@techreport{Zivkovic2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Zivkovic, Velimir}, title = {International Rule of Law Through International Investment Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {16}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42218}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422181}, pages = {33}, year = {2018}, abstract = {In challenging times for international law, there might be a heightened need for both analysis and prescription. The international rule of law as a connecting thread that goes through the global legal order is a particularly salient topic. By providing a working understanding of the content and contexts of the international rule of law, and by taking the regime of international investment law as a case study, this paper argues that assessing 'rise' or 'decline' motions in this sphere warrants a nuanced approach that should recognise parallel positive and negative developments. Whilst prominent procedural and substantive aspects of international investment law strongly align with the international rule of law requirements, numerous challenges threaten the future existence of the regime and appeal of international rule of law more broadly. At the same time, opportunities exist to adapt the substantive decision-making processes in investor-State disputes so to pursue parallel goals of enhancing rule of law at both international and national levels. Through recognising the specificities of interaction between international and national sphere, arbitrators can further reinvigorate the legitimacy of international rule of law through international investment law - benefitting thus the future of both.}, language = {en} } @techreport{ZimmermannBoos2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Boos, Felix}, title = {Bringing States to Justice for Crimes against Humanity}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {12}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42203}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-422035}, pages = {24}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Draft Art. 15 CCAH attempts to strike a balance between State autonomy and robust judicial supervision. It largely follows Article 22 CERD conditioning the jurisdiction of the ICJ on prior negotiations. Hence, the substance of the clause is interpreted in light of the Court's recent case law, especially Georgia v. Russia. Besides, several issues regarding the scope ratione temporis of the compromissory clause are discussed. The article advances several proposals to further improve the current draft, addressing the missing explicit reference to State responsibility, as well as the relationship between the Court and a possible treaty body, It also proposes to recalibrate the interplay of a requirement of prior negotiations respectively the seizing of a future treaty body on the one hand and provisional measures to be indicated by the Court on the other.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Wiener2020, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Wiener, Antje}, title = {Norm(ative) Change in International Relations}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {44}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-47607}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-476076}, pages = {27}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Current contestations of the liberal international order stand in notable contrast with the earlier rise of international law during the post-cold war period. As Krieger and Liese argue, this situation calls for assessment of the type of change that is currently observed, i.e. norm change (Wandel) or a more fundamental transformation of international law - a metamorphosis (Verwandlung)? To address this question, this paper details the bi-focal approach to norms in order to reflect and take account of the complex interrelation between fact-based and value-based conceptions of norms. The paper is organised in three sections. The first section presents three axioms underlying the conceptual framework to study norm(ative) change which are visualised by a triangular operation to analyse this change in relation with practices and norms. The second section recalls three key interests that have guided IR norms research after the return to norms in the late 1980s. They include, first, allocating change in and through practice, second, identifying behavioural change with reference to norm- following, and third, identifying norm(ative) change with reference to discursive practice. The third section presents the two analytical tools of the conceptual frame, namely, the norm-typology and the cycle-grid model. It also indicates how to apply these tools with reference to illustrative case scenarios. The conclusion recalls the key elements of the conceptual framework for research on norm(ative) change in international relations in light of the challenge of establishing sustainable normativity in the global order.}, language = {en} } @techreport{UlfsteinZimmermann2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Ulfstein, Geir and Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {Certiorari Through the Backdoor?}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {13}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42205}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-422054}, pages = {21}, year = {2018}, abstract = {In its Burmych and Others v. Ukraine judgment of October 2017 the European Court of Human Rights has dismissed more than 12.000 applications due to the fact that given that they were not only repetitive in nature, but also mutatis mutandis identical to applications covered by a previous pilot judgment rendered against Ukraine. This raises fundamental issues as to the role of the Court within the human rights protection system established by the ECHR, as well as those concerning the interrelationship between the Court and the Committee of Ministers.