Öffentliches Recht
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (88)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (47)
- Part of a Book (37)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (3)
- Other (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (88)
Keywords
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (88)
- Juristische Fakultät (1)
- MenschenRechtsZentrum (1)
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'.
Currently a political debate is ongoing in Germany as to whether Germany should, following the example of several other European countries such as France and the Netherlands, adopt a Supply Chain Act (Lieferkettengesetz). If adopted, the act in question would impose due diligence obligations on German corporations to prevent human rights violations taking place in their respective global supply chains. It is against this background that the article examines the preconditions that must be met in order for such act to be eventually compatible with both, German constitutional and international law. The authors further deal with the question whether Germany might even be obliged under international, as well as under German constitutional law, to enact such a supply chain law in order to protect the human rights of workers employed by companies forming part of the global supply chains of German companies. As far as German constitutional law is concerned the article notably deals with the question whether it is the Federal parliament that may adopt such a law also taking into account the competencies of the European Union in the field, and what are the requirements of legal specificity and proportionality in order for the draft law to stand constitutional scrutiny. The authors further offer detailed suggestions how corporate due diligence standards might be best provided for in the envisaged law and propose a risk analysis approach that varies not only according to specific countries and sector-specific characteristics, but that by the same token also takes into account the ability of the respective German company to exercise an appropriate due diligence standard when it comes to human rigths issues arising within the framewok of their supply chain. As far as the substantive human rights standards are concerned that should serve as benchmarks for the envisaged Supply Chain Act the authors propose to rely on, and refer to, those instruments such as the ICCPR and the CESCR, as well as the ILO treaties containing core labour standards, that enjoy almost universal acceptance and reflect customary international law.
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.
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.
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.