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.
The present contribution analyses the Opinion 1/17 of the CJEU on CETA, which, in a surprisingly uncritical view of conceivable conflicts between the competences of the CETA Investment Tribunal on the one hand and those of the CJEU on the other hand, did not raise any objections. In first reactions, this opinion was welcomed as an extension of the EU's room for manoeuvre in investment protection. The investment court system under CETA, however, is only compatible with EU law to a certain extent, which the Court made clear in the text of the opinion, and the restrictions are likely to confine the leeway for EU external contractual relations. Due to their fundamental importance, these restrictions, derived by the CJEU from the autonomy of the Union legal order form the core subject of this contribution. In what follows, the new emphasis in the CETA opinion on the external autonomy of Union law will be analyzed first (II). Subsequently, the considerations of the CJEU on the delimitation of its competences from those of the CETA Tribunal will be critically examined. The rather superficial analysis of the CJEU in the CETA opinion is in contrast to its approach in earlier decisions as it misjudges problems and therefore only superficially leads to a clear delimitation of competences (III.). An exploration of the last part of the CJEU's autonomy analysis will follow, in which the CJEU tries to respond to the criticism of regulatory chill (IV). Here, by referring to the unhindered operation of the EU institutions in accordance with their constitutional framework, the CJEU identifies the new restrictions for investment protection mechanisms just mentioned, which takes back the previous comprehensive affirmation of jurisdiction of the CETA Tribunal in one point and which raises many questions about its concrete significance, consequence, and scope of application.
As WTO members increasingly invoke security exceptions and the first panel report insofar was issued in Russia-Traffic in Transit, the methodical and procedural preliminaries of their adjudication must be reassessed. The preliminaries pertain to justiciability and to the proper interpretive approach for their vague terms that seemingly imply considerable discretion to WTO members, all the more as general exceptions are subject to expansive interpretation. Reading security exceptions expansively appears not viable as they miss the usual safeguard against abuse (i.e. the chapeau of Arts XX GATT/XIV GATS). This lack of safeguards rather suggests caution in conceptualising them expansively, as do the systemic consequences of recent attempts to re-politicise security exceptions which run the risk of nullifying the concept of multilateral trade regulation altogether. Furthermore, the appropriate standards of review and proof must be explored which have to strike a balance between control and deference in national security.
Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is already being employed to make critical legal decisions in many countries all over the world. The use of AI in decision-making is a widely debated issue due to allegations of bias, opacity, and lack of accountability. For many, algorithmic decision-making seems obscure, inscrutable, or virtually dystopic. Like in Kafka’s The Trial, the decision-makers are anonymous and cannot be challenged in a discursive manner. This article addresses the question of how AI technology can be used for legal decisionmaking and decision-support without appearing Kafkaesque.
First, two types of machine learning algorithms are outlined: both Decision Trees and Artificial Neural Networks are commonly used in decision-making software. The real-world use of those technologies is shown on a few examples. Three types of use-cases are identified, depending on how directly humans are influenced by the decision. To establish criteria for evaluating the use of AI in decision-making, machine ethics, the theory of procedural justice, the rule of law, and the principles of due process are consulted. Subsequently, transparency, fairness, accountability, the right to be heard and the right to notice, as well as dignity and respect are discussed. Furthermore, possible safeguards and potential solutions to tackle existing problems are presented. In conclusion, AI rendering decisions on humans does not have to be Kafkaesque. Many solutions and approaches offer possibilities to not only ameliorate the downsides of current AI technologies, but to enrich and enhance the legal system.
The article focuses on the legal aspects of intergenerational solidarity in the German statutory pension system. Organised on a pay-as-you-go basis, it relies on a balance of those obliged to pay contributions vs. those who receive benefits. The footing of this system, however, becomes fragile in times of rising life expectancy and declining birth rates: fewer employees will have to finance the pension rights of a growing number of pensioners. These developments do not only lead to lower acceptance of the “intergenerational contract” by the economically active who have to invest a large share of their income in the financing of current pensions while facing the risk of receiving low payments in the future. It also raises questions of intergenerational justice.
