German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht
BOOK
Cite BOOK
Style
Odendahl, K., Matz-Lück, N., Arnauld, A. (Eds.) (2014). German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht. Vol. 56 (2013). Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54480-6
Odendahl, Kerstin; Matz-Lück, Nele and Arnauld, Andreas von. German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht: Vol. 56 (2013). Duncker & Humblot, 2014. Book. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54480-6
Odendahl, K, Matz-Lück, N, Arnauld, A (eds.) (2014): German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht: Vol. 56 (2013), Duncker & Humblot, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-54480-6
Format
German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht
Vol. 56 (2013)
Editors: Odendahl, Kerstin | Matz-Lück, Nele | Arnauld, Andreas von
German Yearbook of International Law / Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, Vol. 56
(2014)
Additional Information
Book Details
Pricing
About The Author
Prof. Dr. Andreas von Arnauld ist Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Öffentliches Recht mit Schwerpunkt Völker- und Europarecht an der Universität Kiel und Direktor des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht. Zuvor lehrte er als Professor für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Völker- und Europarecht an der Helmut-Schmidt-Universität der Bundeswehr in Hamburg (2007–2012) sowie an der Universität Münster (2012–2013). Seine Forschungsschwerpunkte umfassen das internationale Friedenssicherungsrecht, den Grund- und Menschenrechtsschutz, Rechtsstaatlichkeit (rule of law), rechtswissenschaftliche Grundlagenforschung sowie Recht und Literatur.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
$aThe German Yearbook of International Law,$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: CONFLICTS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA | 9 | ||
| ZOU KEYUAN: China and the South China Sea Conundrum: Any Prospective Solution in Future? | 11 | ||
| I. Introduction | 11 | ||
| II. China’s U-shaped Line and Historic Rights | 15 | ||
| III. Islands and Reefs in the South China Sea | 17 | ||
| IV. Straight Baselines in the South China Sea | 20 | ||
| V. Foreign Military Activities in the EEZ | 22 | ||
| VI. From DOC to COC | 28 | ||
| VII. Final Remarks | 30 | ||
| TED L. MCDORMAN: The South China Sea: The U-Shaped Line, Islands and the Philippine-China Arbitration | 33 | ||
| I. Introduction | 33 | ||
| A. The 2002 Declaration: Subsequent Developments | 35 | ||
| B. Legal Questions | 37 | ||
| II. The U-shaped Line | 38 | ||
| III. Islands, Rocks and Low-tide Elevations | 43 | ||
| IV. Dispute Settlement under UNCLOS | 46 | ||
| A. The China/Philippines Arbitration: Establishing the Tribunal | 47 | ||
| B. The China/Philippines Arbitration: Non-Appearance | 49 | ||
| C. The Philippine Claim | 51 | ||
| D. Jurisdiction | 53 | ||
| 1. Exhaustion of Negotiations | 53 | ||
| 2. Prior Agreed Dispute Settlement Process | 54 | ||
| 3. Land Sovereignty | 56 | ||
| 4. China’s Article 298 UNCLOS Declaration | 57 | ||
| 5. The U-Shaped Line and UNCLOS | 60 | ||
| V. Conclusion | 61 | ||
| FOCUS: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY LAW | 63 | ||
| SERGEI VINOGRADOV AND GOKCE METE: Cross-Border Oil and Gas Pipelines in International Law | 65 | ||
| I. Introduction | 65 | ||
| II. International Legal Frameworks for Cross-Border Pipelines: An Overview | 66 | ||
