Öffentliches Recht
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)
Keywords
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (85)
- Juristische Fakultät (1)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (1)
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’.
Angesichts der dramatischen Lage in der Ukraine untersucht der folgende Beitrag, auf welchem Wege, vor welchen völkerrechtlichen Gerichten, in welchem Umfang und mit welcher Aussicht auf Erfolg die Ukraine oder einzelne ukrainische Staatsangehörige Sicherheitsschutz vor der russischen Invasion und/oder den im Zusammenhang damit bereits begangenen oder noch bevorstehenden Völkerrechtsverstößen Rechtsschutz erlangen können. Im Einzelnen handelt es sich hierbei um zwei anhängige Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof, mehrere Staaten- sowie eine große Vielzahl von Individualbeschwerden vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte; ein Verfahren vor dem Internationalen Seegerichtshof; zahlreiche Investitionsverfahren vor internationalen Schiedsgerichten sowie schließlich zwei "Situationen" vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Abschließend wird die Option der Schaffung eines ad-hoc-Tribunals für das Verbrechen der Aggression behandelt.
Volle Souveränität?
(2021)
Nach Art. 7 Abs. 1 S. 1 des Vertrages zur abschließenden Regelung in Bezug aufDeutschland vom 12. September 1990 (Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag)1beendeten die Fran-zösische Republik, die Union der Sozialistischen Sowjetrepubliken, das VereinigteKönigreich Großbritannien und Nordirland und die Vereinigten Staaten von Ameri-ka„ihre Rechte und Verantwortlichkeiten in Bezug auf Berlin und Deutschland alsGanzes“. Dies hatte, wie in dessen Art. 7 Abs. 1 S. 2 ausdrücklich niedergelegt, zurFolge, dass„die entsprechenden, damit zusammenhängenden vierseitigen Verein-barungen, Beschlüsse und Praktiken beendet und alle entsprechenden Einrichtun-gen der vier Mächte aufgelöst“wurden.2Art. 7 Abs. 2 Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag stelltdemgemäß fest, dass das vereinte Deutschland volle Souveränität über seine inne-ren und äußeren Angelegenheiten erhalten habe. Nach dem Wortlaut des Vertrageshaben die Alliierten damit jegliche Rechte in Bezug auf Deutschland abgegeben,rechtliche Auswirkungen der Besatzungsgeschichte Deutschlands noch bis in dieheutige Zeit scheinen danach zunächst ausgeschlossen.In dem folgenden Beitrag soll diese aus heutiger Sicht selbstverständlich er-scheinende Hypothese kritisch hinterfragt und der Frage nachgegangen werden, obund inwieweit die Besatzungsgeschichte Deutschlands noch immer rechtliche Fol-gen zeitigt. Hierbei soll insbesondere auf Fragen der Fortgeltung alliierten Rechts,Eigentumsfragen sowie auf Fragen der Nachfolge in völkerrechtlichen Verträgeneingegangen werden.
Das Völkerstrafrecht steht fast zwanzig Jahre nach dem Inkrafttreten des Römischen Statuts – der völkervertraglichen Grundlage des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs – angesichts einer inzwischen deutlich veränderten Weltlage an einem Scheideweg. Daher erscheint es geboten, wenn nicht gar zwingend, die Herausforderungen, mit denen sich der Internationale Strafgerichtshof heute konfrontiert sieht, zu analysieren.
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.
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'.