DiscussionResponse

Regulatory decision-making in the context of uncertain standards – the concept of courage

A response to the post by Machiko Kanetake Machiko Kanetake’s post highlights the difficulties faced by transnational scientific bodies such as ICNIRP and IPCC, which have to manoeuvre between political, legal and scientific expectations and norms. I want to highlight another facet of this dilemma – that of the decision-makers that are standing at the receiving end of the advise produced by such bodies. In many cases decision makers have …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

PR-Problem oder Clash of Cultures? Die Scheuklappen gegen internationales Antidiskriminierungsrecht müssen endlich runter

Eine Replik auf Alexander Tischbirek Angesichts der zurückhaltenden Rezeption internationaler Menschenrechtspakte in der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft und Rechtspraxis bescheinigt Alexander Tischbirek den internationalen Menschenrechtsabkommen ein gleich doppeltes PR-Problem. Zum einen würden einschlägige Menschenrechte zu wenig wahrgenommen (Sichtbarkeitsproblem), zum anderen wider besseren Wissens schlicht nicht erstgenommen (Autoritätsproblem). Um seine These zu untermauern, blickt Tischbirek auf die nationale Rezeption eines jüngeren menschenrechtlichen Instruments, die 2009 in Deutschland in Kraft getretene UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention (UNBRK). Tischbirek …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Justa piratica – or rather Hobbes State of Nature on the High Seas?

A response to the post by James Pattison James Pattison’s argument points at the heart of the debate of the international fight against Somali piracy: Have Somali pirates acted on the basis of greed or grievance, and does the respective answer to this question entail a differentiated response? Put differently: Does piracy due to grievance make it more just than piracy committed due to greed?

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Pebble in the shoe or elephant in the room?

A Response to the post by Adrian Di Giovanni In his post, Adrian Di Giovanni drew our attention to the notion of Do No Harm, focusing on the context of humanitarian assistance. He observes the increase in relying on or at least mentioning this concept on the international level and rightly asks the question what the meaning could be in a more specific sense. I would like to add to …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Whom to Obey? The incongruence of obedience to the state and its consequences for civil disobedience

A reply to Theresa Züger Theresa Züger argues compellingly for using political philosophy to understand civil disobedience in the context of international law. She identifies two key types of civil disobedience, transversal and epistemic. Transversal implies that civil disobedience has long gone beyond the nation state and increasingly focuses on multi-level governance structures and both public and private actors while epistemic attempts to challenge existing power structures by divulging ‘secret’ …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Defining and identifying threats – a new challenge to old assumptions in the theory and practice of emergency and security law

A reply to Jens Kremer Jens Kremer raises a problem that is well known in the theory of security and emergency law. Since issues of security are so complex, and often so political, legal institutions, and especially courts, are not prepared to make decisions on them, the consequence being that courts, overwhelmingly take officials’ security-claims for granted. To tackle the problem, Kremer suggests we can use new tools and new concepts, …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

The limits of emergency mechanisms

A Response to Tine Hanrieder and Christian Kreuder-Sonnen Emergency mechanisms are essential in addressing and containing crisis situations such as the recent Ebola outbreak. Tine and Christian have drawn our attention to the development of the WHO’s emergency powers, and to how recent changes and adjustments of the organization’s response compared to the 2009 swine flu outbreak had a legitimacy enhancing effect. At the same time, however, thinking and conceptualizing …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Wer hat Angst vor dem Völkerrecht? Die Untätigkeit der nationalen Gesetzgeber als Herausforderung (auch) für die Völkerrechtler

Eine Replik auf Evelyne Schmid Evelyne Schmid plädiert in ihrem Beitrag dafür, dass sich Völkerrechtler*innen stärker mit den Unterlassungen durch nationale Gesetzgeber befassen sollten. Sie weist dabei zu Recht auf einen weißen Fleck in der – ansonsten doch reichen und umfassenden – Diskussion über das Verhältnis zwischen Völker- und Landesrecht hin. Schreiben völkerrechtliche Verträge gesetzgeberische Massnahmen durch die einzelnen Staaten vor, sieht sich die Legislative oft gar nicht bemüssigt, entsprechende …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Judicial appointments and the right kind of politics

A response to Bilyana Petkova   Judicial appointments matter, but it is difficult to pinpoint why exactly. One possibility – mentioned by Bilyana – is that there is a connection between representation and legitimacy. It is easy to see that there is a link. Large groups in society might lose trust in the legal system if they are systematically underrepresented on the bench. However, the link is nebulous and never …

READ MORE →

DiscussionResponse

Will the BRICS Bank really change the development world?

A response to Mariana Mota Prado Mariana Prado makes an excellent contribution to the growing debate about the BRICS Development Bank, which is expected to start operating in 2016. What is perhaps most notable about the bank so far is how little the five BRICS governments are willing to share with the public about the bank’s operating principles. In the same way, outsiders are kept in the dark regarding questions …

READ MORE →