Suchergebnisse

Der terroristische Anschlag auf das World Trade Center in New York am 11. September 2001 hat nicht nur den Themenkatalog der internationalen Politik durcheinandergebracht, sondern auch das Völkerrecht vor erhebliche Herausforderungen gestellt. Traditionell versteht man das Völkerrecht als ein Recht der zwischenstaatlichen Beziehungen. Terroristen werden als Kriminelle gesehen, die es mit allen Mitteln des Strafrechts zu bekämpfen gilt. Freilich versagen die üblichen Methoden der internationalen Zusammenarbeit, wenn ein Staat terroristischen Handlungen seine Rückendeckung gibt. Es bereitet erhebliche Schwierigkeiten, ein derartiges Komplizentum richtig einzuordnen. Im Mittelpunkt aller Überlegungen steht heute die Frage, ob Afghanistan durch die Usama bin Laden gewährte Unterstützung selbst einen bewaffneten Angriff gegen die USA geführt hat, der die USA nach Artikel 51 der UNO-Charta zur Selbstverteidigung berechtigt.

The proceedings between Germany and Italy currently pending before the International Court of Justice have revived interest in the legal regime of jurisdictional immunity of states. Germany charges Italy with violating the basic rule of state immunity by entertaining reparation claims brought before its civil courts by victims of serious breaches of international humanitarian law committed by Nazi Germany during World War II. Jurisdictional immunity is not absolute, but it remains preserved for truly governmental acts like military operations. None of the generally recognized exceptions apply in the German-Italian dispute. Damages resulting from international armed conflict are not covered by the local tort clause included in most of the relevant instruments. Nor does the infringement of a jus cogens rule automatically confer jurisdiction to the domestic courts of an affected country. After World War II, a reparation scheme was established by the victorious Allied Powers that provided for reparations at the inter-state level. Granting additional reparation claims to every individual victim of unlawful conduct during armed hostilities would amount to double jeopardy, rendering any definitive peace settlement illusory.

The report of the UN Fact Finding Mission headed by Richard Goldstone on the Gaza War of 2008/2009 contains substantial allegations against Israel and the Palestinian side for war crimes, and other human rights violations. It was the task of a Committee of Experts established by the Human Rights Council in March 2010 to inquire whether Israel and the Palestinians had carried out credible and genuine investigations into those allegations. While receiving a positive response from Palestinian authorities, the Committee failed in its efforts to win the cooperation of the Israeli government and was therefore prevented from entering Israel and the West Bank, consequently keeping them from engaging indirect talks with the responsible Israeli authorities. Notwithstanding, the availability of three official Israeli reports, the Committee concluded that, given the lack of sufficient evidence, it could not ascertain that Israel had acted in conformity with the relevant criteria. A report mandated by the Palestinian Authority showed a high degree of frankness while, in comparison, two reports of the de facto authorities in Gaza primarily confined themselves to bringing charges against Israel. Adapted from the source document.