Suchergebnisse

Der Band beleuchtet Leibniz' Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie im Kontext seiner Metaphysik, Logik, Erkenntnistheorie und Moralphilosophie. Auch die Rezeption seiner Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie wird in den Beiträgen reflektiert. Gerade im Hinblick auf die aktuelle Diskussion um die politische Gestaltung Europas und die kosmopolitische Gestaltung der Globalisierung verdient seine Philosophie Aufmerksamkeit – nicht zuletzt auch auf Grund interner Spannungen, die das politische Selbstverständnis Europas bis heute kennzeichnen.InhaltsübersichtTeil 1: Recht und Erkenntnistheorie Ursula Goldenbaum: Grounding Jurisprudence in Theology – Leibniz's Rebuff of Protestant Voluntarism – Andreas Blank: Presumptions and Cognitive Simplicity in Leibniz and Early Modern Legal Theory – Christian Barth: Interrelations between Leibniz's Theoretical Philosophy and his Philosophy of Law: Leibniz on Human and Divine Cognition – Stephan Schmid: Leibniz' metaphysische Begründung des Rechts. Kommentare zu den Beiträgen von Goldenbaum, Blank und Barth Teil 2: Moralphilosophie Hubertus Busche: Zur Leistungsfähigkeit des Leibnizschen Naturrechts – Matthias Mahlmann: Die geistige Wurzel der Gerechtigkeit – Rationalismus und Epistemologie in Leibniz' praktischer Philosophie – Alexander Aichele: Ponderierte Indifferenz? Der Indeterminismus in Leibniz' Labyrinth der Willensfreiheit – Katja Stoppenbrink: Auf dem Weg zur Autonomie: Leibniz und Pufendorf – zu den Gründen moralischer Verpflichtung – Tobias Herbst: Leibniz' Moralphilosophie. Kommentare zu den Beiträgen von Busche, Mahlmann, Aichele und Stoppenbrink Teil 3: Naturrecht Matthias Armgardt: Inhalte des Naturrechts bei Leibniz – Lorenz Kähler: Billigkeit versus Recht bei Leibniz – Rainer Keil: Recht und Billigkeit; Eigentum, insbesondere an Menschen, Widerstandsrecht, Innoxia Utilitas: Kommentierung zweier Beiträge zum Naturrecht bei Leibniz Teil 4: Staat und Internationale Beziehungen Francis Cheneval: Leibniz' Staats- und Europakonzept – Detlef von Daniels: Vom Kosmopolitismus zur Leibniz'schen Metaphysik und wieder zurück – Tilmann Altwicker: Völkerrechtsmetaphysik bei G. W. Leibniz. Versuch einer Überwindung der Universalismus-/Partikularismus-Dichotomie – Thomas Kleinlein: G. W. Leibniz als Völkerrechtsdenker: Kommentar Teil 5: Rezeption Stephan Meder: Leibniz' Rezeption durch Friedrich Carl von Savigny und Otto von Gierke – Christoph-Eric Mecke: Die Rezeption des Rechtsdenkens von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz bei Gustav Hugo (1764–1844) und Rudolf von Jhering (1818–1892) – Elisabetta Fiocchi Malaspina: Reading Leibniz through Emer de Vattel: Défense du système leibnitien (1741) – Stephan Waldhoff: »Ich habe von meiner ersten jugend an ... mein gemüth auff ...gemeines beste gerichtet«. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – eine politisch-biographische Skizze

