Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (58)
- Part of a Book (23)
- Doctoral Thesis (10)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (8)
- Working Paper (5)
- Other (2)
- Review (2)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (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)
This paper consists of two parts: In the first part, some of the challenges with which the Internationaal Criminal Court is currently confronted are being presented. First of all, the article will describe the current state of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statue. Afterwards, the article analyses the Court’s efforts to deal with cases against third-country nationals and the challenges it is facing in that regard. In addition, the Court’s case law will be analyzed in order to determine an increasing ‘emancipation’ of the case law of the International Criminal Court from international humanitarian law. The second part of the paper will briefly discuss the role of domestic international criminal law and domestic courts in the further development and enforcement of international criminal law. As an example of the role that domestic courts may have in clarifying classic issues in international law, the judgment of the German Supreme Court of January 28, 2021 (3 StR 564/19), which deals with the status of costumary international law on functional immunity of State officials before domestic courts, shall be assessed.
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'.
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’.
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)
Article 22
(2011)
Draft Article 15 of the International Law Commission’s project on crimes against humanity — dealing with the settlement of disputes arising from a proposed convention — attempts to strike a balance between state autonomy and robust judicial supervision. It largely follows Article 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which renders the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) conditional upon prior negotiations. Hence, the substance of the clause can be interpreted in light of the recent case law of the ICJ, especially in the case Georgia v. Russia. In addition, this contribution discusses several issues regarding the scope ratione temporis of the compromissory clause. It advances several proposals to improve the current draft, addressing its relationship with state responsibility — an explicit reference to which is currently missing — as well as the relationship between the ICJ and a possible treaty body. It also proposes to recalibrate the interplay of the requirement of prior negotiations with, respectively, the possibility of seizing a future treaty body and the indication of provisional measures by the ICJ.
Over the years, the Security Council has on several occasions dealt with humanitarian assistance issues. However, it is Security Council Resolution 2165(2014), related to the situation in Syria, that has brought the role of the Security Council to the forefront of the debate. It is against this background that the article discusses the legal issues arising from Security Council action facilitating humanitarian assistance to be delivered in situations of non-international armed conflict.
Following a brief survey of relevant practice of the Security Council related to humanitarian assistance, the article considers the relevance, if any, of Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) to humanitarian assistance to be delivered in such situations. It then moves on to analyse whether a rejection by the territorial state of humanitarian aid to be delivered by third parties may amount to a situation under Article 39 of the UN Charter. It then considers in detail whether (at least implicitly) Resolution 2165 has been adopted under Chapter VII and, if this is not the case, whether it can be still considered to be legally binding.
The article finally considers what impact the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2165 might have on the interpretation of otherwise applicable rules of international humanitarian law and, in particular, the right of third parties to provide humanitarian assistance in a situation of a non-international armed conflict in spite of the absence of consent by the territorial state, and the obligations that members of the Security Council, permanent and non-permanent, have under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions when faced with a draft resolution providing for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, notwithstanding the absence of consent by the territorial state.
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)
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
This book provides for an extensive legal analysis of the international drug control system in light of the growing challenges and criticism that this system faces. In the current debate on global drug policy, the central pillars of the international drug control system – the UN Drug Conventions as well as its institutions – are portrayed as outdated, suppressive and seen as an obstacle to necessary changes. The book’s objective is to provide an in-depth and positivist insight into drug control’s present legal framework and thus provide for a better understanding of the normative assumptions upon which drug control is currently based. This is attained by clarifying the objectives of the international drug control system and the premises by which these objectives are to be achieved.
The objective of the current global framework of international drug control is the limitation of drugs to medical and scientific purposes. The meaning of this objective and its concrete implications for States’ parties as well as its problems from the perspective of other regimes of international law, most notably international human rights law, are extensively analysed. Additionally, the book focuses on how the international drug control system attempts to reach the objective of confining drugs to medical and scientific purposes, i.e. by setting up a universal system that exercises a rigid control on drug supply. The consequences of this heavy focus on the reduction of drug supply are outlined, and the book concludes by making suggestions on how the international drug control system could be reformed in the near future in order to better meet the existing challenges.
The analysis occurs from a general international law perspective. It aims to map the international drug control system within a wider context of international law and to understand whether the problems that the international drug control system faces are exemplary for the difficulties that institutionalized systems of global scope face in the twenty-first century.
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.
Transitional Justice
(2022)
This publication deals with the topic of transitional justice. In six case studies, the authors link theoretical and practical implications in order to develop some innovative approaches. Their proposals might help to deal more effectively with the transition of societies, legal orders and political systems.
