Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Public lecture (242) (remove)
Language
- English (242) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (242)
Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence (2)
- Artificial Intelligence - AI (2)
- Europäischen Union (2)
- Exportkontrolle (2)
- Friedenssicherung (2)
- Legality (2)
- Nonproliferation (2)
- Völkerrecht (2)
- dual-use (2)
- export control (2)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (109)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (20)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (19)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (11)
- Lehrstuhl für öffentliches Recht, insbesondere allgemeines und besonderes Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Jan Ziekow) (6)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (5)
- Lehrstuhl für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Staatsrecht, Verwaltungsrecht und Europarecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mario Martini) (4)
- Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftliche Staatswissenschaften, insbesondere Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre und Finanzwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gisela Färber) (1)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliche Betriebswirtschaftslehre (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Holger Mühlenkamp) (1)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (1)
‘Killer Flying Robots Are Here. What Do We Do Now?’, ‘A Military Drone With A Mind Of Its Own Was Used In Combat, U.N. Says’ and ‘Possible First Use of AI-Armed Drones Triggers Alarm Bells’ – these are just some headlines to a report issued by the UN Panel of Experts on Libya. What caught the international attention was the panel’s description of the following scene in Libya’s civil war: ‘[Forces] were […] hunted down and remotely engaged by the un-manned combat aerial vehicles or the lethal autonomous weapons systems such as the STM Kargu-2 […]. The lethal autonomous weapons systems were programmed to attack targets without requiring data connectivity between the operator and the munition: in effect, a true “fire, forget and find” capability.’
However, the disruptive potential of AI is not limited to out-of-control killer drones or the military context in general – nor does it only have a negative potential. AI and its global trade promote international development and technological innovation, thereby improving lives. Therefore, the efforts to build a legal and policy framework to harness AI’s benefits and thwart its dangers is in full swing. States, the European Union, international organizations, NGOs, and scholars alike come up with ways of achieving that end. The approaches to the issue are manifold. However, most focus either on instating rules on the development of AI, for instance, how to ensure AI is built ethically or on its use, ie, banning its use in lethal auto-nomous weapon systems (LAWS). Whereas all these efforts are important, a further layer of protection has not gained much traction: regulating AI’s global trade so that responsible actors can use it to benefit humankind while preventing it from ending up in the hands of irresponsible actors.
The legal instrument to achieve this end is international export control law. It aims to mitiga-te the risks to international peace and security associated with the proliferation of sensitive items to irresponsible actors while avoiding unreasonable restrictions on global trade, eco-nomic development, and technological innovation. However, the international export control law is not yet suited to fulfill its promise regarding AI. The dual use nature of AI poses signifi-cant risks to international peace and security. Nevertheless, only in limited circumstances applies international export control law to the transfer of AI applications and technology, leaving a gap in the international export control framework. Until this gap is closed, inter-national human rights due diligence might provide fallback protection to address the issue
of mitigating the risks associated with the proliferation of dual use AI.
Decentralized Nations
(2022)
Herr Kolain hielt diesen Vortrag über Zoom auf Einladung der Stipendiatinnen und Stipendiaten der Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes am 29. September 2022 an der Humboldt Universität Berlin.
The world of 2022 is globally and digitally connected and disrupted by manifold crises. Questions of power, participation and cooperation arise with particular urgency – and the young generation is asking and searching for clear, effective and participatory solutions. How will we collectively find the best way towards social and climate justice and, ultimately, inner and outer peace?
While internet platforms have taken a dominating influence on how “the internet” is used, there is an ongoing debate on decentralization of the digital world. The idea behind distri-buted systems and computing is to remove powerful intermediaries, make data flows transparent and strengthen the position of the individual. Tackling authoritarian tendencies with the separation of powers and a vivid civil society, is also the core idea of modern democracies. The idea of subsidiarity and federalism is to make political decisions at the lowest possible level.
The presentation focusses on the overarching question: How should digital statehood be structured, both on a constitutional and a technical level? It combines general thoughts on the future of statehood and sovereignty with an analysis of current technology trends, such as blockchain or AI.
Digital technologies often have a dual-use nature, which means they can be used for both civil and military purposes. For instance, object recognition software can be used for auto-nomous civil driving or for autonomous targeting within armed drones. Thus, their uncon-trolled proliferation may pose risks to international peace and security. Generally, export controls aim to mitigate these risks while avoiding unreasonable restrictions on global trade and development. The novelty of digital dual-use items and the dynamics of their transfer pose new challenges for the international export control system and raise critical legal questions under international law. Does international law hold export control rules that sufficiently address the broad spectrum of relevant digital dual-use items and their rapid technological advancement? Furthermore, how do these rules treat the digital transfer of such items?
The presentation aims to answer these questions by, first, carving out the relevant inter-national export control rules. Secondly, the application of these rules to the digital dual-use items and their international transfer is analyzed. Finally, to the extent that the applicability is affirmed, the presentation will examine the international export control law’s requirements to the international transfer of digital dual-use items.
It has become a truism that the Internet gives a range of private actors, such as social media, substantial power. They are thus able to control the communication processes, hold considerable authority over shaping opinions, and become the arbiters of free speech. That is why legal scholars and policymakers are searching for legal tools that would ensure a fair balance between the conflicting rights of these two groups of private actors (platforms and their users).
The aim of this presentation would be to reconsider the relationship between individuals and online platforms, analyze how horizontal online conflicts may be resolved (giving examples of some national legislation and EU proposal concerning digital services), and answer the question if the discretion of the platforms can be limited in order to protect rights and freedoms. The theoretical framework of the analysis would be the doctrine of the State’s positive obligations, as established in the current European Court of Human Rights case law.