Abstract
This study is the first empirical analysis of legal reasoning in trademark opposition proceedings in Switzerland. We examine a novel dataset on trademark opposition proceedings brought before the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI). In these proceedings, the likelihood of confusion between two (or more) trademarks is assessed based on the similarity of the trademark signs and the similarity of the goods and services, taking into account a series of additional aspects such as the distinctive character of the opposing trademark and the level of attention of the average consumer when buying the goods and services for which the earlier trademark is registered. Our dataset contains information on 2,453 cases relating to proceedings between June 2002 and August 2018. In particular, we examine which substantive factors drive the outcome of these decisions. Some of our findings call into question the established legal doctrine. For example, our data suggest that the importance of the beginning of words for establishing similarity between word marks is overrated by legal doctrine. Furthermore, our data show no clear influence of the level of attention on the assessment of the likelihood of confusion. Instead, we found striking differences between the success rates of different types of trademarks. In fact, the data reveal a sliding scale with word marks being the most successful trademarks followed by figurative trademarks that contain a word element, and purely figurative trademarks. Based on our empirical findings, we make suggestions on how to improve the legal reasoning when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

Paper based on: Altwicker-Hamori, Szilvia and Altwicker, Tilmann and Peters, Anne, Measuring Violations of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis of Awards in Respect of Non-Pecuniary Damage Under the European Convention on Human Rights (July 16, 2015). Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV)/Heidelberg Journal of International Law (HJIL) 76 (2016), 1-51. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2631404 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2631404 ; This is the first study to examine the awards made by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of non-pecuniary damage from an empirical perspective. It uses a multiple regression analysis based on data (929 cases) drawn from the Council of Europe's Human Rights Documentation (HUDOC) database. By legal analysis we identified three elements of the "equity principle" used by the Court for the calculation of awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage (seriousness of the violation, applicant- and overall context-related factors), which we used in our regression analysis. Our empirical results show that there is a statistically significant association between the amount awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the intensity of the violation, the existence of a separate opinion, the respondent state and the fact whether the applicant is a legal or a natural person. Our study therefore contradicts the view voiced in the literature that awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage under the ECHR are "unpredictable" and "inconsistent".

This is the first study to examine the awards made by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of non-pecuniary damage from an empirical perspective. It uses a multiple regression analysis based on data (929 cases) drawn from the Council of Europe's Human Rights Documentation (HUDOC) database. By legal analysis we identified three elements of the "equity principle" used by the Court for the calculation of awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage (seriousness of the violation, applicant- and overall context-related factors), which we used in our regression analysis. Our empirical results show that there is a statistically significant association between the amount awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the intensity of the violation, the existence of a separate opinion, the respondent state and the fact whether the applicant is a legal or a natural person. Our study therefore contradicts the view voiced in the literature that awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage under the ECHR are "unpredictable" and "inconsistent".

This is the first study to examine the awards made by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of non-pecuniary damage from an empirical perspective. It uses a multiple regression analysis based on data (929 cases) drawn from the Council of Europe's Human Rights Documentation (HUDOC) database. By legal analysis we identified three elements of the "equity principle" used by the Court for the calculation of awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage (seriousness of the violation, applicant- and overall context-related factors), which we used in our regression analysis. Our empirical results show that there is a statistically significant association between the amount awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage and the intensity of the violation, the existence of a separate opinion, the respondent state and the fact whether the applicant is a legal or a natural person. Our study therefore contradicts the view voiced in the literature that awards made in respect of non-pecuniary damage under the ECHR are "unpredictable" and "inconsistent".

This is the first paper to examine pain and suffering damages in complex human rights cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is, those involving more than one violation. For the empirical analysis we constructed a dataset based on cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), containing N=1685 observations. Based on hierarchical cluster analysis we first identify four clusters, comprising two to four violated Convention articles. We then use multiple regression analysis to examine how pain and suffering damages are affected in cases involving multiple violations. We find that pain and suffering damages in European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) cases are not additive. Instead, applicants receive proportionally less monetary compensation for more violated Convention articles.

This is the first paper to examine pain and suffering damages in complex human rights cases decided under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is, those involving more than one violation. For the empirical analysis we constructed a dataset based on cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), containing N=1685 observations. Based on hierarchical cluster analysis we first identify four clusters, comprising two to four violated Convention articles. We then use multiple regression analysis to examine how pain and suffering damages are affected in cases involving multiple violations. We find that pain and suffering damages in European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) cases are not additive. Instead, applicants receive proportionally less monetary compensation for more violated Convention articles.