Young academics from various backgrounds provide fresh insights and demonstrate the relevance of the topic. The chapters analyse transitions and conflicts in Sierra Leone, Argentina, Nicaragua, Nepal, and South Sudan as well as Germany’s colonial genocide in Namibia. Thus, the book provides the reader with new insights and contributes to the ongoing debate about transitional justice.
This chapter consists of three parts. In the first part, I will give a short overview about the integration of the protection of the environment into German constitutional law. This section will start with the presentation of the relevant provision, Art. 20a BL. Then, I will elaborate on its legal character. In the second part, I will make some brief remarks on the practical implications of Art. 20a BL. Finally, I will present some preliminary conclusions.
This book provides empirical evidence that all States have a universally binding obligation to adopt national laws and international treaties to protect the marine environment, including the designation of Marine Protected Areas. Chapter by chapter this obligation is detailed, providing the foundation for holding States responsible for fulfilling this obligation. The fundamentals are analysed in a preliminary chapter, which examines the legally binding sources of the Law of the Sea as well as its historical development to help readers understand the key principles at hand.
The Law of the Sea provides more than 1000 instruments and more than 300 regulations concerning marine protection. While the scope of most treaties is limited either regarding species, regions or activities, one regulation addresses States in all waters: the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment as stipulated under Art. 192 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As this ‘Constitution of the Ocean’ not only contains conventional laws but also very broadly reflects pre-existing rules of customary international law, an extensive analysis of all statements made by States in the UN General Assembly, their practices, national laws and regulations as well as other public testimonials demonstrates that Art. 192 UNCLOS indeed binds the whole community of States as a rule of customary international law with an erga omnes effect. Due to the lack of any objections and its fundamental value for humankind, this regulation can also be considered a new peremptory norm of international law (ius cogens).
While the sovereign equality of States recognises States’ freedom to decide if and how to enter into a given obligation, States can also waive this freedom. If States accepted a legally binding obligation, they are thus bound to it. Concerning the specific content of Art. 192 UNCLOS, a methodical interpretation concludes that only the adoption of legislative measures (national laws and international agreements) suffices to comply with the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, which is confirmed by the States’ practices and relevant jurisprudence. When applied to a specific geographical area, legislative measures to protect the marine environment concur with the definition of Marine Protected Areas. Nonetheless, as the obligation applies to all waters, the Grotian principle of the freedom of the sea dictates that the restriction of activities through the designation of Marine Protected Areas, on the one hand, must be weighed against the freedoms of other States on the other. To anticipate the result: while all other rights under the UNCLOS are subject to and contingent on other regulations of the UNCLOS and international law, only the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment is granted absolutely – and thus outweighs all other interests
The phenomenon of male-to-male sexual assault undoubtedly occurs, both in domestic and conflict contexts. There is a small but growing discourse supporting the analysis of this phenomenon, however it remains significantly limited and its growth disproportionate to the concerns it warrants. The international law, NGO and State actors are largely responsible for this inhibition, predominately attributable to their intent in preserving the feminist and patriarchal values on which their institutions are founded. The strength with which the feminist discourse has embedded itself into the agendas of relevant actors is obstructing attempts at unbiased analysis of gender-based violence and the development of a discourse dedicated to understanding male sexual assault. It appears to be a prevailing sector-wide perception that females are the only victims of sexual violence and that creating space for a discussion on male-sexual assault will detract worth from the feminist discourse on female sexual assault. This paper discusses the means in which the sectors ignorance towards male sexual assault manifests and the harmful implications of ignoring this phenomenon. The author uses contextual analyses from development, international law, and cultural examples.
Since 2015, the European Union has struggled to deal with the influx of refugees coming into its territories. The number of institutions involved in designing a competent response approach, com-bined with the unilateral and uncoordinated state reactions, have left unclear where to look for when searching for answers and new alternatives. Can the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) take a leading role in solving this and future crises? After a brief recapitulation of the crisis, an analysis of UNHCR’s statue, relationship to international law, and doctrine will put this question to the test while exploring options that are not only available but also feasible in a system where politics trump both legality and morality. If UNHCR is to play an active role in fu-ture refugee policies and become the lead agency it once was, a new daring and innovative approach has to emerge in order to readapt to the power relations that prevail in the twenty-first century.
In its Burmych and Others v. Ukraine judgment of October 2017 the European Court of Human Rights dismissed more than 12,000 applications due to the fact that they were not only repetitive in nature, but also mutatis mutandis identical to applications covered by a previous pilot judgment rendered against Ukraine. This raises fundamental issues as to the role of the Court within the human rights protection system established by the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as those concerning the interrelationship between the Court and the Committee of Ministers.