DOCSLIB.ORG

Max Planck Institute Luxembourg Activity Report 2016-2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ACTIVITY REPORT 2016-18 MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE LUXEMBOURG There is an old saying that being right and being proven to be 20 right at court are two 12 20 different things 15 16-18 There is an old saying that being right and being proven to be right at court are different things 16-18 02/03 ACTIVITY REPORT 2016-18 MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE LUXEMBOURG 05 I. FOREWORD 07 II. HIGHLIGHTS 21 IV. STRUCTURE AND ORGANISATION 07 1. A Max Planck Institute Outside of Germany 21 1. Organisational Chart 08 2. A Multicultural and Multidisciplinary Team 22 2. Directors of Young Researchers 25 3. Scientific Advisory Board Members 08 3. An International Research Institution Anchored 29 4. Senior Research Fellows in the Luxembourg Landscape 35 5. Research Fellows 09 4. A Hub for Researchers Interested in 46 6. External Scientific Members Procedural Issues 47 7. External Scientific Fellows 10 5. A Springboard for Talented Young Researchers 67 8. Former Research Fellows 11 6. A Recent Example of a Successful Collaboration between the Departments 12 7. Combining Research and Expertise with an Influence on Law and Policy-Making 79 V. RESEARCH FOCUS 79 1. Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law 79 1.1. General Research Agenda 13 III. SCIENTIFIC STRATEGY 80 1.1.1. European Procedural Law 13 1. Shaping an Underexplored Field of Research 81 1.1.2. Comparative Procedural Law 81 1.1.3. Dispute Resolution at the Cross-Roads 14 2. Exploring Each and Every Form of of Private and Public International Law Dispute Resolution 82 1.1.4 Interchanges with Legal Practice 15 3. Identifying and Tackling Ambitious and 82 1.1.5 Composition and Structure of the Department Innovative Research Questions 83 1.2. European Procedural Law 16 4. Developing Innovative Projects at the 83 1.2.1. Major Research Projects Crossroads of Private and Public Law 86 1.2.2. The Application of European Instruments 17 5. Continuing to Attract the Best and Brightest of Civil Procedure in Practice Scientists from all over the World 90 1.2.3. European Insolvency Law 17 6. Supporting the Professional and Personal 91 1.2.4. Ongoing Ph.D. Projects of Individual Development of the Researchers Researchers 94 1.2.5. Completed Ph.D. Projects of Individual 18 7. Expanding its Network of Excellence Researchers 19 8. Sharing Research Results with the Wider Public 94 1.3. Comparative Procedural Law 19 9. High-level Scientific Ethics 94 1.3.1. Major Research Projects 98 1.3.2. Ongoing Ph.D. Projects of Individual Researchers 101 1.3.3. Completed Ph.D. Projects of Individual Researchers 101 1.4. Dispute Resolution at the Cross-Roads of Private and Public International Law 101 1.4.1. Major Research Projects 105 1.4.2. Ongoing Ph.D. Projects of Individual Researchers TABLE OF 107 1.4.3. Completed Ph.D. Projects of Individual CONTENTS Researchers 1 107 1.5. Research Projects of the Senior 171 VI. SUPPORT OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS Research Fellows 107 1.5.1. Dr Stephanie Law 171 1. Doctoral Dissertations Defended or Submitted 110 1.5.2. Dr Björn Laukemann 173 2. Weekly and Monthly Colloquia 111 1.5.3. Dr Cristina M. Mariottini 173 2.1. Joint Referentenrunden of Both Departments 113 1.5.4. Prof. Marta Requejo Isidro 173 2.2. Referentenrunden of the Department of 121 1.5.5. Dr Veerle Van Den Eeckhout European and Comparative Procedural Law 123 2. Department of International Law 174 2.3. Department Meetings of the Department of and Dispute Resolution International Law and Dispute Resolution 123 2.1. General Research Agenda 176 3. Guest Programme - Regular Guests 125 2.2. Composition and Structure of the Department 177 3.1 Regular Guests 126 2.3. Main Department Projects 177 3.2 Scholarship Holders 126 2.3.1. Max Planck Encyclopedia for International 179 4. Guest Programme – Scholarship Holders Procedural Law (EiPro) 184 5. PRIDE Project: Enforcement in Multi-level 131 2.3.2. The Making of Judicial and Arbitral Decisions Regulatory Systems (DTU-REMS) 133 2.4. History of International Dispute Settlement 186 6. International Max Planck Research School for 133 2.4.1. Department Projects Successful Dispute Resolution in International 135 2.4.2. Individual Research Projects Law (IMPRS-SDR) 138 2.5. International Economic Law and Adjudication 186 6.1. Research Focus 139 2.5.1. Department Projects 187 141 2.5.2. Individual Research Projects 6.2. A Practice-oriented Approach 187 147 2.6. Litigation, Human Rights Law and 6.3. Supervision and Advisory Board Criminal Justice 188 6.4. Candidates 148 2.6.1. Individual Research Projects 191 6.5. Activities 152 2.7. Comparative and Theoretical Approaches 191 6.6. Publications and Prizes 153 2.7.1. Department Projects 192 7. Post-Doctoral Summer School on Comparative 157 2.7.2. Individual Research Projects Procedural Law 166 2.8. International Dispute Settlement and 192 7.1. Selection of Participants and Programme New Technologies 195 7.2 Results and Prospect 166 2.8.1. Department Projects 169 2.8.2. Individual Research Projects 195 8. Guest Forum 197 9. Visits of University Students and Young Professionals 197 10. Language Courses TABLE OF CONTENTS ACTIVITY REPORT 2016-18 MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE LUXEMBOURG 199 VII. SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 223 X. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE FACILITIES 199 1. Guest Programme – External Scientific Fellows 223 1. Library 202 2. Cooperation with the University of Luxembourg 223 1.1. Collection Development 223 1.1.1. Print Collection 204 3. Cooperation with Other Research Institutions 224 1.1.2. Collection Development Policy in the Greater Region 224 1.1.3. Country Coverage 205 4. Cooperation with International Academic 225 1.1.4. Subscription to Series Institutions and Scholars 225 1.1.5. e-Resources 207 5. Cooperation with International Courts, 226 1.1.6. Cataloguing Organisations and Associations 226 1.1.7. MPG PuRe Repository 226 1.1.8. Classification 226 1.1.9. User Service 226 1.1.10. Redefining Space Project 2017 211 VIII. TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE 227 1.1.11. Library Systems 227 1.1.12. LIKE (Lab for Innovation, Knowledge and Exchange) 211 1. Organisation of Scientific Events 227 1.1.13. RFID Robot for Library Inventory 212 1.1. Conferences 228 1.1.14. Multilingual On-screen Keyboard in OPAC 228 1.1.15. Brainstorming Session with Researchers 213 1.2. Workshops 228 1.2. Cooperation and Networking 214 1.3. Seminars 228 1.2.1. ALBAD 214 1.4. Max Planck Lecture Series 228 1.2.2. IALL Conference 216 2. Publications 228 1.2.3. 2017 IFLA Congress 217 3. Participation at Scientific Events 229 1.2.4. Library User Surveys 217 4. Dissemination to Specific Target Groups 230 2. Administration 218 5. To Reach as Wide an Audience as Possible 230 2.1. Organisational Chart 218 5.1. Open Access 231 2.2. Consolidation and Adaptation 218 5.2. Max Planck Institute Luxembourg 231 2.3. Administrative Units YouTube channel 231 2.3.1. Finance & Accounting 232 2.3.2. Human Resources (HR) 219 5.3. MPI Luxembourg for Procedural Law 232 2.3.3. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Research Paper Series 233 2.3.4. Office Management 233 2.3.5. Additional Support Functions 234 3. Scientific Support 221 IX. AWARDS, PRIZES AND DISTINCTIONS 234 3.1. Organisational Structure 234 3.2. Research Operations Coordinators 235 3.3. Event Management 235 3.4. Communication 235 3.5. Guest Programme 237 XI. ANNEXES 237 1. Scientific Events 250 2. Publications 285 3. Participation at Scientific Events 309 4. Teaching Activities 315 5. Editorships and Peer Review 2/3 ACTIVITY REPORT 2016-18 MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE LUXEMBOURG I. FOREWORD This second Activity Report of the Max Planck Ambitious scientific research needs solid organisa- Institute (MPI) Luxembourg for Procedural Law pro- tional support. At the MPI Luxembourg, this assis- vides a comprehensive overview of its activities for tance is provided by the library, the administration and the years 2016-2018 and highlights the main outcomes the scientific support unit. The last three years, and of its scientific research. Since its foundation in 2012, especially 2018, have also witnessed the restructur- the MPI Luxembourg has established itself at the ing of the administration according to the Institute’s forefront of enquiries on procedural law, and has in- research priorities, as well as the establishment of a tegrated into the wider research and academic com- dedicated scientific support unit. While reform is still munity in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in Europe ongoing, much has been achieved in a short time. and globally. The period between 2016 and 2018 was marked by the steady expansion of the Institute’s sci- The activities of the Institute would not have been entific outreach, by major conferences in and outside possible without the strong support of the research- of Luxembourg, and by the adoption of a research ers and staff. The Directors are very grateful for their strategy which emphasises the specificities of the dif- commitment and support. ferent research fields and focuses on commonalities of the two departments. Hélène Ruiz Fabri and Burkhard Hess The scientific outcomes of the Institute include re- search projects, conferences and events, learned books, print and electronic publications. The Institute has become a truly international institution composed of researchers from 17 countries. Moreover, everyday life at the Institute is marked by cultural exchanges: the Institute’s Guest Programme attracts researchers from all over the world, and has advanced cooperation with national, European and international institutions. This report not only lists the different activities of the Institute but also describes the outcomes, the meth- odologies applied and objectives pursued.
Recommended publications
  • Sarajevo, 2015

