German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Odendahl, K., Matz-Lück, N. (Eds.) (2013). German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht. Vol. 55 (2012). Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54159-1
Odendahl, Kerstin and Matz-Lück, Nele. German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht: Vol. 55 (2012). Duncker & Humblot, 2013. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54159-1
Odendahl, K, Matz-Lück, N (eds.) (2013): German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht: Vol. 55 (2012), Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54159-1
Format
German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht
Vol. 55 (2012)
Editors: Odendahl, Kerstin | Matz-Lück, Nele
German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, Vol. 55
(2013)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Prof. Dr. Kerstin von der Decken (geb. Odendahl) ist Inhaberin des Lehrstuhls für Öffentliches Recht mit Schwerpunkt Völkerrecht, Europarecht und Allgemeine Staatslehre an der Universität Kiel sowie Geschäftsführende Direktorin des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht. Davor war sie von 2004 bis 2011 Professorin für Völker- und Europarecht an der Universität St. Gallen, Schweiz. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte liegen bei den Grundlagen des Völker- und Europarechts sowie dem internationalen Umwelt,- Kultur- und Sicherheitsrecht.Prof. Dr. Nele Matz-Lück, LL.M., ist seit 2011 Professorin für Seerecht an der Universität Kiel und Ko-Direktorin des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht. Seit 2004 war sie als Referentin am Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht in Heidelberg beschäftigt. Für die Dauer von zwei Jahren war sie als wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an das Bundesverfassungsgericht abgeordnet. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte liegen im Seerecht, Umweltvölkerrecht und in grundlegenden Fragen des Völkerrechts.Abstract
The $aGerman Yearbook of International Law,$z founded as the Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, provides an annual report on new developments in international law and is edited by the Walther Schücking Institute for International Law at the University of Kiel. Since its inception in 1948, the Yearbook has endeavored to make a significant academic contribution to the ongoing development of international law. Over many decades the Yearbook has moved beyond its origins as a forum for German scholars to publish their research and has become a highly-regarded international forum for innovative scholarship in international law. In 1976, the Yearbook adopted its current title and began to publish contributions written in English in order to reach the largest possible international audience. This editorial decision has enabled the Yearbook to successfully overcome traditional language barriers and inform an international readership about current research in German academic institutions and, at the same time, to present international viewpoints to its German audience. Fully aware of the paramount importance of international practice, the Yearbook publishes contributions from active practitioners of international law on a regular basis. The Yearbook also includes critical comments on German state practice relating to international law, as well as international reactions to that practice.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | 5 | ||
| FORUM: THE ARAB SPRING AND INTERNATIONAL LAW | 9 | ||
| JEAN-YVES DE CARA: The Arab Uprisings Under the Light of Intervention | 11 | ||
| I. Introduction | 11 | ||
| II. A Requested Intervention | 15 | ||
| A. The Political Context of the Intervention | 15 | ||