| A. Special International Agreements on Pipelines | 66 | ||
| B. Regional Framework Arrangements | 68 | ||
| C. Multilateral Agreements | 69 | ||
| III. General Legal Principles Applicable to Cross-Border Pipelines | 70 | ||
| A. The Freedom to Lay Submarine Pipelines | 70 | ||
| 1. The Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea | 71 | ||
| 2. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea | 71 | ||
| B. The Freedom of Transit | 74 | ||
| 1. Emergence of the Concept | 74 | ||
| 2. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade | 75 | ||
| 3. The Convention on Transit Trade of Land-Locked States | 77 | ||
| 4. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea | 78 | ||
| IV. The Energy Charter Treaty and the Draft Transit Protocol | 78 | ||
| V. Applicable EU Law | 86 | ||
| A. The Third Energy Package | 86 | ||
| B. The Treaty Establishing the Energy Community | 88 | ||
| VI. Environmental Aspects of Cross-Border Pipelines | 88 | ||
| VII. Issues of Human Rights | 92 | ||
| VIII. Models of Cross-Border Pipeline Regimes | 94 | ||
| A. Connected National Pipelines Model | 94 | ||
| B. Integrated Pipelines Model | 95 | ||
| C. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline | 96 | ||
| D. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium | 98 | ||
| E. The Chad-Cameroon Pipeline | 100 | ||
| F. The South Stream Pipeline | 101 | ||
| G. The Nord Stream Pipeline | 103 | ||
| IX. Conclusion | 103 | ||
| TARA DAVENPORT: The Installation of Submarine Power Cables under UNCLOS: Legal and Policy Issues | 107 | ||
| I. Introduction | 107 | ||
| II. An Overview of Submarine Power Cables | 110 | ||
| A. Development and Uses of Submarine Power Cables | 110 | ||
| 1. Early Uses: Short-Haul Crossings | 110 | ||
| 2. 1950s: Supply to Offshore Islands | 111 | ||
| 3. 1960s Onwards: Connection of Autonomous Grids | 111 | ||
| 4. 1990s Onwards: Offshore Energy | 112 | ||
| B. Types and Design of Submarine Power Cables | 112 | ||
| 1. Types of Submarine Power Cables | 112 | ||
| 2. Design | 113 | ||
| C. Installation of Submarine Power Cables | 114 | ||
| III. An Overview of the Legal Regime Governing Submarine Power Cables | 116 | ||
| IV. Submarine Power Cables not Under the Jurisdiction of the Coastal State | 119 | ||
| A. The Law | 119 | ||
| 1. Freedom to Lay Submarine Cables in the EEZ and Continental Shelf under UNCLOS | 121 | ||
| 2. Coastal States’ Rights to Regulate Cable Operations in the EEZ and Continental Shelf under UNCLOS | 123 | ||
| B. Submarine Power Cables and the Marine Environment | 126 | ||
| 1. The Potential Impact of Submarine Power Cables on the Marine Environment | 127 | ||
| 2. Coastal States’ Rights to Impose Environmental Regulations on Submarine Power Cables under UNCLOS | 131 | ||
| 3. Marine Protected Areas and Marine Spatial Planning | 135 | ||
| 4. Environmental Impact Assessments | 137 | ||
| 5. OSPAR BEP Guidelines | 139 | ||
| V. Submarine Power Cables in the EEZ and Continental Shelf under the Jurisdiction of the Coastal State | 141 | ||
| A. Environmental Issues | 143 | ||
| B. Competing Uses | 144 | ||
| VI. Conclusion: The Way Forward | 146 | ||
| KAJ HOBÉR AND JOEL DAHLQUIST: International Investment Protection Regimes in the Energy Sector | 149 | ||
| I. Introduction | 149 | ||
| II. Other Relevant Regimes | 151 | ||
| A. Bilateral Investment Treaties | 151 | ||
| B. North American Free Trade Agreement | 152 | ||
| C. Treaty Establishing the Energy Community | 153 | ||
| D. Energy Investments and the European Convention on Human Rights | 153 | ||
