Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Concept of International Law: The German Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European International Law Traditions

Abstract

Germany does not embrace a specific national concept of international law. However, when it arose anew as a democratic State after the horrors of the Second World War, it set forth in its Constitution, the Basic Law, key principles providing for full conformity of its internal legal order with the requirements of the tenets of the international legal order. This fundamental determination permeates the entire body of domestic rules in the living practice of all governmental institutions. Regarding the legal order of the European Union, Germany follows the jurisprudence of its Court of Justice and complies generally with the primacy of European Union law as defined in the practice of the Court, reserving, however, its role as the ultimate guardian of the supreme values of the Basic Law making up the identity of the national legal order.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The current ‘schools’, classified according to substantive criteria, were carefully described by Bardo Faßbender, ‘Denkschulen im Völkerrecht’ (2012) 45 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 1-31; see also Anne Peters, ‘There is Nothing More Practical than a Good Theory: An Overview of Contemporary Approaches to International Law’ (2001) 44 GYIL 25-37.

  2. 2.

    For a recent analysis of that fragmented history see Dieter Borchmeyer, Was ist deutsch? (Berlin: Rowohlt 2017).

  3. 3.

    See Karl-Dietrich Bracher, ‘Final Observations’, in id (ed) Deutscher Sonderweg, Mythos oder Realität? (München: Oldenbourg 1982) 53 in a publication attempting to elucidate the concept of ‘Sonderweg’.

  4. 4.

    The question was already put many years ago by Thomas Giegerich and Andreas Zimmermann, ‘“Typisch Deutsch …“: Is There a German Approach to International Law?’ (2007) 50 GYIL 15-27.

  5. 5.

    See, e.g., Andreas von Arnauld, Völkerrecht (Heidelberg: 2nd edn C.F. Müller 2014) 75; Karl Doehring, Völkerrecht (Heidelberg: 2nd edn C.F. Müller 2004) 121; Rudolf Geiger, Grundgesetz und Völkerrecht (München: 6th edn Beck 2013) 77; Theodor Schweisfurth, Völkerrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006) 55.

  6. 6.

    See, e.g., Gunther Teubner, ‘Globale Zivilverfassungen: Alternativen zur staatszentrierten Verfassungstheorie’, (2003) 63 ZaöRV/HJIL 1-28.

  7. 7.

    See Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights – Between Idealism and Realism (Oxford: OUP 3rd edn 2014) 2.

  8. 8.

    See overview by Wolfgang Weiß, ‘Rechtsquellen des Völkerrechts in der Globalisierung: Zu Notwendigkeit und Legitimation neuer Quellenkategorien’ (2015) 53 AVR 220-251.

  9. 9.

    Michael Wood, ‘“Constitutionalization” of International Law: A Sceptical Voice’ in Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad and Michael Bohlander (eds), International Law and Power. Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice: Essays in Honour of Colin Warbrick (Leiden & Boston: Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 85-97, 88, writes: ‘The Germans think of international law as a set of value norms, with the United Nations at its centre’ – but does admit that this proposition is to be relativized (89). - In a recent study about the socialization of German internationalists the emphasis is placed on the close connection between domestic constitutional law and international law in the legal education system, which impacts German writers to conceive of international law as a well-ordered system and less as a fragmented landscape shaped by historical contingency: Nico Krisch, ‘The Many Fields of (German) International Law’ in Anthea Robert (ed) Comparative International Law (Oxford: OUP 2018) 91-109.

  10. 10.

    See, in particular, Hermann Mosler, ‘Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung’ (1966) 36 ZaöRV/HJIL 6, 16; Andreas L. Paulus, Die internationale Gemeinschaft im Völkerrecht (München: C.H. Beck 2001); Mehrdad Payandeh, Internationales Gemeinschaftsrecht. Zur Herausbildung gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Strukturen im Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (Heidelberg: Springer 2010); Christian Tomuschat, ‘Die internationale Gemeinschaft’ (1995) 33 AVR 1-20.

  11. 11.

    See eg Jochen A. Frowein, ‘Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts’ (2000) 39 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 427-447; Stefan Kadelbach and Thomas Kleinlein, ‘Überstaatliches Verfassungsrecht. Zur Konstitutionalisierung im Völkerrecht’ (2006) 44 AVR 235-266; Thomas Kleinlein, Konstitutionalisierung im Völkerrecht. Konstruktion und Elemente einer idealistischen Völkerrechtslehre (Heidelberg: Springer 2012); Anne Peters, ‘Are We Moving towards Constitutionalization of the World Community?’ in Antonio Cassese (ed), Realizing Utopia (Oxford: OUP 2012) 118-135. Emphasizing the economic dimension of constitutionalization: Ernst Ulrich Petersmann, Multilevel Constitutionalism for Multilevel Governance of Public Goods (Oxford & Portland, Oregon: Hart 2017); Christian Tomuschat, ‘Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts durch die Vereinten Nationen’ in Ewald Grothe and Arthur Schlegelmilch (eds), Constitutional Moments (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2020) 185-203.

  12. 12.

    See eg Wood (n 9) 85-97; Lauri Mälksoo, Book review (2012) 50 AVR 245-6. Critical assessment also by Oliver Diggelmann and Tilmann Altwicker, ‘Is There Something Like a Constitution of International Law?’ (2008) 68 ZaöRV 623-650.

  13. 13.

    Cogently observed by Christian Walter, ‘Der Internationale Menschenrechtsschutz zwischen Konstitutionalisierung und Fragmentierung’ (2015) 75 ZaöRV/HJIL 753-770, in particular 764.

  14. 14.

    Armin von Bogdandy, ‘Constitutionalism in International Law: Comment on a Proposal for Germany’ (2006) 47 HarvIntlJ 223, 224.

  15. 15.

    Christian Tomuschat, ‘International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New Century’ (1999) 281 Hague Academy of International Law Collected Courses.

  16. 16.

    Correct classification by Ulrich Haltern, ‘Tomuschats Traum: Zur Bedeutung von Souveränität im Völkerrecht’ in Pierre-Marie Dupuy and others (eds), Common Values in International Law. Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat (Kehl: N.P. Engel 2006) 867, 870.

  17. 17.

    A prominent position to the contrary is defended, eg, by Haltern (ibid.) 867ff.

  18. 18.

    Acknowledged by von Bogdandy (n 14) 224.

  19. 19.

    ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), 2012 ICJ Reports 99.

  20. 20.

    See Hermann-Josef Blanke and Lara Falkenberg, ‘Is There State Immunity in Case of War Crimes Committed in the Forum State?’ (2013) 14 German Law Journal 1817, 1842 (notwithstanding some doubts concerning legal policy); Matthias Kloth and Manuel Brunner, ‘Staatenimmunität im Zivilprozess bei gravierenden Menschenrechtsverletzungen’ (2012) 50 AVR 219-243, 242; Karin Oellers-Frahm, ‘State Immunity vs. Human Rights’ in Mensch und Recht. Festschrift für Eibe Riedel (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2013) 389, 398; Robert Uerpmann-Witzack, ‘Serious Human Rights Violations as Potential Exceptions to Immunity: Conceptual Challenges’ in Anne Peters and others (eds), Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism (Leiden & Boston: Brill Njhoff 2014) 236, 241.

  21. 21.

    Markus Krajewski and Christopher Singer, ‘Should Judges Be Front-Runners? The ICJ, State Immunity and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights’ (2012) 16 MaxPlanckUNYB 1-34, 30-1; Mehrdad Payandeh, ‘Staatenimmunität und Menschenrechte’ (2012) 67 Juristenzeitung 949, 957; see also Michael Bothe, ‘Remedies of Victims of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanities: Some Critical Remarks on the ICJ’s Judgment on the Jurisdictional Immunity of States’ in Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism (n 20) 99-115. See also the earlier article by Jasper Finke, ‘Sovereign Immunity: Rule, Comity or Something Else?’ (2011) 21 EJIL 853-881, 866-870.

