In November 2015, the 14th Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted, by consensus, an amendment providing for the deletion of Article 124 of the ICC Statute, which so far enables contracting parties, when joining the Statute, to opt out from the ICC’s treaty-based war crimes-related jurisdiction. After considering the genesis of the provision and the practice arising under Article 124 of the ICC Statute so far, this article considers the arguments for and against the deletion of Article 124 in light of the increasingly small number of accessions to the ICC Statute that have been forthcoming in the last few years. It also analyses the quite strict requirements for the entry into force of the amendment, as well as the effect of the entry into force of the amendment on possible declarations having been made pending such entry into force. It ends by considering the positive effect a continued applicability of Article 124 may have on states so far being reluctant to accede to the ICC Statute.

The armed conflict in Afghanistan since 2001 has raised manifold questions pertaining to the humanitarian rules relative to the conduct of hostilities. In Afghanistan, as is often the case in so-called asymmetric conflicts, the geographical and temporal boundaries of the battlefield, and the distinction between civilians and fighters, are increasingly blurred. As a result, the risks for both civilians and soldiers operating in Afghanistan are high. The objective of this article is to assess whether - and if so how much - the armed conflict in Afghanistan has affected the application and interpretation of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution - principles that form the core of legal rules pertaining to the conduct of hostilities.

In seiner Abschlussvorlesung geht Detlev W. Belling der Frage nach, ob und inwieweit die Ausübung der Gnadenbefugnisse durch die Gnadenträger in einem säkularen und republikanischen Rechtsstaat der gerichtlichen Kontrolle unterliegen sollte. Detailliert werden in diesem Zusammenhang nicht nur die bisherige Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts und das breit gefächerte Meinungsspektrum der Literatur abgebildet. Anhand einer Vielzahl von Beispielen aus der ferneren und unmittelbaren Geschichte wird die Entwicklung des Gnadenrechts nachgezeichnet. Missbrauchsgefahren, wie sie nicht nur kennzeichnend für Diktaturen und Monarchien sind, werden aufgezeigt. Die Erkenntnisse aus der historischen Darstellung aufgreifend, wird anhand einer umfassenden Analyse der geltenden Rechtslage nachgewiesen, aus welchen Gründen die Konstitutionalisierung des Begnadigungsrechts geboten ist.