| III. Investment Protection under the Energy Charter Treaty | 155 | ||
| A. Scope of the Energy Charter Treaty | 155 | ||
| 1. The Meaning of “Investor” under the Energy Charter Treaty | 156 | ||
| 2. “Denial of Benefits” Clause: Article 17 | 156 | ||
| 3. The Meaning of “Investment” under the Energy Charter Treaty | 159 | ||
| 4. “Investment” under the Energy Charter Treaty Jurisprudence | 160 | ||
| 5. Temporal Jurisdiction | 162 | ||
| 6. “Investment” in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Jurisprudence | 163 | ||
| B. Expropriation under the Energy Charter Treaty | 165 | ||
| 1. Expropriation in the ECT Jurisprudence | 167 | ||
| C. Standards of Protection under the Energy Charter Treaty | 169 | ||
| 1. Fair and Equitable Treatment | 169 | ||
| 2. Most Constant Protection and Security | 172 | ||
| 3. Discrimination | 172 | ||
| 4. The ‘Umbrella Clause’: Article 10 | 173 | ||
| D. Most Favoured Nation Treatment: Article 10 (1) | 174 | ||
| IV. Dispute Settlement under the Energy Charter Treaty | 175 | ||
| A. State-to-State: Article 27 | 175 | ||
| B. Investor-State: Article 26 | 175 | ||
| 1. Forum | 175 | ||
| 2. Applicable Law | 176 | ||
| 3. Consent: Article 26 (3) | 179 | ||
| V. Provisional Application: Article 45 | 180 | ||
| A. The Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law | 181 | ||
| B. The Relationship between Articles 45 (1) and 45 (2) | 182 | ||
| VI. Concluding Remarks | 183 | ||
| ANDREY KONOPLYANIK: Russia and the Energy Charter: Long, Thorny and Winding Way to Each Other | 185 | ||
| I. Introduction | 186 | ||
| II. The Energy Charter | 187 | ||
| A. History and Interests of Parties | 187 | ||
| B. Aspects of the Energy Charter | 194 | ||
| C. ECT and Project Financing: Operation of the Treaty | 195 | ||
| III. Russia’s Criticism of the ECT: Reasonable and Far-Fetched Claims | 198 | ||
| IV. ECT: Transit and Draft Transit Protocol | 200 | ||
| V. Common Misconceptions by Russia | 204 | ||
| A. Common Misconception 1: Obligation to Provide Transit | 204 | ||
| B. Common Misconception 2: Obligation for Equal Tariffs | 206 | ||
| C. Common Misconception 3: Russia-EU Nuclear Trade | 208 | ||
| D. Common Misconception 4: Supplementary Treaty on Investment | 209 | ||
| E. Common Misconception 5: ECT Does not Permit Long-Term Contracts | 211 | ||
| F. The Media as the ‘Collective Disorganiser’ | 212 | ||
| VI. Russia’s Criticism of the ECT: 2009 Timeline and the Resulting Termination of the Provisional Application | 214 | ||
| VII. General Conclusions | 218 | ||
| A. Effects of the Termination of the Provisional Application | 218 | ||
| B. To Destroy or to Upgrade? | 221 | ||
| C. Conclusion: Energy Charter – A Lost Opportunity? | 222 | ||
| PATRICK REYNERS: The International Nuclear Energy Law Framework: An Outlook | 227 | ||
| I. Introduction | 227 | ||
| II. Nuclear Energy Today | 228 | ||
| III. A Short History of Nuclear Law | 229 | ||
| A. The Impact of Chernobyl | 233 | ||
| B. The Impact of “9–11” | 234 | ||
| C. The Impact of Fukushima | 234 | ||
| IV. Competent International Organisations | 235 | ||
| A. The IAEA | 235 | ||
| B. Euratom | 236 | ||
| C. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency | 236 | ||
| V. What Is Special About Nuclear Law? | 237 | ||
| VI. The Legal Framework | 238 | ||
| A. Radiation Protection | 238 | ||
| B. Nuclear Safety | 241 | ||
| 1. Information and Assistance | 241 | ||
| 2. Safety of Nuclear Installations | 244 | ||
