Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (38)
- Book (23)
- Article (18)
- Part of a Book (12)
- Public lecture (12)
- Contribution to online periodical (8)
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Other (7)
- Contribution to a Periodical (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
Language
- English (140) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (140) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (140)
Keywords
- EMRK (4)
- European Convention on Human Rights (4)
- GfHf-Jahrestagung 2018 (4)
- Deutschland (3)
- Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (3)
- Exportkontrolle (3)
- Germany (3)
- Technologie (3)
- export control (3)
- ECHR (2)
- EU-Beitritt (2)
- Public Administration (2)
- Rechtswissenschaften (2)
- Rüstungsbegrenzung (2)
- Unionsrecht (2)
- Völkerrecht (2)
- Youth-Check (2)
- human rights (2)
- international law (2)
- Abgeordneter (1)
- Administrative Styles (1)
- Amtsdeutsch (1)
- Arbeitsmarkt (1)
- Ausbildung (1)
- Beitritt (1)
- Bescheide (1)
- Bilanzierungsfähigkeit (1)
- Botswana (1)
- CJEU (1)
- Change Management (1)
- Civil Service (1)
- Civil service (1)
- Covid-19 (1)
- Crisis Governance (1)
- Crisis reaction (1)
- Deutsche Rentenversicherung (1)
- Deutschland / Bundestag (1)
- EU law (1)
- EU-Accession (1)
- EU-Charter (1)
- EU-accession (1)
- Europarat (1)
- European Directives (1)
- European Integration (1)
- European Public Prosecutor's Office (1)
- European Union (1)
- European arrest warrant (1)
- Europeanization (1)
- Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft (1)
- Europäische Union (1)
- Europäische Union / Parlament (1)
- Europäisierung des Verwaltungsrechts (1)
- Experiment (1)
- Experiments (1)
- Fair Trial (1)
- Franco-German partnership (1)
- Gemeindeverwaltung (1)
- Gesundheitswesen (1)
- GfHf-Jahrestagung2018 (1)
- Grundrechte (1)
- Grundrechtliche Natur von Rechten (1)
- Gute Verwaltung (1)
- Human Resource Management (1)
- Immigration policy (1)
- Indonesien (1)
- Informal arenas (1)
- Informality (1)
- International Conference (1)
- Italien (1)
- Korruption (1)
- Krankenhausfinanzierung (1)
- Lobbyismus (1)
- Menschenrecht (1)
- Multi-level governance (1)
- Multilateralismus (1)
- Parteienfinanzierung (1)
- Personalverwaltung (1)
- Procedural Rights (1)
- Professional Training (1)
- Protokoll Nr. 16 (1)
- Public administration (1)
- Public employment (1)
- Public service (1)
- Rechtsstaat (1)
- Refugee crisis (1)
- Rentenbescheid (1)
- Risikoanalyse (1)
- Uganda (1)
- VR China (1)
- Verwaltung , (1)
- Verwaltungsdienst (1)
- Verwaltungssprache (1)
- Vocational Education (1)
- Wassenaar Arrangement (1)
- administrative reform (1)
- arms control (1)
- automated decision-making (1)
- automatisierte Entscheidungen (1)
- cyberweapons (1)
- decentralization (1)
- dual-use (1)
- duality of norms (1)
- firm performance (1)
- integrated water resources management (IWRM) (1)
- intrusion tools (1)
- legal clarity (1)
- legal decision-making (1)
- management instruments (1)
- multilateralism (1)
- public participation (1)
- public private partnerships (PPPs) (1)
- publicly provided goods (1)
- risk assessment (1)
- unilateral declaration (1)
- water management (1)
- wholistic approach (1)
- Öffentlicher Dienst (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (16)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (10)
- Lehrstuhl für Sozialrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda) (8)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (7)
- Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften, insbesondere Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Finanzwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (4)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (4)
Electoral disinformation has become one of the most challenging problems for democratic states. All of them are facing the phenomenon of - both online and offline - dissemination of false information during pre-electoral period, which is harmful for individual and collective rights. As a consequence, some European countries adopted special measures, including summary judicial proceedings in order to declare that information or materials used in elec-tioneering are false and to prohibit its further dissemination. There are already three rulings of the ECtHR concerning this expeditious judicial examination provided in the Polish law. In December 2018 France passed complex regulation against manipulation of information that include similar mechanisms. This article, basing on the ECtHR’s case law and some national experiences, attempts to define the minimal European standard for measures targeted at electoral disinformation, especially judicial summary proceeding. It contains the analysis of the notion of electoral disinformation, defines the state’s positive obligations in this sphere, and indicates mayor challenges for the legal framework. The principal argument is that summary judicial proceedings – if adequately designed – cannot be questioned from the Convention standpoint and provide a partial solution to the problem of electoral dis-information.