    Sarajevo, 2015

    Sarajevo, 2015. Korice_nove 23. decembar 2015 12:08:43 USTAVNI SUD BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE УСТАВНИ СУД БОСНЕ И ХЕРЦЕГОВИНЕ CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Izdavač/Publisher: USTAVNI SUD BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sarajevo, Reisa Džemaludina Čauševića 6/III Za idavača/For publisher: MIRSAD ĆEMAN Urednik/Editor: MATO TADIĆ Uređivački odbor/Editorial Board: MATO TADIĆ MIODRAG SIMOVIĆ ARIJANA DŽANOVIĆ ERMINA DUMANJIĆ AMELA HARBA-BAŠOVIĆ AZEM KRAJINIĆ Prijevod, lektura i korektura/ Translation, Editing and Proofreading: JEZIČKI ODJEL USTAVNOG SUDA BiH LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF BiH Prijelom i dizajn/Layout and Design: AMELA HARBA-BAŠOVIĆ Štampa/Printed by: ŠTAMPARIJA FOJNICA d.d., Fojnica Tiraž/Print run: 200 Ustavni sud će podržavati ovaj Ustav. Odluke Ustavnog suda su konačne i obavezujuće. (Član VI/3. i 4. Ustava Bosne i Hercegovine) Уставни суд ће штитити овај Устав. Одлуке Уставног суда су коначне и обавезујуће. (Члан VI/3 i 4 Устава Босне и Херцеговине) The Constitutional Court shall uphold this Constitution. Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding. (Article VI(3) and (4) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina) 3 Ustavni sud Bosne i Hercegovine smješten je u zgradi Predsjedništva BiH u Ulici reisa Džemaludina Čauševića 6/III, Sarajevo Уставни суд Босне и Херцеговине смјештен је у згради Предсједништва БиХ, у Улици реиса Џемалудина Чаушевића 6/III, Сарајево The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina is seated in the building of the Presidency of BiH, Reisa Džemaludina Čauševića No. 6/III, Sarajevo Tel: +387 33 251 226 Fax: +387 33 561 134 e-mail: [email protected] www.ustavnisud.ba www.ccbh.ba 4 UVOD INTRODUCTION Mirsad Ćeman Mirsad Ćeman Predsjednik President Ustavnog suda Constitutional Court of Bosne i Hercegovine Bosnia and Herzegovina Godine 2014.
  • Public Law Sources and Analogies of International Law

    Public Law Sources and Analogies of International Law

    533 PUBLIC LAW SOURCES AND ANALOGIES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Eirik Bjorge* Are the "general principles of law recognised by civilized nations" capable of adjusting to the progress and needs of the international community? This article argues that they are, and that international law needs, to a larger degree than what has been the case, to draw on principles of public law. Those principles of public law are not to supplant, but to supplement, those of private law. The article analyses four principles: the principle of legality; the principle requiring positive legal basis for state action; the principle that even the highest emanation of the executive power cannot escape judicial review; and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. If one takes account of the needs of international law, there is no reason whatever why today we should accede to the orthodoxy that the intention behind the concept of general principles is only to authorise a court to apply the general principles of municipal jurisprudence, in particular of private law, in so far as they are applicable to relations of states – if for no other reason than the fact that international law no longer governs only relations of states. I INTRODUCTION The focus of this article is the extent to which "general principles of law recognised by civilized nations"1 are capable of adjusting to the progress and needs of the international community. The * Professor of Law, University of Bristol. 1 Statute of the International Court of Justice 892 UNTS 119 (26 June 1945), art 38(1)(c).
  • Decision on Subpoena Application

    Decision on Subpoena Application

    ZT-1i' ~ J:J - A A 3fZ.., -A 'lro'( DI ~ 104.1.~ '2,0:1 UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case: IT-98-33-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Date: 1 July 2003 Humanitarian Law Committed in the e Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Original: English Since 1991 IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge Fausto Pocar Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen Judge David Hunt Judge Mehmet Gilney Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis Decision of: 1 July 2003 PROSECUTOR v Radislav KRSTIC DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENAS Counsel for the Prosecutor: Mr Norman Farrell Counsel for the Accused: Mr Nenad Petrusic Mr Norman Sepenuk Case IT-98-33-A 1 July 2003 1. The appellant Radislav Krstic ("Krstic") has applied for subpoenas to be issued to two prospective witnesses, requiring each of them to attend at a location (to be nominated) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 1 The purpose of such attendance is to give counsel for Krstic the opportunity to interview them there in anticipation of adding material to his application, already made pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules"), for the admission of additional evidence in support of his appeal against conviction. 2. The application for the issue of subpoenas is made pursuant to Rule 54, which provides: At the request of either party or proprio motu, a Judge or a Trial Chamber may issue such orders, summonses, subpoenas, warrants and transfer orders as may be necessary for the purposes of an investigation or for the preparation or conduct of the trial.
  • JURI Committee Mission to the Hague, Netherlands

    JURI Committee Mission to the Hague, Netherlands

    COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS Mission to the Netherlands 8 – 9 February 2016 PROGRAMME Monday, 8 February 8.30 Departure of coach from Brussels 10.30 Arrival in Utrecht 11.00-12.00 Meeting with representatives of the European Equality Law Network – exchange of views on gender equality law Dr Susanne Burri, specialist coordinator for gender equality, Pr Linda Senden, senior expert for gender equality and member of the executive committee, Marcel Zwamborn, general coordinator, Dr Alexandra Timmer, acting coordinator for gender equality law 12.30-13.30 Lunch with the European Equality Law Network 14.30 Departure of coach from Utrecht 15.30 Arrival in The Hague 16.00-17.00 Visit to the International Court of Justice – exchange of views on international law Philippe Couvreur, Registrar of the International Court of Justice 17.30-18.30 Visit to Eurojust – exchange of views on judicial cooperation in the EU Michèle Coninsx, President of Eurojust 18.30 Departure of coach to hotel Tuesday, 9 February 9.00 Departure of coach from hotel 9.30-10.30 Visit to the Academie voor wetgeving – exchange of views on better law-making 11.00-12.00 Visit to the Permanent Court of Arbitration – exchange of views on international arbitration Hugo Siblesz, Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration 12.30-13.00 Informal lunch at the Ministry for Security and Justice At the invitation of the Deputy Director for European and International Affairs 13.15-13.45 Private meeting with Ard van der Steur, Minister for Security and Justice – exchange of views on
  • Madrid, 14 April 2009 His Excellency Mr. Philippe Couvreur

    Madrid, 14 April 2009 His Excellency Mr. Philippe Couvreur

    MINISTERIO DE ASUNTOSEXTERIORES Y DE COOPERACIÔN El M.inistro Madrid, 14 April 2009 His Excellency Mr. Philippe Couvreur Registrar International Court of Justice Peace Palace 2517 KJ The Hague The Netherlands Y our Excellency, In response to your letter of 20 October 2008, it is my honour to inform you that, following the Court's Ortler of 17 October 2008, the Government of Spain has decided to submit a written statement regarding the request from the United Nations General Assembly for an Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral fleclaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self­ Government of Kosovo. In this respect, I am pleased to inform you that the Kingdom of Spain will be represented in these advisory proceedings by Professor Concepci6n Escobar Hemandez, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. Please accept, Y our Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ACCORDANCEWITH INTERNATIONALLAW OF THE UNILATERALDECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCEBY THE PROVISIONALINSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENTOF KOSOVO (REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION) WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN April, 2009 GOBIERNO MINISTERIO DE ESPANA DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES Y DE COOPERACIÔN CONTENTS Page 1.- REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION: GENERAL ISSUES...................... 5 1.- Introduction................................................................................................ 5 2.- The scope of the question.........................................................................
  • JURI Report SPECIAL EDITION

    JURI Report SPECIAL EDITION

    JURI Report SPECIAL EDITION MARCH 2016 SPECIAL EDITION following the mission to Utrecht and The Hague on 8 and 9 February NEXT MEETING 2016 14-15 MARCH2016 Members of the mission: Heidi Hautala (Leader of the mission) Joëlle Bergeron JURI Website Julia Reda The mission of the Committee on Legal Affairs to Utrecht and The Hague took place over two EPRS days, 8 and 9 February 2016. It was mainly focused on the committee's competence for international law, both private and public. The mission also comprised specific meetings on the topics of better law-making, gender equality and judicial cooperation. LATEST ANALYSES The three participating Members were accompanied by a team composed of secretariat staff, political advisors and interpreters. Brussels IIa: Towards a Review Summary account of meetings The participants held a total of seven meetings during the mission: The General Principles of EU Administrative Procedural Law The Balance of EU Copyright: Impact of Exceptions and Limitations on Industries and Economic Growth The ECB's Outright Monetary Transaction Programme compatibility with the EU Law Civil Judicial Expertise in the EU: Analysis of EU Legislation and Recommendations Civil-Law Expert Reports in the EU: National Rules and Practices 1. Meeting with representatives of the European Equality Law Network The European Patent At Utrecht University, the participants held an exchange of views on gender equality law Office - State of Play with Dr Susanne Burri, specialist coordinator for gender equality, Professor Linda Senden, _________________________________________________________________________________ senior expert for gender equality and member of the executive committee, Marcel Zwamborn, general coordinator, and Dr Alexandra Timmer, acting coordinator for gender equality law.
  • PUT on NOTICE: the ROLE of the DISPUTE REQUIREMENT in ASSESSING JURISDICTION and ADMISSIBILITY BEFORE the INTERNATIONAL COURT Put Notice JULIETTE MCINTYRE*

    PUT on NOTICE: the ROLE of the DISPUTE REQUIREMENT in ASSESSING JURISDICTION and ADMISSIBILITY BEFORE the INTERNATIONAL COURT Put Notice JULIETTE MCINTYRE*

    PUT ON NOTICE: THE ROLE OF THE DISPUTE REQUIREMENT IN ASSESSING JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT Put Notice JULIETTE MCINTYRE* Since the International Court of Justice handed down its 2016 judgments in the Marshall Islands cases, much has been written about the cases and their consequences. This article takes a step back, to view the Court’s most recent treatment of the dispute requirement in the context of the principles developed in the Court’s previous case law. It will be argued that the ‘new’ awareness requirement is potentially no more than a manifestation of the requirement for positive opposition, but that it has been driven by the Court’s conceiving of the dispute requirement as a jurisdictional precondition and serves to impose a de facto pre-action notice requirement on parties seeking access to the Court. CONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 II ‘Disputes’ before the International Court of Justice and the Principles that Determine the Existence of a Dispute ....................................................................... 4 A Irrelevance of Political Motive ..................................................................... 7 B Legal Rights .................................................................................................. 9 C Positive Opposition .................................................................................... 10 D Awareness ..................................................................................................
  • International Court of Justice

