Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (1041) (remove)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (1041) (remove)
Language
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (1041) (remove)
Keywords
- Verwaltung (5)
- Deutschland (4)
- Germany (4)
- Integration (3)
- Migration (3)
- Sprachgeschichte (3)
- coordination (3)
- digitalization (3)
- knowledge management (3)
- territorial reforms (3)
Institute
- Bürgerliches Recht (225)
- Öffentliches Recht (102)
- Fachgruppe Politik- & Verwaltungswissenschaft (101)
- Institut für Romanistik (80)
- Historisches Institut (73)
- Strafrecht (73)
- Fachgruppe Betriebswirtschaftslehre (45)
- Sozialwissenschaften (45)
- Fachgruppe Soziologie (42)
- Institut für Jüdische Studien und Religionswissenschaft (38)
In this chapter, we conduct bibliometric performance analyses and a co-citation analysis on all articles relating to family firms indexed in Scopus and Web of Science and all articles published in the Family Business Review, Journal of Family Business Management, and the Journal of Family Business Strategy. Based on the literature sample of 4,056 articles published between 1960 and 2020 by 3,600 authors in 783 journals and their 175,163 references, we identify the most productive and most cited journals, the most cited authors, and the 25 most cited articles. Our science mapping reveals the agency theory, definitions, entrepreneurship, internationalization, ownership, resources, socioemotional wealth, and succession as the predominant research themes in family firm research. Whereas entrepreneurship explicitly appears in one of the clusters, innovation does not yet. Based on our findings, we propose a research framework and point to several research gaps to be addressed by future research.
Die Assoziierung der überseeischen Länder und Hoheitsgebiete Vorbemerkung zu den Artikeln 198-204
(2015)
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.
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.