Suchergebnisse

This article explores the intelligence requirement of international mediation, a topic that is ignored in both the literature on conflict resolution and the literature on intelligence. A mediator's strategies and tactics ought to be informed by a deep understanding of the parties' internal calculations about the conflict and its resolution. Intelligence is needed to gain this understanding because the parties typically do not reveal their sensitive deliberations to outsiders. United Nations mediation teams should have a monitoring and analysis unit that endeavours to meet this need and reduce the ignorance that commonly afflicts international mediation. Adapted from the source document.

Warum sind Staatsorganisationen traditionell in drei Gewalten gegliedert? Auf diese Frage gibt Christoph Möllers eine legitimationstheoretisch begründete Antwort und macht diese juristisch nutzbar: Moderne Verfassungen legitimieren sich durch den Schutz individueller Freiheit und die Ermöglichung demokratischer Selbstbestimmung, lassen jedoch den Vorrang zwischen beiden Legitimationsformen offen. Statt einer materiellen Vorrangregel dient das Prinzip der Gewaltengliederung dem Ausgleich beider Legitimationsansprüche durch Organisation und Verfahren. Auf Grundlage dieser Einsicht leitet der Autor Kriterien zur Bestimmung der drei Gewalten her, die die Auslegung von Art. 20 Abs. 2. S. 2 GG präzisieren, und im Vergleich mit dem Verfassungsrecht der USA auf Einzelprobleme Anwendung finden: Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, gerichtliche Kontrolle der Verwaltung und Delegation der Rechtsetzung. In einem zweiten Argumentationsgang bewährt sich dieses Modell auch bei föderalen Rechtsordnungen und übernationale Organisationen wie der EU, der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation (ILO) und der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO). Probleme der Kompetenzbestimmung zwischen Ebenen, der Verbundverwaltung oder der Anwendbarkeit von internationalem Recht werden durch das Modell auf eine systematische Grundlage gestellt.

The second half of the twentieth century has witnessed a strive of the international community to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedomseverywhere in the world. Within this context, the greatest achievement of the United Nations (UN) system is considered to be the creation of a body ofinternational human rights instruments and laws, amongst them those pertaining to the administration of justice and the protection of prisoners. The present article reviews the concept of international human rights law, the instruments relating to the protection of prisoners and the way these instruments address the issue of women prisoners.

A number of people have modeled Putnam's (1988) analogy of the two-level game to better understand the interaction between domestic and international politics. Milner and Rosendorff's model (1997) has taken on particular significance in this area of research. By applying a Nash bargaining solution to a standard spatial model, they were able to make specific predictions of bargaining behavior with and without domestic constraints. In this paper, I argue that some compromise should be expected in the bargaining, compromise that the Nash bargaining solution does not allow when paired with a linear utility assumption. I present a number of theoretical alternatives for which some degree of compromise is predicted. General solutions are derived given the unidimensional spatial model for the Nash (1950), the Kalai—Smorodinsky (1975), and the Felsenthal—Diskin (1982) bargaining solutions with linear and with quadratic equations. Given the unidimensional spatial context, more compromise is proposed under a given bargaining solution when using quadratic utilities rather than linear utilities. The most compromise is proposed by the Felsenthal—Diskin bargaining solution, followed by the Kalai—Smorodinsky, and then the Nash bargaining solutions.

Die internationale Politik wird in wachsendem Umfang durch grenzüberschreitende Probleme globalen Ausmaßes herausgefordert: Bevölkerungs Wachstum, Umweltschutz, Wanderungsbewegungen, Drogen, Kriminalität. Sie muß sich fragen, ob der bestehende Rahmen multilateraler Zusammenarbeit diesen Herausforderungen noch gewachsen ist.