Water Management and Modernization of the Water Sector in Syria, Considering the German Experience
(2019)
Water plays an essential role in human life as well as in various sectors of the economy, it is a strategic and crucial factor for achieving social and economic development and supporting ecological systems. However, the world's water resources are exposed to considerable and continuing pressure since the water use rate has increased twice as quickly as the rate of population growth during the 20th century, which led to malfunctions in the balance between renewable and available water resources and the growing demand for water.
Therefore, the issue of water is the main challenge to humans in the 21st century. Particularly affected by water scarcity is the Middle East, where the availability of water is less than 1,700 m3 per capita per year. This dissertation focuses on the Syrian water sector, considering both aspects of administrative modernization and stakeholder approaches for ensuring the creation of an enabling environment capable of improving water management in Syria. The central goal of this research is to introduce a set of institutional, legislative and economic measures that can be used to rationalize and maintain the water resources in Syria to apply Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM). Quantitative and qualitative data and methods were scrutinized to provide an overview of the status and problems of the water sector, as well as perspectives for innovative water management and corresponding modernization policies in Syria.
The thesis tackled the research questions defining the main challenges of the Syrian water sector and examining its existing enabling environment as well as its suitability for achieving sustainable water resources management. Furthermore, the study evaluated the existing
governance regime and the institutional framework of the Syrian water sector, checked the availability, and estimated the degree of application of its management instruments. The research also examined the ongoing process of development and financing of waterinfrastructure and finally estimated the overall impact of water resources management in Syria on economic, social, and environmental aspects. Finally, the study provides optimized recommendations and potential solutions for the development of the Syrian water sector according to the IWRM paradigm.
National immigration policies increasingly meet with fierce political resistance from lower levels of government, in particular municipalities. Amongst industrialized countries, the USA and Germany are probably the most extreme examples. In the USA, a growing numbers of subnational entities, including some of the country’s largest cities, openly refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. In retaliation, the Trump administrations has threatened several of these so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ to claim back past and to withdraw further federal funding from a number of jointly funded programs. Several court cases in this matter are pending. In stark contrast, an increasing number of German municipalities – labelled by the author as ‘non-sanctuary cities’ - have sought from their respective state governments a formal limitation of migration inflows into their territory, citing an overload on critical local administrative and not least housing resources. This paper contributes to the pertinent literature on multi-level governance in the area of immigration, first, by applying the economic theory of fiscal federalism to identify the theoretically appropriate level of government for defining and enforcing immigration policy. Second, the phenomenon of ‘sanctuary cities’ vs. ‘non-sanctuary cities’ and their potential impact on the design and enforcement of national immigration policies will be analyzed.
Administrative sanctions can be said to dwell in the periphery of punishment because they do not require setting the wheels of criminal procedure in motion. This allows States to save public resources as well as helps them to escape closer scrutiny at the judicial level. At the same time, the imposition of administrative sanctions usually curtails individual guarantees. Against this background, this article examines where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) draws the line between measures belonging to the ‘hard core of criminal law’ and the periphery. After a presentation of gradual broadening of the ‘criminal limb’ guarantees of Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights to administrative measure of a punitive nature, it explores where do these guarantees meet their limits by taking the approach adopted in the landmark Jussila judgment as a point of departure. Subsequently, a structured analysis of the selected ECtHR case law in which this approach has been applied or – at least – invoked is provided. The article is finished with a reflection on the current interpretation of the said penumbra of punishment, which, among other things, identifies the possible gaps of individual protection, and the outlook for the future.
Felicity Thomas (ed.), Handbook of Migration and Health. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016
(2018)
Since the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ with its enormous increase in the number of persons seeking asylum in EU Member States in 2015, migration law has left its niche and gained broader attention in the scientific community and brought about a wide range of new literature on many aspects of migration...