Professor Giegerich veröffentlicht Beitrag zum ‚Welfenschatz‘

Allgemein

Soeben ist der Beitrag von Prof. Giegerich „Nazi-Kunstraub vor US-Gerichten am Beispiel des ‚Welfenschatzes‘: Steht Völkerrecht der Gerechtigkeit im Weg?“ in: Claudia Seitz/Ralf Michael Straub/Robert Weyeneth (Hrsg.), Rechtsschutz in Theorie und Praxis – Festschrift für Stephan Breitenmoser (2022), S. 1269 – 1279, erschienen. Dort geht es um ein noch nicht abgeschlossenes Klageverfahren vor US-Gerichten auf Schadensersatz gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz wegen einer angeblichen Enteignung jüdischer Kunsthändler in Nazi-Deutschland. Eine solche Enteignung hatte die Beratende Kommission im Zusammenhang mit der Rückgabe NS-verfolgungsbedingt entzogenen Kulturguts, insbesondere aus jüdischem Besitz (Limbach-Kommission) 2014 verneint. 

Prof. Giegerich kritisiert den Umgang des US-Gesetzgebers und der US-Gerichte mit den Völkerrechtsregeln über die Staatenimmunität, nach denen den Beklagten im vorliegenden Fall Immunität von der US-Gerichtsbarkeit zusteht. Er kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Völkerrechtsregeln über die Staatenimmunität zwar im Einzelfall gerechte Ergebnisse verhindern könnten. „In Bezug auf den Welfenschatz gab es aber ein alternatives Forum in Gestalt der Limbach-Kommission, deren Entscheidung man kaum als ungerecht bezeichnen kann. Davon abgesehen genießt die Einzelfallgerechtigkeit gegenüber der Unverbrüchlichkeit der Völkerrechtsordnung keinen unbedingten Vorrang. Im Gegenteil bildet die „international rule of law“ die Grundlage des Friedens, der politischen Stabilität, des wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Fortschritts sowie der Rechte der Menschen und Völker. Ohne sie kann es langfristig keine internationale Gerechtigkeit geben.“

Giegerich: Struggling for Europe’s Soul

Allgemein, ,

Last week, issue 3/2022 of the Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien (ZEuS) came out. It includes Professor Giegerich’s article “Struggling for Europe’s Soul: The Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights Counter Russia’s Aggression against Ukraine” (p. 519 – 557). 

This is the Abstract: “Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe with immediate effect and also from the ECHR with a six-month delay. The expulsion was based on Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine which actually began in 2014 and only intensified in 2022. It was inevitable in view of the fact that Russia had not only distanced itself from the values of the CoE and the ECHR, but started to actively undermine them. This becomes evident from an overview of the pertinent case law of the European Court of Human Rights and Russia’s increasingly assertive unwillingness to comply with the Court’s decisions. While the pertinent resolutions by the Committee of Ministers and the ECtHR were made in accordance with the CoE Statute and the ECHR both procedurally and substantively, they should have been better explained to the European and world public. Russia has meanwhile begun to boycott the ECtHR procedures in violation of Art. 58 ECHR.”

Thomas Giegerich concludes his article with the following observations (footnotes omitted): “The attempt by the signatories of the Charter of Paris to build a united Europe, together with a transforming Russia, on the basis of human rights, democracy and the rule of law has unfortunately failed, because Russia left the common ground of values. Instead it returned to 19th century imperialist policies of power, violence and territorial conquest that were outlawed first by the Briand-Kellogg Pact and then for good by the UN Charter. We must not let it and its brothers in spirit succeed in distorting the international legal order of human dignity and self-determination built around the UN Charter and the CoE Statute into “authoritarian international law” or outright legal nihilism. Yet, while facing the unpleasant truths of today we should not stop in our efforts to promote transformation in both Russia and Belarus so that we can tomorrow resume construction work on our common European house, firmly founded on the ideals of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the CoE Statute as well as the ECHR and Protocols. The dream of 1990 lives on and its time will come.”

Toward Greater Gender-Sensitivity in Migration Law: Positive Developments regarding Female Refugees and Displaced Persons

Allgemein, , , , , , , ,

On 7 October 2022, Professor Giegerich presented a paper on positive developments regarding female refugees and displaced persons at a conference on “Gendering Law: Challenges and Perspectives” that was organised within the framework of the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership LAWGEM – New Quality in Education for Gender Equality. The paper is available here.

Prof. Giegerich’s contribution to online conference on Türkiye-EU Relations has been published

Allgemein, ,

The papers of the online conference “Legal Issues in Türkiye – European Union Relations” organized by the Jean Monnet Chair on Legal Issues in Turkey-EU Relations at the Law Faculty of Ankara University(Prof. Dr. İlke Göçmen) in which Prof. Giegerich participated on 17 March 2022 have just been published in e-book format by Ankara Üniversitesi Basimevi. The volume is accessible here. The volume includes Prof. Giegerich’s paper on “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities of Türkiye and the EU in Relation to Irregular Migration” (pp. 65 – 79). His conclusion is as follows (p. 79):

“Conclusion: CbDR Minus in the EU-TR MMP [Migration Management Partnership]

The EU-Türkiye MMP with various hard-law and soft-law components is characterised by a number of elements reminiscent of the altruistic principle of CbDR which is firmly established in international environmental law. However, the special legal and political relationship between the EU and Türkiye, based on the Ankara Agreement and the latter’s application for EU membership, intersects with the MMP and introduces egoistic elements into the partnership that seem to dominate the altruistic CbDR elements. The EU-Türkiye MMP is thus characterised by a reduced CbDR version that may be called “CbDR Minus”. Progress in the further development of the MMP will depend more on calculations of national interests on both sides than by the altruistic CbDR principle. Yet, if politics is the art of the feasible, why shouldit not be feasible to approximate the EU- Türkiye MMP to CbDR, not least by bringing the rights of irregular migrants more into focus that all partners are legally required to respect and protect?”