Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
Year of publication
- 2018 (19) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (19) (remove)
Keywords
- Völkerrecht (2)
- Europäische Union (1)
- Flüchtling (1)
- Flüchtlingsrecht (1)
- Geschlechterrolle (1)
- Internationales Recht (1)
- Kriegsverbrechen (1)
- Menschenrecht (1)
- Refugees (1)
- Sorgfaltspflicht (1)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The phenomenon of male-to-male sexual assault undoubtedly occurs, both in domestic and conflict contexts. There is a small but growing discourse supporting the analysis of this phenomenon, however it remains significantly limited and its growth disproportionate to the concerns it warrants. The international law, NGO and State actors are largely responsible for this inhibition, predominately attributable to their intent in preserving the feminist and patriarchal values on which their institutions are founded. The strength with which the feminist discourse has embedded itself into the agendas of relevant actors is obstructing attempts at unbiased analysis of gender-based violence and the development of a discourse dedicated to understanding male sexual assault. It appears to be a prevailing sector-wide perception that females are the only victims of sexual violence and that creating space for a discussion on male-sexual assault will detract worth from the feminist discourse on female sexual assault. This paper discusses the means in which the sectors ignorance towards male sexual assault manifests and the harmful implications of ignoring this phenomenon. The author uses contextual analyses from development, international law, and cultural examples.
Since 2015, the European Union has struggled to deal with the influx of refugees coming into its territories. The number of institutions involved in designing a competent response approach, com-bined with the unilateral and uncoordinated state reactions, have left unclear where to look for when searching for answers and new alternatives. Can the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) take a leading role in solving this and future crises? After a brief recapitulation of the crisis, an analysis of UNHCR’s statue, relationship to international law, and doctrine will put this question to the test while exploring options that are not only available but also feasible in a system where politics trump both legality and morality. If UNHCR is to play an active role in fu-ture refugee policies and become the lead agency it once was, a new daring and innovative approach has to emerge in order to readapt to the power relations that prevail in the twenty-first century.
Dieses Promotionsvorhaben wird versuchen den Begriff der Due-Diligence im Rahmen des Menschenrechts- und Umweltschutzes weiterzuentwickeln. Dieser Terminus verweist auf einen vernünftigen Verhaltensstandard und wird öfters zum Schädigungsverbot in Verbindung gebracht. Ein bekanntes Synonym dafür ist die „Sorgfaltspflicht“. Nach dieser Norm müssen alle voraussehbaren Verletzungsrisiken (Personen-, Sach- und Umwelt) durch die Ergreifung von allen nötigen und angemessenen Maßnahmen vorgebeugt werden (s. z.B. Trail-Smelter und Korfu-Kanal Entscheidung). Dieser Begriff wird gegenwärtig weltweit verwendet um Globalisierungsprobleme zu adressieren, wie z.B. der mangelnde Klimaschutz oder die mangelnde Reglementierung von Transnationalen Unternehmen. Die Emergenz dieser offenen und allgemeinen Norm ist eindeutig und wird durch die Tatsache erleichtert, dass sie in viele Rechtssysteme vorhanden ist. Zum Beispiel, in dem bekannten Urgenda v. Holland Fall, fordert der Gerichtshof von Den Haag vom Staat eine angemessenere Aufsicht im Klimaschutz, da die ursprünglichen Reduktionsziele von Treibhausgasemissionen nicht die wissenschaftlichen Anforderungen entsprachen. Dieser Fall hat viele andere Klagen inspiriert. Der französische Gesetzgeber verpflichtet darüber hinaus seit kurzem mit dem Gesetz zur „devoir de vigilance“ herrschende Unternehmen zur Veröffentlichung eines ‚Sorgfaltsplans‘, so dass die Auswirkungen des gesamten Unternehmens auf die Menschenrechte und die Umwelt effektiv vorgebeugt werden. Dieses Gesetz hat auch die letzten UN-Vertragsverhandlungen bzgl. Multinationalen Unternehmen geprägt. In Anbetracht dessen, wird diese rechtsvergleichende Studie die Verrechtlichung der Norm und ihre Verbreitung in anderen Rechtssysteme untersuchen, so dass der Menschenrechts- und Umweltschutz effektiv gewährleistet werden kann, auch wenn die Politik und Unternehmen es verhindern wollen.