Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (44)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (25)
- Part of a Book (18)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
Language
- English (44) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (44) (remove)
Keywords
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (44) (remove)
The article analyses whether the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has served as a catalyst for the development of international law, as well as whether international law has been instrumental in attempting to find solutions for the said conflict.
In several ways, this conflict has made a significant contribution to understanding and interpreting the UN Charter. It also brought along important developments about the role of third parties, both under the Geneva Conventions and under the law of state responsibility, which provides for an obligation of not recognizing as legal, or not rendering aid or assistance to situations caused by serious violations of jus cogens.
International judicial institutions (and also domestic ones) play a rather limited role in this respect, due both to a lack of courage to address fundamental questions, and/or a disregard of the outcome of the proceedings by at least one of the parties to the conflict. Other reasons are Israel's reluctance of accepting the jurisdiction of either the ICJ or the ICC, and its view on the non-applicability of human rights treaties outside of its territory, as well as Palestine's uncertain status in the international community limiting its access to international courts. However, the ICJ's 2004 (formally non-binding) advisory opinion on the Israeli Wall provided answers to some of the most fundamental questions related to the conflict, unfortunately without having any immediate impact on the situation on the ground. Given Palestine's accession to the Rome Statute in early 2015, time has yet to show which role in the process will be played by the ICC.
Other issues arising from the conflict, and examined by this article, are that of (Palestinian) statehood, going beyond the traditional concept of statehood and including the consequences of the jus cogens-character of the right of self-determination, as well as questions of treaty succession and succession in matters of State responsibility with regard to acts committed by the PLO.
The adoption, in Kampala in June 2010, of amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression was hailed as a historic milestone in the development of the international Criminal Court (ICC). However, the manner in which these amendments are supposed to enter into force runs the risk of undermining the rules of the international law of treaties, as well as the legality and acceptability of the Kampala compromise itself The author examines the relevant amendment procedures provided for in the ICC Statute and the compatibility with them of the amendment procedure chosen in Kampala and ultimately warns of the legal consequences which may follow from the Review Conference's somewhat-Alexandrian solution.
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.
Article 15bis. Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)
(2022)
Article 33, para. 2
(2011)
Article 1 F
(2011)
State sucession in treaties
(2012)
Continuity of states
(2012)