    International Court of Justice

    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Press Release Unofficial No. 2011/10 1 April 2011 Opening of the exhibition “The International Court of Justice: 65 years of serving peace” The Court receives the first examples of three new postage stamps especially designed for it by the Dutch postal service THE HAGUE, 1 April 2011. To celebrate the sixty-fifth anniversary of its inaugural sitting, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, unveiled an exhibition of photographs today, and its President officially received the first examples of three new postage stamps designed for the Court. Both events took place in the Atrium of the City Hall in The Hague, at a ceremony organized by the Court’s Registry, with the help of the Municipality of The Hague, in the presence of Members of the Court, the Mayor of The Hague, Mr. Jozias van Aartsen, Aldermen, representatives of the Diplomatic Corps and senior officials from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and international organizations based in The Hague. Exhibition As its title indicates, the exhibition briefly traces the history of the Court and of its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice. “[F]irst and foremost, the photos and other exhibits on display demonstrate how the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, functions for the peace and order of the international community”, the President of the Court, H.
  • Europäischer Verfassungsgerichte Und Des Europäischen Gerichtshofes Für Menschenrechte

    Europäischer Verfassungsgerichte Und Des Europäischen Gerichtshofes Für Menschenrechte

    Vergleich zwischen den Interpretationsmethoden europäischer Verfassungsgerichte und des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte Constance Grewe* Einleitung Im Bereich der Grund- und Menschenrechte konkurrieren - in jedem Sinne des Wortes - die -Interpretationen der nationalen Verfassungsgerichte mit derjenigen des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte. Daher drängt sich die Frage der Vergleichbarkeit, der eventuellen Ähnlichkeiten und Unterschiede und deren Gründe geradezu auf. Zur Beantwortung dieser Frage wäre es zwar reizvoll, die Rechtsprechung aller europäischen Verfassungsgerichte ins Auge zu fassen. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags kann jedoch nur ein kleiner Kreis möglichst repräsentativer Gerichte näher betrachtet werden. Dabei handelt es sich um Gerichte westeuropäischer Länder, in denen die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit verankert ist, auch wenn sie nicht immer so hochentwickelt ist wie in Deutschland. Konkret bedeutet dies, dass Frankreich, Deutschland, Österreich, die Schweiz, Italien, Spanien, Portugal und Belgien im Vordergrund des Interesses stehen werden, was nicht ausschliesst, je nach Sach- zusammenhang auch noch einige andere Länder einzubeziehen. Zur Fragestellung der Interpretationsmethoden ist zunächst zu bemerken, dass im allgemeinen weder die Verfassungen1 noch die meisten völkerrechtlichen Ver- träge2 etwas über ihre Interpretation oder die Grundsätze, nach denen sie aus- gelegt werden sollen, aussagen. Die betreffenden Gerichte verfügen infolgedessen über relativ grosse Freiheiten. Inwiefern ähneln sich oder unterscheiden sich diese Methoden? Und falls sie sich ähneln, heisst das nicht, dass diese beiden Arten von Gerichtsbarkeiten zwangsläufig spezifische und gemeinsame Methoden ent- wickeln? "-, Die hier angesprochenen Gerichtsbarkeiten verbinden tatsächlich mehrere ' gemeinsame Merkmale. Dies gilt für die Materie, d. h. die Menschenrechte ebenso wie für den Bezugstext, in einem Fall die Verfassung, im anderen die Europäische der der Gerichtshof für Menschen- 11.
  • De Baere - Wouters PAGE: 7 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Mon Oct 5 11:23:18 2015

    De Baere - Wouters PAGE: 7 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Mon Oct 5 11:23:18 2015

    JOBNAME: de Baere - Wouters PAGE: 7 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Mon Oct 5 11:23:18 2015 Contributors Serge Brammertz is the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribu- nal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). In Belgium, he has served as Deputy to the Prosecutor-General at the Liège Court of Appeal, was in charge of coordinating investigations in the fields of international drug trafficking and trafficking of human beings as a national magistrate, and was later the Belgian federal chief prosecutor. He was Deputy Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, in charge of the Investigations Division of the Office of the Prosecutor when the investigations of crimes committed in Uganda, the DRC and Darfur were initiated. In 2006–07 he headed the investigation by the UN International Independent Investiga- tion Commission into the murder of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. He holds a law degree from the Université catholique de Louvain, a degree in criminology from the University of Liège and a PhD in international law from the Albert Ludwig University in Freiburg, Germany. He is currently also visiting professor at Strathmore law school, Nairobi, teaching international criminal law Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade has been a Judge at the Inter- national Court of Justice (ICJ) since 2009. He holds an LLM and PhD in International Law from the University of Cambridge. He is a Full Professor of Public International Law at the University of Brasilia and was a lecturer at the Hague Academy of International Law. He received honorary degrees at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, the Central University of Chile, the Catholic University of Peru, the Ameri- can University of Paraguay and the National University of La Plata.
  • 1 Introduction

    1 Introduction

    Book Reviews 1303 Carlos Jimenez Piernas (ed.) The Legal Practice in International Law and European Community Law – A Spanish Perspective. The Hague: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006. Pp. 690. $189.00. ISBN: 9789004154261. 1 Introduction This article reviews the book edited by Pro- fessor Carlos Jiménez Piernas entitled The Legal Practice in International Law and European Community Law – A Spanish Perspective. As the editor points out in his prologue, this publication is an updated and revised Eng- lish edition of a volume published in 2003 in Spanish.1 The new publication retains the Spanish edition’s general structure of five substantive parts, plus indexes, which deal with legal practice before International Tri- bunals in International Organizations and in the European Union, national legal practice in international law, as well as with some legal tools for international lawyers, in particular to determine evidence of state practice and concerning sources of knowledge of inter- national law on the internet. The title of the book is suggestive and confusing at the same time. It is suggestive in that it apparently deals with a topic which is seldom addressed in the literature on international law, i.e., ‘legal practice’. Indeed, the book covers innovative topics which, in the near future, may become very relevant both for states and international organizations, as well as individuals and pri- vate companies. The confusing aspect of this title is its sub- title, ‘A Spanish Perspective’. This means either that the authors of the contributions are Span- ish, and thus offer their ‘Spanish’ perspective on the topics covered, or that the actual con- tents of the different contributions focus prima- rily on ‘Spanish practice’.
  • Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

    Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

    UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations Date: September 2009 of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English & French UPDATED STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (ADOPTED 25 MAY 1993 BY RESOLUTION 827) (AS AMENDED 13 MAY 1998 BY RESOLUTION 1166) (AS AMENDED 30 NOVEMBER 2000 BY RESOLUTION 1329) (AS AMENDED 17 MAY 2002 BY RESOLUTION 1411) (AS AMENDED 14 AUGUST 2002 BY RESOLUTION 1431) (AS AMENDED 19 MAY 2003 BY RESOLUTION 1481) (AS AMENDED 20 APRIL 2005 BY RESOLUTION 1597) (AS AMENDED 28 FEBRUARY 2006 BY RESOLUTION 1660) (AS AMENDED 29 SEPTEMBER 2008 BY RESOLUTION 1837) (AS AMENDED 7 JULY 2009 BY RESOLUTION 1877) ICTY RELATED RESOLUTIONS: Resolution 1503 of 28 August 2003 Resolution 1504 of 4 September 2003 Resolution 1534 of 26 March 2004 Resolution 1581 of 18 January 2005 Resolution 1613 of 26 July 2005 Resolution 1629 of 30 September 2005 Resolution 1668 of 10 April 2006 Resolution 1775 of 14 September 2007 Resolution 1786 of 28 November 2007 Resolution 1800 of 20 February 2008 (Not an official document. This compilation is based on original United Nations resolutions.) UPDATED STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (ADOPTED 25 MAY 1993 BY RESOLUTION 827) (AS AMENDED 13 MAY 1998 BY RESOLUTION 1166) (AS AMENDED 30 NOVEMBER 2000 BY RESOLUTION 1329) (AS AMENDED 17 MAY 2002 BY RESOLUTION 1411) (AS AMENDED 14 AUGUST 2002 BY RESOLUTION 1431)