Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (85)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (47)
- Part of a Book (35)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (85)
Keywords
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (85) (remove)
Die staatsangehörigkeitsrechtliche Optionspflicht des § 29 StAG für in Deutschland geborene Kinder ausländischer Eltern, die jus soli die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit erworben haben, bildete eine der Kernfragen des letzten Bundestagswahlkampfes. Im zwischen CDU/CSU und SPD abgeschlossenen Koalitionsvertrag ist vorgesehen, dass für in Deutschland geborene und aufgewachsene deutsche Kinder ausländischer Eltern in Zukunft der Optionszwang entfallen soll und die Mehrstaatigkeit akzeptiert wird, während es im Übrigen beim geltenden Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht bleiben soll. Der Beitrag untersucht vor diesem Hintergrund und im Lichte der nunmehr insoweit vorliegenden Entwürfe die sich aus diesen politischen Vorgaben ergebenden staatsangehörigkeitsrechtlichen Regelungsoptionen und -probleme.
La Convention de Vienne de 1978 traite d’un problème intemporel dans la vie internationale des États, à savoir leurs mutations territoriales. Il s’agit là d’une réalité internationale qui survit au phénomène de la décolonisation, mutation territoriale hautement typée et délimitée historiquement. Les exemples sont innombrables. L’on peut mentionner la réunification de l’Allemagne, l’éclatement de l’Union soviétique, le démembrement de la Yougoslavie, la séparation entre la Tchéquie et la Slovaquie, la sécession de l’Erythrée de l’Ethiopie, la séparation du Timor oriental de l’Indonésie, la sécession du Pakistan oriental (Bangladesh) du Pakistan. La pratique récente, relative au Kosovo notamment, qui a déclaré son indépendance le 17 février 2008, met en exergue l’actualité juridique du sujet. Des cas de succession d’États dans un futur proche ou lointain ne sont donc pas à exclure. Les régions sécessionnistes et les pulsions séparatistes sont nombreuses, même si très généralement non reconnues par la communauté internationale. Pourtant, la succession d’États n’est toujours pas dotée d’un régime juridique cohérent complet. Il convient dès lors de s’intéresser à cette lacune juridique en partant du traité-clef en la matière qu’est la Convention de 1978. Un commentaire exhaustif, article par article, de cette Convention se révèle donc être nécessaire. Cet ouvrage contient une analyse serrée des apports et des lacunes de cette Convention à la lumière des travaux préparatoires ainsi que de la pratique récente. Il permet ainsi d’identifier les éléments de codification de la Convention de Vienne de 1978, mais aussi de voir en quoi celle-ci a pu donner naissance à des principes et règles coutumières en la matière. Il a pour ambition de remettre au goût du jour cette Convention et d’offrir aux chercheurs intéressés, mais également aux États et sujets concernés et à la communauté internationale une vue d’ensemble détaillée, analytique et systématique du droit actuel en matière de succession d’États et de découvrir ainsi les éléments de continuité et de rupture qui la caractérisent.
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'.
In 2009, 'Palestine' lodged a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICC under Article 12(3). However, in April 2012, the OTP determined that this declaration had not brought about the result, of providing for the ICC's jurisdiction, pending clarification from the political organs of the UN concerning the legal status of Palestine within the organization. On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly granted Palestine the status of a non-member observer state within the UN framework, thereby fulfilling the condition mentioned by the OTP in April 2012. It is against this background that the article considers the current legal effects of the 2009 Palestinian declaration. In particular, it addresses the issue of whether the declaration, when read in conjunction with the 29 November 2012 decision, possesses retroactive effect, i.e. whether it provides, as claimed, for the Court's temporal jurisdiction from 1 July 2002 onwards or rather starting only from 29 November 2012.
... the current status granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly is that of 'observer', not as a 'Non-member State'. ... [T]his... informs the current legal status of Palestine for the interpretation and application of article 12 [Rome Statute]. ... The Office could in the future consider allegations of crimes committed in Palestine, should competent organs of the United Nations... resolve the legal issue relevant to an assessment of article 12. ... International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, 'Situation in Palestine', 3 April 2012
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’.
Back in 1949, and thus only one year after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the four Geneva Conventions were adopted, providing a strong signal for a new world order created after 1945 with the United Nations at their centre and combining as their goals both the maintenance of peace and security and the protection of human rights, but also recognising, realistically, that succeeding generations had so far not yet been saved from the scourge of war. Hence, the continued need for rules governing, and limiting, the means and methods of warfare once an armed conflict has erupted. At the same time, the international community has unfortunately not been able so far to fully safeguard individual human rights, its efforts to that effect and the continuous development of international human rights law over the years notwithstanding.
State sucession in treaties
(2012)
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.
Volle Souveränität?
(2021)
Nach Art. 7 Abs. 1 S. 1 des Vertrages zur abschließenden Regelung in Bezug aufDeutschland vom 12. September 1990 (Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag)1beendeten die Fran-zösische Republik, die Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken, das VereinigteKönigreich Großbritannien und Nordirland und die Vereinigten Staaten von Ameri-ka„ihre Rechte und Verantwortlichkeiten in Bezug auf Berlin und Deutschland alsGanzes“. Dies hatte, wie in dessen Art. 7 Abs. 1 S. 2 ausdrücklich niedergelegt, zurFolge, dass„die entsprechenden, damit zusammenhängenden vierseitigen Verein-barungen, Beschlüsse und Praktiken beendet und alle entsprechenden Einrichtun-gen der vier Mächte aufgelöst“wurden.2Art. 7 Abs. 2 Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag stelltdemgemäß fest, dass das vereinte Deutschland volle Souveränität über seine inne-ren und äußeren Angelegenheiten erhalten habe. Nach dem Wortlaut des Vertrageshaben die Alliierten damit jegliche Rechte in Bezug auf Deutschland abgegeben,rechtliche Auswirkungen der Besatzungsgeschichte Deutschlands noch bis in dieheutige Zeit scheinen danach zunächst ausgeschlossen.In dem folgenden Beitrag soll diese aus heutiger Sicht selbstverständlich er-scheinende Hypothese kritisch hinterfragt und der Frage nachgegangen werden, obund inwieweit die Besatzungsgeschichte Deutschlands noch immer rechtliche Fol-gen zeitigt. Hierbei soll insbesondere auf Fragen der Fortgeltung alliierten Rechts,Eigentumsfragen sowie auf Fragen der Nachfolge in völkerrechtlichen Verträgeneingegangen werden.