340 Recht
Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (70) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (29)
- Article (20)
- Postprint (15)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Language
- English (70) (remove)
Keywords
- United Nations (2)
- accountability (2)
- alcohol (2)
- digitalisation (2)
- innovation (2)
- international law (2)
- local government (2)
- public administration (2)
- rampage (2)
- risk factor (2)
Institute
- Berlin Potsdam Research Group "The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline?" (27)
- Bürgerliches Recht (13)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (11)
- Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät (6)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (4)
- Sozialwissenschaften (3)
- Extern (2)
- Department Psychologie (1)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (1)
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering GmbH (1)
Advancing digitalization is changing society and has far-reaching effects on people and companies. Fundamental to these changes are the new technological possibilities for processing data on an ever-increasing scale and for various purposes. The availability of large and high-quality data sets, especially those based on personal data, is crucial. They are used either to improve the productivity, quality, and individuality of products and services or to develop new types of services. Today, user behavior is tracked more actively and comprehensively than ever despite increasing legal requirements for protecting personal data worldwide. That increasingly raises ethical, moral, and social questions, which have moved to the forefront of the political debate, not least due to popular cases of data misuse. Given this discourse and the legal requirements, today's data management must fulfill three conditions: Legality or legal conformity of use and ethical legitimacy. Thirdly, the use of data should add value from a business perspective. Within the framework of these conditions, this cumulative dissertation pursues four research objectives with a focus on gaining a better understanding of
(1) the challenges of implementing privacy laws,
(2) the factors that influence customers' willingness to share personal data,
(3) the role of data protection for digital entrepreneurship, and
(4) the interdisciplinary scientific significance, its development, and its interrelationships.
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.
At the beginning of 2020, with COVID-19, courts of justice worldwide had to move online to continue providing judicial service. Digital technologies materialized the court practices in ways unthinkable shortly before the pandemic creating resonances with judicial and legal regulation, as well as frictions. A better understanding of the dynamics at play in the digitalization of courts is paramount for designing justice systems that serve their users better, ensure fair and timely dispute resolutions, and foster access to justice. Building on three major bodies of literature —e-justice, digitalization and organization studies, and design research— Designing for Digital Justice takes a nuanced approach to account for human and more-than-human agencies.
Using a qualitative approach, I have studied in depth the digitalization of Chilean courts during the pandemic, specifically between April 2020 and September 2022. Leveraging a comprehensive source of primary and secondary data, I traced back the genealogy of the novel materializations of courts’ practices structured by the possibilities offered by digital technologies. In five (5) cases studies, I show in detail how the courts got to 1) work remotely, 2) host hearings via videoconference, 3) engage with users via social media (i.e., Facebook and Chat Messenger), 4) broadcast a show with judges answering questions from users via Facebook Live, and 5) record, stream, and upload judicial hearings to YouTube to fulfil the publicity requirement of criminal hearings. The digitalization of courts during the pandemic is characterized by a suspended normativity, which makes innovation possible yet presents risks. While digital technologies enabled the judiciary to provide services continuously, they also created the risk of displacing traditional judicial and legal regulation.
Contributing to liminal innovation and digitalization research, Designing for Digital Justice theorizes four phases: 1) the pre-digitalization phase resulting in the development of regulation, 2) the hotspot of digitalization resulting in the extension of regulation, 3) the digital innovation redeveloping regulation (moving to a new, preliminary phase), and 4) the permanence of temporal practices displacing regulation. Contributing to design research Designing for Digital Justice provides new possibilities for innovation in the courts, focusing at different levels to better address tensions generated by digitalization. Fellow researchers will find in these pages a sound theoretical advancement at the intersection of digitalization and justice with novel methodological references. Practitioners will benefit from the actionable governance framework Designing for Digital Justice Model, which provides three fields of possibilities for action to design better justice systems. Only by taking into account digital, legal, and social factors can we design better systems that promote access to justice, the rule of law, and, ultimately social peace.