  22. 22.

    On these grounds, invoking the constitutional principle that in any case of a violation of fundamental rights the victim must have a right to redress, the Italian Constitutional Court (judgment no. 238, 22 October 2014) ruled that the judgment of the ICJ (n 19) cannot be executed in Italy. Criticism by Christian Tomuschat, ‘The National Constitutional Trumps International Law’ (2014) 6 Italian Journal of Public Law 189-196.

  23. 23.

    Die Verfassungsentscheidung des Grundgesetzes für eine internationale Zusammenarbeit: ein Diskussionsbeitrag zu einer Frage der Staatstheorie sowie des geltenden deutschen Staatsrechts (Tübingen: Mohr 1964).

  24. 24.

    Christian Tomuschat, ‘Staatsrechtliche Entscheidung für die internationale Offenheit’ in Josef Isensee and Paul Kirchhof (eds), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Vol. XI (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 3rd edn 2013) 3-61. See also Karl-Peter Sommermann, ‘Offene Staatlichkeit: Deutschland’ in Armin von Bogdandy and others (eds), Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum, Vol. II (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 2008) 3-35.

  25. 25.

    It may be noted, in this connection, that French was the dominant diplomatic language during the 19th century. French was, accordingly, the authentic version of the Act of the Congress of Vienna, 9 June 1815, reprinted in Wilhelm G. Grewe (ed), Sources Relating to the History of the Law of Nations, Vol. 3/1: 1815-1945 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter 1992) 3.

  26. 26.

    August Wilhelm Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (Berlin: Schroeder 1844). On Heffter see Wilfried Küper, ‘August Wilhelm Heffter (1796-1880). Ein preußischer Kriminalist und Universaljurist im 19. Jahrhundert’ in Stefan Grundmann and others (eds), Festschrift 200 Jahre Juristische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Berlin: De Gruyter 2010) 179-203.

  27. 27.

    Berlin: Müller, 1888.

  28. 28.

    See eg Franz v. Liszt, Das Völkerrecht (Berlin: 1898) 6-7.

  29. 29.

    The establishment of the PCIJ was provided for in Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

  30. 30.

    For the drafting process see Alexander Pandelli Fachiri, The Permanent Court of International Justice. Its Constitution, Procedure and Work (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1925) 1-10; Alain Pellet and Daniel Müller, ‘Comments on Article 38’ in Andreas Zimmermann and others (eds), The Statute of the ICJ. A Commentary (Oxford: OUP, 3rd edn 2019) 819, 826-831, margin notes 17-41.

  31. 31.

    Germany became eventually a member of the League on 8 September 1926.

  32. 32.

    See Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1986) 170-1.

  33. 33.

    However, the general principles were ‘forgotten’ in the last (twelfth) edition of von Liszt’s textbook revised by Max Fleischmann: Das Völkerrecht (Berlin: Springer 1925) 15-19.

  34. 34.

    See Alfred Verdross, Völkerrecht (Berlin: Julius Springer 1937) 76.

  35. 35.

    See Ole Spiermann, ‘Historical Introduction’ in The Statute of the International Court of Justice (n 30) 114, paras 49-50.

  36. 36.

    See eg Andreas von Arnauld, Völkerrecht (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 2nd edn 2014) 75; Patrick Daillier, Mathias Forteau and Alain Pellet, Droit international public (Paris: L.G.D.J. 8th edn 2009) 126; Karl Doehring, Völkerrecht (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 2nd edn 2004) 121; Rudolf Geiger, Grundgesetz und Völkerrecht, (München: Beck, 6th edn 2013) 77; Theodor Schweisfurth, Völkerrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006) 55; Malcolm Shaw, International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 5th edn 2003) 66-7.

  37. 37.

    See eg Christian Tomuschat, ‘Ensuring the Survival of Mankind’ (n 15) 308; Weiß (n 8) 223, 230. See eg the lengthy considerations devoted by the ICJ to the resolutions adopted by the Security Council on Kosovo, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 2010 CJ Reports 403, 426-430.

  38. 38.

    For a survey see Victor Rodríguez Cedeňo and María Isabel Torres Cazorla, ‘Unilateral Acts of States in International Law’ in MPIL Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. X (Oxford: OUP, 2012) 163-172.

  39. 39.

    See the well-documented study by Céline Jouin, ‘Le droit international allemand dans l’entre-deux-guerres. La fuite dans l’histoire (2010) 114 RGDIP 535-561.

  40. 40.

    See critique by Mathias Schmoeckel, Die Großraumtheorie: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Völkerrechtswissenschaft im Dritten Reich, ins besondere der Kriegszeit (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1993).

  41. 41.

    Carl Schmitt, Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte. Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht (Berlin, Leipzig and Wien: Deutscher Rechtsverlag, 4th edn 1941) 41: ‘The accomplishment (die Tat) of the Führer has conferred on the idea of the Reich political reality, historical truth and a great future in terms of international law’.

  42. 42.

    Norbert Gürke, Grundzüge des Völkerrechts, 2nd edn revised by Otto Koellreutter (Berlin and Wien: Spaeth & Linde 1942) 17.

  43. 43.

    See Michael Stolleis, ‘Against Universalism – German International Law under the Swastika’, (2007) 50 GYIL (2007) 91, at 95; see also Anne Peters, ‘Die Zukunft der Völkerrechtswissenschaft: Wider den epistemischen Nationalismus’ (2007) 67 ZaöRV/HJIL 721, 765.

  44. 44.

    On the positions assumed by German legal scholars see Knut Ipsen, ‘International Legal Scholarship in West Germany after World War II’ (2007) 50 GYIL 111-137.

  45. 45.

    Frankfurt Document One, 1 July 1948, reprinted in: Ingo von Münch (ed), Dokumente des geteilten Deutschland (Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner 1968) 88, 89.

  46. 46.

    Today, that flavour of provisionality has completely disappeared.

  47. 47.

    The Draft Basic Law was approved by the Western Military Governors on 12 May 1949, text reproduced in: Dokumente des geteilten Deutschland (n 45) 130.

  48. 48.

    Frankfurt Document Three, ibid 90.

  49. 49.

    The 1949 GDR Constitution confirmed indeed the concept of the unity of the German people, while the 1968 Constitution identified as its author the ‘people of the GDR’.

  50. 50.

    http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/Document%2012%20Constitution%20of%20the%20GDR%201968.pdf.

  51. 51.

    See the representative study by Theodor Schweisfurth, ‘The Science of Public International Law in the German Democratic Republic’, (2007) 50 GYIL 149-200.

  52. 52.

    Völkerrecht. Lehrbuch, written by a collective group of authors (Berlin: Staatsverlag der DDR 1973), 2nd. edn in two parts, 1981 and 1982.

  53. 53.

    Bernhard Graefrath, Zur Stellung der Prinzipien im gegenwärtigen Völkerrecht (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag 1968).

  54. 54.

    Of 2 August 1949, reprinted in Dokumente des geteilten Deutschland (n 45) 32; http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/Allied%20Policies%208_ENG.pdf.

  55. 55.

    According to R.M. Douglas, author of Orderly and Humane – The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War (New Haven & London: New Haven Press 2012) between 12 and 14 million civilians were driven out of their homes, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rm-douglas/expulsion-germans-forced-migration_b_1625437.html.

  56. 56.

    It may be noted that the Federal Constitutional Court is not an institution that possesses special expertise in international law.

  57. 57.

