Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (59)
- Part of a Book (23)
- Doctoral Thesis (10)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (8)
- Working Paper (4)
- Other (2)
- Review (2)
- Postprint (1)
Language
- English (109) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (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)
Jurisdiction
(2022)
Nils-Hendrik Grohmann beschäftigt sich mit dem noch andauernden Stärkungsprozess der UN-Menschenrechtsvertragsorgane. Er analysiert, welche rechtlichen Befugnisse die Ausschüsse haben, ob sie von sich aus Vorschläge einbringen können und inwieweit sie ihre Verfahrensweisen bisher aufeinander abgestimmt haben. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den verschiedenen Ausschüssen und der Frage, welche Rolle das Treffen der Vorsitzenden bei der Stärkung spielen kann.
Since 2013, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can examine individual communications under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This opens up the possibility to interpret Covenant provisions in a thorough manner. With regard to forced evictions and the right to housing under Article 11 ICESCR, one can discern a fast-developing approach concerning the proportionality analysis of evictions, entailing the establishment of specific criteria that may guide such analysis. This paper seeks to delineate these developments and will also shed light on possible general trends on the topic of limitations within the Committee’s emerging jurisprudence. In doing so, the paper will address if, and how, the developing proportionality analysis under the individual complaints procedure takes into consideration multi-discriminatory dimensions of State measures and how it specifically relates to or incorporates other ICESCR-concepts, such as minimum core obligations or the reasonableness review under Article 8(4) OP ICESCR.
Nils-Hendrik Grohmann beschäftigt sich mit dem noch andauernden Stärkungsprozess der UN-Menschenrechtsvertragsorgane. Er analysiert, welche rechtlichen Befugnisse die Ausschüsse haben, ob sie von sich aus Vorschläge einbringen können und inwieweit sie ihre Verfahrensweisen bisher aufeinander abgestimmt haben. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt liegt auf der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den verschiedenen Ausschüssen und der Frage, welche Rolle das Treffen der Vorsitzenden bei der Stärkung spielen kann.
The anniversaries of the 1970 Warsaw and the 1990 2+4 Treaties give occasion to revisit the matter of minority protection in German-Polish relations. The interwar system established a problematic unevenness that tainted its acceptance, particularly from the Polish perspective. After 1990 the minority issues achieved an increased, albeit moderate, relevance in German-Polish relations. To some extent the 1991 Polish-German Treaty on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Co-operation retains the unevenness of the inter-war period, as Art. 20(1) recognizes a German minority in Poland, but refuses to acknowledge a Polish minority in Germany. However, currently the thorniest issues concern various situations related to the “Silesians” in Poland, which the Polish government does not recognize as a protected minority under the European Council Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
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.
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.
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 referral, proprio motu)
(2022)
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’.
On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented its long-awaited proposal for a Regulation “laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence”, the so-called “Artificial Intelligence Act” (AIA). This article takes a critical look at the proposed regulation. After an introduction (1), the paper analyzes the unclear preemptive effect of the AIA and EU competences (2), the scope of application (3), the prohibited uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (4), the provisions on high-risk AI systems (5), the obligations of providers and users (6), the requirements for AI systems with limited risks (7), the enforcement system (8), the relationship of the AIA with the existing legal framework (9), and the regulatory gaps (10). The last section draws some final conclusions (11).
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