Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (59)
- Part of a Book (23)
- Doctoral Thesis (10)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (8)
- Working Paper (4)
- Other (2)
- Review (2)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (109) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (109) (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 (109) (remove)
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.
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
Smend, Rudolf
(2021)
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).
The armed conflict in Afghanistan since 2001 has raised manifold questions pertaining to the humanitarian rules relative to the conduct of hostilities. In Afghanistan, as is often the case in so-called asymmetric conflicts, the geographical and temporal boundaries of the battlefield, and the distinction between civilians and fighters, are increasingly blurred. As a result, the risks for both civilians and soldiers operating in Afghanistan are high. The objective of this article is to assess whether - and if so how much - the armed conflict in Afghanistan has affected the application and interpretation of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution - principles that form the core of legal rules pertaining to the conduct of hostilities.
Jurisdiction
(2022)
Since 2013, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can examine individual communications under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This opens up the possibility to interpret Covenant provisions in a thorough manner. With regard to forced evictions and the right to housing under Article 11 ICESCR, one can discern a fast-developing approach concerning the proportionality analysis of evictions, entailing the establishment of specific criteria that may guide such analysis. This paper seeks to delineate these developments and will also shed light on possible general trends on the topic of limitations within the Committee’s emerging jurisprudence. In doing so, the paper will address if, and how, the developing proportionality analysis under the individual complaints procedure takes into consideration multi-discriminatory dimensions of State measures and how it specifically relates to or incorporates other ICESCR-concepts, such as minimum core obligations or the reasonableness review under Article 8(4) OP ICESCR.
Nils-Hendrik Grohmann beschäftigt sich mit dem noch andauernden Stärkungsprozess der UN-Menschenrechtsvertragsorgane. Er analysiert, welche rechtlichen Befugnisse die Ausschüsse haben, ob sie von sich aus Vorschläge einbringen können und inwieweit sie ihre Verfahrensweisen bisher aufeinander abgestimmt haben. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den verschiedenen Ausschüssen und der Frage, welche Rolle das Treffen der Vorsitzenden bei der Stärkung spielen kann.
Nils-Hendrik Grohmann beschäftigt sich mit dem noch andauernden Stärkungsprozess der UN-Menschenrechtsvertragsorgane. Er analysiert, welche rechtlichen Befugnisse die Ausschüsse haben, ob sie von sich aus Vorschläge einbringen können und inwieweit sie ihre Verfahrensweisen bisher aufeinander abgestimmt haben. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den verschiedenen Ausschüssen und der Frage, welche Rolle das Treffen der Vorsitzenden bei der Stärkung spielen kann.
Die Arbeit untersucht bewaffnete Konfliktszenarien, in denen an multinationalen Militäroperationen beteiligte Staaten während einer Gewahrsamsoperation gegnerische Kräfte oder andere Personen in Gewahrsam nehmen und diese dann an die Kräfte eines anderen Staates, oftmals der Hostnation mit zweifelhafter Menschenrechtsreputation, überstellen. Gewahrsamspersonen laufen dann Gefahr, Opfer erheblicher Rechtsverletzungen zu werden
Cyber warfare is a timely and relevant issue and one of the most controversial in international humanitarian law (IHL). The aim of IHL is to set rules and limits in terms of means and methods of warfare. In this context, a key question arises: Has digital warfare rules or limits, and if so, how are these applicable? Traditional principles, developed over a long period, are facing a new dimension of challenges due to the rise of cyber warfare. This paper argues that to overcome this new issue, it is critical that new humanity-oriented approaches is developed with regard to cyber warfare. The challenge is to establish a legal regime for cyber-attacks, successfully addressing human rights norms and standards. While clarifying this from a legal perspective, the authors can redesign the sensitive equilibrium between humanity and military necessity, weighing the humanitarian aims of IHL and the protection of civilians-in combination with international human rights law and other relevant legal regimes-in a different manner than before.
The Forgotten War: Yemen
(2019)
The conflict in Yemen seems forgotten considering the worldwide severe humanitarian catastrophes. Nevertheless, since the conflict escalated around four years ago, it became one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history and has no end in sight. Thousands of people were killed even more displaced and the country is facing tremendous food insecurity as well as the world’s largest cholera outbreak. It is no longer just a civil war between the Houthi- and Hadi-Faction. International interests play a major role and made it a proxy war between Saudi Arabia (and its allies) on one side and Iran on the other. This all happens at the expense of the civilian population. Therefore, it is urgent to analyse the actors involved, their interests within the conflict and furthermore searching for possibilities to overcome it.
Germany
(2006)