| 3. Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste | 247 | ||
| 4. Research Reactors | 250 | ||
| 5. Radioactive Sources | 251 | ||
| C. Nuclear Transports | 253 | ||
| 1. IAEA Regulations | 253 | ||
| 2. Modal Transport Regulations | 254 | ||
| D. Nuclear Security | 256 | ||
| 1. International Conventions | 256 | ||
| 2. Non-Binding Instruments | 258 | ||
| 3. Illicit Trafficking | 259 | ||
| 4. International Programmes and Initiatives | 260 | ||
| E. Non-Proliferation and Safeguards | 261 | ||
| F. Nuclear Trade Controls | 264 | ||
| 1. The Zangger Trigger List | 265 | ||
| 2. The Nuclear Suppliers Guidelines | 265 | ||
| G. Nuclear Third Party Liability | 267 | ||
| 1. The Paris Convention | 268 | ||
| a) Strict Liability | 268 | ||
| b) Exclusive Liability | 269 | ||
| c) Scope of Application | 269 | ||
| d) Nuclear Damage | 269 | ||
| e) Limitation of Liability in Amount | 270 | ||
| f) Limitation of Liability in Time | 270 | ||
| g) Mandatory Financial Cover | 270 | ||
| h) Jurisdiction | 271 | ||
| i) Intervention by the State | 271 | ||
| 2. The Brussels Supplementary Convention | 272 | ||
| 3. The Vienna Convention | 273 | ||
| 4. The Joint Protocol | 273 | ||
| 5. Modernisation of the Nuclear Liability Regime | 274 | ||
| a) Geographical Scope | 275 | ||
| b) Nuclear Damage | 275 | ||
| c) Units of Account | 275 | ||
| d) Financial Limits | 275 | ||
| e) Time Limits | 276 | ||
| 6. The Convention on Supplementary Compensation Convention for Nuclear Damage | 276 | ||
| VII. Perspectives | 277 | ||
| PETER KAYODE ONIEMOLA: International Law on Renewable Energy: The Need For a Worldwide Treaty | 281 | ||
| I. Introduction | 281 | ||
| II. International Legal Framework Relevant to the Promotion of Renewable Energy | 283 | ||
| A. Principles of International Environmental Law | 284 | ||
| 1. The Principle of Sustainable Development | 285 | ||
| 2. The Precautionary Principle | 285 | ||
| 3. The Polluter Pays Principle | 286 | ||
| B. Non-Binding International Law Instruments: Soft Law | 287 | ||
| 1. The Rio Declaration | 288 | ||
| 2. The Agenda 21 | 289 | ||
| 3. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation | 289 | ||
| 4. The Group of Eight (G8) Gleneagles 2005 Plan of Action | 290 | ||
| 5. The Beijing Declaration and Beyond | 291 | ||
| C. Binding International Law Instruments: Treaties | 293 | ||
| 1. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 | 293 | ||
| 2. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol | 294 | ||
| 3. The Convention on Access to Environmental Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters | 297 | ||
| 4. The World Trade Organization Agreements | 298 | ||
| a) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures | 299 | ||
| b) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade | 301 | ||
| c) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade | 303 | ||
| 5. International Investment Treaties | 305 | ||
| 6. Setting the Pace: The Statute of the International Renewable Energy Agency | 308 | ||
| III. Towards a Worldwide Treaty on Renewable Energy | 309 | ||
| IV. Conclusion | 313 | ||
| ALEXANDRA XANTHAKI: Rights of Indigenous Peoples under the Light of Energy Exploitation | 315 | ||
| I. Introduction | 315 | ||
| II. Consultation and Participation | 317 | ||
| III. Free Prior and Informed Consent | 321 | ||
| A. UNDRIP | 321 | ||
| B. Human Rights Bodies | 322 | ||
| C. Development Actors | 327 | ||
| IV. Substantive Indigenous Rights | 328 | ||
| A. Land Rights | 331 | ||
| 1. Impact Assessments | 333 | ||
