Securing of resources as a valid reason for using force? – A pre-emptive defence of the prohibition on the use of force

A growing demand for natural resources embedded in current changes of the international order will put pressure on states to secure the future availability of these resources. Some political discourses suggest that states might respond by challenging the foundations of international law. Whereas the UN Charter was inter alia aimed at eliminating uses of force for economic reasons, one may observe an on-going trend of securitization of matters of resource supply resulting into the revival of self-preservation doctrines. The chapter will show that those claims lack a normative foundation in the current framework of the prohibition of the use of force. Moreover, international law has sufficient instruments to cope with disputes over access to resources by other means than the use of force. The international community, therefore, must oppose claims that may contribute to normative uncertainties and strengthen already existing instruments of pacific settlement of disputes

A Turn to Non-State Actors: Inducing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law in War-Torn Areas of Limited Statehood

Many of the perpetuated armed conflicts in the Great Lakes Region in Africa take place in wartorn areas of limited statehood. These conflicts are characterized by a high number of civilian victims, often resulting from utter disregard for international humanitarian law. Here, the rise of armed, violent non-state actors collides with the State-centric traditional nature of public international law. Thus, (classical) compliance structures seem to lose their significance, as they predominantly rely on the State for law enforcement and therefore mainly accommodate States’ interests when inducing compliance. The working paper suggests that the international community responds to these challenges by allocating competences to other actors than the State. Particularly, international organizations increasingly contribute to enforcing international humanitarian law. However, since these organizations are dependent on their member States’ political willingness to support measures for inducing compliance effectively, a proliferation of humanitarian non-state actors can be observed that step in where third States and international organizations are reluctant to act. The paper investigates reasons for compliance and arrives at the conclusion that traditional motives rooted in a logic of consequences, as well as appropriateness are still valid and must therefore be addressed by the corresponding compliance mechanisms. These compliance mechanisms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Persuasion and incentives work more effectively if they are used under a shadow of hierarchy thrown by coercive legal enforcement instruments, such as international criminal justice and UN targeted sanctions. These instruments are in turn more effective if they are part of a concerted effort.Viele der Konflikte in der afrikanischen Region der Großen Seen werden in gewaltoffenen Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit geführt. Die hohe Anzahl ziviler Opfer ist dabei auch auf die Missachtung des humanitären Völkerrechts zurückzuführen. Seine Steuerungswirkung ist im Hinblick auf bewaffnete Gruppen in Frage gestellt, denn seine Anreizstrukturen scheinen auf staat-liche Interessen und staatliche Durchsetzungsinstrumentarien gerichtet zu sein. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht, inwiefern die Internationale Gemeinschaft auf diese Herausforderungen reagiert. Es lässt sich beobachten, dass vor allem internationale Organisationen Aufgaben bei der Durchsetzung des humanitären Völkerrechts übernehmen. Angesichts der Dominanz staatlicher Interessen in diesen Organisationen treten in zunehmenden Maße NGOs hinzu, die versuchen, bewaffnete Gruppen in Durchsetzungsinitiativen einzubinden. Der Beitrag beleuchtet Gründe für die Befolgung humanitären Völkerrechts unter den Bedingungen von Konflikten in gewaltoffenen Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit und gelangt zu dem Ergebnis, dass traditionelle Befolgungsanreize auch weiterhin relevant sein können. Zugleich wird dargelegt, dass sich die Wirksamkeit der Durchsetzungsinstrumentarien erhöht, wenn sich hierarchische Steuerungsinstrumente, wie gezielte UN-Sanktionen und internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit, sowie nicht-hierarchische Steuerungsmechanismen gegenseitig ergänzen

Inducing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law in War-Torn Areas of Limited Statehood

Viele der Konflikte in der afrikanischen Region der Großen Seen werden in gewaltoffenen Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit geführt. Die hohe Anzahl ziviler Opfer ist dabei auch auf die Miss-achtung des humanitären Völkerrechts zurückzuführen. Seine Steuerungswirkung ist im Hinblick auf bewaffnete Gruppen in Frage gestellt, denn seine Anreizstrukturen scheinen auf staatliche Interessen und staatliche Durchsetzungsinstrumentarien gerichtet zu sein. Der vorliegende Beitrag untersucht, inwiefern die Internationale Gemeinschaft auf diese Heraus- forderungen reagiert. Es lässt sich beobachten, dass vor allem internationale Organisationen Aufgaben bei der Durchsetzung des humanitären Völkerrechts übernehmen. Angesichts der Dominanz staatlicher Interessen in diesen Organisationen treten in zunehmenden Maße NGOs hinzu, die versuchen, bewaffnete Gruppen in Durchsetzungsinitiativen einzubinden. Der Beitrag beleuchtet Gründe für die Befolgung humanitären Völkerrechts unter den Bedin- gungen von Konflikten in gewaltoffenen Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit und gelangt zu dem Ergebnis, dass traditionelle Befolgungsanreize auch weiterhin relevant sein können. Zugleich wird dargelegt, dass sich die Wirksamkeit der Durchsetzungsinstrumentarien erhöht, wenn sich hierarchische Steuerungsinstrumente, wie gezielte UN-Sanktionen und internationale Straf- gerichtsbarkeit, sowie nicht-hierarchische Steuerungsmechanismen gegenseitig ergänzen.Many of the perpetuated armed conflicts in the Great Lakes Region in Africa take place in war- torn areas of limited statehood. These conflicts are characterized by a high number of civilian victims, often resulting from utter disregard for international humanitarian law. Here, the rise of armed, violent non-state actors collides with the State-centric traditional nature of public international law. Thus, (classical) compliance structures seem to lose their significance, as they predominantly rely on the State for law enforcement and therefore mainly accommodate States’ interests when inducing compliance. The working paper suggests that the international com- munity responds to these challenges by allocating competences to other actors than the State. Particularly, international organizations increasingly contribute to enforcing international hu- manitarian law. However, since these organizations are dependent on their member States’ political willingness to support measures for inducing compliance effectively, a proliferation of humanitarian non-state actors can be observed that step in where third States and international organizations are reluctant to act. The paper investigates reasons for compliance and arrives at the conclusion that traditional motives rooted in a logic of consequences, as well as appropriate- ness are still valid and must therefore be addressed by the corresponding compliance mecha- nisms. These compliance mechanisms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Persuasion and incentives work more effectively if they are used under a shadow of hierarchy thrown by coercive legal enforcement instruments, such as international criminal justice and UN targeted sanctions. These instruments are in turn more effective if they are part of a concerted effor

