340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (81)
- Part of a Book (32)
- Working Paper (29)
- Postprint (16)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (10)
- Doctoral Thesis (9)
- Other (9)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Journal/Publication series (1)
Language
- English (188) (remove)
Keywords
- Paris Agreement (4)
- governance (4)
- COVID-19 (3)
- accountability (3)
- administrative culture (3)
- alcohol (3)
- crisis (3)
- digitalisation (3)
- federalism (3)
- innovation (3)
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (55)
- Berlin Potsdam Research Group "The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline?" (28)
- Bürgerliches Recht (26)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (24)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (15)
- Sozialwissenschaften (11)
- Strafrecht (8)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (7)
- Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät (7)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (4)
Article 15ter Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)
(2022)
Article 15bis. Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)
(2022)
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’.
This book provides empirical evidence that all States have a universally binding obligation to adopt national laws and international treaties to protect the marine environment, including the designation of Marine Protected Areas. Chapter by chapter this obligation is detailed, providing the foundation for holding States responsible for fulfilling this obligation. The fundamentals are analysed in a preliminary chapter, which examines the legally binding sources of the Law of the Sea as well as its historical development to help readers understand the key principles at hand.
The Law of the Sea provides more than 1000 instruments and more than 300 regulations concerning marine protection. While the scope of most treaties is limited either regarding species, regions or activities, one regulation addresses States in all waters: the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment as stipulated under Art. 192 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As this ‘Constitution of the Ocean’ not only contains conventional laws but also very broadly reflects pre-existing rules of customary international law, an extensive analysis of all statements made by States in the UN General Assembly, their practices, national laws and regulations as well as other public testimonials demonstrates that Art. 192 UNCLOS indeed binds the whole community of States as a rule of customary international law with an erga omnes effect. Due to the lack of any objections and its fundamental value for humankind, this regulation can also be considered a new peremptory norm of international law (ius cogens).
While the sovereign equality of States recognises States’ freedom to decide if and how to enter into a given obligation, States can also waive this freedom. If States accepted a legally binding obligation, they are thus bound to it. Concerning the specific content of Art. 192 UNCLOS, a methodical interpretation concludes that only the adoption of legislative measures (national laws and international agreements) suffices to comply with the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, which is confirmed by the States’ practices and relevant jurisprudence. When applied to a specific geographical area, legislative measures to protect the marine environment concur with the definition of Marine Protected Areas. Nonetheless, as the obligation applies to all waters, the Grotian principle of the freedom of the sea dictates that the restriction of activities through the designation of Marine Protected Areas, on the one hand, must be weighed against the freedoms of other States on the other. To anticipate the result: while all other rights under the UNCLOS are subject to and contingent on other regulations of the UNCLOS and international law, only the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment is granted absolutely – and thus outweighs all other interests
Would the world be a better place if one were to adopt a European approach to state immunity?
(2021)
This chapter argues not only that there is no European Sonderweg (or ‘special way’) when it comes to the law of state immunity but that there ought not to be one. Debates within The Hague Conference on Private International Law in the late 1990s and those leading to the adoption of the 2002 UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States, as well as the development of the EU Brussels Regulation on Jurisdiction and Enforcement, as amended in 2015, all demonstrate that state immunity was not meant to be limited by such treaties but ‘safeguarded’. Likewise, there is no proof that regional European customary law limits state immunity when it comes to ius cogens violations, as Italy and (partly) Greece are the only European states denying state immunity in such cases while the European Court of Human Rights has, time and again, upheld a broad concept of state immunity. It therefore seems unlikely that in the foreseeable future a specific European customary law norm on state immunity will develop, especially given the lack of participation in such practice by those states most concerned by the matter, including Germany. This chapter considers the possible legal implications of the jurisprudence of the Italian Constitutional Court for European military operations (if such operations went beyond peacekeeping). These implications would mainly depend on the question of attribution: if one where to assume that acts undertaken within the framework of military operations led by the EU were to be, at least also, attributable to the troop-contributing member states, the respective troop-contributing state would be entitled to enjoy state immunity exactly to the same degree as in any kind of unilateral military operations. Additionally, some possible perspectives beyond Sentenza 238/2014 are examined, in particular concerning the redress awarded by domestic courts ‘as long as’ neither the German nor the international system grant equivalent protection to the victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during World War II. In the author’s opinion, strengthening the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals, bringing interstate cases for damages before the International Court of Justice, as well as providing for claims commissions where individual compensation might be sought for violations of international humanitarian law would be more useful and appropriate mechanisms than denying state immunity.
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'.