The lecture explains how some of the well-established institutions of constitutional law are being questioned. It explains also how the experience of the XX-century atrocities and the emergence of the authoritarian regimes in Europe impacted on the State Theory, Political Science and Constitutionalism.
The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 and its consequences constitute a veritable capacity test for the European Union, challenging not only the single Member States, but also the European Union’s ability to provide policy responses that address pandemic control as a union-wide “public good” in different dimensions related to inter alia public health, but also the freedom of movement or the single market.
Against this backdrop, this article attempts to take stock of the Union’s early reactions to the first wave of the Covid-19 outbreak. After a brief introduction, we reflect on crisis manage-ment theories, power distribution in the EU, and the EU’s institutionalised crisis reaction capacity. Subsequently, crisis reaction in selected policy areas in the European Union is analysed, before we finish with a concluding section. We find some evidence for the pace-making function of the Franco-German tandem in the form of informal, decentralised action, as well as for a relative weak performance of institutionalised crisis management mecha-nisms on the EU level, but instead a centralisation towards the centre in the form of the European Commission.
After the invocation of security exceptions became more common, the first panel report ever on how to apply them has recently been issued in the Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit case. While this panel addressed the application of the security exception in a situation of threat to international peace and security, the question must be raised whether its approach also applies to the invocation of security exceptions for economic reasons. In this context, the present chapter focuses on the methodical preliminaries to applying security exceptions: Its application in WTO dispute settlement does not only prompt the question of the jurisdiction of WTO panels and the Appellate Body, but also pertains to the issues of standard of proof and standard of review. A related methodical issue concerns the feasibility of the expansive interpretive approach applied to the general exceptions to the security exception. Reading it in the same tune runs the risk of nullifying the concept of multilateral trade regulation altogether, even more so as the security exceptions miss the usual safeguard against abuse, i.e. the requirements of the general exceptions´ chapeau. The lack of such safety valve confirms that security exceptions are of a different character compared to other exceptions. This difference, however, may be difficult to maintain if security exceptions are also used to defend economic security interests. Finally, the application of security exceptions may - as debated with regard to other WTO exceptions - be subject to an inherent limitation against exterritorial application, which would restrain its scope of application in cases in which security measures against a third country intend to affect also the trade of WTO members, and could become relevant in assessing US sanctions against Iran.
This chapter identifies the most pressing challenges for the EU multilaterally oriented trade policy due to the changing global context for international trade and investment, caused by the shift of the US towards unilateralism and protectionism and by the re-orientation of China´s exceptionalism towards becoming a more influential actor. It explores and assesses how EU trade policy copes with the new polarities and finally formulates proposals for the way forward for the EU multilateral trade policy. It will be shown that the current challenges are more fundamental in character and may last longer than currently anticipated. It will also highlight that maintaining unity in the EU determination of trade policy is of pivotal importance for addressing the challenges, which however might become more difficult.
Mixed agreements have been a preferred form of entering into international treaties chosen by the EU and its Member States, despite the complexities their usage implies. Recent attempts of the EU institutions to prefer the conclusion of EU only agreements to mixed agreements, as a consequence of the broad interpretation of EU exclusive trade competences by the CJEU in Opinion 2/15 are motivated by the hope for increased efficiency in EU treaty making. They, however, provoke criticism with regard to democratic legitimacy and the EU principle of conferral, which constrain the EU to adopt only those legal acts for which it is competent. As this criticism is particularly strong in Germany and led to constitutional challenges of EU only acts, the present contribution will explain the treatment of mixed agreements in the constitutional order of Germany and explore the constitutional challenges that EU only agreements pose to the German constitutional order. This discussion will thus show the German legal order’s continued preference for mixed agreements, in view of the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC). Those constitutional challenges are particularly topical in view of the most recent case law of the CJEU that stressed the political leeway of the EU Council to choose, when it comes to the negotiation and conclusion of EU agreements based on shard competences, between either an EU only agreement or a mixed agreement. This political leeway turns mixity into a facultative endeavour in the hands of the Council. Under the constitutional perceptions of the FCC, such type of facultative mixity meets with considerable constitutional concerns because it replaces what was formerly held obligatory mixity.