| B. The Legal Basis for the Intervention | 17 | ||
| 1. The Consent | 18 | ||
| 2. The Requesting Authority | 20 | ||
| 3. The Purpose of the Intervention | 23 | ||
| III. A Forcible Intervention | 28 | ||
| A. The Political Context | 29 | ||
| B. The NATO Intervention | 31 | ||
| 1. Security Council Resolution 1970 of 26 February 2011 | 31 | ||
| 2. Security Council Resolution 1973 of 17 March 2011 | 33 | ||
| C. The Basis of the Intervention | 37 | ||
| 1. A New Doctrine | 37 | ||
| 2. Concealing an Old Practice | 41 | ||
| 3. An Expedient Excuse | 46 | ||
| IV. Denied Intervention | 47 | ||
| JAVAID REHMAN AND ELENI POLYMENOPOULOU: Justice After Democracy in the Arab World: Islamic Law Perspectives on Accountability | 53 | ||
| I. Introduction | 54 | ||
| II. The Involvement of International Actors in the Arab World | 57 | ||
| A. A Culture of Impunity Nourished by Western Interests | 57 | ||
| B. Absence of Effective Accountability Mechanisms After the Arab Uprising | 61 | ||
| III. Building a Culture of Accountability in the Arab World | 65 | ||
| A. The Sharia Approaches Towards Governance | 65 | ||
| B. Removing Immunities in the Case of Human Rights Violations | 69 | ||
| C. Strengthening the Idea of Universal Jurisdiction | 73 | ||
| IV. Consolidating the Right to Resist Oppression Conducted by Muslim Heads of State | 75 | ||
| A. A Controversial ‘Right to Resist Oppression’ under International Law | 75 | ||
| B. Establishing the Right to Resist Within International Law Through Invoking the Sharia Principles | 78 | ||
| V. Conclusions | 83 | ||
| FOCUS: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE | 85 | ||
| DAVID FISHER: The Future of International Disaster Response Law | 87 | ||
| I. Introduction | 87 | ||
| II. Is There Already Such a Thing as IDRL? | 89 | ||
| III. Do We Need More IDRL? | 92 | ||
| A. Common Regulatory Problems | 93 | ||
| B. Fear of the ‘Tsunami Effect’ and its Impact on International Cooperation | 96 | ||
| C. Access Denial at the Extreme | 98 | ||
| D. Principles and Quality | 100 | ||
| IV. The Future of IDRL at the Domestic Level | 103 | ||
| V. The Future of IDRL at the Bilateral and Regional Levels | 107 | ||
| VI. The Future of IDRL at the Global Level | 111 | ||
| A. Developments with Existing Instruments | 111 | ||
| B. A Flagship Treaty? | 114 | ||
| VII. Conclusion | 117 | ||
| WALTER KÄLIN: The Human Rights Dimension of Natural or Human-Made Disasters | 119 | ||
| I. Introduction | 119 | ||
| II. Putting Disasters on the International Human Rights Agenda | 121 | ||
| III. Human Rights and Disasters: A Three-Dimensional Relationship | 124 | ||
| A. Human Rights Problems in Times of Disaster: The Factual Dimension | 124 | ||
| B. The Applicability of Human Rights in the Context of Disasters: The Legal Dimension | 125 | ||
| 1. Explicit References | 125 | ||
| 2. General Human Rights Guarantees | 126 | ||
| 3. Derogations | 128 | ||
| C. The Operational Dimension | 132 | ||
| 1. Towards a Human Rights Based Approach to Disaster Relief | 132 | ||
| 2. Human Rights and Humanitarian Protection | 134 | ||
| IV. Human Rights in Situations of Disasters: Selected Issues | 135 | ||
| A. The Duty to Prevent Disasters | 135 | ||
| B. The Duty to Protect Life During Disasters | 137 | ||
| C. The Duty to Provide Humanitarian Assistance to those in Need | 140 | ||
| D. The Duty to Authorise Foreign Humanitarian Assistance | 143 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 147 | ||
| SARA E. DAVIES: Natural Disasters and the Responsibility to Protect | 149 | ||
| I. Introduction | 149 | ||
| II. Political Efforts: Why the Responsibility to Protect Persons from Natural Disasters? | 152 | ||
| A. Introducing the Topic at the UN | 152 | ||
| B. The Work of the ILC on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters | 154 | ||