This article examines public service resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic and studies the switch to telework due to social distancing measures. We argue that the pandemic and related policies led to increasing demands on public organisations and their employees. Following the job demands-resources model, we argue that resilience only can arise in the presence of resources for buffering these demands. Survey data were collected from 1,189 German public employees, 380 participants were included for analysis. The results suggest that the public service was resilient against the crisis and that the shift to telework was not as demanding as expected.
Current contestations of the liberal international order stand in notable contrast with the earlier rise of international law during the post-cold war period. As Krieger and Liese argue, this situation calls for assessment of the type of change that is currently observed, i.e. norm change (Wandel) or a more fundamental transformation of international law – a metamorphosis (Verwandlung)? To address this question, this paper details the bi-focal approach to norms in order to reflect and take account of the complex interrelation between fact-based and value-based conceptions of norms. The paper is organised in three sections. The first section presents three axioms underlying the conceptual framework to study norm(ative) change which are visualised by a triangular operation to analyse this change in relation with practices and norms. The second section recalls three key interests that have guided IR norms research after the return to norms in the late 1980s. They include, first, allocating change in and through practice, second, identifying behavioural change with reference to norm- following, and third, identifying norm(ative) change with reference to discursive practice. The third section presents the two analytical tools of the conceptual frame, namely, the norm-typology and the cycle-grid model. It also indicates how to apply these tools with reference to illustrative case scenarios. The conclusion recalls the key elements of the conceptual framework for research on norm(ative) change in international relations in light of the challenge of establishing sustainable normativity in the global order.
Populism has fatally weakened the world’s ability to respond to COVID-19, by undermining the capacity of the structures and mechanisms of international law to address the pandemic. The pandemic has exposed as a fallacy a key tenet of populism – to protect the ‘people’ of a nation from external forces, including international law. In fact international law, through the principle of self-determination, enshrines the ability of peoples to determine their own political organization. But this does not preclude agreement at the international level on matters of common interest to humanity as a whole that require community action. The prevention of infectious disease is just such a case, which states have long agreed could not remain solely the preserve of national polities, but requires a common international response. This paper, placing the current crisis in light of the development of international health law, critically examines the response of key populist governments to COVID-19 in order to address the larger issue of the implications of populism for the fate of international law.
A growing demand for natural resources embedded in current changes of the international order will put pressure on states to secure the future availability of these resources. Some political discourses suggest that states might respond by challenging the foundations of international law. Whereas the UN Charter was inter alia aimed at eliminating uses of force for economic reasons, one may observe an on-going trend of securitization of matters of resource supply resulting into the revival of self-preservation doctrines. The chapter will show that those claims lack a normative foundation in the current framework of the prohibition of the use of force. Moreover, international law has sufficient instruments to cope with disputes over access to resources by other means than the use of force. The international community, therefore, must oppose claims that may contribute to normative uncertainties and strengthen already existing instruments of pacific settlement of disputes.
Underpinning a legal system with certain values and helping to resolve norm conflicts is in domestic legal systems usually achieved through hierarchical superiority of certain norms of a constitutional nature. The present paper examines the question whether jus cogens can discharge this function within the traditionally horizontal and decentralized international legal order. In so doing, it commences with an overview of the historical origins of peremptory norms in legal scholarship, followed by its endorsement by positive law and courts and tribunals. This analysis illustrates that there are lingering uncertainties pertaining to the process of identification of peremptory norms. Even so, the concept has been invoked in State executive practice (although infrequently) and has been endorsed by various courts. However, such invocation thus far has had a limited impact from a legal perspective. It was mainly confined to a strengthened moral appeal and did in particular not facilitate the resolution of norm conflicts. The contribution further suggests that this limited impact results from the fact that the content of peremptory obligations is either very narrow or very vague. This, in turn, implies a lack of consensus amongst States regarding the content (scope) of jus cogens, including the values underlying these norms. As a result, it is questionable whether the construct of jus cogens is able to provide meaningful legal protection against the erosion of legal norms. It is too rudimentary in character to entrench and stabilize core human rights values as the moral foundation of the international legal order.