Kirjahaku

This book addresses the disparity between positive non-treaty law and its scholarly assessment in the area of moral concepts, understood as altruistic as opposed to reciprocal legal obligations. It shows how scholars are generously willing to assert the existence of a rule of international law, thereby moving further away from actual state practice, not taking into account the factors of legal rhetoric and the core survival interests of the state in the formation of custom and general principles of law. The main argument is that such moral concepts can simply not manifest themselves as non-treaty sources of international law from a dogmatic perspective. The reason is the inherent connection between the formation of the non-treaty sources of international law and state interest that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assess state practice or opinio juris in the case of altruistic obligations. The book further demonstrates this finding by looking at two cases in point: Human rights and humanitarian exceptions tothe prohibition of force. As opposed to the majority of existing works on the subject, State Interest and the Sources of International Law takes a bigger-picture approach to a number of distinct problems in international law scholarship by looking at the building blocks of international relations on the one hand, and merging this with sources doctrine on the other. It will be of interest to researchers, academics, and students in the fields of international law, human rights, international relations, political science, legal philosophy, and legal theory.

Atrocity. Genocide. War crime. Crime Against Humanity. Such atrocity labels have been popularized among international lawmakers but with little insight offered into how and when these terms are applied and to what effect. What constitutes an event to be termed a genocide or war crime and what role does this play in the application of legal proceedings?Markus P. Beham, through an interdisciplinary and comparative approach, unpicks these terms to uncover their historical genesis and their implications for international criminal law initiatives concerned with atrocity. The book uniquely compares four specific case studies: Belgian colonial exploitation of the Congo, atrocities committed against the Herero and Nama in German South-West Africa, the Armenian genocide and the man-made Ukrainian famine of the 1930s. Encompassing international law, legal history, and discourse analysis, the concept of ‘atrocity labelling’ is used to capture the meaning underlying the work of international lawyers and prosecutors, historians and sociologists, agenda setters and policy makers.

This book addresses the disparity between positive non-treaty law and its scholarly assessment in the area of moral concepts, understood as altruistic as opposed to reciprocal legal obligations. It shows how scholars are generously willing to assert the existence of a rule of international law, thereby moving further away from actual state practice, not taking into account the factors of legal rhetoric and the core survival interests of the state in the formation of custom and general principles of law. The main argument is that such moral concepts can simply not manifest themselves as non-treaty sources of international law from a dogmatic perspective. The reason is the inherent connection between the formation of the non-treaty sources of international law and state interest that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assess state practice or opinio juris in the case of altruistic obligations. The book further demonstrates this finding by looking at two cases in point: Human rights and humanitarian exceptions tothe prohibition of force. As opposed to the majority of existing works on the subject, State Interest and the Sources of International Law takes a bigger-picture approach to a number of distinct problems in international law scholarship by looking at the building blocks of international relations on the one hand, and merging this with sources doctrine on the other. It will be of interest to researchers, academics, and students in the fields of international law, human rights, international relations, political science, legal philosophy, and legal theory.

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat mit dem Nassauskiesungsbeschluss einen streng formellen Enteignungsbegriff etabliert. Staatliche Maßnahmen unterfallen diesem nicht, wenn es etwa am Element der Güterbeschaffung fehlt. Folge ist, dass anders als bei der Enteignung auch grundsätzlich kein Entschädigungsjunktim besteht. Dieser Auffassung setzt der Autor eine Neuinterpretation der Eigentumsgarantie entgegen, die sich einerseits auf den Wortlaut des Grundgesetzes, andererseits im Sinne der "offenen Staatlichkeit" auf die Normen des Völker- und Europarechts, ebenso wie auf rechtsvergleichende Überlegungen stützt. Markus P. Beham plädiert damit nicht nur für einen materiellen Enteignungsbegriff, sondern für eine aus dem Mehrebenensystem heraus verstandene, offene Anwendung innerstaatlichen Rechts.