1. Hintergrund und Ziele: Die vorliegende Studie beschäftigt sich mit der Geschichte, Organisation und (Zusammen-)Arbeit von Behandlungszentren für Folteropfer. Von besonderem Interesse waren hierbei die Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten von Behandlungszentren in Fluchtländern und Organisationen in "Konfliktländern" . Um die internationale Arbeit der Behandlungszentren und deren Auswirkungen auch auf Deutschland besser zu analysieren wurde eine empirische Studie zur Bekanntheit, Umsetzung und Bewertung des Istanbul-Protokolls in Deutschland durchgeführt. Das Istanbul-Protokoll ist ein Handbuch zur Dokumentation und Untersuchung von Folter, das ursprünglich in der Türkei entwickelt und schließlich im Rahmen einer weltweiten Kooperation von Experten unterschiedlicher Fachbereiche zur aktuellen Fassung ausgearbeitet wurde. Während in "Konfliktländern" Implementierungsprojekte durchgeführt wurden, gilt es in Fluchtländern als eher unbekannt. 2. Methoden: Als Beispielzentren für Organisationen in "Konfliktländern" wurden das Kosovo Rehabilitation Centre (KRCT) sowie die Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT) gewählt. Als Beispiele für Behandlungszentren in Flucht- und Aufnahmeländern wurden das Behandlungszentrum für Folteropfer in Berlin (BZFO) und das Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims (RCT) in Dänemark betrachtet. Zur Analyse der Geschichte, Organisation und Arbeit der Behandlungszentren wurde hauptsächlich auf veröffentlichte Literatur und Studien der analysierten Organisationen zurückgegriffen. Die empirische Studie zur Bekanntheit, Umsetzung und Bewertung des Istanbul-Protokolls wurde mittels eines standardisierten Fragebogens durchgeführt. Es wurden die Mitarbeiter des therapeutischen Teams an zehn deutschen Behandlungszentren, die sich mit der Untersuchung von Folteropfern und Dokumentation von Folter beschäftigen, eingeschlossen. Die Rücklaufquote betrug 64% (n = 43). 3. Ergebnisse und Beobachtungen: Gemeinsamkeiten ließen sich besonders in den Bereichen Aufbau und Entwicklung, hier vor ...

Full-text available at SSRN. See link in this record. ; With its focus on private legal systems, the private ordering literature sets up a seeming dichotomy between public court adjudication of disputes, applying publicly created laws, and private arbitral adjudication of disputes, applying privately developed rules. Trade association arbitrations fit neatly into the latter category; public courts fit almost as neatly into the former. But while the dichotomy highlights the cases of most interest in the private ordering literature, it is too simple. It gives the appearance of an all-or-nothing choice - all public dispute resolution or all private dispute resolution - when in fact hybrid choices are common. This article seeks to add to the private ordering literature in two ways. First, it argues that international commercial arbitration, while sometimes cited as an example of private ordering, is in fact - a hybrid case - with important elements of public involvement supplementing the use of a private decision maker. Too often, international arbitration is grouped with trade association arbitration in ways that blur the important distinctions between the two. Not all arbitration is alike, and not all parties that agree to arbitrate opt out of the legal system altogether. Second, this article examines attributes of international transactions that help explain party choice among these different mechanisms of resolving disputes. It considers four attributes: (1) distance - geographic, as well as cultural and political - between the parties; (2) the complexity of the good or service; (3) the clarity of the applicable national law; and (4) the importance of speedy resolution of disputes. Trade association arbitration is most likely to be used for transactions in simple goods, although less likely in international transactions involving greater distances than domestic transactions. International commercial arbitration is the more likely choice for international transactions, except in cases in which the applicable law ...

On February 28, 1942, a conference at Atlantic City was arranged by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to inaugurate discussions on the international law of the future. Since that time, a series of group conferences and smaller meetings have been held in various centers of the United States and Canada, at which nearly 200 men, chiefly Americans and Canadians, participated—judges, lawyers, professors, governmental officers, and men of special international experience. To assure continuity, a few persons—outstanding among them Judge Manley O. Hudson of the Harvard Law School and Professor P. E. Corbett of McGill University—were present at all the meetings, and a small committee prepared the different drafts.The aim of these informal conferences, held over a period of nearly two years, was to arrive at a community of views; and this was achieved when a Statement, growing out of successive drafts, was subscribed to by some 150 of the persons who had participated in the discussions. This document, hitherto strictly confidential, has now been released for publication. Its contents are not to be taken, either in whole or in part, to represent the individual views of any particular person who participated in the discussions.The Statement consists of six Postulates, ten Principles, and twenty-three Proposals, each explained by comment in the light of the history of international law over a period of a hundred years. The Postulates set forth the essential premises, the basic conceptions, of an effective international legal order. The Principles—so to speak, the heart of the Statement —are offered as a draft of a declaration which might be officially promulgated by the statesmen who will build the future peace. The Proposals are indications, suggestions for implementing the Principles, but are not presented as draft provisions for inclusion in an international instrument.It is the object of the present article to summarize and comment upon the Statement's principal features.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is an international court dealing with maritime disputes. The Tribunal is open to States, international organizations and other entities. The Yearbook will give lawyers, scholars, students as well as the general public easy access to information about the jurisdiction, procedure and organization of the Tribunal and also about its composition and activities in 2000. The Yearbook was prepared by the Registry of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also published a volume of Basic Texts which contains documents that are fundamental to the mandate and operation of the Tribunal and which provides the essential documentation relating to the law and procedure applicable to the Tribunal. The Yearbook is also available in French (Annuaire)