    The general rules are located hierarchically below the Basic Law, FCC, 26 March 1957, BVerfGE 6, 309, 363; 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, at 318; 26 October 2004, BVerfGE 112, 1, at 25; 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1, at 17, margin notes 38, 41.

  58. 58.

    Cf. in particular Gerhard Anschütz, Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs vom 11. August 1919, (Berlin: Georg Stilke 14th edn 1933) 64-5.

  59. 59.

    Frank Schorkopf, Staatsrecht der internationalen Beziehungen (München: C.H. Beck, München 2017) 147–170, rightly calls Art. 25 BL a ‘Schlüsselnorm’ (key norm). The 1949 Constitution of the GDR contained a similar rule (Article 5): ‘The generally recognized rules of international law are binding upon state authority and every citizen.

    It is the duty of state authority to maintain and cultivate amicable relations with all peoples.”

    This provision disappeared from the 1968 Constitution of the GDR where Article 8(1) provided: ‘(1) The generally recognized rules of international law that serve peace and peaceful cooperation among nations are binding for the state and for every citizen. The German Democratic Republic will never undertake a war of aggression or use its armed forces against the freedom of another people.’

  60. 60.

    See Report in (1951) 1 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart, Neue Folge 229-235.

  61. 61.

    Deputy Carlo Schmid, ibid 232.

  62. 62.

    Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, 18 October 1907, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/0/1d1726425f6955aec125641e0038bfd6.

  63. 63.

    Deputy Carlo Schmid (n 61) 230.

  64. 64.

    Violations of Article 25 BL may indeed be judicially invoked by an injured individual, FCC, 26 October 2004, BVerfGE 112, 1, 21.

  65. 65.

    For a detailed commentary on Article 25 BL see Hans-Joachim Cremer, ‘Allgemeine Regeln des Völkerrechts’ in Josef Isensee and Paul KIrchhof (eds), Handbuch des Staatsrechts, Vol. XI (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 3rd edn 2013) 369-411; Christian Tomuschat, ‘Comments on Article 25’ in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 2019).

  66. 66.

    See Michael Silagi, ‘Die allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechts als Bezugsgegenstand in Art. 25 GG und Art. 26 EMRK’ (1980) EuGRZ 632, 646.

  67. 67.

    The literature on customary law is abundant. Reference is made only to two more recent publications: Maurice Mendelson, ’The Formation of Customary International Law’ (1999) 272 Hague Academy of International Law Collected Courses 155-410; Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘Natural Law and Customary Law’ (2008) 68 ZaöRV/HJIL 69-110.

  68. 68.

    FCC, 30 October 1962, BVerfGE 15, 25, at 33. This line has been consistently upheld, see recently decision of 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 140, 316, 336, margin note 42.

  69. 69.

    Emphasized by FCC, 14 May 1968, BVerfGE 23, 288, 316.

  70. 70.

    In fact, most of the cases that have reached the FCC under Article 100(2) BL concerned issues of immunity.

  71. 71.

    See eg Georges Abi-Saab, ‘The Third World and the Future of the International Legal Order’ (1973) RevEgyptDrInt 27-66.

  72. 72.

    See on the concept of a governmental entity ICJ, Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 ICJ Reports 12, 64.

  73. 73.

    Cf B.S. Chimni, ‘Third World Approaches to International Law: a Manifesto’ (2006) 8 IntCommLR 3-27, and response by Christian Tomuschat, ‘World Order Models: a Disputation with B.S. Chimni and Yasuaki Onuma’ ibid 71-79.

  74. 74.

    FCC, 30 October 1962, BVerfGE 15, 25, at 34-5; 30 April 1963, BVerfGE 16, 27, at 33; 14 May 1968, BVerfGE 23, 288, at 317; 9 June 1971, BVerfGE 31, 145, at 177; 13 May 1996, BVerfGE 94, 315, at 328; 24 October 1996, BVerfGE 95, 96, at 129; 10 June 1997, BVerfGE 96, 68, at 86; 6 December 2006, BVerfGE 117, 141, at 149; 8 May 2007, BVerfGE 118, 124, at 134; 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1, at 18, margin note 42.

  75. 75.

    See Pellet and Müller, Comments on Article 38 ICJ Statute (n 30) 924, margin note 254.

  76. 76.

    See, e.g., the cautious observations by Hersch Lauterpacht in Lassa Oppenheim and Hersch Lauterpacht, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. I (London: Longmans 8th edn 1955) 29-30, and, more recently, Pellet and Müller (n 75) 927, margin note 261.

  77. 77.

    R.P. Anand, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Development of International Law’, (1965) 7 IntlStud 228-261, at 234; Godefridus J.H. van Hoof, Rethinking the Sources of International Law (Deventer et al.: Kluwer 1983) 139.

  78. 78.

    Berthold Schenk von Stauffenberg, Statut et Règlement de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale (Berlin: Carl Heymanns 1935) 277. See also the instructive discussion by Michel Virally, ‘The Sources of International Law’ in Max Sorensen (ed), Manual of Public International Law (London et al.: Macmillan 1968) 116, 143-148.

  79. 79.

    Klaus Ferdinang Gärditz, ‘Ungeschriebenes Völkerrecht durch Systembildung’ (2007) 45 AVR (2007) 1, 23-27; Weiß (n 8) 226.

  80. 80.

    PCIJ, Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, 26 July 1927, Series A No. 9, 21.

  81. 81.

    For a first tentative approach see Christian Tomuschat, ‘What is “general international law’ in Guerra y Paz: 1945-2009. Obra Homenaje al Dr. Santiago Torres Bernárdez (Universidad del País Vasco 2010) 329-348; id, ‘General International Law: A New Source of International Law?’ in Riccardo Pisillo Mazzeschi and Pasquale De Sena (eds), Global Justice, Human Rights and the Modernization of International Law (Springer 2018) 185-204.

  82. 82.

    ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 20 April 2010, 2010 ICJ Reports 14, 83, para. 204; Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) – Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 16 December 2015, 2015 ICJ Reports 665, 720 para 152, 723 para. 162.

  83. 83.

    The research could be continued regarding other meta-rules of international law, the rules of recognition according to H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press 2nd edn 1964) 100.

  84. 84.

    Rightly pointed out by Orakhelashvili (n 67) 106-109.

  85. 85.

    Splendid demonstration of the various sources of unwritten human rights law by Bruno Simma and Philip Alston, ‘The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus cogens, and General Principles’, (1992) 12 AustYBIL 82-108. Similar interpretation by Petersmann (n 11) 81, 125-6. The distinction between rules and principles, advocated by Niels Petersen, ‘Der Wandel des ungeschriebenen Völkerrechts im Zuge der Konstitutionalisierung’ (2008) 46 AVR 502-523, has little explanatory value.

  86. 86.

    See FCC, 14 May 1968, BVerfGE 23, 288, at 317; 9 June 1971, BVerfGE 31, 145, at 177; 13 May 1996, BVerfGE 94, 315, at 328; 24 October 1996, BVerfGE 95, 96, at 129; 10 June 1997, BVerfGE 96, 68, at 86.

  87. 87.

    FCC, 6 December 2006, BVerfGE 117, 1412, at 149; 8 May 2007, BVerfGE 118, 124, at 134.

  88. 88.

    FCC, 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1, at 18, margin note 42.

  89. 89.

    FCC, 7 April 1965, BVerfGE 18, 441, 448; 26 October 2004, BVerfGE 112, 1, at 27.

  90. 90.

    See above the text related to footnotes 61-63.

  91. 91.

    France is the most prominent case in point, see Hélène Ruiz Fabri, ‘La France et la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités’: éléments de réflexion pour une éventuelle ratification’ in Gérard Cahin and others (eds), La France et le droit international (Paris: Pedone 2007) 137-167.