| C. Opposition to Aligning R2P with Natural Disaster Relief | 157 | ||
| III. Aligning R2P with Natural Disasters: Why Does the Debate Continue? | 158 | ||
| A. The Current Status and Content of the Draft Articles | 158 | ||
| B. Reactions on the Political Level | 160 | ||
| C. The Legal Debate | 161 | ||
| D. The Humanitarian Debate | 165 | ||
| IV. If not R2P, What Will Secure Protection of Persons? | 168 | ||
| V. Gender-Exploitation and Failure to Assist in Natural Disasters | 171 | ||
| VI. Conclusion | 173 | ||
| REBECCA M. BRATSPIES: State Responsibility for Human-Induced Environmental Disasters | 175 | ||
| I. Introduction | 175 | ||
| II. Defining Human-Created International Environmental Disasters | 177 | ||
| III. State Responsibility for Transboundary Harm is Inherent in the Architecture of International Law | 183 | ||
| IV. (Post-)Modern Developments in State Responsibility | 186 | ||
| A. Internal State Responsibility: The Responsibility to Protect | 187 | ||
| B. External Responsibility: The ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility | 192 | ||
| V. Which International Environmental Obligations Might be Candidates for State Responsibility? | 194 | ||
| A. The Rise of Environmental Erga Omnes Obligations | 197 | ||
| VI. Problems and Challenges to Using State Responsibility to Remedy Environmental Harms | 201 | ||
| A. Limits to Using Environmental Treaties to Define State Responsibility | 201 | ||
| B. Problems Inherent in the Concept of State Responsibility | 204 | ||
| 1. Solving the ‘State Actor’ Problem | 204 | ||
| 2. Solving the ‘Reluctance to Use’ Problem | 208 | ||
| VII. Conclusion: Is There Still a Role for State Responsibility? | 212 | ||
| DIRK HANSCHEL: Prevention, Preparedness and Assistance Concerning Nuclear Accidents – Effective International Legal Framework or Patchwork? | 217 | ||
| I. Introduction | 217 | ||
| II. Analysis of the International Law in the Field | 219 | ||
| A. Prevention | 220 | ||
| 1. The 1994 IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety | 220 | ||
| 2. Soft Law | 223 | ||
| 3. Assessment | 224 | ||
| B. Preparedness | 224 | ||
| 1. Notification | 225 | ||
| a) The 1986 Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident | 225 | ||
| b) The Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) | 227 | ||
| c) Soft Law | 228 | ||
| 2. Liability | 229 | ||
| a) The 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage | 229 | ||
| b) The 1960 Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy and its 1963 Brussels Supplementary Convention | 230 | ||
| c) The 1988 Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention | 231 | ||
| d) The 1997 Protocol to Amend the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) | 232 | ||
| e) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea | 234 | ||
| f) Customary International Law | 235 | ||
| 3. Assessment | 236 | ||
| C. Assistance | 238 | ||
| 1. The Nordic Mutual Emergency Assistance Agreement in Connection with Radiation Accidents | 238 | ||
| 2. The 1986 Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency | 239 | ||
| 3. The Early Notification Convention | 241 | ||
| 4. Institutional Arrangements | 241 | ||
| 5. Soft Law | 242 | ||
| 6. Assessment | 243 | ||
| III. National Law in Comparative Perspective | 243 | ||
| A. Germany | 244 | ||
| B. United States | 245 | ||
| C. Japan | 245 | ||
| D. Assessment | 248 | ||
| IV. The Road Ahead | 250 | ||
| MARKUS KOTZUR: European Union Law on Disaster Preparedness and Response | 253 | ||
| I. Introduction: Towards a Stronger European Disaster Response | 253 | ||
| II. Disaster Prevention within the European Communities and the European Union – a Short History | 256 | ||
