Advertisement

Frieden durch Recht im Lichte unterschiedlicher Rechtstraditionen

Die angelsächsische Perspektive
  • Paulina StarskiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Gerechter Frieden book series (GEFR)

Zusammenfassung

Die angelsächsische Perspektive auf die Topoi „Frieden durch Recht“ und „rechtserhaltende Gewalt“ ist facettenreich und weist unterschiedliche Dimensionen auf. Relevante Diskurse betreffen zum einen das innerstaatliche Recht (2.), zum anderen fokussieren sie sich auf das Völkerrecht (3.). Letzterem soll hier das Hauptaugenmerk geschenkt werden.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Albright, Madeleine. 1993. UN Security Council Adopts Resolution 808 on War Crimes Tribunal. 4 US Dept. of St. Dispatch No. 12, Art. 5, 22. März 1993.Google Scholar
  2. Bingham, Tom. 2010. The Rule of Law. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, Rosa. 2012. Strange Bedfellows: The Convergence of Sovereignty-Limiting Doctrines in Counterterrorist and Human Rights Discourse. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 2: 125–133.Google Scholar
  4. Cerone, John P. 2007. Dynamic Equilibrium: The Evolution of US Attitudes toward International Criminal Courts and Tribunals. European Journal of International Law 18 (2): 277–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chesterman, Simon. 2008. An International Rule of Law? American Journal on Comparative Law 56 (2): 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daase, Christoph. 2013. Die Legalisierung der Legitimität - Zur Kritik der Schutzverantwortung als emerging norm. Friedens-Warte: 41–62.Google Scholar
  7. Deng, Francis. 1993. Protecting the Dispossessed. Washington. DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dobbins, James F., John G. McGinn, Keith Crane, Seth G. Jones, Rollie Lal, Andrew Rathmell, Rachel M. Swanger und Anga R. Timilsina. 2003. America’s Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq. Santa Monica, CAL: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  9. Eberl, Oliver und Andreas Fischer-Lescano. 2005. Grenzen demokratischen Rechts? HSFK-Report 8/2005. Frankfurt: HSFK.Google Scholar
  10. Edling, Max M. 2018. Peace Pact and Nation: An International Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Past and Present 240: 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferstman, Carla, Thomas Obel Hansen und Noora Arajärvi. 2018. Efforts and Prospect for Accountability for International Crimes Allegations? Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar
  12. Fuller, Lon L.. 1964. The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Golove, David. 2002. Human Rights Treaties and the U.S. Constitution. DePaul Law Review 52: 579–626.Google Scholar
  14. Haass, Richard. 2003. Sovereignty: Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities. https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/2003/16648.htm. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  15. Henderson, Christian. 2010. The 2010 United States National Security Strategy and the Obama Doctrine of ‚Necessary Force‘. Journal of Conflict & Security Law 15 (3): 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.Google Scholar
  17. Howe, Samuel R. 2019. Congress’s War Powers and the Political Question Doctrine after Smith v. Obama. Duke Law Journal 68 (6): 1231–1276.Google Scholar
  18. Independent International Commission on Kosovo. 2010. Kosovo Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect 2001. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS/20Report.pdf. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  20. Jacobs, Jennifer. 2018. Trump says U.S. will react to Syria Attack “Forcefully”, Bloomberg, 9. April 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/trump-national-security-advisers-are-said-tomeet-on-syria. Zugegriffen: 21. Oktober 2019.
  21. Letter dated 20 March 2003 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. 2003. UN Doc S/2003/351.Google Scholar
  22. Locke, John. 1690 [1689]. Two Treatises of Government. London: Awnsham and Churchill.Google Scholar
  23. Mertus, Julie. 2000. Reconsidering the legality of humanitarian intervention: Lessons from Kosovo. William & Mary Law Review 41: 1743–1787.Google Scholar
  24. Mills, Claire. 2018. Parliamentary approval for military action. CBP 7166 vom 8. Mai 2018.Google Scholar
  25. Mitrany, David. 1933. The Progress of International Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Obama, Barack. 2009. Barack Obama’s Nobel Remarks. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  27. Obama, Barack. 2011. ‘Remarks by the president in address to the nation on Libya’, 28 March 2011. Washington DC: White House). www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nationlibya. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  28. Orentlicher, Diane F. 2004. Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court. Cornell International Law Journal 36 (3): 415–433.Google Scholar
  29. Pei, Minxin. 2003. The Paradoxes of American Nationalism. Foreign Policy 2003: 30–37.Google Scholar
  30. Potter, Pitman B. 1922. An Introduction to the Study of International Organization. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
  31. Raz, Joseph. 1979. The Rule of Law and its Virtue. In The Authority of Law, hrsg. von Joseph Raz, 210–229. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Reinsch, Paul S. 1907. International Unions and their Administration. American Journal of International Law 1 (3): 579–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reisman, W. Michael. 1985. Criteria for the lawful use of force in international law. Faculty Scholarship Series 1985: 278–285.Google Scholar
  34. Report of the Iraq Inquiry (Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors). 2016. Chilcot Inquiry. http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  35. Reus-Smit, Christian. 2005. Liberal Hierarchy and the Licence to Use Force. Review of International Studies 31: 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rhyne, Charles S. 1958. World Peace Through Law: The President’s Annual Address. American Bar Association Journal 44 (10): 937–941, 997–1001.Google Scholar
  37. Roosevelt, Theodore. 1904. Annual Message to Congress, 6. Dezember 1904. www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=56&page=transcript. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  38. Secretaries of State and War and the Attorney General. 1945. „Yalta Memorandum“ gerichtet an Präsident Roosevelt. www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jackson/jack01.htm. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  39. Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 1997. The Real New World Order. Foreign Affairs 76: 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Starski, Paulina. 2015. Right to Self-Defence, Attribution and the Non-State Actor – Birth of the “Unable and Unwilling” Standard? Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht 75: 455–502.Google Scholar
  41. Starski, Paulina. 2017. The Silent State and Normative Dynamics of the Prohibition on the Use of Force – Legislative Responsibility in Situations of Enhanced Normative Volatility. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 4 (1): 1–43.Google Scholar
  42. Starski, Paulina und Leander Beinlich. 2018. Der Amtshaftungsanspruch und Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr. Eine verfassungsrechtliche und rechtsvergleichende Betrachtung aus Anlass des Kunduz-Urteils des Bundesgerichtshofs. Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 66: 299–336.Google Scholar
  43. Stephens, Beth, Judith Chomsky, Jennifer Green, Paul Hoffmann und Michael Ratner. 2008. International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  44. UN-Generalsekretär. 2005. Report of the Secretary-General. In Larger Freedom: Toward Development, Security and Human Rights for All. UN Doc. A/59/2005.Google Scholar
  45. UNSC Provisional Records. 2017. 72nd year, 7919th meeting, 7. April 2017. S/PV.7919.Google Scholar
  46. Walzer, Michael. 1980. The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics. Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 (3): 209–229.Google Scholar
  47. Weed, Matthew C. 2017. The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice. 28. März 2017. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=799956. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  48. White House. 2010. The National Security Strategy: May 2010. Washington, DC. www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.
  49. World Summit Outcome Document. 2005. GA A/RES/60/1.Google Scholar

Rechtsakte

  1. Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–40, 115 Stat. 224.Google Scholar
  2. Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). 2002. Pub. L. No. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498.Google Scholar
  3. War Powers Resolution. 1973. 50 U.S.C. 1541–1548.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und VölkerrechtHeidelbergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations