Suchergebnisse

Filmed from the original held by: Harvard Law School Library. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Der Autor befaßt sich mit einem - im IMEMO-Jahrbuch "Abrüstung und Sicherheit 1987" enthaltenen - Beitrag Aleksej Arbatows zum Vergleich der Militärdoktrinen von NATO und Warschauer Pakt, der Aufschluß gibt über Entwicklung und aktuelle Veränderungen der Militärdoktrin der UdSSR. Ausgehend von einem Rückblick auf die Entwicklung der Militärdoktrin von Mitte der 50er bis Mitte der 80er Jahre informiert Arbatow über die wichtigsten Änderungen der Militärdoktrin im Rahmen des "neuen Denkens": Betonung der Notwendigkeit der Kriegsverhinderung und Verzicht auf den Ersteinsatz von Nuklearwaffen (Erkenntnis der "Nichtgewinnbarkeit" des Kriegs) sowie Berücksichtigung der "feed-back"-Effekte einer - offensiv orientierten - Stärkung der Verteidigungskapazitäten. Das Gegenoffensivpotential der Defensivkräfte impliziert allerdings einen Widerspruch zur Defensivorientierung der Militärdoktrin. (BIOst-Klk)

AbstractScholars of global constitutionalism have recently come to examine international criminal law (ICL) and its associated institutions, in particular the International Criminal Court (the ICC). This article prolongs these efforts by pointing to and remedying two deficits of that project with particular emphasis on the Rome Statute crimes. First, how does one account for the role of the international trial in global constitutionalist terms? Second, can global constitutionalism insightfully explain the content and scope of these crimes – that is, both their substantive definition and the predominant modes of liability developed by the ICC? This article answers both questions affirmatively and offers an account of their nexus. It first shows that the Rome Statute crimes are often perpetrated through a hierarchically organized apparatus of control, and interprets their global constitutional significance via the principle of constituent power. It then makes use of Antony Duff's relational account of criminal liability to offer an account of the international trial. In the international context, one can conceive of the trial as allowing state or state-like authorities to call each other to account, which renders justice to the core function of enabling and limiting political authority on which global constitutionalism centres.

Honesty, loyalty and reasonableness together refer to the principle of good faith in contemporary private law. The principle of good faith historically emerged as a natural law principle deriving from Roman law of nations, the universal set of rules applicable for all mankind. However, it also has immense historical effects on the early modern theories of international law. Being based on natural law and morality, good faith is well-equipped to be a fundamental standard of behavior in contemporary international law concerns. Good faith manifests itself as pacta sunt servanda as the basis of international treaty law. As a principle referring to honesty, loyalty and reasonableness, it guarantees the prohibition of the abuse of power and provides equitable solutions in legal relationships between sovereigns and private actors. Accordingly this article examines the application of the classical Roman principle of good faith in international law from a transhistorical perspective to clarify its contemporary applications, taking refugee law as an example. It concerns itself with the fundamental elements of good faith, the historical emergence of the principle, its relationship with early modern international legal theories and its contemporary significance in refugee law.Received: 23.10.2019Accepted: 29.12.2019Published online: 03.07.2020

Agozino supports Amin's call for a Fifth International, but offers suggestions to make it more inclusive. He argues "It is not enough for the Fifth International to call on Workers of the World to Unite without questioning the extent to which racism, imperialism and patriarchy divide the working class and weaken the struggle to end exploitation." Although the First International addressed class exploitation in articulation with the struggles against the oppression of nationalities and racial groups and against gender oppression, "[t]he departure from the race-class-gender articulation or intersectionality model that Marx envisaged by the organizers of subsequent internationals may be part of the reasons why the organizational aim was not sustained." Agozino calls for more intentionality in constructing the leadership of the Fifth International than is in Amir's proposal. While Amir was attentive to the inclusion of African leadership, he paid less attention to the inclusion of women or indigenous peoples. And while Amin seemed concerned with creating a manageable process through the delegation of a small number of leaders, Agozino says it is "better to allow a million leaders to emerge from local to the global levels."

The debate surrounding the establishment of the International Criminal Court provides a critical example of the conflation of political imperative and criminal justice. In addition, it keenly identifies the manner in which the criminal trial (and its procedures) are viewed by the "international community" as crucial to the resolution of global conflict. The political push for an international criminal law, and its institutions, recently has relied on the connection between the image of a "just" international military intervention, and the necessity to punish "crimes" which either justified that intervention or were perpetrated by those opposed to it. At the conclusion of the military context, the resolution of these "crimes" is transferred into the court-room and the trial. Further, the trial is perhaps a slightly less contentious domain where the two principal procedural styles confront one another. The same could not be said, for instance, of the pre-trial phase.Colleagues associated with the Centre for Legal Research (Nottingham Law School) have embarked on a major research project which will comparatively analyse the trial process in civil and common law legal styles, and generate wider reflections on international criminal procedure.

Successful interdisciplinary cooperation in the area of peace research requires the reduction of prejudices and the joint recognition and analysis of the specific problems of each of the disciplines involved. An attempt has been made here to touch on some of the most important problems of inter national law and the study of international law. The scope of these problems reaches, as far as international law as such is concerned, from the question of its basis, which is more and more dif ficult to answer, to the many and varied concep tions of an ideal, desirable world order. In the science of international law, the range is from an antitheoretical pragmatism to the real and con ceptual difficulties in developing rules and pro cedures for peaceful change. Only when these and other difficulties are recognized, and when it is accepted that the study of international law is and must remain a normative science, and that the maintenance of the 'negative' peace is a valid objective, even an indispensable requirement for all further endeavors to improve the condition of international rela tions, will fruitful cooperation with other disciplines be possible in the area of future peace research.