| 2. Redress | 334 | ||
| 3. Benefit Sharing | 335 | ||
| B. Prohibition of Forcible Removal | 336 | ||
| C. Rights to Natural Resources | 338 | ||
| D. Cultural and Social Rights | 341 | ||
| E. The Right to the Conservation and Protection of the Environment | 343 | ||
| V. Conflicts of Rights | 345 | ||
| VI. Conclusions – An Alternative Model? | 347 | ||
| GENERAL ARTICLES | 349 | ||
| ULF LINDERFALK: All the Things That You Can Do with Jus Cogens – A Pragmatic Approach to Legal Language | 351 | ||
| I. Introduction | 351 | ||
| II. Functionality Analysis | 357 | ||
| A. Understanding Utterances | 357 | ||
| B. Studying Contexts as Generalised Phenomena | 360 | ||
| C. Avoiding Miscommunication | 361 | ||
| III. Why Utterers Resort to Jus Cogens | 363 | ||
| A. It Potentially Helps Convince Addressees of the Correctness of Utterers’ Arguments | 363 | ||
| B. It Potentially Helps Provoke an Understanding of Arguments as Generalised Propositions | 366 | ||
| C. It Potentially Causes Misunderstandings of the True Nature of Arguments | 367 | ||
| D. It Potentially Makes Addressees Process Arguments Independently of Any Law-Maker’s Current Understanding | 369 | ||
| E. It Potentially Helps Contain the Understanding of Other Conceptual Terms | 371 | ||
| IV. Why Utterers Resort to Jus Cogens: Indirect Functionalities | 373 | ||
| A. It Potentially Helps Convey Pieces of Legal Knowledge | 373 | ||
| B. It Potentially Prompts an Assessment of Arguments Based on Means for the Determination of Lex Lata | 375 | ||
| C. It Potentially Works to Exaggerate the Importance of Arguments and Prevents Addressees from Questioning Utterers’ Intents | 377 | ||
| V. The Significance of Jus Cogens for the Formation of International Law | 379 | ||
| VI. Conclusions | 382 | ||
| MARTIN BOROWSKI: Absolute Rights and Proportionality | 385 | ||
| I. Introduction | 385 | ||
| II. Proportionality and Rights | 387 | ||
| III. The Common Understanding of Absolute Rights | 393 | ||
| A. The Characteristics of Absolute Rights | 393 | ||
| B. How to Identify Absolute Rights | 394 | ||
| 1. Absolute Rights qua Being Non-Derogable? | 394 | ||
| 2. Absolute Rights qua Lack of a Limiting Clause? | 395 | ||
| 3. Substantive Characteristics | 396 | ||
| IV. Problems of the Common Understanding of Absolute Rights | 398 | ||
| A. The Competition among Absolute Rights | 398 | ||
| B. The Absolute Priority of Absolute Rights over Competing Relative Rights | 400 | ||
| C. The Narrow Scope of Absolute Rights Sensu Stricto | 401 | ||
| V. An Outline of the Relative Reading of ‘Absolute Rights’ | 402 | ||
| VI. Debates that are Result-Oriented versus Structural Enquiries into ‘Absolute Rights’ | 404 | ||
| A. Debates that are Result-Oriented | 404 | ||
| B. Enquiries into the Structure of ‘Absolute Rights’ | 406 | ||
| VII. The Relative Absoluteness of ‘Absolute Rights’ qua Proportionality | 406 | ||
| A. The Abstract Weight of Rights | 407 | ||
| B. The Disproportionately Increasing Resistance of Rights | 409 | ||
| C. The Certainty of the Relevant Empirical Premisses | 410 | ||
| 1. Shooting Down Passenger Aircrafts, Human Dignity, and the German FCC | 410 | ||
| 2. On the Irrelevance of Hypothetical or Artificial Cases | 412 | ||
| VIII. On Absolute Limits to Balancing | 413 | ||
| IX. The Gäfgen Case Revisited | 416 | ||
| X. Uncoupling Proportionality and Limitation | 418 | ||
| A. The ‘Relativity’ of Article 3 ECHR in the Case Law of the ECtHR | 418 | ||
| B. Alexy’s Model of the Structure of Human Dignity – Implicit Proportionality Analysis | 421 | ||
