340 Recht
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (15) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (15)
Keywords
- Aggression (1)
- Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit (1)
- Statute (1)
- Ukraine (1)
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (13)
- Bürgerliches Recht (1)
- Juristische Fakultät (1)
The article analyses whether the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has served as a catalyst for the development of international law, as well as whether international law has been instrumental in attempting to find solutions for the said conflict.
In several ways, this conflict has made a significant contribution to understanding and interpreting the UN Charter. It also brought along important developments about the role of third parties, both under the Geneva Conventions and under the law of state responsibility, which provides for an obligation of not recognizing as legal, or not rendering aid or assistance to situations caused by serious violations of jus cogens.
International judicial institutions (and also domestic ones) play a rather limited role in this respect, due both to a lack of courage to address fundamental questions, and/or a disregard of the outcome of the proceedings by at least one of the parties to the conflict. Other reasons are Israel's reluctance of accepting the jurisdiction of either the ICJ or the ICC, and its view on the non-applicability of human rights treaties outside of its territory, as well as Palestine's uncertain status in the international community limiting its access to international courts. However, the ICJ's 2004 (formally non-binding) advisory opinion on the Israeli Wall provided answers to some of the most fundamental questions related to the conflict, unfortunately without having any immediate impact on the situation on the ground. Given Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute in early 2015, time has yet to show which role in the process will be played by the ICC.
Other issues arising from the conflict, and examined by this article, are that of (Palestinian) statehood, going beyond the traditional concept of statehood and including the consequences of the jus cogens-character of the right of self-determination, as well as questions of treaty succession and succession in matters of State responsibility with regard to acts committed by the PLO.
Das Völkerstrafrecht steht fast zwanzig Jahre nach dem Inkrafttreten des Römischen Statuts – der völkervertraglichen Grundlage des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs – angesichts einer inzwischen deutlich veränderten 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.
Die staatsangehörigkeitsrechtliche Optionspflicht des § 29 StAG für in Deutschland geborene Kinder ausländischer Eltern, die jus soli die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit erworben haben, bildete eine der Kernfragen des letzten Bundestagswahlkampfes. Im zwischen CDU/CSU und SPD abgeschlossenen Koalitionsvertrag ist vorgesehen, dass für in Deutschland geborene und aufgewachsene deutsche Kinder ausländischer Eltern in Zukunft der Optionszwang entfallen soll und die Mehrstaatigkeit akzeptiert wird, während es im Übrigen beim geltenden Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht bleiben soll. Der Beitrag untersucht vor diesem Hintergrund und im Lichte der nunmehr insoweit vorliegenden Entwürfe die sich aus diesen politischen Vorgaben ergebenden staatsangehörigkeitsrechtlichen Regelungsoptionen und -probleme.
Angesichts der dramatischen Lage in der Ukraine untersucht der folgende Beitrag, auf welchem Wege, vor welchen völkerrechtlichen Gerichten, in welchem Umfang und mit welcher Aussicht auf Erfolg die Ukraine oder einzelne ukrainische Staatsangehörige Sicherheitsschutz vor der russischen Invasion und/oder den im Zusammenhang damit bereits begangenen oder noch bevorstehenden Völkerrechtsverstößen Rechtsschutz erlangen können. Im Einzelnen handelt es sich hierbei um zwei anhängige Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof, mehrere Staaten- sowie eine große Vielzahl von Individualbeschwerden vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte; ein Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Seegerichtshof; zahlreiche Investitionsverfahren vor internationalen Schiedsgerichten sowie schließlich zwei "Situationen" vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Abschließend wird die Option der Schaffung eines ad-hoc-Tribunals für das Verbrechen der Aggression behandelt.
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.
Legal shades of grey?
(2021)
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'.
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’.