The main argument would be that it is necessary to strengthen the public supervision over Internet platforms, in particular the way they resolve horizontal conflicts. The possibility of limiting their discretion, in order to provide individual protection, does not mean however creating the unlimited right of access to the platform in order to express any opinion or view (freedom of forum).
On the way to the customer
(2021)
The notices of Deutsche Rentenversicherung are changing their face. In order to ensure that everybody insured as well as pensioners can better understand the decisions of Deutsche Rentenversicherung, the notices are becoming more comprehensible, clearer and more personal. The poster presentation describes the journey of an interdisciplinary team of Deutsche Rentenversicherung and the most important milestones along the way.
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.
Covid-19 Response in Germany
(2021)
Der Vortrag fand in zwei Teilen statt: Zunächst ging es um "Blockchain Technology in public administration? Regulatory, technological and organizational challenges of decentralized IT-systems" und dann um "Artificial Intelligence and the Law", jeweils mit anschließender Diskussion. Im Anschluss an den Vortrag kam es zu mehreren Gesprächen mit der Gruppe, die sich im Trendseminar mit Regulierungsfragen auseinandersetzte.
The German Federal State
(2020)
The regulation of interest mediation in democratic, economic relevant countries has not been systematically analyzed in a big N-study so far (smaller exceptions are (Chari et al., 2010; Holman and Luneburg, 2012)). This is surprising since interest mediation itself, the integration of societal actors into the decision-making processes, has been studied from many different perspectives using varying methodological approaches (Reutter, 2012; Willems and von Winter, 2007; Beyers et al., 2008; Eising et al., 2017).
This paper starts with the assumption that each country has a distinct way of dealing with the interests in its society, ranging from social, environmental, religious to economic ones, just to name a few. Each democratic country has to decide, how and in which ways societal interests are integrated into decision-making and which rules apply for these processes.
Existing research in interest mediation in general has in common that the concept of institutions helps us to map similarities as well as differences in the system of interest mediation. Institutions are understood as man-made, formalized (written) or non-formalized (unwritten) common conceptions or understandings of how power and other resources are distributed and exerted, how competences and responsibilities are defined, shaped and shared, as well as how interdependencies are structured (Morisse-Schilbach, 2012; March and Olsen, 1989; Mayntz and Scharpf, 1995).
The paper offers a conceptual framework to map the existing institutions relevant for regulating interest mediation in OECD countries to help understand the qualitative similarities and differences. To do so, it looks at formalized (written) or non-formalized (unwritten) rules, in terms of laws and by-laws, administrative procedures, and patterns of practices. The aim is to measure a) the openness of the interest mediation system in terms of equal access for all societal interests, and b) the level of formalized and non-formalized regulation to arrive at a typology of either open or closed as well as regulated or unregulated interest mediation systems.
Darstellung des deutschen Systems der Gesetzesfolgenabschätzung.
Working Group 2.1.: "Common European Principles of Administrative Law and Good Administration”
(2019)
Common European Principles of Administrative Law and “Good Administration” / EU Administrative Law and ‘Unionalisation’ of National Administrative Law / Functions of Administrative Law / European Administrative Law = EU Administrative Law? / ReNEUAL Working Group 2.1:
“Common European Principles of Administrative Law and Good Administration” / Specialties of EU Administrative Law
Vorstellung des deutschen Systems der GFA
Limited Right to Appeal in German Administrative Court Proceedings - A (fake) Success Story of what?
(2019)
The following topics are being discussed: The German Court System / Reform of the Access to the Higher Courts of Appeal in 1996 / Reasons given for limiting the Access to the Higher Courts of Appeal in 1996 / How to measure Success of limiting the Access to the Higher Courts of Appeal? / Do the Reasons given for limiting the Access to the Higher Courts of Appeal make sense? / Lessons to be learned from the German Example
- The concept of a three-tiered structure of administrative courts has been developed from 1949 onwards in the Western part of Germany
- Extremely difficult economic situation, need to built up nearly every infrastructure, very complex legal situation - Nevertheless clear decision of the drafters of the constitution to create effective judicial protection in administrative matters as a reaction to the horrors of the Nazi regime and the Stalinist developments in the Soviet occupation zone
- What does this mean for reforms of administrative court proceedings today?
Short presentation of the corresponding conference paper "A soft shell with a powerful core? Soft Europeanisation and social policy: a new understanding of the Open Method of Coordination and its potential to enhance social welfare in Europe", focussing on the theoretical idea and empirical evidence.
.
Vom 22. bis 23. Juni 2017 fand an der Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam im Rahmen des Forschungsnetzwerks Public Contracts in Legal Globalization ein Workshop zum Thema „The impact of competitive tendering and its regulation on the formation and execution of public contracts and concessions” statt. Im Rahmen der Veranstaltung referierte Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens, der Mitglied des Steering Committees dieses Netzwerks ist, über den Ist-Stand in Deutschland.
.
This paper proposes a theoretical concept that is appropriate to analyse and understand the role of the government bureaucracy in transposing European Union law. The theoretical concept is based on the assumption that both formal and informal structures of bureaucratic organisations have an impact on public decision making behaviour. On the basis of two recent theoretical approaches that will enable us to analyse both structural and informal features of government bureaucracies, namely the policy capacity concept and the administrative styles concept, I will propose a theoretical concept that combines elements of both
approaches within one concept. The concept enables us ta analyse and understand the role of public administrations at the stage of implementation of public policies and derive hypotheses on the influence of administrative patterns of policy-making on transposing European Union law at the Member State level.
The paper is part of my PhD-project "Financial Regulation and the Implementation of EU directives in the European Union Member States", which examines the administrative procedures at the Member State level in the transposition of directives. The theoretical concept presented is supposed to help us analyse and
understand the impact of the government bureaucracy on the transposition of EU directives, especially with regard to the customisation of EU directives.