| XI. Conclusion | 423 | ||
| JASMINE COPPENS: Interception of Seaborne Migrants: The Applicability of the Non-Refoulement Principle at Sea | 425 | ||
| I. Introduction | 425 | ||
| II. Interception and the Right to Leave | 427 | ||
| III. Interception and Non-Refoulement | 432 | ||
| A. Refugee Law Context | 432 | ||
| 1. Concept | 432 | ||
| 2. Application at the Borders of a State | 433 | ||
| a) Maritime Frontier | 433 | ||
| b) Non-Admittance at the Borders of a State | 436 | ||
| 3. Extraterritorial Application | 441 | ||
| B. Human Rights Context | 443 | ||
| 1. Concept | 443 | ||
| 2. Extraterritorial Application | 444 | ||
| 3. Effective Control and Legal Fictions | 447 | ||
| C. Customary International Law | 449 | ||
| IV. Conclusion | 454 | ||
| DAGMAR RICHTER AND PATRICK UHRMEISTER: Returning ‘Politically Exposed Persons’ Illicit Assets from Switzerland – International Law in the Force Field of Complexity and Conditionality | 457 | ||
| I. Introduction | 458 | ||
| A. The Prominence of Switzerland | 458 | ||
| B. PEPs – Politically Exposed Persons of the Special Kind | 458 | ||
| 1. Discrepancies in Definition | 458 | ||
| 2. Modes of Kleptocracy, Supposed Figures and the Dimensions of Damage | 459 | ||
| C. The Case of Switzerland: Proclaimed Policy and Open Questions | 461 | ||
| II. Returning Assets in International Law | 462 | ||
| A. International Anti-Corruption Treaty Law | 462 | ||
| 1. The Criminal Law Revolution: A New Transnational Approach to Combating Corruption | 462 | ||
| 2. The Emergence of the Principle of Asset Recovery | 464 | ||
| a) The UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime | 464 | ||
| (1) Introduction | 464 | ||
| (2) Return of the Proceeds of Organized Crime under UNTOC | 465 | ||
| b) The UN Convention against Corruption | 465 | ||
| (1) Introduction | 465 | ||
| (2) Asset Recovery under UNCAC | 466 | ||
| B. Other Forms of International Co-operation Relevant to Asset Recovery | 469 | ||
| C. Emergency Measures by the UN Security Council: The Case of Libya (2011) | 470 | ||
| III. Swiss Law – A Model for State Practice? | 471 | ||
| A. Three Pillar Approach | 471 | ||
| B. Preventing the Accumulation of Illicit Assets in Switzerland through Criminal Law | 472 | ||
| 1. Transnational Offences: Active and Passive Corruption with Regard to Foreign Public Officials | 472 | ||
| 2. PEP Regimes as Criminal Organisations? | 473 | ||
| 3. Money Laundering | 475 | ||
| 4. Fundamental Obstacles to Prosecution and Punishment | 475 | ||
| a) Public International Law Restrictions – Benefiting PEPs? | 475 | ||
| b) Swiss Jurisdiction and Dual Criminality | 476 | ||
| c) Disastrous Limitation Clauses: Experiences in the Cases of Duvalier and Mobutu | 476 | ||
| d) Lack of Evidence | 477 | ||
| C. The Role of Financial Intermediaries: Due Diligence Requirements in Financial Transactions | 478 | ||
| 1. Know Your Customer – Know Your PEP | 478 | ||
| 2. Duty to Report and Automatic Freeze | 480 | ||
| D. Freezing, Seizure and Repatriation of Assets | 481 | ||
| 1. Precautionary Seizure of Assets upon Order of the Swiss Federal Council: Recent Cases from Africa | 481 | ||
| 2. International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters | 483 | ||
| a) Freezing of Assets and Precautionary Orders | 484 | ||
| b) Confiscating and Returning Assets | 484 | ||
| c) Asset Sharing | 486 | ||
| 3. The Restitution of Illicit Assets Act | 487 | ||
| a) Object and Purpose | 487 | ||