  92. 92.

    It should be recalled, however, that the ‘general rules’ have not been classified by the jurisprudence of the FCC as enjoying constitutional rank (n 57).

  93. 93.

    See Rudolf Streinz, comments on Article 25 in Michael Sachs, Grundgesetz. Kommentar, (München: Beck, 7th ed 2014) 999, margin note 24.

  94. 94.

    See eg Christian Tomuschat, Article 25 (n 65) margin note 59.

  95. 95.

    FCC, 26 October 2004, BVerfGE 112, 1, 25; see also 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, 318. Apparently the FCC took its inspiration from its jurisprudence concerning the European integration process: FCC, 30 June 2009 (Lisbon judgment), BVerfGE 123, 267, 347, margin number 226.

  96. 96.

    It is true, however, that because of the requirements of the rule of law not all general rules are susceptible of being applied to the detriment of individuals, see Stefan Talmon, ‘Die Grenzen der Anwendung des Völkerrechts im deutschen Recht’ (2013) 68 Juristenzeitung 12, 15ff.

  97. 97.

    FCC, 13 December 1977, BVerfGE 46, 342, 389.

  98. 98.

    For a recent study see James A. Green, The Persistent Objection Rule in International Law (Oxford: OUP 2016).

  99. 99.

    See Patrick Dumberry, ‘Incoherent and Ineffective: The concept of Persistent Objector Revisited’, (2010) 59 ICLQ 779-802. For a view to the contrary see Talmon (n 96) 14. It seems unfortunate that the ILC in its work on ‘Identification of customary international law’ has provisionally adopted a draft conclusion (15) that accepts the concept of persistent objection, ILC, [2016) Report, UN doc. A/71/10, 112. The observer notes that the precedents cited in support do not say what they supposedly are meant to say, see European Court of Human Rights, case of Sabeh El Leil v. France, App no. 34869/05, 29 June 2011, para 54.

  100. 100.

    ICJ, Colombian-Peruvian Asylum case, 1950 ICJ Reports 266, 277-8; Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, 195 ICJ Reports 116, 131.

  101. 101.

    FCC, 26 March 1987, BVerfGE 74, 358, 370; 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, 317; 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1, margin numbers 33, 37, 43-50, 74.

  102. 102.

    FCC, 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, 315.

  103. 103.

    In other European countries, international treaties enjoy precedence over acts of ordinary legislation: France: Article 55 Constitution, confirmed by Conseil d’Etat. Sarran, 30 October 1998; Cour de cassation, Fraisse, 2 June 2000. Greece: Article 28(1) Constitution; Italy: restrictions of the lex posterior principle through the jurisprudence, see Carlo Panara, ‘Offene Staatlichkeit: Italien’ in Armin von Bogdandy and others (eds), Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum, Vol. II (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 2008) 143, 146, margin notes 8-9; Netherlands: Article 94 Constitution.

  104. 104.

    FCC, 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1. The FCC did not deny that such unilateral amendment of the international commitment may entail international responsibility.

  105. 105.

    Federal Administrative Court, 1 C 36.04, 13 December 2005, margin note 20, following FCC, 26 March 1987, BVerfGE 74, 358, 370.

  106. 106.

    The question whether any act made by the institutions under those treaties requires the same kind of respect requires careful examination.

  107. 107.

    See Christian Tomuschat, ‘Der Verfassungsstaat im Geflecht der internationalen Beziehungen’, (1978) 36 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 7, 52.

  108. 108.

    It is interesting to note that in the United Kingdom the Government was denied the power to withdraw from the European integration treaties without explicit parliamentary approval specifically because of the rights conferred on individuals by those treaties, Supreme Court, 24 January 2017, [2017] UKSC 5.

  109. 109.

    The FCC referred in its decision of 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, 319, to the opposite alternative that an international treaty might not be in conformity with fundamental values of the Basic-Law.

  110. 110.

    Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002) 179-265.

  111. 111.

    Grundlinien des Philosophie des Rechts (Berlin 1821) §§ 330-340.

  112. 112.

    Adolf Lasson, Princip und Zukunft des Völkerrechts (Berlin: Hertz 1871), in particular 48: ‘international law is not law’ because of its precarious character.

  113. 113.

    See Arthur Eyffinger, The 1899 Hague Peace Conference. The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World (The Hague et al.: Kluwer Law International 1999) 149; Koskenniemi (n 110) 211-3.

  114. 114.

    ‘Das Deutsche Gesandtschafts-, Konsular und Seerecht’, (1882) Annalen des Deutschen Reichs 81, 82-3, where he declares international law to be ‘conceptually impossible’. Later, Zorn reneged on the rigid positions taken by him during his youth, becoming a true advocate of international law, see eg Die Zukunft des Völkerrechts (Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung 1918).

  115. 115.

    Ludwig Schecher, Deutsches Außenstaatsrecht (Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt 1933).

  116. 116.

    During the 19th century, August Wilhelm Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (Berlin 1844, 8th edn prepared by Heinrich Geffcken, Berlin 1888), Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (Nördlingen 1868), and Franz v. Liszt, Das Völkerrecht (Berlin 1898) had concurrently defined international law as the entirety of rules governing the relations between States that are supported by a common legal consensus.

  117. 117.

    ‘Der Streit um das Völkerrecht’ (1944) 12 ZaöRV 1-33. On Bilfinger’s involvement with the Nazi regime cf Felix Lange, ‘Carl Bilfingers Entnazifizierung und die Entscheidung für Heidelberg’ (2014) 74 ZaöRV/HJIL 697-730, in particular 705-708. Cogent observations on Bilfinger by Jouin (n 39) 559-60. It is highly significant that in his first article as Director of the Heidelberg Institute of Comparative Public and International Law, ‘Friede durch Gleichgewicht der Macht?’ (1950) 13 ZaöRV 27-51, Bilfinger did not lose a single word on the period between 1933 and 1945.

  118. 118.

    See n 103.

  119. 119.

    FCC, 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1, 22, margin number 53.

  120. 120.

    The ‘Solange’ decision of the FCC, 29 May 1974, BVerfGE 37, 271, acquired soon notoriety in the whole of Europe; English translation: https://law.utexas.edu/transnational/foreign-law-translations/german/case.php?id=588.

  121. 121.

    FCC, 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 140, 317, 337, margin note 43; 21 June 2016, BVerfGE 142, 123, 194-197, margin numbers 135-141; 18 July 2017, BVerfGE 146, 216, 253-256, margin numbers 54-58; 6 November 2019, 1 BvR 276/17, Right to be forgotten II, margin note 47.

  122. 122.

    FCC. 30 June 2009, BVerfGE 123, 267. Comments by Christian Tomuschat, ‘Terminal of the European Integration Process?’ (2010) 70 ZaöRV 251-282, 262; Maja Walter, ‘Integrationsgrenze Verfassungsidentität – Konzept und Kontrolle aus europäischer, deutscher und französischer Perspektive’ (2012) 72 ZaöRV/HJIL 177-200.

  123. 123.

    FCC, 15 December 2015 (n 121).

  124. 124.

    For an overview see Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz and Carina Alcoberro Llivina (eds), National Constitutional Identity and European Integration (Cambridge et al.: Intersentia 2013). For the far-reaching limitations put by the Russian Constitutional Court and later Russian legislation (Law of 2 June 2014) on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights see Matthias Hartwig, ‘Vom Dialog zum Disput?’ (2017) 44 EuGRZ 1-23.

  125. 125.

    FCC, 6 November 2019, 1 BvR 276/17, Right to be forgotten II, margin note 32.

  126. 126.

