Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (60)
- Part of a Book (23)
- Doctoral Thesis (10)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (8)
- Other (4)
- Working Paper (4)
- Review (2)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (112) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (112) (remove)
Keywords
- European Union (2)
- 1991 Polish-German Treaty (1)
- Airport operation (1)
- Airport planning (1)
- Amendment of the Chicago Convention (1)
- Artificial Intelligence Act (1)
- Biofuels (1)
- CESCR Committee (1)
- Committee of Ministers (1)
- Computer Science (1)
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (112) (remove)
The public health insurance in Germany will face huge economic challenges in the upcoming years. New diagnostic and therapeutic methods as well as the demographic change contribute to constantly rising expenditure. Although incentives for health-promoting behaviour or financial sanctions for an unhealthy lifestyle have been already discussed in the past, there has been a general reluctance to legally establish corresponding mechanisms for fear of eroding solidarity and increasing state control. In the course of the Coronavirus pandemic however, a stronger awareness rose to the fact that personal health-related life choices can have a huge impact on the stability of the healthcare system including public health insurance. Not only in Germany but throughout much of Europe, the pandemic led to a new and more fundamental debate about the relationship between individual responsibility for personal health and the wider responsibility for public health assumed by the community of solidarity.
On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented its long-awaited proposal for a Regulation “laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence”, the so-called “Artificial Intelligence Act” (AIA). This article takes a critical look at the proposed regulation. After an introduction (1), the paper analyzes the unclear preemptive effect of the AIA and EU competences (2), the scope of application (3), the prohibited uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (4), the provisions on high-risk AI systems (5), the obligations of providers and users (6), the requirements for AI systems with limited risks (7), the enforcement system (8), the relationship of the AIA with the existing legal framework (9), and the regulatory gaps (10). The last section draws some final conclusions (11).
Smend, Rudolf
(2021)
The steadily rising number of investor-State arbitration proceedings within the EU has triggered an extensive backlash and an increased questioning of the international investment law regime by different Member States as well as the EU Commission. This has resulted in the EU's assertion of control over the intra-EU investment regime by promoting the termination of bilateral intra-EU investment treaties (intra-EU BITs) and by opposing the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in intra-EU investor-State arbitration proceedings. Against the backdrop of the landmark Achmea decision of the European Court of Justice, the book offers an in depth analysis of the interplay of international investment law and the law of the European Union with regard to intra-EU investments, i.e. investments undertaken by an investor from one EU Member State within the territory of another EU Member State. It specifically analyses the conflict between the two investment protection regimes applicable within the EU with a particular emphasis on the compatibility of the international legal instruments with the law of the European Union. The book thereby addresses the more general question of the relationship between EU law and international law and offers a conceptual framework of intra-European investment protection based on the analysis of all intra-EU BITs, the Energy Charter Treaty and EU law, as well as the arbitral practice in over 180 intra-EU investor-State arbitration proceedings. Finally, the book develops possible solutions to reconcile the international legal standards of protection with the regionalized transnational law of the European Union
While public–private partnerships (PPPs) have surged worldwide since the 1990s, they have been met with growing skepticism during the last years. A recent revision of Germany’s constitutional rules on motorway construction and observations on the use of PPPs published by both the German and the European Courts of Auditors illustrate this new caution. These two examples fit into a general trend towards a revival of the public sector, which can be summarized under the cross-level umbrella term “publicization.” It would, however, be remiss to replace the uncritical euphoria that once surrounded privatization with a similarly undifferentiated euphoria regarding publicization. Rather, it is crucial to identify the most appropriate solution for the fulfilment of each public task from the “toolbox” of publicization on the one hand and privatization on the other hand in order to ensure the most effective completion of public functions.
In ihren Beiträgen verbinden die Autoren grundsätzliche philosophische Überlegungen zur grundlegenden Bedeutung von Menschenwürde für die Menschenrechte mit konkreteren Forderungen, wie mit der Befriedigung lebensnotwendiger Bedürfnisse umzugehen und was zur Beendigung von Armut notwendig ist. Ihre rechtlichen und politischen Argumente stützen sich auf jüngere Rechtsprechung regionaler Gerichtshöfe und internationaler Menschenrechtsorgane. Sie berufen sich auf die Verpflichtungsdimensionen der Menschenrechte und fragen nach der Verantwortlichkeit für deren Umsetzung. Die Autorinnen kommen aus Universitäten in Deutschland, der Schweiz, den Niederlanden und dem Vereinigten Königreich.
Humanizing the Laws of War
(2017)
Over the past 150 years, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been one of the main drivers of progressive development in international humanitarian law, whilst assuming various roles in the humanization of the laws of war. With select contributions from international experts, this book critically assesses the ICRC's unique influence in international norm creation. It provides a detailed analysis of the workings of the International Red Cross, Red Crescent Movement and ICRC by addressing the milestone achievements as well as the failures, shortcomings and controversies over time. Crucially, the contributions highlight the lessons to be learnt for future challenges in the development of international humanitarian law. This book will be of particular interest to scholars and students of international law, but also to practitioners working in the field of international humanitarian law at both governmental and non-governmental organizations