| b) Freezing – As Being Demanded by the Interests of Switzerland | 487 | ||
| c) Forfeiture | 488 | ||
| d) Restitution | 489 | ||
| E. Compliance with UNTOC and UNCAC? | 490 | ||
| 1. IMAC | 490 | ||
| 2. RIAA | 491 | ||
| IV. Returning Assets to Developing Countries – The Legal Challenge | 493 | ||
| A. Subjecting Restitution to Conditions – The Dilemma of Weak Institutions | 493 | ||
| B. Conditionality in Public International Law | 493 | ||
| 1. Interference with the Domaine Réservé? | 494 | ||
| 2. Element of Coercion? | 495 | ||
| 3. Imposing a Certain Conduct on Developing Countries? | 496 | ||
| C. Just and Fair Restitution | 497 | ||
| D. Conclusion: Success Control | 498 | ||
| GERMAN PRACTICE | 501 | ||
| CHRISTOPHE EICK: The German-Gabonese Initiative on Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trafficking: Is There a Role for the UN Security Council? | 503 | ||
| BERENIKE SCHRIEWER: Shining a Light on the Human Rights Situation in Germany – The Human Rights Council’s Report on Germany in the Second Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review | 513 | ||
| MARLITT BRANDES: Germany’s Secret Arms Deals: Compliance of German Arms Export Licensing with International Law | 525 | ||
| NICHOLAS ENGLISH AND TIM RAUSCHNING: The Procurement and Use of Armed UAVs by the German Military in International and German Law | 539 | ||
| JULE SIEGFRIED AND MARIEKE LÜDECKE: 50th Anniversary of the Élysée Treaty | 557 | ||
| KATRIN KOHOUTEK: The Swiss-German Treaty on the Effects of the Operation of Zurich Airport on German Territory | 573 | ||
| JULIA MÜLLER: The Hamburg Piracy Trial – A Contribution to the International Aim of Combating Piracy? | 585 | ||
| ANDREA MEYER: The 2011 EU Directive on Preventing and Combating Trafficking: Non-Implementation by Germany? | 595 | ||
| BOOK REVIEWS | 611 | ||
| Bardo Fassbender/Anne Peters (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (KARL-HEINZ ZIEGLER) | 613 | ||
| Maurizio Ragazzi: Responsibility of International Organizations. Essays in Memory of Sir Ian Brownlie (BARTŁOMIEJ KRZAN) | 616 | ||
| Duncan B. Hollis: The Oxford Guide to Treaties (MARCUS SCHLADEBACH) | 619 | ||
| Francesco Francioni/James Gordley (eds.): Enforcing International Cultural Heritage Law (MALGOSIA FITZMAURICE) | 621 | ||
| Mohamed Elewa Badar: The Concept of Mens Rea in International Criminal Law – The Case for a Unified Approach (ALEXANDER ORAKHELASHVILI) | 624 | ||
| Yvonne Dutton: Rules, Politics, and the International Criminal Court – Committing to the Court (SYLVIA NWAMARAIHE) | 626 | ||
| Anne-Marie de Brouwer/Charlotte Ku/Renée Römkens/Larissa van den Herik (eds.): Sexual Violence as an International Crime: Interdisciplinary Approaches (CECILIA TOLEDO ESCOBAR) | 629 | ||
| Stefan Talmon: Über Grenzen (NELE MATZ-LÜCK) | 631 | ||
| Matthias C. Kettemann: Grenzen im Völkerrecht (NELE MATZ-LÜCK) | 631 | ||
| Martins Paparinskis: The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (TIM HILLIER) | 636 | ||
| Eleanor M. Fox/Michael J. Trebilcock (eds.): The Design of Competition Law Institutions – Global Norms, Local Choices (MARCUS SCHLADEBACH) | 637 | ||
| Jeffrey L. Dunoff/Mark A. Pollack (eds.): Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations – The State of the Art (ALEXANDER ORAKHELASHVILI) | 639 | ||
| Kevin E. Davis/Angelina Fisher/Benedict Kingsbury/Sally Engle Merry (eds.): Governance by Indicators: Global Power through Quantifications and Rankings (HORATIA MUIR WATT) | 641 | ||
| BOOKS RECEIVED | 645 |