@incollection{ZimmermannFreiburg2016, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Freiburg, Elisa}, title = {Article 15bis: Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referal, proprio motu)}, series = {The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ; a commentary}, booktitle = {The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ; a commentary}, editor = {Triffterer, Otto and Ambos, Kai}, edition = {3. Aufl}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-64854-0}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {741 -- 764}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannFreiburg2016, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Freiburg, Elisa}, title = {Article 8bis: Crime of aggression}, series = {The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ; a commentary}, booktitle = {The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ; a commentary}, editor = {Triffterer, Otto and Ambos, Kai}, edition = {3. Aufl.}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-64854-0}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {580 -- 618}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @incollection{Zimmermann2016, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {Article 5: Crimes within the Jurisdiction of the Court}, series = {The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ; a commentary}, booktitle = {The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ; a commentary}, edition = {3. Aufl.}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-64854-0}, publisher = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam}, pages = {111 -- 126}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannGeiss2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Geiß, Robin}, title = {Article 8 Paras. 2(c)-(f) and 3: War crimes committed in an armed conflict not of an international character}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {4}, publisher = {C.H. Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-74384-9}, pages = {837 -- 1048}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @article{ZimmermannBoos2018, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Boos, Felix}, title = {Bringing States to Justice for Crimes against Humanity}, series = {Journal of international criminal justice}, volume = {16}, journal = {Journal of international criminal justice}, number = {4}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1478-1387}, doi = {10.1093/jicj/mqy053}, pages = {835 -- 855}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Draft Article 15 of the International Law Commission's project on crimes against humanity — dealing with the settlement of disputes arising from a proposed convention — attempts to strike a balance between state autonomy and robust judicial supervision. It largely follows Article 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which renders the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conditional upon prior negotiations. Hence, the substance of the clause can be interpreted in light of the recent case law of the ICJ, especially in the case Georgia v. Russia. In addition, this contribution discusses several issues regarding the scope ratione temporis of the compromissory clause. It advances several proposals to improve the current draft, addressing its relationship with state responsibility — an explicit reference to which is currently missing — as well as the relationship between the ICJ and a possible treaty body. It also proposes to recalibrate the interplay of the requirement of prior negotiations with, respectively, the possibility of seizing a future treaty body and the indication of provisional measures by the ICJ.}, language = {en} } @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{ZimmermannSchabedoth2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Schabedoth, John Alexander}, title = {Domestic and international criminal justice}, series = {KFG working paper series}, journal = {KFG working paper series}, number = {57}, publisher = {Berlin Potsdam Research Group International Law - Rise or Decline?}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {2509-3762}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4087189}, pages = {22}, year = {2022}, abstract = {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.}, language = {en} } @article{ZimmermannWeiss2020, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Weiß, Norman}, title = {V{\"o}lker- und verfassungsrechtliche Parameter eines deutschen Lieferkettengesetzes}, series = {Archiv des V{\"o}lkerrechts}, volume = {58}, journal = {Archiv des V{\"o}lkerrechts}, number = {4}, publisher = {Mohr Siebeck}, address = {T{\"u}bingen}, issn = {0003-892X}, doi = {10.1628/avr-2020-0028}, pages = {424 -- 463}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Currently a political debate is ongoing in Germany as to whether Germany should, following the example of several other European countries such as France and the Netherlands, adopt a Supply Chain Act (Lieferkettengesetz). If adopted, the act in question would impose due diligence obligations on German corporations to prevent human rights violations taking place in their respective global supply chains. It is against this background that the article examines the preconditions that must be met in order for such act to be eventually compatible with both, German constitutional and international law. The authors further deal with the question whether Germany might even be obliged under international, as well as under German constitutional law, to enact such a supply chain law in order to protect the human rights of workers employed by companies forming part of the