| III. Disaster Preparedness and Response in Context: The Principle of Solidarity | 261 | ||
| IV. Disaster Preparedness and Response in Detail: The Substance of Articles 196 and 222 of the TFEU | 265 | ||
| A. An Integrated European Disaster Response – The Theoretical Framework | 265 | ||
| B. Placing Articles 196 and 222 of the TFEU within the Treaty’s Structure and System | 268 | ||
| 1. Competing Competencies | 268 | ||
| 2. Decisive Contexts | 269 | ||
| 3. An Overall Definition of the Term ‘Disaster’ | 271 | ||
| C. Obligations of the EU and Member States | 272 | ||
| 1. EU Obligations | 272 | ||
| 2. Civil Protection Measures | 272 | ||
| 3. EU Action | 273 | ||
| V. Disaster Preparedness and Response in the Future: Short-Term and Long-Term Perspectives | 275 | ||
| A. Prospects and Limits of EU-Managed Disaster Prevention | 275 | ||
| B. Non EU-Members Participating in MIC | 276 | ||
| VI. Conclusion | 277 | ||
| GENERAL ARTICLES | 279 | ||
| ROSANNE VAN ALEBEEK: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy): On Right Outcomes and Wrong Terms | 281 | ||
| I. Introduction | 281 | ||
| II. The Judgment from a Bird’s Eye View | 283 | ||
| A. Background to the Case | 283 | ||
| B. Immunity from Adjudicative Jurisdiction | 286 | ||
| III. The Epistemology of International Law | 291 | ||
| A. Introduction | 291 | ||
| B. Limited Legal Consequences of Jus Cogens Violations | 292 | ||
| C. The Territorial Tort and Human Rights Exceptions: A Dispute over the Scope of Primary Norms | 294 | ||
| D. The Role of the Judiciary in Resolving Conflicts Between (Allegedly) Competing Norms | 300 | ||
| 1. Systemic Integration | 300 | ||
| 2. Parameters of the Systemic Integration Argument | 303 | ||
| a) Which International Law Rules Are to Be Taken into Account? | 304 | ||
| b) Is there a Right of Access to Court? | 307 | ||
| c) Is there a Right to a Remedy? | 308 | ||
| d) What is the Proper Relationship Between these (Possibly) Conflicting Norms? | 310 | ||
| 3. Right Outcome – Wrong Terms | 313 | ||
| IV. Germany v. Italy: The Aftermath | 313 | ||
| MARCO CALISTO: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State: Germany v. Italy before the ICJ from an Italian Perspective | 319 | ||
| I. Introduction | 319 | ||
| II. Analysis of the Italian Case Law on State Immunity | 322 | ||
| A. Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights | 323 | ||
| B. The Most Relevant Decisions in the Italian Case Law: The Ferrini Case | 324 | ||
| C. The 2008 Thirteen Orders | 326 | ||
| D. The Milde Case | 328 | ||
| III. The ICJ’s Conservative Approach to State Jurisdictional Immunity in Light of the Recent Decision in Germany v. Italy | 330 | ||
| IV. ICJ’s Approach to the Italian Point of View on Jurisdictional Immunity, and its Refusal of the Italian ‘Last Resort’ Argument | 335 | ||
| V. The Effects of the ICJ’s Judgment on the Implementation of the Rule on State Immunity before the Italian Courts, and the Problems Deriving from the Enforcement of the Judgment in the Italian Legal Order | 337 | ||
| VI. Conclusions | 342 | ||
| ATHANASIOS YUPSANIS: The Meaning of ‘Culture’ in Article 15 (1)(a) of the ICESCR – Positive Aspects of CESCR’s General Comment No. 21 for the Safeguarding of Minority Cultures | 345 | ||
| I. Introduction | 346 | ||
| II. Defining ‘Cultural Life’: From ‘High Art’ to a ‘Way of Life’ | 348 | ||
| A. The Problem of the Definition of Culture | 348 | ||
| B. The ‘Traditional’31 Perception: Culture as ‘High Art’ | 350 | ||
| C. UNESCO’s Approach: The Anthropological Definition of Culture as a ‘Way of Life’ | 351 | ||
| D. The Adoption of UNESCO’s Anthropological Approach by the CESCR | 353 | ||
| E. Concluding Remarks: The Evolution of the Perception(s) of ‘Culture’ | 355 | ||
