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) (remove)
Keywords
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (85) (remove)
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.
Zur Wiedergutmachung nationalsozialistischen Unrechts garantiert Art. 116 Abs. 2 GG Abkömmlingen von in diskriminierender Weise ausgebürgerten Deutschen die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit. Dadurch soll der Zustand wiederhergestellt werden, der ohne die Ausbürgerung bestehen würde. Daher wird insoweit regelmäßig auf das geltende Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht abgestellt. § 4 Abs. 4 StAG hat im Jahr 2000 eine Beschränkung der Weitergabe der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit für im Ausland geborene Kinder deutscher Staatsangehöriger eingeführt, die selbst bereits im Ausland geboren wurden. Dadurch wird möglicherweise der Anwendungsbereich des Art. 116 Abs. 2 GG dauerhaft signifikant eingeschränkt; unter Umständen wird die Norm gar obsolet. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen der uneingeschränkten Anwendung des § 4 Abs. 4 StAG mit dem verfassungsrechtlich verbürgerten Recht auf Wiedereinbürgerung von Kindern zu Unrecht ausgebürgerter Deutscher erörtert.
Article 1 A, para. 2
(2011)
Article 1 F
(2011)
Article 15bis. Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)
(2022)
Article 15bis: Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referal, proprio motu)
(2016)
Article 15ter Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)
(2022)
Article 22
(2011)
Article 33, para. 2
(2011)
Article 35
(2012)
Article 53
(2012)
Article 60
(2012)
Artikel 210 (Koordinierung)
(2015)
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.
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.
Continuity of states
(2012)
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.