AY 21/22
Refine
Document Type
- Article (60)
- Working Paper (27)
- Part of a Book (24)
- Book (3)
- Editorship book (2)
- Journal (2)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (120)
Keywords
- Centre for Sustainability (7)
- European Court of Human Rights (2)
- civil society (2)
- #UpdateDeutschland (1)
- #WirVsVirus (1)
- - (1)
- Advocacy (1)
- Carbon pricing, EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS), electricity decarbonization, power sector, renewable energy, fuel switch, combined heat and power, electricity market modeling, model comparison, model-related uncertainty (1)
- Community (1)
- Competition (1)
The COVID-19 pandemic not only ravaged human bodies but also had profound and possibly enduring effects on the health of political and legal systems, economies and societies. Almost overnight, governments imposed the severest restrictions in modern times on rights and freedoms, elections, parliaments and courts. Legal and political institutions struggled to adapt, creating a catalyst for democratic decline and catastrophic increases in poverty and inequality.
This handbook analyses the global pandemic response through five themes: governance and democracy; human rights; the rule of law; science, public trust and decision making; and states of emergency and exception. Containing 12 thematic commentaries and 25 chapters on countries of diverse size, wealth and experience of COVID-19, it represents the combined effort of more than 50 contributors, including leading scholars and rising voices in the fields of constitutional, international, public health, human rights and comparative law, as well as political science, and science and technology studies.
Taking stock after the onset of global emergency, this book provides essential analysis for politicians, policy-makers, jurists, civil society organisations, academics, students and practitioners at both national and international level on the best, and most concerning, practices adopted in response to COVID-19 - and key insights into how states and multilateral institutions should reform, adapt and prepare for future emergencies.
This article introduces the Special Issue on ‘The Responses of the Council of Europe to the Decay of the Rule of Law and Human Rights Protections’. The Council of Europe (CoE), a unique international organisation with its commitment to protect and promote human rights, the rule of law, and democracy, has been severely tested by the spread and consolidation of trends posing systemic threats to its foundational goals. The authors of this Special Issue assess how the European Court of Human Rights, the Venice Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, and the office of the Secretary General have addressed systemic threats to the foundational principles of the organisation in the last decade. The Special Issue finds that the respective legal-institutional features and capacities of the CoE organs as well as the constraining influence of the broader political context in Europe on them vary significantly, hampering the CoE’s ability to produce timely, consistent, and co-ordinated responses against systemic threats.
This article investigates whether Article 18 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, indicating that the state authorities pursued ulterior and illegitimate motives when violating the Convention, receive the seriousness and the urgency that they call for at the execution phase. By way of an analysis of the responses of the Committee of Ministers and states on the receiving end of Article 18 judgments between 2004 and June 2021, this article finds that the collective responsiveness of the Committee of Ministers to Article 18 judgments has increased over time, especially with respect to individual measures required to implement Article 18 judgments. So far, the responsiveness of individual states to their Article 18 judgments does, however, vary significantly, ranging from taking concrete steps to implement the judgments to outright resistance and no response, posing a significant risk to the Convention system’s ability to respond to the decay of rule of law.
This article undertakes a survey of the changes in the structure of the interpretive doctrines of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) over time in an exploration of the aging of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) on its 70th anniversary. It argues that the Court’s interpretive doctrines that seek to give due defer ence to national rights traditions, canons and institutions have become increasingly pervasive in the Court’s procedural and substantive case law in the last two decades. This, in particular, has come at a loss for interpretative doctrines that interpret the Convention as a practical and effective living pan-European instrument. This argument is built in four parts. First it offers a defence of why a study of the interpretive doctrines of the Court over time is a good proxy for studying the ECHR’s ageing process. In the second part, it discusses the rich doctrinal forms of due deference and effective interpretation in the case law of the Court – both young and mature. Part three explains how the judicialisation and expansion of the European human rights system in late 1990 s transitioned to a more height ened and sophisticated focus on due deference doctrines in the Court’s case law. Finally, part four examines whether the recent judicial innovations under the Court’s Article 18 case law and the widely celebrated success of increased ownership of the Convention by domestic courts can act as counter points to the argument that the effective interpretation principle has suffered a loss as the Convention has aged, concluding that none of this may offset the fact that the Convention at 70 is more conservative in spirit than its younger self.