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Roggeband2019, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Roggeband, Conny}, title = {International women's rights}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {26}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42388}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-423887}, pages = {24}, year = {2019}, abstract = {This paper explores current contestations of women's rights and the implications thereof for international legislation. While contestation over women's rights is a far from new phenomenon, over the past two decades opposition to gender equality has become better organized at the transnational level, mobilizing a dispersed set of state and non-state actors, and is becoming more successful in halting the progress of women's rights. I argue that the position of oppositional actors vis-{\`a}-vis women rights activism appears to be strengthened by two recent political developments: democratic backsliding and the closure of civic space. Some preliminary findings show how these interrelated developments lead to an erosion of women's rights at the national level. Governments use low key tactics to dismantle institutional and implementation arrangements and sideline women's organisations. Next, I explore the implications of these developments for gender equality norms at the national and international level. The active strategy of counter norming adopted by conservative and religious state and non-state actors, designed to circumvent and also undermine Western norms, is increasingly successful. In addition to this, the threatened position of domestic actors monitoring compliance of international treaties, makes the chances of backsliding on international commitments much higher.}, 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{Palchetti2018, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Palchetti, Paolo}, title = {International Law and National Perspective in a Time of Globalization}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {20}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42281}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-422818}, pages = {17}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The present study aims at identifying the main trends in Italian international legal scholarship from 1990 onward. After a brief appraisal of the current situation within the Italian community of international law scholars, it will first focus on the methods and fields of interest of the most recent scholarship. Then, an attempt at contextualization will be made, by offering a brief overview of some current trends in international legal scholarship outside Italy and comparing these trends with the recent developments in Italian scholarship. In conclusion, it will be argued that, despite the greater fluidity of national identities, the persistence of common features still appears to characterize the Italian scholarship of international law. A long, deeply rooted and culturally rich tradition of studies in international law, the use of the Italian language, the dimension of the community as well as the presence of lively scientific institutions, are factors that, taken together, appear to favor a phenomenon of reproduction and perpetuation of certain common patterns of thought, thereby preserving the existence of a national perspective.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Nolte2017, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Nolte, Georg}, title = {The International Law Commission and Community Interests}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {7}, issn = {2509-3770}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-42187}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421875}, pages = {22}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The paper looks at community interests in international law from the perspective of the International Law Commission. As the topics of the Commission are diverse, the outcome of its work is often seen as providing a sense of direction regarding general aspects of international law. After defining what he understands by "community interests", the author looks at both secondary and primary rules of international law, as they have been articulated by the Commission, as well as their relevance for the recognition and implementation of community interests. The picture which emerges only partly fits the widespread narrative of "from self-interest to community interest". Whereas the Commission has recognized, or developed, certain primary rules which more fully articulate community interests, it has been reluctant to reformulate secondary rules of international law, with the exception of jus cogens. The Commission has more recently rather insisted that the traditional State-consent-oriented secondary rules concerning the formation of customary international law and regarding the interpretation of treaties continue to be valid in the face of other actors and forms of action which push towards the recognition of more and thicker community interests.}, language = {en} } @techreport{McLachlan2020, type = {Working Paper}, author = {McLachlan, Campbell A}, title = {Populism, the Pandemic \& Prospects for International Law}, series = {KFG Working Paper Series}, journal = {KFG Working Paper Series}, number = {45}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-48347}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-483479}, pages = {31}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Populism has fatally weakened the world's ability to respond to COVID-19, by undermining the capacity of the structures and mechanisms of international law to address the pandemic. The pandemic has exposed as a fallacy a key tenet of populism - to protect the 'people' of a nation from external forces, including international law. In fact international law, through the principle of self-determination, enshrines the ability of peoples to determine their own political organization. But this does not preclude agreement at the international level on matters of common interest to humanity as a whole that require community action. The prevention of infectious disease is just such a case, which states have long agreed could not remain solely the preserve of national polities, but requires a common international response. This paper, placing the current crisis in light of the development of international health law, critically examines the response of key populist governments to COVID-19 in order to address the larger issue of the implications of populism for the fate of international law.}, 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} }