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)
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.
Over the years, the Security Council has on several occasions dealt with humanitarian assistance issues. However, it is Security Council Resolution 2165(2014), related to the situation in Syria, that has brought the role of the Security Council to the forefront of the debate. It is against this background that the article discusses the legal issues arising from Security Council action facilitating humanitarian assistance to be delivered in situations of non-international armed conflict.
Following a brief survey of relevant practice of the Security Council related to humanitarian assistance, the article considers the relevance, if any, of Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) to humanitarian assistance to be delivered in such situations. It then moves on to analyse whether a rejection by the territorial state of humanitarian aid to be delivered by third parties may amount to a situation under Article 39 of the UN Charter. It then considers in detail whether (at least implicitly) Resolution 2165 has been adopted under Chapter VII and, if this is not the case, whether it can be still considered to be legally binding.
The article finally considers what impact the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2165 might have on the interpretation of otherwise applicable rules of international humanitarian law and, in particular, the right of third parties to provide humanitarian assistance in a situation of a non-international armed conflict in spite of the absence of consent by the territorial state, and the obligations that members of the Security Council, permanent and non-permanent, have under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions when faced with a draft resolution providing for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, notwithstanding the absence of consent by the territorial state.
Zur Wiedergutmachung nationalsozialistischen Unrechts garantiert Art. 116 Abs. 2 GG Abkömmlingen von in diskriminierender Weise ausgebürgerten Deutschen die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit. Dadurch soll der Zustand wiederhergestellt werden, der ohne die Ausbürgerung bestehen würde. Daher wird insoweit regelmäßig auf das geltende Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht abgestellt. § 4 Abs. 4 StAG hat im Jahr 2000 eine Beschränkung der Weitergabe der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit für im Ausland geborene Kinder deutscher Staatsangehöriger eingeführt, die selbst bereits im Ausland geboren wurden. Dadurch wird möglicherweise der Anwendungsbereich des Art. 116 Abs. 2 GG dauerhaft signifikant eingeschränkt; unter Umständen wird die Norm gar obsolet. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen der uneingeschränkten Anwendung des § 4 Abs. 4 StAG mit dem verfassungsrechtlich verbürgerten Recht auf Wiedereinbürgerung von Kindern zu Unrecht ausgebürgerter Deutscher erörtert.
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.
Article 15bis: Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referal, proprio motu)
(2016)
Artikel 210 (Koordinierung)
(2015)