Dieser Jahresbericht umfasst den Berichtszeitraum 2023, in dem Forschung und Lehre wieder in Präsenz stattfinden konnten. Begegnung und Austausch in Hörsaal und Seminarraum, auf Konferenzpaneln und während Kaffeepausen sind wieder möglich, aber die Möglichkeiten von Homeoffice und Onlinekommunikation bleiben weiter bestehen, wie die Erfahrung zeigt. Das MenschenRechtsZentrum als interdisziplinär arbeitende, zentrale wissenschaftliche Einrichtung der Universität Potsdam hat es im Berichtszeitraum erneut unternommen, juristische, philosophische, geschichts- und kultur- sowie politikwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf das Thema Menschenrechte in Forschung und Lehre miteinander zu verbinden. Die Wissenschaftler*innen des MenschenRechtsZentrums lehren an den Fakultäten, denen sie angehören. Hier werden daher nur diejenigen Aktivitäten angeführt, die einen Bezug zur Arbeit des MenschenRechtsZentrums sowie zu menschenrechtlichen Fragestellungen haben; weitergehende Informationen finden sich auf den Homepages der jeweiligen Personen.

The Women, Peace and Security Agenda (WPSA) is an international framework addressing the disproportionate impact of armed conflict on women and girls and promoting their meaningful participation in peacebuilding efforts. The Security Council called on Member States to develop National Action Plans (NAPs) to operationalize the four pillars of the Agenda. This study looks at the relevant steps undertaken by both Germany and the European Union. The author calls for improvements on either level and makes four recommendations.

In the past decades, scholars and courts have paid considerable attention to the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties. By contrast, the extraterritorial application of constitutional rights has received comparable scholarly attention only in the United States. Specifically, there is a paucity of comparative research in this area, which contributes to the prevailing view that human rights law provides the proper framework under which domestic courts should examine extraterritoriality questions under constitutional law. This article argues that domestic constitutional regimes and their judicial enforcers can and should provide an important counterweight to the deadlocked extraterritoriality debate at the international level. Using two case studies from Germany and the United States, it shows that domestic constitutional courts are sometimes better suited than treaty bodies to guard the normative values of human dignity and universality in an extraterritoriality context. This is most apparent in the case of Germany, which has a long tradition of integration into international multi-level governance systems and "bottom-up" resistance based on fundamental rights within such systems. Recent cases from the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) about the extraterritorial application of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) to foreign intelligence gathering and climate change support this theory. However, an independent constitutional approach can also achieve some normative effects in domestic systems that are more isolated from the international human rights system. Thus, the US Supreme Court likewise used domestic constitutional doctrine to sidestep the American government's strictly territorial interpretation of the ICCPR and employ a functional approach to the extraterritorial applicability of fundamental rights in the case of detention of suspected terrorists in the Guantánamo Bay naval base. The study of these two examples does not purport to be comprehensive or even representative of the world’s diverse array of constitutions and their relationships with international human rights law. However, the independent power of constitutional frameworks in these two disparate cases should all the more provide an impetus for increased comparative research into constitutional extraterritoriality regimes and their value for the project of human rights.