    On this discussion see Peter Hilpold, ‘Reforming the United Nations: New Proposals in a long-lasting Endeavour’ (2005) 52 NILR 389-431.

  127. 127.

    However, by adhering to the European Union and becoming a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, both treaties with comprehensive jurisdictional clauses, Germany acted in the spirit promoted by Article 24(3) BL.

  128. 128.

    For an extensive discussion on that issue see Christian Tomuschat, comments on Article 24 BL, Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (Hamburg: Hansischer Gildenverlag 1985) 127-138.

  129. 129.

    http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=DE. For a comment see Christophe Eick, ‘Die Anerkennung der obligatorischen Gerichtsbarkeit des Internationalen Gerichtshofs durch Deutschland’ (2008) 68 ZaöRV/HJIL 763-777.

  130. 130.

    ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), (2012) ICJ Reports 99. But see n 22 on the refusal of the Italian Constitutional Court to comply with the judgment of the ICJ, a decision openly in breach of Article 94 of the UN Charter.

  131. 131.

    Article 80 of the Penal Code, since 1 January 2017 Article 13 International Penal Code.

  132. 132.

    Of 26 June 2002.

  133. 133.

    Article 1: ‘This Act shall apply to all criminal offences against international law designated under this Act, to serious criminal offences designated therein even when the offence was committed abroad and bears no relation to Germany.’

  134. 134.

    See Claus Kreß, ‘Germany and the Crime of Aggression’ in Suzannah Linton and others (eds), For the Sake of Present and Future Generations: Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark (Leiden & Boston: Brill Nijhoff 2015) 31-51. The difficulties of prosecuting the crime of aggression are also underlined by Bartlomiej Krzan, ‘Frieden und Gerechtigkeit nach der Kampala-Konferenz’ (2010) 48 AVR 467-485. Comprehensive assessment by Robert Böttner, ‘Von Nürnberg über Rom nach Kampala’ (2013) 51 AVR 201-238.

  135. 135.

    FCC, 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, 317-8; 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1, 26, margin numbers 64-5; 6 November 2019, 1 BvR 16/13, Right to be forgotten I, margin number 61.

  136. 136.

    FCC, 26 March 1987, BVerfGE 74, 358, 370; 29 May 1990, BVerfGE 82, 106, 120; 14 November 1990, BVerfGE 83, 119, 128; 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, 317; 4 May 2011, BVerfGE 128, 326, 366, 369-70; 6 November 2019, BvR 16/13, Right to be forgotten II, margin number 58. This jurisprudence has been followed by all other German tribunals, see eg Federal Administrative Court, 18 December 2014, BVerwGE 110, 203, margin note 6.

  137. 137.

    FCC, 6 November 2019, 1 BvR 16/13, Right to be forgotten I, margin number 60.

  138. 138.

    Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 24 April 1963, 596 UNTS 261.

  139. 139.

    FCC, 19 September 2006, 2 BvR 2115/01, margin notes 58-62.

  140. 140.

    FCC, 18 July 2005, BVerfGE 113, 273, 296.

  141. 141.

    UN doc. A/45/PV.8, 26 September 1990, 2-32.

  142. 142.

    FCC, 26 October 2004, BVerfGE 112, 1, 25: ‘The Basic Law aims to achieve the opening of the domestic legal system for public international law and international cooperation in the form of a supervised binding effect; it does not provide that the German legal system should be subordinated to the system of public international law and that public international law should have absolute priority over constitutional law, but instead it seeks to increase respect for international organisations that preserve peace and freedom, and for public international law, without giving up the final responsibility for respect for human dignity and for the observance of fundamental rights by German state authority’; see also FCC, 15 December 2015, BVerfGE 141, 1, 28, margin note 69.

  143. 143.

    FCC, 14 October 2004, BVerfGE 111, 307, 319.

  144. 144.

    See in particular the 1974 ‘Solange’ decision (n 120).

  145. 145.

    On 4 November 1950.

  146. 146.

    The Federal Republic of Germany became a member of the Council of Europe only on 13 July 1950 while the organization had come into being on 8 August 1949.

  147. 147.

    On 17 December 1973.

  148. 148.

    Ratification on 8 November 1973.

  149. 149.

    Of 15 December 1989, 1642 UNTS 414 (88 States parties on 8 February 2020).

  150. 150.

    But this misunderstanding seems to underlie the brilliant advocacy by Ulrich Scheuner for a renewal of natural law: ‘Naturrechtliche Strömungen im heutigen Völkerrecht’ (1950) 13 ZaöRV 556-614.

  151. 151.

    For the distinction between a ‘thin’ and a ‘thick’ concept of the rule of law see Christian Tomuschat. ‘Democracy and the Rule of Law’ in Dinah Shelton (ed), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (Oxford: OUP 2013) 469-496, 476.

  152. 152.

    See Peter Hilpold, ‘Ukraine, Crimea and New International Law: Balancing International Law with Arguments Drawn from History’ in (2015) 14 ChineseJIL 237-270. But see the attempt by Russian authors to justify the annexation of Crimea by wrongly invoking the principle of self-determination: Anatoly Kapustin, ‘Crimea’s Self-Determination in the Light of Contemporary International Law’ (2015) 75 ZaöRV/HJIL 101-118; Vladislav Tolstykh, ‘Three Ideas of Self-Determination in International Law and the Reunification of Crimea with Russia’ ibid 119-139.

  153. 153.

    https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf.

  154. 154.

    Ibid, Section V., 15: preemptive self-defence.

  155. 155.

    Hannes Hofmeister, ‘Preemptive Strikes – A New Normative Framework’ (2006) 44 AVR 187-200; Hanspeter Neuhold, ‘Law and Force in International Relations – European and American Positions’ (2004) 64 ZaöRV/HJIL 263-279, 273-4; Peter Hilpold, ‘Die Vereinten Nationen und das Gewaltverbot’ (2005) 53 Vereinte Nationen 81-88; Johannes Schwehm, ‘Präventive Selbstverteidigung’ (2008) 46 AVR 368-405.

  156. 156.

    Bundestags-Drucksache 16/4368, 23 February 2007, 10.

  157. 157.

    http://gerhard-schroeder.de/frieden/irak-krieg/.

  158. 158.

    Bulletin der Bundesregierung 24-3, 19 March 2003; Bundestags-Drucksache 15/988, 16 May 2003, 2; Bundestags-Drucksache 17/1891, 28 May 2010, 2; Bundestags-Drucksache 17/3785, 15 November 2011, 3.

  159. 159.

    Federal Administrative Court, 21 June 2005, 2 WD 12.04 (2005) Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 636.

  160. 160.

    See, for instance, statement of the Federal Government of 3 August 2004, Bundestags-Drucksache 15/3635, 17.

  161. 161.

    YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, 26, taken note of by UNGA Resolution 56/83, 12 December 2001.

  162. 162.

    See the symposium held by the Heidelberg Max Planck Institute on: ‘The Incorporation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in the Light of International Law’ (2015) 75 ZaöRV 3-214.

  163. 163.

    Statement of 24 November 2014, Bundestags-Drucksache 18/3361, 8.

  164. 164.

    Mostly, however, the Federal Government confined itself to criticizing the Israel settlement policy, see eg statement of Germany’s UN Ambassador in the Security Council, 15 September 2003, S/PV.4824; Governmental statements of 27 June 2008, Bundestags-Drucksache 16/9889, 3-6; 5 June 2009, Bundestags-Drucksache 16/13311, 2-4; 23 and 31 March 2010, Bundestags-Drucksache 17/1298, 7.

  165. 165.

