@incollection{Zimmermann2021,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas},
  title     = {Would the world be a better place if one were to adopt a European approach to state immunity?},
  series = {Remedies against immunity?},
  volume    = {297},
  booktitle = {Remedies against immunity?},
  editor    = {Volpe, Valentina and Peters, Anne and Battini, Stefano},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Berlin ; Heidelberg},
  isbn      = {978-3-662-62303-9},
  doi       = {10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_12},
  pages     = {219 -- 233},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannJauer2021,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Jauer, Nora},
  title     = {Legal shades of grey?},
  series = {Archiv des V{\"o}lkerrechts},
  volume    = {59},
  journal   = {Archiv des V{\"o}lkerrechts},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Mohr Siebeck},
  address   = {T{\"u}bingen},
  issn      = {0003-892X},
  doi       = {10.1628/avr-2021-0016},
  pages     = {278 -- 299},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {As part of the current 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 such 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'.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ZimmermannJauer2021,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Jauer, Nora},
  title     = {Possible indirect legal effects under international law of non-legally binding instruments},
  series = {KFG working paper series},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {KFG working paper series},
  publisher = {Berlin Potsdam Research Group International Law - Rise or Decline?},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {2509-3770},
  pages     = {24},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {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'.},
  language  = {en}
}
@incollection{ZimmermannEiken2021,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Eiken, Jan},
  title     = {Volle Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t?},
  series = {Zwei plus Vier : die internationale Gr{\"u}ndungsgeschichte der Berliner Republik},
  booktitle = {Zwei plus Vier : die internationale Gr{\"u}ndungsgeschichte der Berliner Republik},
  editor    = {Geiger, Tim and Lillteicher, J{\"u}rgen and Wentker, Hermann},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  isbn      = {978-3-11-072801-9},
  doi       = {10.1515/9783110728019-007},
  pages     = {103 -- 122},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {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-z{\"o}sische Republik, die Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken, das VereinigteK{\"o}nigreich 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 ausdr{\"u}cklich niedergelegt, zurFolge, dass„die entsprechenden, damit zusammenh{\"a}ngenden vierseitigen Verein-barungen, Beschl{\"u}sse und Praktiken beendet und alle entsprechenden Einrichtun-gen der vier M{\"a}chte aufgel{\"o}st"wurden.2Art. 7 Abs. 2 Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag stelltdemgem{\"a}ß fest, dass das vereinte Deutschland volle Souver{\"a}nit{\"a}t {\"u}ber seine inne-ren und {\"a}ußeren 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 zun{\"a}chst ausgeschlossen.In dem folgenden Beitrag soll diese aus heutiger Sicht selbstverst{\"a}ndlich 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 v{\"o}lkerrechtlichen Vertr{\"a}geneingegangen werden.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{ZimmermannHerrmann2021,
  author    = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Herrmann, Franziska},
  title     = {70 Jahre Genfer Fl{\"u}chtlingskonvention},
  series = {Informationsbrief Ausl{\"a}nderrecht},
  journal   = {Informationsbrief Ausl{\"a}nderrecht},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Luchterhand},
  address   = {K{\"o}ln ; Neuwied},
  issn      = {0174-2108},
  pages     = {221 -- 227},
  year      = {2021},
  language  = {de}
}