Rights and Obligations of Third Parties in Armed Conflicts

This paper will turn into a contribution to a book on community obligations in international law. It is often said that international law has developed from a legal order which is designed to protect sovereignty to a system which also promotes community interests. This shift is said to be reflected in structural changes of the legal system. The creation of rights and obligations for third parties is generally seen as a part of this perceived paradigmatic shift. Community interests can be furthered either by negative duties of abstention, by an entitlement for third states, or even by duties to take positive measures. Since the shift towards protecting community interests apparently requires some form of cooperation, positive rights and duties to protect and to promote appear to be indispensable. Authors relying on a community perspective often dismiss duties of abstention as an expression of indifference in the face of a violation of a fundamental norm. Solidarity seems to require that third states take a more proactive role in actively enforcing community interests. The paper aims to test this understanding on the basis of an analysis of rights and obligations of third states in armed conflict. In order to argue that duties of abstention of third states are a central instrument for promoting community interests in relation to armed conflicts, the paper will first trace pertinent structural changes in international law. In particular, it will question the extent to which positive rights and obligations of third states have been firmly established in international law. In a second step, this contribution will evaluate the overall tendencies in the ongoing lawmaking process for promoting community interests in relation to armed conflict

Populist Governments and International Law

The worldwide populist wave has contributed to a perception that international law is currently in a state of crisis. This article examines in how far populist governments have challenged prevailing interpretations of international law. The article links structural features of populism with an analysis of populist governmental strategies and argumentative practices. It demonstrates that, in their rhetoric, populist governments promote an understanding of international law as a mere law of coordination. This is, however, not entirely reflected in their legal practices where an instrumental, cherry-picking approach prevails. The article concludes that policies of populist governments affect the current state of international law on two different levels: In the political sphere their practices alter the general environment in which legal rules are interpreted. In the legal sphere populist governments push for changes in the interpretation of established international legal rules. The article substantiates these propositions by focusing on the principle of non-intervention and foreign funding for NGOs

Sentenza 238/2014 of the Italian Constitutional Court and the International Rule of Law

The German-Italian dispute over the scope of sovereign immunities and claims of reparations for war crimes committed by German armed forces during World War II in Italy is in many ways specific and historically contingent. At the same time, it touches upon a number of fundamental challenges which the international community has to address in the interest of furthering the international rule of law. In this working paper both authors adress the question whether the current law of sovereign immunities should be changed or interpreted in a manner as to allow for exceptions from State immunities in cases of grave violations of human rights. While the first part of the paper focusses on the perspective of general international law the second part adresses the question through the lense of European law. Both authors agree that unilateral efforts to push for what many consider a progressive development of international law actually may entail adverse effects for the international rule of law and thus may even contribute to a broader crisis of the international legal order

Value changes in the international legat order from the perspectives of legal and political science

The paper aims to lay out a framework for evaluating value shifts in the international legal order for the purposes of a forthcoming book. In view of current contestations it asks whether we are observing yet another period of norm change (Wandel) or even a more fundamental transformation of international law — a metamorphosis (Verwandlung). For this purpose it suggests to look into the mechanisms of how norms change from the perspective of legal and political science and also to approximate a reference point where change turns into metamorphosis. It submits that such a point may be reached where specific legally protected values are indeed changing (change of legal values) or where the very idea of protecting certain values through law is renounced (delegalizing of values). The paper discusses the benefits of such an interdisciplinary exchange and tries to identify differences and commonalities among both disciplinary perspectives

Points of Departure

The paper undertakes a preliminary assessment of current developments of international law for the purpose of mapping the ground for a larger research project. The research project pursues the goal of determining whether public international law, as it has developed since the end of the Cold War, is continuing its progressive move towards a more human-rights- and multi-actor-oriented order, or whether we are seeing a renewed emphasis of more classical elements of international law. In this context the term “international rule of law” is chosen to designate the more recent and “thicker” understanding of international law. The paper discusses how it can be determined whether this form of international law continues to unfold, and whether we are witnessing challenges to this order which could give rise to more fundamental reassessments