341 Völkerrecht
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (12)
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Part of a Book (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (12)
Keywords
Institute
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.
On 14 December 2017, the Assembly of States Parties of the Rome Statute decided to activate the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. In doing so, it however seems to have rescinded the Kampala amendment adopted in 2010, and in particular, the need for State Parties to eventually opt out from the Court’s aggression-related jurisdiction. This reversal, while being more in line with the Rome Statute than the Kampala amendment itself, raises new (and old) and challenging legal questions which are highlighted in this article.
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.
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.