| III. The Beneficiaries and the Nature of the Rights in Question – The Collective Right of Minorities to Their Own Cultural Life | 357 | ||
| A. The First Phase: Ignoring Minority Cultures | 357 | ||
| B. The Second Phase: Adopting a New Multiculturalist Perception in the Revised Guidelines for Reports by States Parties | 358 | ||
| C. Cultural Rights Viewed by the CESCR as Collective Rights too | 360 | ||
| D. Concluding Observations on Collective Minority Cultural Rights | 365 | ||
| IV. Other Explicit References to Minority Cultural Rights in General Comment No. 21 | 366 | ||
| A. Policies and Measures Promoting and Protecting Minority Languages | 367 | ||
| B. Freedom of Association for Cultural and Linguistic Minorities | 368 | ||
| C. Measures Encouraging Culturally Appropriate Education | 369 | ||
| D. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and Minorities | 370 | ||
| 1. ‘Minorities’ and ‘Indigenous Peoples’ | 372 | ||
| 2. Concluding Thoughts on the Issue of the FPIC | 374 | ||
| V. General Statements of Particular Importance to Minority Cultural Identities in General Comment No. 21 | 375 | ||
| A. The Right to Self-Identification | 375 | ||
| B. Recognition of Diverse Cultural Identities | 376 | ||
| VI. Locating the General Comment(s) in the Over-all Scheme of International Normativity | 379 | ||
| VII. General Conclusions | 381 | ||
| MART SUSI: The Definition of a ‘Structural Problem’ in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights Since 2010 | 385 | ||
| I. Introduction | 385 | ||
| II. The Evolution | 387 | ||
| A. The Initial Approach | 387 | ||
| B. The Impact of Pilot-Judgments | 388 | ||
| C. Search for Reasons for the Approach to Identify a Structural Problem | 390 | ||
| III. The Definition of a Structural Problem in ECtHR Jurisprudence | 394 | ||
| A. Earlier ECtHR Judgments Before 2010 | 394 | ||
| B. The Determination of a Structural Problem in ECHR Judgments 2010–2011 | 397 | ||
| 1. The Maximal Usage of the ECtHR Arsenal – Rumpf v. Germany | 397 | ||
| 2. Referral to General Domestic Measures without First Establishing a Structural Problem | 399 | ||
| 3. Setting a Deadline for the Measures – Kharchenko v. Ukraine | 401 | ||
| 4. Structural Problem in Poland – Requesting General Measures | 402 | ||
| 5. The Detailed Request of General Measures without Establishing a Structural Problem | 404 | ||
| 6. Conclusion | 407 | ||
| C. Defining the Limits of the ECtHR’s Authority | 408 | ||
| D. Recent Instruments that may Influence ECtHR Judgments | 408 | ||
| E. Conclusion | 409 | ||
| IV. Developments in 2012 | 410 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 413 | ||
| MALGOSIA FITZMAURICE: Indigenous Whaling and Environmental Protection | 419 | ||
| I. Introduction | 419 | ||
| II. Historical Background of the Regulation of Whaling and Aboriginal Whaling | 421 | ||
| A. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling | 422 | ||
| B. The International Whaling Commission | 423 | ||
| III. Aboriginal Whaling within the Jurisdiction of the IWC | 427 | ||
| A. Defining Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling | 428 | ||
| B. The Difference Between Commercial and Non-Commercial Whaling | 430 | ||
| C. Defining Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling under the IWC | 431 | ||
| IV. Aboriginal Whaling Outside the IWC | 434 | ||
| A. Equatorial Guinea | 435 | ||
| B. Indonesia | 435 | ||
| C. The Philippines | 435 | ||
| D. Canada | 436 | ||
| E. Conclusion | 437 | ||
| V. Contentious Cases Illustrating How Aboriginal Whaling Affects the Environment | 438 | ||
| A. The USA: Case Study of the Makah Indians (State of Washington) | 438 | ||
| B. The Case of Greenland | 443 | ||
| VI. Human Rights Issues: The Cultural Element in Aboriginal Whaling | 445 | ||
| A. Article 27 of the ICCPR | 445 | ||