global supply chains of German companies. As far as German constitutional law is concerned the article notably deals with the question whether it is the Federal parliament that may adopt such a law also taking into account the competencies of the European Union in the field, and what are the requirements of legal specificity and proportionality in order for the draft law to stand constitutional scrutiny. The authors further offer detailed suggestions how corporate due diligence standards might be best provided for in the envisaged law and propose a risk analysis approach that varies not only according to specific countries and sector-specific characteristics, but that by the same token also takes into account the ability of the respective German company to exercise an appropriate due diligence standard when it comes to human rigths issues arising within the framewok of their supply chain. As far as the substantive human rights standards are concerned that should serve as benchmarks for the envisaged Supply Chain Act the authors propose to rely on, and refer to, those instruments such as the ICCPR and the CESCR, as well as the ILO treaties containing core labour standards, that enjoy almost universal acceptance and reflect customary international law.}, language = {de} } @article{Zimmermann2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {Internationaler Strafgerichtshof am Scheideweg}, series = {JuristenZeitung}, volume = {77}, journal = {JuristenZeitung}, number = {6}, publisher = {Mohr Siebeck}, address = {T{\"u}bingen}, issn = {0022-6882}, doi = {10.1628/jz-2022-0083}, pages = {261 -- 266}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Das V{\"o}lkerstrafrecht steht fast zwanzig Jahre nach dem Inkrafttreten des R{\"o}mischen Statuts - der v{\"o}lkervertraglichen Grundlage des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs - angesichts einer inzwischen deutlich ver{\"a}nderten Weltlage an einem Scheideweg. Daher erscheint es geboten, wenn nicht gar zwingend, die Herausforderungen, mit denen sich der Internationale Strafgerichtshof heute konfrontiert sieht, zu analysieren.}, language = {de} } @article{ZimmermannBerdefy2023, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Berdefy, Alina-Camille}, title = {Strafverfolgung und Beendigung von Straflosigkeit angesichts des russischen Angriffskriegs gegen die Ukraine}, series = {Ukraine-Krieg und Recht}, volume = {2}, journal = {Ukraine-Krieg und Recht}, number = {4}, publisher = {C.H. Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, pages = {164 -- 167}, year = {2023}, language = {de} } @incollection{Zimmermann2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {The International Criminal Court's decision on jurisdiction concerning Palestine and the future of the ICC}, series = {Strafrecht und Systemunrecht : Festschrift f{\"u}r Gerhard Werle zum 70. Geburtstag}, booktitle = {Strafrecht und Systemunrecht : Festschrift f{\"u}r Gerhard Werle zum 70. Geburtstag}, editor = {Jeßberger, Florian and Burghardt, Boris and Vormbaum, Moritz}, publisher = {Mohr Siebeck}, address = {T{\"u}bingen}, isbn = {978-3-16-161046-2}, doi = {10.1628/978-3-16-161046-2}, pages = {451 -- 460}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannFreiburgBraun2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Freiburg-Braun, Elisa}, title = {Article 15ter Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {Fourth}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-77926-8}, doi = {10.17104/9783406779268-927}, pages = {927 -- 932}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @incollection{Zimmermann2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {Article 15bis. Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {Fourth}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-77926-8}, doi = {10.17104/9783406779268-899}, pages = {899 -- 926}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannFreiburgBraun2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Freiburg-Braun, Elisa}, title = {Article 8bis Crime of aggression}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {Fourth}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-77926-8}, doi = {10.17104/9783406779268-686}, pages = {686 -- 726}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannGeiss2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Geiß, Robin}, title = {Article 8 Para. 2(b)(x): Prohibition of physical mutilation}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {4}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-74384-9}, pages = {419 -- 436}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @incollection{ZimmermannGeiss2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas and Geiß, Robin}, title = {Article 8 Para. 2(b)(xiii): Prohibited destruction}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {4}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-74384-9}, pages = {474 -- 503}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @incollection{Zimmermann2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {Article 5 Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {Fourth}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-74384-9}, pages = {107 -- 116}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @incollection{Zimmermann2022, author = {Zimmermann, Andreas}, title = {Article 124 Transitional provision}, series = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, booktitle = {Rome statute of the International Criminal Court}, editor = {Ambos, Kai}, edition = {Fourth}, publisher = {Beck}, address = {M{\"u}nchen}, isbn = {978-3-406-77926-8}, pages = {2905 -- 2914}, year = {2022}, 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} }