Journal Service - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Not a member yet
1022 research outputs found
Sort by
Kostenexplosion
No full textEs handelt sich um eine Referendarexamensklausur im Öffentlichen Recht zum Niedersächsischen Polizeirecht, mit einem Schwerpunkt zu Fragen der Verwaltungsvollstreckung und der Kostentragung. Die Fallbearbeitung ist angelehnt an OVG Lüneburg NJW 2020, 1313
When the Exception Overtakes the Rule: COVID-19, Security Exemption Clauses, and International Investment Agreements
No full textIn the trade and investment law regimes built in the post-war period, “security exemption clauses” were included within trade and investment agreements as a safety valve, permitting States to deviate from their commitments in the event that their security interests were implicated. Initially, these clauses were understood to be narrowly limited to instances of war and interstate conflict. With the rise of the national security state in the decades since, however, the concept of security interests has ballooned to encompass an ever-growing set of issues, with some fearing that the rules may become irrelevant. This has been particularly facilitated through “third generation” security exemption clauses and their inclusion of self-judging language. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular adds a new dimension to this phenomenon. As a case study analysis of the text of the Chile-Hong Kong, China SAR bilateral investment treaty (BIT) will demonstrate, it may be feasible for States to invoke security exemption clauses to justify measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in some contexts, particularly with third generation, self-judging security exemption clauses. The expanding notions of security exemption clauses have significant implications for the investor-State dispute system as a whole
A Right to Come Within State Jurisdiction Under Non-Refoulement? Interpreting Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Good Faith Within the Context of Extraterritorial Migration Control
No full textExternalizing borders for the purpose of shifting and avoiding responsibilities under human rights law is not a new phenomenon in the context of migration control. In the Mediterranean, European States have increasingly sought new measures of extraterritorial migration control to avoid being held responsible under cornerstones of international refugee law such as non-refoulement. In the precedent Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) established that the exercise of effective control over persons on the high seas amounts to the exercise of jurisdiction within the meaning of Art. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As a result, European States began to find new ways of controlling their borders. The focus on physically controlled ‘push-backs’ shifted to administratively controlled ‘pull-backs’. Cooperation with third States by equipping and training their coast guards has become a way for European States to avoid any direct contact with migrants, thereby avoiding triggering jurisdiction as defined by the current case law of the ECtHR. This paper focuses, first, on how ECtHR jurisprudence responds to new forms of extraterritorial migration control and, second, on how this concept of jurisdiction relates to the obligation of States to fulfill their international obligations in good faith. How can the object and purpose of an obligation be undermined if that obligation does not apply in the first place? While the realization of Hannah Arendt’s concept of ‘the right to have rights’ seems to depend in practice on the geographical location of the individual, this paper addresses the question of whether there might be a right to come within the jurisdiction of a State, in the sense of gaining access to a legal system, applying a good faith reading to non-refoulement
Nigerien Law 2015-36: How a New Narrative in the Fight Against Smugglers Affects the Right to Leave a Country
No full textIn 2015, the Republic of the Niger adopted an anti-migrant smuggling law (Law 2015-36) with direct involvement of the European Union (EU). Since then, concerns have been raised that this law constitutes a de facto travel ban for anyone moving northwards from Niger. Rather than addressing the involvement of the EU, this article will focus on the direct obligations of Niger, including those set by regional human rights agreements, as the country where the so-called cooperative migration control takes place. People on the move towards Libya will be a special focus as the most affected by the Nigerien law. First, the Nigerien law and its provisions will be described, in order to then assess whether the law and its application infringe the human right to leave any country including one’s own. Drawing from the findings of non-governmental organizations and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, this article argues that Law 2015- 36 renders it impossible for non-Nigerien nationals to leave the country without risking their life and safety. Thus, Law 2015-36 infringes the right to leave. The third part explores possible justifications for the law with a focus on the interests of people on the move, the interests of bordering States, and national interests. It finds that Law 2015-36 is disproportionate and, in fact, impairs the essence of the right to leave, resulting in an unjustified interference. The concluding fourth part contains recommendations for possible amendments to the law