| B. Other International Instruments | 448 | ||
| 1. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 | 448 | ||
| 2. The 1989 169 ILO Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries | 449 | ||
| 3. Instruments Adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) | 449 | ||
| a) The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity 2001 | 450 | ||
| b) The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions 2005 | 450 | ||
| C. Conclusion | 451 | ||
| VII. Aboriginal Whaling and Possible Conflict with other Fields of International Instruments | 452 | ||
| A. International Environmental Law and Protection and State Obligations | 453 | ||
| B. Conflicts Between International Instruments and Agreements | 454 | ||
| C. Instruments Regulating the Conflict Situations in Relation to the ICRW | 455 | ||
| 1. The Convention on the Protection of Biodiversity and the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty | 456 | ||
| 2. Conflicts in Environmental Treaties and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties | 458 | ||
| 3. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity | 459 | ||
| D. Conclusion | 460 | ||
| VIII. General Conclusion | 462 | ||
| PRABHAKAR SINGH: Mercantile Metaconstitutionalism: Interpretation of the WTO Treaty and the Developing Countries | 465 | ||
| I. Introduction | 465 | ||
| A. WTO Constitutionalism: Learning from Domestic Courts | 470 | ||
| B. Rise of the Appellate Body | 472 | ||
| II. The United Nations and GATT 1947: The Nature of Internationalism and the Gradual Rise of Constitutionalism | 473 | ||
| A. The Dispute Settlement Understanding and the New Constitutional Turn | 475 | ||
| B. When the Appellate Body Began to Borrow Domestic Techniques | 476 | ||
| III. The Negotiated Bargains and Concessions for Developing and Least Developed Countries under the GATT/WTO System | 477 | ||
| A. When the WTO Judiciary Alters the Meaning of Provisions to Nullify Benefits to Developing Countries | 478 | ||
| B. Is Importing a New Method of Treaty Interpretation a Breach of Treaty Obligations? | 480 | ||
| IV. The Rise of Constitutional Hermeneutics within WTO Legal System | 482 | ||
| A. Scholarly Writings and the WTO as a Trade Plus Court | 482 | ||
| B. The WTO’s Non-Trade Concerns | 485 | ||
| C. The Appellate Body’s Constitutionalisation of the WTO Law in Anti-Dumping Cases | 485 | ||
| V. International Trade from Contract to a Multilateral Treaty | 489 | ||
| A. Trade Law v. Domestic Law | 492 | ||
| B. The WTO’s Proper Mission | 493 | ||
| VI. The WTO’s Constitutionalism by Developing Countries | 494 | ||
| A. Separation of Powers as Constitutionalism | 495 | ||
| B. Migration of Constitutionalism to the Courts of Developing States | 496 | ||
| VII. The Appellate Body’s Activism, Developing Countries and Least Developed Countries | 497 | ||
| VIII. Case-Law Evidence of the Constitutional Argument by Developing States, the Appellate Body and Panels | 500 | ||
| A. The India – QRs Case: WTO’s Separation of Powers Argument Rejected | 500 | ||
| B. Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft: Appellate Body Makes a Separation of Powers Argument | 502 | ||
| C. Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services: The Panel’s Constitutional Interpretation | 503 | ||
| IX. Conclusion | 504 | ||
| NICHOLAS TSAGOURIAS: Scotland: Independence and Membership of the UN and the EU | 509 | ||
| I. Introduction | 509 | ||
| II. Scottish Independence: A Case of Secession | 511 | ||
| III. Membership of the United Nations | 515 | ||
| IV. Membership of the EU | 523 | ||
| V. Concluding Observations | 533 | ||
| GERMAN PRACTICE | 535 | ||
| CHRISTOPHE EICK: The UN Security Council and International Law in 2012 | 537 | ||
| I. Introduction | 537 | ||
