Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (36) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (36) (remove)
Keywords
- experiment (4)
- Entrepreneurship (3)
- Forschungsdaten (2)
- Forschungsdatenmanagement (2)
- Forschungseinrichtungen (2)
- Higher Education Institutions (2)
- Hochschulen (2)
- Innovation (2)
- Research Data Management (2)
- Research Institutions (2)
Institute
- Berlin Potsdam Research Group "The International Rule of Law - Rise or Decline?" (16)
- Center for Economic Policy Analysis (CEPA) (14)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (11)
- Extern (2)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (2)
- Universitätsbibliothek (2)
- ZIM - Zentrum für Informationstechnologie und Medienmanagement (2)
- Öffentliches Recht (2)
The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines in how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. This is, however, not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: In the political sphere their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted. In the legal sphere populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of nonintervention and foreign funding for NGOs.
International adjudication is currently under assault, encouraging a number of States to withdraw, or to consider withdrawing, from treaties providing for international dispute settlement. This Working Paper argues that the act of treaty withdrawal is not merely as the unilateral executive exercise of the individual sovereign prerogative of a State. International law places checks upon the exercise of withdrawal, recognising that it is an act that of its nature affects the interests of other States parties, which have a collective interest in constraining withdrawal. National courts have a complementary function in restraining unilateral withdrawal in order to support the domestic constitution. The arguments advanced against international adjudication in the name of popular democracy at the national level can serve as a cloak for the exercise of executive power unrestrained by law. The submission by States of their disputes to peaceful settlement through international adjudication is central, not incidental, to the successful operation of the international legal system.
The paper aims to lay out a framework for evaluating value shifts in the international legal order for the purposes of a forthcoming book. In view of current contestations it asks whether we are observing yet another period of norm change (Wandel) or even a more fundamental transformation of international law – a metamorphosis (Verwandlung). For this purpose it suggests to look into the mechanisms of how norms change from the perspective of legal and political science and also to approximate a reference point where change turns into metamorphosis. It submits that such a point may be reached where specific legally protected values are indeed changing (change of legal values) or where the very idea of protecting certain values through law is renounced (delegalizing of values). The paper discusses the benefits of such an interdisciplinary exchange and tries to identify differences and commonalities among both disciplinary perspectives.
Unfolding the history of one of the oldest human val-ues, the freedom of expression, while defining its limits, is a complicated task. Does freedom stop where hate starts? This very old dilemma is -now more than ever before- revealing new dimensions. Politicians and new laws aim at regulating free expression, while disagree-ments over such regulation gradually become a source of endless conflict in newly formed multicultural, inter-connected, and digitized societies. The example of the Network Enforcement Act is used to understand the idea of restrictive legal practices in Germany, but also to enlighten the fact that law is a human construction which was created in order to regulate communication among individuals. Alternative practices, to straight legal ones, are summarized to show other dimensions of regulating hate speech without involving top-down approaches. The article proposes the approach of re-storative justice as a combination of legal and medita-tive practices in cases of hate speech. One advantage of the restorative justice approach elaborated in this arti-cle is the potential to remedy the inner hate and the pain, both of the victim and perpetrator. Finally, reveal-ing parts of history and new aspects of the ‘hate speech-puzzle’, leads to a questioning of contemporary social structures that possibly generate hate itself.
International women’s rights
(2019)
This paper explores current contestations of women’s rights and the implications thereof for international legislation. While contestation over women’s rights is a far from new phenomenon, over the past two decades opposition to gender equality has become better organized at the transnational level, mobilizing a dispersed set of state and non-state actors, and is becoming more successful in halting the progress of women’s rights. I argue that the position of oppositional actors vis-à-vis women rights activism appears to be strengthened by two recent political developments: democratic backsliding and the closure of civic space. Some preliminary findings show how these interrelated developments lead to an erosion of women’s rights at the national level. Governments use low key tactics to dismantle institutional and implementation arrangements and sideline women’s organisations. Next, I explore the implications of these developments for gender equality norms at the national and international level. The active strategy of counter norming adopted by conservative and religious state and non-state actors, designed to circumvent and also undermine Western norms, is increasingly successful. In addition to this, the threatened position of domestic actors monitoring compliance of international treaties, makes the chances of backsliding on international commitments much higher.
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.