Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (231) (remove)
Language
- English (231) (remove)
Keywords
- Germany (4)
- digitalization (3)
- knowledge management (3)
- territorial reforms (3)
- administrative reform (2)
- artificial intelligence (2)
- augmented reality (2)
- browser platforms (2)
- digital learning (2)
- digital platforms (2)
Institute
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (35)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (27)
- Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (24)
- Öffentliches Recht (23)
- Sozialwissenschaften (20)
- Historisches Institut (14)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (14)
- Institut für Philosophie (8)
- Institut für Romanistik (7)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (7)
- Department Linguistik (6)
- Institut für Jüdische Studien und Religionswissenschaft (5)
- Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät (5)
- Institut für Informatik und Computational Science (4)
- Philosophische Fakultät (4)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (3)
- Fachgruppe Volkswirtschaftslehre (3)
- Institut für Jüdische Theologie (3)
- Bürgerliches Recht (2)
- Department Erziehungswissenschaft (2)
- Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und Geographie (2)
- Juristische Fakultät (2)
- Strafrecht (2)
- Department Musik und Kunst (1)
- Extern (1)
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering GmbH (1)
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Digital Engineering gGmbH (1)
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (1)
- Institut für Chemie (1)
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (1)
- Institut für Germanistik (1)
- Institut für Mathematik (1)
- Klassische Philologie (1)
- Lehreinheit für Wirtschafts-Arbeit-Technik (1)
Article 15ter Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)
(2022)
Article 15bis: Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referal, proprio motu)
(2016)
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.