| II. Cooperation with the League of Arab States | 539 | ||
| III. The Security Council and the International Criminal Court (ICC) | 545 | ||
| IV. Security Council Procedure and Working Methods | 550 | ||
| V. Concluding Observations | 559 | ||
| PETER WITTIG: Making UN Sanctions Work: Germany’s Chairmanship of the Al-Qaida/Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council | 561 | ||
| ANTJE SIERING: Germany’s Contribution to the Protection of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Hosting the IPBES Secretariat in the UN City of Bonn | 573 | ||
| I. Introduction | 573 | ||
| II. History of the IPBES | 574 | ||
| III. Link to the United Nations System, Mandate, Structure and Financing of the IPBES | 578 | ||
| A. IPBES in the United Nations System | 578 | ||
| B. Mandate | 578 | ||
| C. Institutional Arrangements | 579 | ||
| D. Financing | 580 | ||
| IV. Hosting the IPBES Secretariat in Bonn | 581 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 584 | ||
| NICHOLAS ENGLISH AND FELIX BIEKER: Upholding Data Protection Law Against Multinational Corporations: German Administrative Measures Relating to Facebook | 587 | ||
| CHRISTOPH SEIDLER: European Commission v. Germany: The Data Retention Directive – Legal or Political Issue? | 601 | ||
| PATRICK BRAASCH: Margin of Appreciation or a Victimless Crime? The European Court of Human Rights on Consensual Incest of Adult Siblings | 613 | ||
| JULIA GEBHARD AND JOHANNES FUCHS: Equal (Enough), at Last? Latest ECtHR Jurisprudence in Ahrens v. Germany and Kautzor v. Germany on the Rights of Biological Fathers | 625 | ||
| RAINER GROTE: The ECHR’s Rulings in von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2) and Axel Springer AG v. Germany: Rebalancing Freedom of the Press with the Respect for Privacy | 639 | ||
| JULIA MÜLLER: The Arrest of G8 Protestors: The Contested Legitimacy of Preventive Detention | 649 | ||
| STEPHANIE SCHLICKEWEI: Preventive Detention Revisited Before the ECtHR: O.H. v. Germany | 659 | ||
| JULIA GLOCKE: German Measures Against Islamic Extremist Organisation Upheld in Strasbourg: Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany | 671 | ||
| TOBIAS THIENEL: The Appointment of Public Officials, Interim Measures and Article 6 of the ECHR | 679 | ||
| HANS MICHAEL HEINIG AND STEFAN KIRCHNER: Private Prayer in Public Schools: The Judgment of the German Federal Administrative Court of 30 November 2011 | 689 | ||
| ANDREA MEYER: Handling of Somali Pirates from Capture until Transfer to Kenyan Authorities in Accordance with International Law? | 699 | ||
| BOOK REVIEWS | 711 | ||
| Louise Doswald-Beck: Human Rights in Times of Conflict and Terrorism (CHRISTIAN JOHANN) | 713 | ||
| Saelo Gumedze: The Peace and Security Council of the African Union – Its Relationship with the United Nations, the African Union and Sub-Regional Mechanisms (ANDREAS ZIMMERMANN) | 715 | ||
| Andrew Lang: World Trade Law after Neoliberalism – Re-imagining the Global Economic Order (AMBER ROSE MAGGIO) | 716 | ||
| Sir Hersch Lauterpacht: The Function of Law in the International Community (BING BING JIA) | 718 | ||
| Marko Milanovic: Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (TOBIAS HOFMANN) | 721 | ||
| William Schabas: Unimaginable Atrocities – Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals (JOHANNES FUCHS) | 724 | ||
| Bert Swart/Alexander Zahar/Göran Sluiter (eds.): The Legacy of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (TIMOTHY WILLIAM WATERS) | 727 | ||
| Antonios Tzanakopoulos: Disobeying the Security Council (ACHILLES SKORDAS) | 731 | ||
| Helmut Volger/Norman Weiß (eds.): Die Vereinten Nationen vor globalen Herausforderungen – Referate der Potsdamer UNO-Konferenzen 2000–2008 (KATRIN KOHOUTEK) | 735 | ||
| BOOKS RECEIVED | 741 |