Refine
Year of publication
- 2023 (13)
- 2022 (51)
- 2021 (40)
- 2020 (57)
- 2019 (43)
- 2018 (76)
- 2017 (75)
- 2016 (85)
- 2015 (43)
- 2014 (32)
- 2013 (22)
- 2012 (41)
- 2011 (27)
- 2010 (32)
- 2009 (34)
- 2008 (28)
- 2007 (26)
- 2006 (23)
- 2005 (14)
- 2004 (29)
- 2003 (15)
- 2002 (18)
- 2001 (12)
- 2000 (9)
- 1999 (2)
- 1998 (5)
- 1997 (7)
- 1996 (6)
- 1995 (3)
- 1994 (4)
- 1993 (9)
- 1992 (1)
- 1991 (1)
- 1990 (2)
- 1989 (2)
- 1988 (5)
- 1986 (1)
- 1985 (1)
- 1981 (1)
- 1980 (1)
- 1979 (1)
- 1900 (1)
Document Type
- Public lecture (242)
- Article (205)
- Part of a Book (180)
- Book (79)
- Conference Proceeding (72)
- Working Paper (43)
- Contribution to online periodical (21)
- Review (19)
- Contribution to a Periodical (11)
- Other (11)
Language
- English (900) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (900)
Keywords
- Good Administration (7)
- Völkerrecht (7)
- Europäische Union (6)
- Germany (6)
- international law (6)
- Deutschland (5)
- Exportkontrolle (5)
- Public Administration (5)
- Rechtswissenschaften (5)
- export control (5)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Volkswirtschaftslehre, insbesondere Wirtschafts- und Verkehrspolitik (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Andreas Knorr) (181)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere Europarecht und Völkerrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Weiß) (75)
- Lehrstuhl für vergleichende Verwaltungswissenschaft und Policy-Analyse (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Bauer) (72)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, insbesondere deutsches und europäisches Verwaltungsrecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stelkens) (55)
- Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stephan Grohs) (51)
- Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht, Staatslehre und Rechtsvergleichung (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl-Peter Sommermann) (48)
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (45)
- Seniorprofessur für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Politik und Recht im Bereich von Umwelt und Energie (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bohne) (27)
- Lehrstuhl für Sozialrecht und Verwaltungswissenschaft (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Constanze Janda) (13)
- Lehrstuhl für Verwaltungswissenschaft, Staatsrecht, Verwaltungsrecht und Europarecht (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Mario Martini) (12)
From a comparative perspective the Covid-19 pandemic provides a unique grand-scale life experience: nearly all countries have been confronted with a similar issue, that of quickly fighting the pandemic, balancing individual health with the sustainability of the national health system, and juggling economic imperatives with the duty to care for the most vulnerable individuals in society. Access and use of data are key to this difficult balancing exercise. One question arises: is the Covid-19 pandemic conducive to developing shared legal strategies or does it reinforce cultural legal features when it comes to data protection?
Blogdroiteuropeen asked experts in data protection to reflect on key developments in their national systems. No definitive answer is possible as Covid-19 is not over yet. However, this preliminary information leads to the identification of six trends underlying the Covid-19 crisis and its impact on data protection. First, all countries were not equal before the pandemic due to differences in their factual and legal backgrounds. Secondly, constitutional techniques proved resilient to a large extent in general and in particular when it comes to data protection. Thirdly, the effectiveness of data protection legislation is connected to its embeddedness in the wider legal context. Fourthly, tracking the spread of Covid-19 through tracing apps may turn out to be a unicorn defeated by data protection even though different technologies have been attempted. Fifthly, aggregation of data or collective harvesting of data in some form has been implemented to very different extents, provided some data protection requirements are met. This leads to the final trend: the ever more articulated pressure on the European Union to decide how far it wants to reclaim its digital sovereignty, and what this would entail concretely. As legal systems may have to cope with the long-term consequences of Covid-19 all over the world it may be useful to take stock of these emerging trends before designing any grand scheme for post-Covid-19 society.
The book explores the impact of WTO law on domestic regulatory autonomy. It identifies and critically analyses the mechanisms working in WTO law that cause increasing interferences with domestic law and thus restrain the regulatory autonomy of the WTO members. The book proposes ways how WTO law be conceptualized to enhance the policy space of WTO members. Therefore, the book demonstrates the flexibilities in interpreting and applying WTO core principles and provisions and explores interpretive and institutional conceptions that could serve as a pathway of allocating greater policy leeway to WTO members.
The analyses presented address the disturbing observation that even though WTO law appreciates the regulatory leeway of WTO members in several provisions across agreements, the WTO judiciary´s case law, but also other governance mechanism active in the WTO appear to narrow down the WTO members´ regulatory autonomy and to considerably limit the space for domestic policy choices. Wide spread, even scholarly perception of the WTO, and most recently the Trump administration blame the WTO, in particular its dispute settlement branch, for being biased towards free trade and unduly restraining even legitimate domestic policies, and voiding the domestic policy space needed for addressing societal concerns and global problems. A closer look at the development of GATT/WTO law, however, reveals that, in GATT era, panels were aware of the effect their interpretations had on domestic policy space, and that some of the more recent WTO dispute settlement reports show attempts to expand WTO member´s leeway again. These observations are the starting point for an indepth analysis of the different mechanisms present in WTO law which impact on domestic regulation.
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