    Andrea Gattini, ‘Post 1945 German International Law and State Responsibility’ (2007) 50 GYIL 407, 411; Fred L. Morrison, ‘German Scholars in the Invisible College of International Lawyers’ (2007) 50 GYIL 445, 449; Michael Reisman, Book review, (1984) 78 AJIL 503, 505.

  166. 166.

    Observed also by foreign lawyers: Koskenniemi (n 110) 210.

  167. 167.

    Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric. A. Posner, The Limits of International Law (Oxford: OUP 2005).

  168. 168.

    About Heinrich von Kleist’s novel Michael Kohlhaas see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kohlhaas. Original German text of 1810: Heinrich von Kleist, ‘Michael Kohlhaas’ in Sämtliche Werke und Briefe (München: Carl Hanser vol 2 2nd edn 1961) 9-103.

  169. 169.

    FCC, 31 March 1987, BVerfGE 75, 1, 19; 5 November 2003, BVerfGE 109, 13, 26, and BVerfGE 109, 38, 52; 26 October 2004, BVerfGE 112, 1, 27.

  170. 170.

    FCC, 26 October 2004, BVerfGE 112, 1, 26-7.

  171. 171.

    See statement by Federal Government, Bundestags-Drucksache 17/5586, 14 April 2011, 4, point 18.

  172. 172.

    For an exhaustive study of such issues see Helmut Philipp Aust, Complicity in Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: CUP, 2015).

  173. 173.

    According to Article 41(2) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, YbILC 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, 26, the situation brought about by the crime shall not be recognized.

  174. 174.

    Rightly, Jochen von Bernstorff, ‘Extraterritoriale menschenrechtliche Staatenpflichten und Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2011) 49 AVR 34-63, cautions against over-extending the duty of States to monitor private corporations on account of their activities outside the national territory.

  175. 175.

    See Christian Tomuschat, ‘Positive Duties under General International Law’ in Marten Breuer and others (eds), Der Staat im Recht. Festschrift für Eckart Klein (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2013) 923-937.

  176. 176.

    GA Resolution 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970, Principle 4.

  177. 177.

    Of 25 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137.

  178. 178.

    Its powers are laid down in Articles 77 to 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

  179. 179.

    Directive no. 2004/83/EU of 29 April 2004 on Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted [2004] OJ L304/12.

  180. 180.

    In case C-638/16 PPU, X and X v. Belgium, 7 March 2017, the EU Court of Justice rejected the suggestion by Advocate General Mengozzi of 7 February 2017 that entry visas must be granted on humanitarian grounds to persons wishing to make an application for asylum on the territory of one of the member States of the EU.

  181. 181.

    Calling for a thorough review of the entire asylum regime Hans-Peter Schwarz, Die neue Völkerwanderung nach Europa. Über den Verlust politischer Kontrolle und moralischer Gewissheiten (München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 2017). Condensed version: ‘Plädoyer für eine radikale Wende’ Welt am Sonntag (Berlin, 12 March 2017) 13-16.

  182. 182.

    UNGA Res 73/151, 17 December 2018.

  183. 183.

    For a comment see Christian Tomuschat, ‘Der UN-Migrationspakt’ in Thomas Groh and others (eds), Verfassungsrecht; Völkerrecht, Menschenrechte – Vom Recht im Zentrum der Internationalen Beziehungen - Festschrift für Ulrich Fastenrath (Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 2019) 207-222.

  184. 184.

    Case 26/62, [1963] ECR 3.

  185. 185.

    See eg the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal of Cologne, 14 July 2011, 26 K 3869/10, referenced (2015) 75 ZaöRV/HJIL 907: No individual claims can be derived from the ban on the use of force.

  186. 186.

    Thus, the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal determined under its own responsibility that Nagorny Karabach is a constituent part of Azerbaijan: judgments of 17 March 2011, 2 B 07.30272, and 14 April 2011, 2 B 07.30242, referenced in (2015) 75 ZaöRV/HJIL 872. To date, the culmination point of the jurisprudence concerning foreign relations matters was the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 21 June 2005 (n 154) ruling that the US and UK attack on Iraq constituted a breach of international law.

  187. 187.

    See Federal Supreme Court, 26 June 2003, BGHZ 155, 279, English translation: (2003) 42 ILM 1030; FCC, 7 December 2004, BVerfGE 112, 93, 106-117.

  188. 188.

    This view has been consistently maintained by the Federal Government vis-à-vis reparation claims raised with regard to violations of humanitarian law committed during World War II, Bundestags-Drucksache 17/6539, 6 July 2011, 2, and also with regard to occurrences in Afghanistan in more recent times, Bundestags-Drucksache 17/1523, 26 April 2010, 2, and Bundestags-Drucksache 17/8120, 12 December 2011, 2.

  189. 189.

    See Gerd Westdickenberg (former Head of Legal Department of German Foreign Office) ‘The Role of the Legal Adviser in the German Federal Foreign Office in Comparison to Some Other Aspects of the Role of Legal Adviser in Other Countries’ in Société francaise pour le droit international (edn), Comparative International Law Practice in France & Germany (Paris: Pedone 2011) 35-49.

  190. 190.

    See Koskenniemi (n 110) 236-8; Detlev F. Vagts, ‘International Law in the Third Reich’ (1990) 84 AJIL 661, 664.

  191. 191.

    A Leitmotif were the introductory words (Geleitwort) of the two most renown international lawyers of post-war Germany, Rudolf Laun and Hermann von Mangoldt, (1948) 1 Jahrbuch für Internationales und ausländisches öffentliches Recht 3-5, 4, who pleaded for the re-admission of Germany to the circle of civilized nations as a partner in full equality. See also the resolution of the German international lawyers adopted at their first meeting after World War II in Hamburg, 16 to 17 April 1947, ibid 6, para. 3. See also Mosler (n 9) 29.

References

  • Völkerrecht. Lehrbuch, written by a collective group of authors (2nd edn in two parts Staatsverlag der DDR 1981 and 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Abi Saab G, ‘The Third World and the Future of the International Legal Order’ (1973) Revue égyptienne de droit international 27-66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand P, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Development of International Law’ (1965) 7 International Studies 228-261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anschütz G, Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs vom 11. August 1919 (14th edn Georg Stilke 1933).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnauld A, Völkerrecht (2nd edn C.F. Müller 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust HP, Complicity in Violations of International Humanitarian Law (CUP 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt R and Oellers-Frahm K, Das Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerecht. Geschichte und Entwicklung von 1949 bis 2013 (Springer 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstorff J Von, ‘Extraterritoriale menschenrechtliche Staatenpflichten und Corporate Social Responsibility’ (2011) 49 AVR 34-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilfinger C, ‘Der Streit um das Völkerrecht’ (1944) 12 ZaöRV 1-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilfinger C, ‘Friede durch Gleichgewicht der Macht?’ (1950) 13 ZaöRV 27-51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke HJ and Falkenberg L, ‘Is There State Immunity in Case of War Crimes Committed in the Forum State?’ (2013) 14 German Law Journal 1817-1850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluntschli JC, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (Nördlingen 1868).

