Suchergebnisse

On 11 July 2023, the ECtHR found in its Chamber judgment in Semenya v. Switzerland that international-level athlete Mokgadi Caster Semenya had been discriminated against by the Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF, now World Athletics). These regulations required her to undergo hormone treatment to lower her natural testosterone levels in order to be admitted to international competitions in the female category. In the Chamber's view, Switzerland had violated the Convention by failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural safeguards to enable Ms. Semenya to have her discrimination complaints effectively examined. If the GC upholds the Chamber's findings on jurisdiction and scrutiny, the Semenya judgment will have a significant impact on the human rights approach of sports federations and on future CAS proceedings.

Abstract
The article deals with the question of whether and why international human rights law should protect corporations at the example of regional economic integration systems such as the European Union. For the European Court of Justice, granting human rights to corporations is the natural response to the key role that private companies play in the integration program. Regional human rights courts, in contrast, partly struggle to recognise corporations as human rights holders. The article critically examines the theoretical raison d'être of fundamental rights of corporations, granted in the framework of international human rights, and reflects on them on the basis of a Rule of Law-postulate.

Since the terrorist attack on Berlin's Breitscheidplatz took place in December 2016, German state interior ministries deport potential top terrorists in the accelerated procedure under section 58a Residence Act (AufenthG). As a legal consequence, section 11‍(5) Residence Act imposes a lifelong entry ban to foreigners who have been deported on the basis of § 58a Residence Act. In defining the requirements for deporting potential top terrorists, the ministries do not refer to the foreseeability of a concrete terrorist attack, but to the risk arising from the person concerned. Consequently, deportation orders can also be issued to persons who, although identifying with radical extremist Islamism, would not have committed terrorist attacks in case they had stayed in Germany. This practice of accepting misjudgements, that is of deporting "the wrong", for the sake of public security forms part of the broader concept of fighting terrorism pre-emptively.
The paper reveals that there is a twofold need for reform of the German lifelong entry ban for potential top-terrorists: It arises, on the one hand, from the fact that section 11 Residence Act violates EU law requirements of the "Return Directive" and, on the other hand, from the constitutional principle of proportionality. De lege lata, this principle is infringed because the legal consequence of a lifelong entry ban does not mitigate the deliberate acceptance of misjudgements within the framework of section 58a Residence Act. The paper argues that the constitutionality of pre-emptive security policy presupposes that the factual and legal consequences of misjudgements are reversible. As a consequence, the constitutionality of section 11 Residence Act with regards to potential top terrorists depends on setting time limits on entry bans.

This article is a critical reflection on the manifoldness of the notion of "partnership" in Critical Infrastructure Protection. It is argued that the partnership arrangement can be a promising political approach to CIP if the details of public-private cooperation – that is: the participants, the duration, the responsibilities and duties, as well as possible financial compensation – are formalized. Illusionary ideas of a "partner-like" relationship between the public and the private, such as those laid down in the German "National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection", are, however, doomed to fail. State authorities have to actively offer binding regulatory arrangements to private CI firms in order to establish which companies genuinely agree to cooperate – and which do not. Due to the state's constitutional obligation to guarantee national security and protect the life and health of its citizens, introducing legal requirements is the only possible reaction to a company's refusal to cooperate. In order to avoid overly intrusive market intervention, the state's offer to private firms or their industry associations to conclude binding regulatory contracts on CIP matters may serve as a promising compromise between a laissez-faire approach and regulation.

Anschläge auf lebenswichtige Infrastrukturen wie IT, Energieversorgung oder Verkehr verursachen Folgeschäden für die gesamte Gesellschaft. Infolge der Privatisierung dieser "kritischen Infrastrukturen" fehlen dem Staat aber direkte Kontrollmöglichkeiten; Sicherheitspolitik ist auf die Mitwirkung privater Betreiber angewiesen. Deutschland setzt dazu maßgeblich auf freiwillige Kooperation mit der Privatwirtschaft. Die Autorin analysiert diese Politik und die zugrunde liegenden Prämissen. Sie zeigt, dass die deutsche Politik auf unrealistischen Annahmen über das Funktionieren von Märkten basiert, die die Erfüllung des verfassungsrechtlichen Schutzauftrags "Infrastruktursicherheit" gefährden können