Family lives during the COVID-19 pandemic in European Societies: Introduction to the Special Issue
(2022)
Objective: This chapter introduces the reader to the Special Issue "Family Lives during the COVID-19 Pandemic in European Societies".
Background: This Special Issue analyses how families, parents, and children have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they have been coping with its related challenges in different societal contexts.
Method: The studies collected in this Special Issue are based on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches and data that have been gathered during 2020 in a range of European countries. It covers the first lockdown period, the reopening phases, and the months thereafter.
Results: The 20 contributions of this Special Issue show that families shouldered large responsibilities during the pandemic. While the pandemic did not lead to radical shifts in gendered care patterns, mothers and fathers experienced the pandemic differently, with mothers reporting higher levels of stress. Moreover, there was great heterogeneity in how different types of families and children were affected by the pandemic. Single parents and parents and children in low-income households were most strongly affected in their social and economic wellbeing. Social and economic distress are strongly interwoven, and the developments during the pandemic aggravated existing social disparities.
Conclusion: This Special Issue underlines the importance of the family for the functioning of societies during times of crisis. It also shows that policy makers often adopted a too narrow view of what constitutes a family and did not adequately address family diversity in their decision making. This Special Issue furthermore emphasized that there is a danger that the pandemic will increase disparities between families. Thus, parents and their children need adequate support measures that are tailored to their needs, and that are designed to alleviate these social, economic and educational disparities.
In a recent contribution to this journal, McAlexander (2020, hereafter McAlexander) seeks to re-analyze Wucherpfennig, Hunziker and Cederman (2016, hereafter WHC) who instrument the effect of ethnic group inclusion on civil conflict by exploiting differences in colonial governance between the French and the British empire. McAlexander proposes a research design that replaces the between-colony dimension of WHC’s comparison with a continuous measure of indirect rule that varies be-tween British colonies. We show that McAlexander’s study hardly poses a viable reanalysis because his approach is compromised by problems of ecological inference and post-treatment confounding, lead-ing to biased inference by design. We propose a more informative reanalysis, indicating that British colonialism built on suitable customary institutions, unlike the French empire. Although tentative, our analytical extension lends support to WHC’s original findings, most importantly that inclusion reduces the risk of post-colonial civil conflict.
Large companies are increasingly on trial. Over the last decade, many of the world’s biggest firms have been embroiled in legal disputes over corruption charges, financial fraud, environmental damage, taxation issues or sanction violations, ending in convictions or settlements of record-breaking fines, well above the billion-dollar mark. For critics of globalization, this turn towards corporate accountability is a welcome sea-change showing that multinational companies are no longer above the law. For legal experts, the trend is noteworthy because of the extraterritorial dimensions of law enforcement, as companies are increasingly held accountable for activities independent of their nationality or the place of the activities. Indeed, the global trend required understanding the evolution of corporate criminal law enforcement in the United States in particular, where authorities have skillfully expanded its effective jurisdiction beyond its territory. This paper traces the evolution of corporate prosecutions in the United States. Analyzing federal prosecution data, it then shows that foreign firms are more likely to pay a fine, which is on average 6,6 times larger.
Gemeinsam getrennt erziehen“ ist das Thema des heute veröffentlichten Gutachtens des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats für Familienfragen beim BMFSFJ. Das Gutachten gibt einen umfassenden Überblick über Trennungsfamilien in Deutschland. Immer mehr Eltern wünschen sich vor, aber auch nach einer Trennung ihre Kinder gemeinsam zu betreuen. Deshalb legt das Gutachten den Fokus auf Familien, die eine geteilte (asymmetrische wie symmetrische) Betreuung leben. Internationale Vergleiche zeigen, wie geteilte Betreuung anderswo gelebt wird und wo es Reformbedarf gibt.