    Google Scholar 

  • Böttner R, ‘Von Nürnberg über Rom nach Kampala’ (2013) 51 AVR 201-238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdandy A von, ‘Constitutionalism in International Law: Comment on a Proposal for Germany’ (2006) 47 Harvard International Law Journal 223-242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchmeyer D, Was ist deutsch? (Rowohlt 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothe M, ‘Remedies of Victims of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanities: Some Critical Remarks on the ICJ’s Judgment on the Jurisdictional Immunity of States’ in A Peters and others (eds) Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism 99-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracher KD, ‘Final Observations’ in id (ed) Deutscher Sonderweg, Mythos oder Realität? (Oldenbourg 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A, International Law in a Divided World (Clarendon Press 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chimni BS, ‘Third World Approaches to International Law: a Manifesto’ (2006) 8 International Community Law Review 3-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer HJ, ‘Allgemeine Regeln des Völkerrechts’ in J Isensee and P Kirchhof (eds), Handbuch des Staatsrechts Vol. XI (3rd edn C.F. Müller 2013) 369-411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daillier P and others, Droit international public (8th edn L.G.D.J. 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Diggelmann O and Altwicker T, ‘Is There Something Like a Constitution of International Law?’ (2008) 68 ZaöRV 623-650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doehring K, Völkerrecht (2nd edn C.F. Müller 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas RM, Orderly and Humane – The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War (New Haven Press 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumberry P, ‘Incoherent and Ineffective: The Concept of Persistent Objector Revisited’ (2010) 59 ICLQ 779-802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eick C, ‘Die Anerkennung der obligatorischen Gerichtsbarkeit des Internationalen Gerichtshofs durch Deutschland’ (2008) 68 ZaöRV 763-777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyffinger A, The 1899 Hague Peace Conference. The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World (Kluwer Law International 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender B, ‘Denkschulen im Völkerrecht’ (2012) 45 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 1-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke J, ‘Sovereign Immunity: Rule, Comity or Something Else?’ (2011) 21 EJIL 853-881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frowein JA, ‘Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts’ (2000) 39 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 427-447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärditz KF, ‘Ungeschriebenes Völkerrecht durch Systembildung’ (2007) 45 AVR (2007) 1-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattini A, ‘Post 1945 German International Law and State Responsibility’ (2007) 50 GYIL 407-414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger R, Grundgesetz und Völkerrecht (6th edn Beck 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich T and Zimmermann A, ‘“Typisch Deutsch …”: Is There a German Approach to International Law?’ (2007) 50 GYIL 15-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith JL and Posner EA, The Limits of International Law (OUP 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Graefrath B, Zur Stellung der Prinzipien im gegenwärtigen Völkerrecht (Akademie-Verlag 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA, The Persistent Objection Rule in International Law (OUP 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewe WG (ed), Sources Relating to the History of the Law of Nations, Vol. 3/1: 1815-1945 (Walter de Gruyter 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürke N, Grundzüge des Völkerrechts, 2nd edn revised by O Koellreutter (Spaeth & Linde 1942).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haltern U, ‘Tomuschats Traum: Zur Bedeutung von Souveränität im Völkerrecht’ in P-M Dupuy and others (eds), Common Values in International Law. Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat (N.P. Engel 2006) 867-898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA, The Concept of Law (2nd edn Clarendon Press 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig M, ‘Vom Dialog zum Disput?’ (2017) 44 EuGRZ 1-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffter AW, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (Berlin 1844).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffter AW and FH Geffcken, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart (8th ed Berlin 1888).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel GWF, Grundlinien des Philosophie des Rechts (Berlin 1821).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold P, ‘Reforming the United Nations: New Proposals in a long-lasting Endeavour’ (2005a) 52 NILR 389-431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold P, ‘Die Vereinten Nationen und das Gewaltverbot’ (2005b) 53 Vereinte Nationen 81-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold P, ‘Ukraine, Crimea and New International Law: Balancing International Law with Arguments Drawn from History’ (2015) 14 Chinese Journal of International Law 237-270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmeister H, ‘Preemptive Strikes – A New Normative Framework’ (2006) 44 AVR 187-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoof G.J.H. von, Rethinking the Sources of International Law (Kluwer 1983) 139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ipsen K, ‘International Legal Scholarship in West Germany after World War II’ (2007) 50 GYIL 111-137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jouin C, ‘Le droit international allemand dans l’entre-deux-guerres. La fuite dans l’histoire (2010) 114 RGDIP 535-561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadelbach S and Kleinlein T, ‘Überstaatliches Verfassungsrecht. Zur Konstitutionalisierung im Völkerrecht’ (2006) 44 AVR 235-266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapustin A, ‘Crimea’s Self-Determination in the Light of Contemporary International Law’ (2015) 75 ZaöRV 101-118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinlein T, Konstitutionalisierung im Völkerrecht. Konstruktion und Elemente einer idealistischen Völkerrechtslehre (Springer 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleist H von, Michael Kohlhaas, original edition 1810 (Collected works vol 2 2nd ed Hanser 1961) 9-103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloth M and Brunner M, ‘Staatenimmunität im Zivilprozess bei gravierenden Menschenrechtsverletzungen’ (2012) 50 AVR 219-243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 (CUP 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M and Singer C, ‘Should Judges Be Front-Runners? The ICJ, State Immunity and the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights’ (2012) 16 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreß C, ‘Germany and the Crime of Aggression’ in S Linton and others (eds), For the Sake of Present and Future Generations: Essays on International Law, Crime and Justice in Honour of Roger S. Clark (Brill Nijhoff 2015) 31-51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzan B, ‘Frieden und Gerechtigkeit nach der Kampala-Konferenz’ (2010) 48 AVR 467-485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küper W, ‘August Wilhelm Heffter (1796-1880). Ein preußischer Kriminalist und Universaljurist im 19. Jahrhundert’ in S Grundmann and others (eds), Festschrift 200 Jahre Juristische Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (De Gruyter 2010) 179-203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange F, ‘Carl Bilfingers Entnazifizierung und die Entscheidung für Heidelberg’ (2014) 74 ZaöRV 697-730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasson A, Princip und Zukunft des Völkerrechts (Berlin 1871).

    Google Scholar 

  • Laun R and von Mangoldt H, ‘Geleitwort’ (1948) 1 Jahrbuch für Internationales und ausländisches öffentliches Recht 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liszt F v., Das Völkerrecht (Berlin 1898).

    Google Scholar 

  • Liszt F v. and Fleischmann M, Das Völkerrecht (12th ed Springer 1925).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mälksoo L, Book review (2012) 50 AVR 245-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson M, ‘The Formation of Customary International Law’ (1999) 272 Hague Academy of International Law Collected Courses 155-410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison FL, ‘German Scholars in the Invisible College of International Lawyers’ (2007) 50 GYIL 445-455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosler H, ‘Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung’ (1966) 36 ZaöRV 6-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münch I von (ed), Dokumente des geteilten Deutschland (Alfred Kröner 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhold H, ‘Law and Force in International Relations – European and American Positions’ (2004) 64 ZaöRV 263-279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oellers-Frahm K, ‘State Immunity vs. Human Rights’ in Mensch und Recht. Festschrift für Eibe Riedel (Duncker & Humblot 2013) 389-399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L and Lauterpacht H, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. I (8th edn Longmans 1955).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A, ‘Natural Law and Customary Law’ (2008) 68 ZaöRV 69-110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panara C, ‘Offene Staatlichkeit: Italien’ in A von Bogdandy and others (eds), Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum Vol. II (C.F. Müller 2008) 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandelli Fachiri A, The Permanent Court of International Justice. Its Constitution, Procedure and Work (Clarendon Press 1925).

