Rezension: N. Brieskorn/ G. Stiening (hrsg. v.), Francisco de Vitorias ‚De Indis‘ in interdisziplinärer Perspektive. Reihe II: Untersuchungen, Band 3, frommann-holzboog. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2011 ; K. Bunge/ S. Schweighöfer/ A. Spindler/ A. Wagner (hrsg. v.), Kontroversen um das Recht / Contending for Law. Beiträge zur Rechtsbegründung von Vitoria bis Suáre z, Reihe II: Untersuchungen, Band 4, frommann-holzboog. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 2011

Die beiden anzuzeigenden Bände kommen zur rechten Zeit und dürfen eine breite Resonanz erwarten. Dies ist allerdings nicht der Tatsache geschuldet, dass politische Ideengeschichte gegenwärtig Konjunktur hätte. Die daran interessierte Zielgruppe haben beide Bände natürlicherweise im Blick. So wird verlässlich über die grossen Debatten der Spanischen Spätscholastik zum „ius gentium“ informiert, wie z.B. über die Frage nach einem säkularen Naturrecht, der Rechtfertigung von Eroberungskriegen und Fragen des christlichen Missionsrechts. Auf diese Themen wird zurückzukommen sein. Von aktueller Bedeutung sind beide Bände vielmehr, weil sie die Suche nach der richtigen Perspektive auf das Völkerrecht im Kontext der Spanischen Spätscholastik zum Generalthema machen. Ist das Völkerrecht der Spanischen Spätscholastik primär aus einer Perspektive des Rechts, der Philosophie oder der Theologie zu verstehen? Diese Frage musste die damalige Zeit interessieren, war doch historisch nicht ausgemacht, dass Rechtsbeziehungen mit nicht-christlichen Völkern denselben Prinzipien gehorchten wie denjenigen zwischen den Völkern der „Alten Welt“. Die Bände gehen also zu Recht der Frage nach der richtigen Perspektive (und der zuständigen Disziplin) für Fragen des Völkerrechts nach

Social Justice and the Judicial Interpretation of International Equal Protection Law

Social justice is turning into an international concern. This development is a response to the continuous rise of socioeconomic inequality – the gap between the rich and the poor –growing in several OECD member states since the 1970s. International human rights law (IHRL) presently only establishes a weak normative framework regarding social justice. This article argues that the full potential of this framework has still not been activated by international human rights adjudication. There are several reasons for this: a complex history of ideas suggesting little common understanding of the notion of social justice, the focus of international human rights adjudication on individual rather than constitutional justice, and the priority of liberty rights over equality rights. Yet, the domination of the liberal over the social in international human rights adjudication has started to change. The article shows how the social justice concern is beginning to be incorporated into IHRL by judicial interpretation of international equal protection and non-discrimination law (international equal protection law, IEPL). Integrating the social justice concern into IEPL is a legitimate yet transformative step as it increases judicial discretion at the international level. More than many other human rights, socioeconomic equality is highly context-specific and depends on a complex factual assessment of the local circumstances. This exacerbates the institutional legitimacy challenge levelled against international human rights courts. However, the article argues that the legitimacy challenge can be alleviated by focusing more on procedural rather than a substantive international review

Bridging the Security Gap through EU Rule of Law Missions? Rule of Law Administration by EULEX

EU civilian missions are a tool to bridge new security gaps. They focus on security problems that cannot be adequately addressed by military capabilities alone. These missions operationalize the idea of liberal peace, ie the link between the (democratic, liberal etc.) 'quality' of domestic institutions and international peace. The purpose of these missions is to reform (or establish) a State security sector based upon these qualities. Taking the most advanced EU civilian mission to date, EULEX Kosovo, as an object of study, this article examines a particular legal problem that ensues when the rule of law is 'exported': in order to fulfil its rule of law-exporting task, the mission enjoys broad executive powers. This, in turn, requires that the mission itself must be bound by the principles it seeks to 'export'. The rule of law serves, in other words, both as a policy-tool and as a constraint for EULEX. As both dimensions are connected, the failure of one will likely affect the performance of the other. The article concludes that while the hybrid approach to the rule of law by EULEX is a promising tool to address security gaps resulting from new threats in post-conflict societies, the present weakness of the constraint function negatively affects the performance of the mission as a whole