4.0 (4)
- cyber-physical systems (4)
- openHPI (4)
- probabilistic timed systems (4)
- qualitative Analyse (4)
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (102)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (85)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (80)
- Institut für Jüdische Studien und Religionswissenschaft (75)
- Department Erziehungswissenschaft (71)
- Sozialwissenschaften (63)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (58)
- Institut für Mathematik (58)
- Bürgerliches Recht (54)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (54)
- Institut für Germanistik (52)
- Department Musik und Kunst (50)
- Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie (50)
- Institut für Romanistik (41)
- Historisches Institut (40)
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (35)
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (34)
- Department Psychologie (33)
- Institut für Informatik und Computational Science (32)
- Strafrecht (31)
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering GmbH (25)
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (24)
- Institut für Slavistik (19)
- Philosophische Fakultät (19)
- Klassische Philologie (17)
- Department Linguistik (16)
- Department Grundschulpädagogik (13)
- Institut für Physik und Astronomie (13)
- Fachgruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre (12)
- Lehreinheit für Wirtschafts-Arbeit-Technik (12)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (11)
- Arbeitskreis Militär und Gesellschaft in der Frühen Neuzeit e. V. (10)
- Institut für Chemie (10)
- Institut für Künste und Medien (8)
- Institut für Philosophie (5)
- Juristische Fakultät (5)
- Department für Inklusionspädagogik (4)
- Institut für Ernährungswissenschaft (2)
- Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für Dynamik komplexer Systeme (2)
- Deutsches MEGA-Konsortialbüro an der Universität Potsdam (1)
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (1)
- Kommunalwissenschaftliches Institut (1)
- Moses Mendelssohn Zentrum für europäisch-jüdische Studien e. V. (1)
This paper consists of two parts: In the first part, some of the challenges with which the Internationaal Criminal Court is currently confronted are being presented. First of all, the article will describe the current state of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statue. Afterwards, the article analyses the Court’s efforts to deal with cases against third-country nationals and the challenges it is facing in that regard. In addition, the Court’s case law will be analyzed in order to determine an increasing ‘emancipation’ of the case law of the International Criminal Court from international humanitarian law. The second part of the paper will briefly discuss the role of domestic international criminal law and domestic courts in the further development and enforcement of international criminal law. As an example of the role that domestic courts may have in clarifying classic issues in international law, the judgment of the German Supreme Court of January 28, 2021 (3 StR 564/19), which deals with the status of costumary international law on functional immunity of State officials before domestic courts, shall be assessed.
As part of the current overall process of de-formalization in international law States increasingly chose informal, non-legally binding agreements or ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ (‘MOUs') to organize their international affairs. The increasing conclusion of such legally non-binding instruments in addition to their flexibility, however, also leads to uncertainties in international relations. Against this background, this article deals with possible indirect legal consequences produced by MOUs. It discusses the different legal mechanisms and avenues that may give rise to secondary legal effects of MOUs through a process of interaction with and interpretation in line with other (formal) sources of international law. The article further considers various strategies how to avoid such eventual possible unintended or unexpected indirect legal effects of MOUs when drafting such instruments and when dealing with them subsequent to their respective ‘adoption’.
Article 15ter Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)
(2022)
Volle Souveränität?
(2021)
Nach Art. 7 Abs. 1 S. 1 des Vertrages zur abschließenden Regelung in Bezug aufDeutschland vom 12. September 1990 (Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag)1beendeten die Fran-zösische Republik, die Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken, das VereinigteKönigreich Großbritannien und Nordirland und die Vereinigten Staaten von Ameri-ka„ihre Rechte und Verantwortlichkeiten in Bezug auf Berlin und Deutschland alsGanzes“. Dies hatte, wie in dessen Art. 7 Abs. 1 S. 2 ausdrücklich niedergelegt, zurFolge, dass„die entsprechenden, damit zusammenhängenden vierseitigen Verein-barungen, Beschlüsse und Praktiken beendet und alle entsprechenden Einrichtun-gen der vier Mächte aufgelöst“wurden.2Art. 7 Abs. 2 Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag stelltdemgemäß fest, dass das vereinte Deutschland volle Souveränität über seine inne-ren und äußeren Angelegenheiten erhalten habe. Nach dem Wortlaut des Vertrageshaben die Alliierten damit jegliche Rechte in Bezug auf Deutschland abgegeben,rechtliche Auswirkungen der Besatzungsgeschichte Deutschlands noch bis in dieheutige Zeit scheinen danach zunächst ausgeschlossen.In dem folgenden Beitrag soll diese aus heutiger Sicht selbstverständlich er-scheinende Hypothese kritisch hinterfragt und der Frage nachgegangen werden, obund inwieweit die Besatzungsgeschichte Deutschlands noch immer rechtliche Fol-gen zeitigt. Hierbei soll insbesondere auf Fragen der Fortgeltung alliierten Rechts,Eigentumsfragen sowie auf Fragen der Nachfolge in völkerrechtlichen Verträgeneingegangen werden.
Would the world be a better place if one were to adopt a European approach to state immunity?
(2021)
This chapter argues not only that there is no European Sonderweg (or ‘special way’) when it comes to the law of state immunity but that there ought not to be one. Debates within The Hague Conference on Private International Law in the late 1990s and those leading to the adoption of the 2002 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States, as well as the development of the EU Brussels Regulation on Jurisdiction and Enforcement, as amended in 2015, all demonstrate that state immunity was not meant to be limited by such treaties but ‘safeguarded’. Likewise, there is no proof that regional European customary law limits state immunity when it comes to ius cogens violations, as Italy and (partly) Greece are the only European states denying state immunity in such cases while the European Court of Human Rights has, time and again, upheld a broad concept of state immunity. It therefore seems unlikely that in the foreseeable future a specific European customary law norm on state immunity will develop, especially given the lack of participation in such practice by those states most concerned by the matter, including Germany. This chapter considers the possible legal implications of the jurisprudence of the Italian Constitutional Court for European military operations (if such operations went beyond peacekeeping). These implications would mainly depend on the question of attribution: if one where to assume that acts undertaken within the framework of military operations led by the EU were to be, at least also, attributable to the troop-contributing member states, the respective troop-contributing state would be entitled to enjoy state immunity exactly to the same degree as in any kind of unilateral military operations. Additionally, some possible perspectives beyond Sentenza 238/2014 are examined, in particular concerning the redress awarded by domestic courts ‘as long as’ neither the German nor the international system grant equivalent protection to the victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during World War II. In the author’s opinion, strengthening the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals, bringing interstate cases for damages before the International Court of Justice, as well as providing for claims commissions where individual compensation might be sought for violations of international humanitarian law would be more useful and appropriate mechanisms than denying state immunity.
Article 15bis. Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)
(2022)
How do social changes, new technologies or new management trends affect communication work? A team of researchers at Leipzig University and the University of Potsdam (Germany) observed new developments in related disciplines. As a result, the five most important trends for corporate communications are identified annually and published in the Communications Trend Radar. Thus, Communications managers can identify challenges and opportunities at an early stage, take a position, address issues and make decisions. For 2023, the Communications Trend Radar identifies five key trends for corporate communications: State Revival, Scarcity Management, Unimagination, Parallel Worlds, Augemented Workflows.