    Google Scholar 

  • Payandeh M, ‘Staatenimmunität und Menschenrechte’ (2012) 67 Juristenzeitung 949-958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus AL, Die internationale Gemeinschaft im Völkerrecht (C.H. Beck 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A and Müller D, Comments on Article 38 in A Zimmermann and others (eds), The Statute of the ICJ. A Commentary (3rd edn OUP 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A, ‘There is Nothing More Practical than a Good Theory: An Overview of Contemporary Approaches to International Law’ (2001) 44 GYIL 25-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A, ‘Die Zukunft der Völkerrechtswissenschaft: Wider den epistemischen Nationalismus’ (2007) 67 ZaöRV 721-776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A, ‘Are We Moving towards Constitutionalization of the World Community?’ in A Cassese (ed), Realizing Utopia (OUP 2012) 118-135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen N, ‘Der Wandel des ungeschriebenen Völkerrechts im Zuge der Konstitutionalisierung’ (2008) 46 AVR 502-523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann EU, Multilevel Constitutionalism for Multilevel Governance of Public Goods (Hart 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman M, Book review (1984) 78 AJIL 503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Cedeňo V and Torres Cazorla MI, ‘Unilateral Acts of States in International Law’ in MPIL Encyclopedia of Public International Law Vol. X (OUP 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Fabri H, ‘La France et la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités’: éléments de réflexion pour une éventuelle ratification’ in G Cahin and others (eds), La France et le droit international (Pedone 2007) 137-167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiz Arnaiz A and Alcoberro Llivina C (eds), National Constitutional Identity and European Integration (Intersentia 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schecher L, Deutsches Außenstaatsrecht (Junker & Dünnhaupt 1933).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk von Staufffenberg B, Statut et Règlement de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale (Carl Heymanns 1935).

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuner U, ‘Naturrechtliche Strömungen im heutigen Völkerrecht’ (1950) 13 ZaöRV 556-614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C, Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte. Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht (4th edn Deutscher Rechtsverlag 1941).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmoeckel M, Die Großraumtheorie: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Völkerrechtswissenschaft im Dritten Reich, ins besondere der Kriegszeit (Duncker & Humblot 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorkopf F, Staatsrecht der internationalen Beziehungen (C.H. Beck 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz HP, Die neue Völkerwanderung nach Europa. Über den Verlust politischer Kontrolle und moralischer Gewissheiten (Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwehm J, ‘Präventive Selbstverteidigung’ (2008) 46 AVR 368-405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweisfurth T, Völkerrecht (Mohr Siebeck 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweisfurth T, ‘The Science of Public International Law in the German Democratic Republic’ (2007) 50 GYIL 149-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M, International Law (5th edn CUP 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Silagi M, ‘Die allgemeinen Regeln des Völkerrechts als Bezugsgegenstand in Art. 25 GG und Art. 26 EMRK’ (1980) EuGRZ 632-653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B and Alston P, ‘The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus cogens, and General Principles’ (1992) 12 Australian Year Book of International Law 82-108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommermann KP, ‘Offene Staatlichkeit: Deutschland’ in A von Bogdandy and others (eds), Handbuch Ius Publicum Europaeum, Vol. II (C.F. Müller 2008) 3-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiermann O, ‘Historical Introduction’ in A Zimmermann and others (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice 49-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolleis M, ‘Against Universalism – German International Law under the Swastika’ (2007) 50 GYIL (2007) 91-110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streinz R, comments on Article 25 in M Sachs (ed), Grundgesetz Kommentar (Beck 7th ed 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S, ‘Die Grenzen der Anwendung des Völkerrechts im deutschen Recht’ (2013) 68 Juristenzeitung 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G, ‘Globale Zivilverfassungen: Alternativen zur staatszentrierten Verfassungstheorie’ (2003) 63 ZaöRV 1-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolstykh L, ‘Three Ideas of Self-Determination in International Law and the Reunification of Crimea with Russia’ (2015) 75 ZaöRV 119-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Der Verfassungsstaat im Geflecht der internationalen Beziehungen’ (1978) 36 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 7-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, comments on Article 24 BL, Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (Hansischer Gildenverlag 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Die internationale Gemeinschaft’ (1995) 33 AVR 1-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New Century’ (1999) 281 Hague Academy of International Law Collected Courses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘World Order Models: a Disputation with B.S. Chimni and Yasuaki Onuma’ 2006 (8) International Community Law Review 71-79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘What is “general international law’ in Guerra y Paz: 1945-2009. Obra Homenaje al Dr. Santiago Torres Bernárdez (Universidad del País Vasco 2010a) 329-348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Terminal of the European Integration Process?’ (2010b) 70 ZaöRV 251-282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Staatsrechtliche Entscheidung für die internationale Offenheit’ in J Isensee and P Kirchhof (eds), Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Vol. XI (3rd edn C.F. Müller 2013a) 3-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Democracy and the Rule of Law’ in D Shelton (ed), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (OUP 2013b) 469-496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Positive Duties under General International Law’ in M Breuer and others (eds), Der Staat im Recht. Festschrift für Eckart Klein (Duncker & Humblot 2013c) 923-937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘The National Constitutional Trumps International Law’ (2014a) 6 Italian Journal of Public Law 189-196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, Human Rights – Between Idealism and Realism (3rd edn OUP 2014b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘General International Law: A New Source of International Law?’ in R Pisillo Mazzeschi and P De Sena (eds), Global Justice, Human Rights and the Modernization of International Law (Springer 2018) 185-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, comments on Article 25 in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (C.F. Müller 2019a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Der UN-Migrationspakt’ in T Groh and others (eds), Verfassungsrecht; Völkerrecht, Menschenrechte – Vom Recht im Zentrum der Internationalen Beziehungen - Festschrift für Ulrich Fastenrath (C.F. Müller 2019b) 207-222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C, ‘Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts durch die Vereinten Nationen’ in E Grothe and A Schlegelmilch (eds), Constitutional Moments (Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag 2020) 185-203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uerpmann-Witzack R, ‘Serious Human Rights Violations as Potential Exceptions to Immunity: Conceptual Challenges’ in A Peters and others (eds), Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism (Brill Njjhoff 2014) 236-243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vagts DF, ‘International Law in the Third Reich’ (1990) 84 AJIL 661-704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdross A, Völkerrecht (Julius Springer 1937).

    Google Scholar 

  • Virally M, ‘The Sources of International Law’ in M Sorensen (ed), Manual of Public International Law (Macmillan 1968) 116-174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel K, Die Verfassungsentscheidung des Grundgesetzes für eine internationale Zusammenarbeit: ein Diskussionsbeitrag zu einer Frage der Staatstheorie sowie des geltenden deutschen Staatsrechts (Mohr 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter M, ‘Integrationsgrenze Verfassungsidentität – Konzept und Kontrolle aus europäischer, deutscher und französischer Perspektive’ (2012) 72 ZaöRV 177-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter C, ‘Der Internationale Menschenrechtsschutz zwischen Konstitutionalisierung und Fragmentierung’ (2015) 75 ZaöRV 753-770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß W, ‘Rechtsquellen des Völkerrechts in der Globalisierung: Zu Notwendigkeit und Legitimation neuer Quellenkategorien’ (2015) 53 AVR 220-251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westdickenberg G, ‘The Role of the Legal Adviser in the German Federal Foreign Office in Comparison to Some Other Aspects of the Role of Legal Adviser in Other Countries’ in Société francaise pour le droit international (ed), Comparative International Law Practice in France & Germany (Pedone 2011) 35-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood M, ‘”Constitutionalization” of International Law: A Sceptical Voice’ in KH Kaikobad and M Bohlander (eds), International Law and Power. Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice: Essays in Honour of Colin Warbrick (Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 85-97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorn P, ‘Das Deutsche Gesandtschafts-, Konsular und Seerecht’ (1882) Annalen des Deutschen Reichs 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorn P, Die Zukunft des Völkerrechts (Berlin:1918).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt University Berlin, Faculty of Law, Berlin, Germany

    Christian Tomuschat

Authors
  1. Christian Tomuschat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Italian Law, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Peter Hilpold

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tomuschat, C. (2021). The Concept of International Law: The German Perspective. In: Hilpold, P. (eds) European International Law Traditions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52028-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52028-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52027-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52028-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation