Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Arbeitspapier (256) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- experiment (11)
- communication (5)
- COVID-19 (4)
- Entrepreneurship (4)
- Forschungsdatenmanagement (4)
- Innovation (4)
- gender (4)
- human capital (4)
- E-DSGE (3)
- Forschungsdaten (3)
Institut
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (115)
- Center for Economic Policy Analysis (CEPA) (75)
- Fachgruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre (61)
- Berlin Potsdam Research Group "The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline?" (45)
- Extern (43)
- Öffentliches Recht (8)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (5)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (4)
- Universitätsbibliothek (4)
- ZIM - Zentrum für Informationstechnologie und Medienmanagement (2)
Inhalt 1 Einführung und Grundlagen 1.1 Problemstellung und Vorgehensweise 1.2 Ordnungsökonomische Systematisierung 1.3 „Neue“ Besonderheitenlehre für Netzindustrien 2 Ansatzpunkte zur Liberalisierung in Netzindustrien 2.1 Liberalisierung durch Privatisierung 2.1.1 Interdependenz von Privatisierung und Marktöffnung 2.1.2 Privatisierungsstufen 2.2 Liberalisierung durch Deregulierung und Re-Regulierung 2.2.1 Abgrenzung des relevanten Marktes: Netzinfrastruktur versus Netzdienstleistungen 2.2.2 Lokalisierung und Kontrolle von Marktmacht bei Netzinfrastruktur 2.3 Modelle zur Gewährleistung eines diskriminierungsfreien Netzzugangs 2.3.1 Verhandelter Netzzugang mit Missbrauchsaufsicht im Sinne der Essential-Facilities-Doktrin 2.3.2 Staatliche Regulierung des Netzzugangs 2.4 Theorie der vertikalen (Des-)Integration 2.4.1 Allokativ-statische, wohlfahrtsökonomische Analyse vertikaler Integration 2.4.2 Institutionenökonomische Analyse vertikaler Integration 2.4.3 Dynamische, wettbewerbsökonomische Analyse vertikaler Integration 2.4.4 Konsequenz: Vertikale Desintegration 3 Institutionelle Ausgestaltung der Wettbewerbsaufsicht 3.1 Systematisierung der Träger und Kompetenzabgrenzung 3.2 Kriterien für eine effiziente Wettbewerbsaufsicht 4 Schlussfolgerungen und intersektoraler Vergleich des Liberalisierungsprozessesin Netzindustrien
During its sessions in 2016 and 2017 the UN International Law Commission (ILC) debated the question whether the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction is subject to exceptions for international crimes and provisionally adopted a Draft Article 7 on immunity ratione materiae. The following analytical presentation classifies and documents the reactions of States to draft article 7, paragraph 1, as they have been expressed in the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly in 2017.
Auftrag und Möglichkeiten der Kommission für Friedenskonsolidierung im System der Vereinten Nationen
(2019)
Vor dem Hintergrund der international steigenden Zahl an Konfliktrückfällen insbesondere im Anschluss an bereits offiziell für beendet erklärte Bürgerkriege und die daraus folgende zunehmende Relevanz von Peacebuilding-Maßnahmen der internationalen Gemeinschaft, wird in diesem Beitrag die Arbeit der Kommission für Friedenskonsolidierung der Vereinten Nationen untersucht. Einerseits werden hierbei, nach einigen einführenden Erläuterungen zum Begriff der Friedenskonsolidierung an sich sowie der Zusammensetzung und Funktionsweise der Kommission, zunächst ihre einzelnen Aufträge systematisch unter Einordnung in den Kontext des Peacebuilding-Systems der Vereinten Nationen herausgearbeitet und eine auswertende Bilanz unter ihre bisherige Erfüllung gezogen. Daran anschließend erfolgt eine Darstellung der zukünftigen Möglichkeiten der Kommission im Bereich der Friedenskonsolidierung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Potenzials innerhalb des Systems der Vereinten Nationen sowie der einschlägigen völkerrechtlichen Aspekte.
The author discusses the question of authority when determining the content of an international legal rule. Taking Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute as a point of departure, he determines through meticolous analysis what ranks as judicial decisions as well as teachings within the meaning of the norm. The author then proceeds to a number of factors to determine authoritativeness: objectivity, knowledgeability, depth of analysis, and the presence or otherwise of reasoning and, in particular, the persuasiveness of an opinion. In the case of judicial pronouncements, the author points out that the paradox between Article 59 and Article 38(1)(d) of the ICJ Statute is only an apparent one. While judgments of the Court are binding only between the parties, it is merely the underlying reasoning that can be taken into account in the context of Article 38(1)(d) if considered persuasive. Without central authority, authoritativenes in international law must always be earned which is also the reason for the lack of an hierarchical order between as well as within judicial pronouncements and learned writings though the former are usually more likely to fulfil the criteria of authoritativeness. In both cases, however, previously acquired reputation of a court or even an individual judge as well as of a learned writer can create a presumption of authoritativeness. On a more general level, the author concludes with a call for a more careful differentiation between the determination of law and its application. Putting the issue discussed into perspective, the author argues that situations of law determination arise, contrary to common understanding, in fact far less often than situations of law application.
This study examines how the size of trade unions relative to the la- bor force impacts on the desirability of different organizational forms of self-financing unemployment insurance (UI) for workers, firms, and with reference to an efficiency criterion. For this purpose, we respectively nu- merically compare the outcome of a model with a uniform payroll tax to a model where workers pay taxes according to their systematic risk of unemployment. Our results highlight the importance of the bargaining structure for the assessment of a particular UI scheme. Most importantly, it depends on the size of the unions whether efficiency favors a uniform or a differentiated UI scheme.
Berlin – New York
(2018)
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.
In Mikro- und Industrieökonomik ist scheinbar gewiss, dassWettbewerb zu niedrigeren Preisen führt und dass Konsumenten von Wettbewerb profitieren, während die etablierten Unternehmen einen Nachteil erleiden. Dieser Beitrag verwendet ein raumwirtschaftliches Standardmodell, um zu zeigen, dass dies nicht immer so sein muss. Der Grund ist, dass durch den Marktzutritt gerade die Konsumenten, deren Preiselastizität am größten ist, von dem Unternehmen bei der Preisbildung nicht berücksichtigt werden.
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 völkisch-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 völkisch 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.