Rezente Publikationen

Can “Safety Zones” provide Safety to Critical Submarine Cables?

Natascha Gojkovic

Natascha Gojkovic, ‘Can “Safety Zones” provide Safety to Critical Submarine Cables?’ (EJIL:Talk!, 21 August 2026) <https://www.ejiltalk.org/can-safety-zones-provide-safety-to-critical-submarine-cables/>

The blog post shows that, unlike in the case of artificial islands, installations, and structures, Article 60 of the UNCLOS does not apply to cables, and highlights how states such as Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, and Japan have so far attempted to close this gap through national protection zones. In conclusion, he advocates for an analogous application of Article 60 of the UNCLOS to resolve the resulting legal uncertainty at the level of international law.

Link: https://www.ejiltalk.org/can-safety-zones-provide-safety-to-critical-submarine-cables/

Lieber Studies Indo-Pacific Volume – A Tale of Tenacity, Tensions, and Ambiguity: Mutual Defense Treaties and Defense Groupings in the Indo-Pacific

Erika de Wet

Erika de Wet, 'Lieber Studies Indo-Pacific Volume – A Tale of Tenacity, Tensions, and Ambiguity: Mutual Defense Treaties and Defense Groupings in the Indo-Pacific'  (Articles of War, 27 July 2026) 

This post draws attention to key issues identified in the chapter entitled “Mutual Defense Treaties and Defense Groupings in the Indo-Pacific Region: An Introduction,” from a recent volume in the Lieber Studies series titled, Armed Conflict and International Law in the Indo-Pacific Region. These issues include ambiguities surrounding the nature of assistance obligations under the respective treaty frameworks, as well as their geographic scope. The post also highlights challenges to the durability of these agreements (illustrated most vividly by the reconfiguration of the ANZUS in 1986), and the risk of competing or overlapping legal obligations as alliances proliferate.

Link: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/tale-tenacity-tensions-ambiguity-mutual-defense-treaties-defense-groupings-indo-pacific/

Advisory Proceedings before International Courts and Tribunals with regard to State’s Climate Change Obligations: A Comparative Analysis

Natascha Gojkovic

Natascha Gojkovic, ‘Advisory Proceedings before International Courts and Tribunals with regard to State’s Climate Change Obligations: A Comparative Analysis’, (2026) 29 Austrian Review of International and European Law Online 69.

What obligations do states bear under international law in the face of the climate crisis? This question has recently been the subject of multiple requests for advisory opinions before international judicial bodies, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and two regional human rights courts – the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCtHPR). The first request for an AO in this respect was submitted in 2022 by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law to ITLOS. The Tribunal issued its opinion in 2024, addressing the legal implications of climate change within the framework of the international law of the sea. Shortly thereafter, in 2023, the UN General Assembly submitted a separate request to the ICJ. Unlike the more narrowly tailored ITLOS proceedings, the ICJ’s recently delivered advisory opinion adopts a significantly broader perspective, examining the obligations of states under international law as a whole in the context of climate change. The parallel developments raise a series of questions: how do these two advisory proceedings differ in scope, substance, and procedure? To explore this, the article will first undertake a comparative analysis of the advisory jurisdictions of the ICJ and ITLOS. It will then examine the specific procedural frameworks and requirements governing each request, providing a clearer understanding of how international legal mechanisms are evolving to confront the global climate challenge. As a result, fundamental distinctions with respect to the advisory jurisdiction of the two courts and the (supposed) greater flexibility and simplified accessibility of ITLOS are identified.

DOI: https://doi-org.peacepalace.idm.oclc.org/10.1163/15736512-02901004

Anfängerhausarbeit – Öffentliches Recht: Staatsorganisationsrecht – „B muss weg!“

Rareș-David Chioreanu

Rareș-David Chioreanu, “B muss weg!”, JuS 2026, S. 659 ff.

Diese anspruchsvolle Hausarbeit verbindet neue Probleme des Verfassungsprozessrechts mit der klassischen Frage der Abwahl der Bundestagspräsidentin, die infolge neuer Änderungen der GOBT an Aktualität gewonnen hat, und dem Grundsatz der fairen und loyalen Anwendung der Geschäftsordnung.

Link: https://beck-online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fjus%2F2026%2Fcont%2Fjus.2026.659.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-JUS-B-2026-S-659-N-1

Mutual Defense Treaties and Defense Groupings in the Indo- Pacific Region: An Introduction

Erika de Wet

Erika de Wet, 'Mutual Defense Treaties and Defense Groupings in the Indo- Pacific Region: An Introduction' ,in Douglas Guilfoyle & Jennifer Maddocks Eds) Armed Conflict and International Law in the Indo-Pacific Region (OUP, 2026) 221-244.

This chapter provides an introductory overview of five enduring defense alliances established in the Indo-Pacific between 1951 and 1971, with the aim of assessing the scope of the legal obligations triggered in the case of an armed attack on an alliance partner. The alliances in question include the ANZUS between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States; the Five Powers Defence Arrangement (FPDA) between Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United Kingdom; and three bilateral alliances between the United States and the Philippines, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, respectively. In furtherance of this aim, the chapter addresses controversies over the geographic scope of each alliance and (in particular in relation to the United States–Japan alliance), the threshold for triggering the right of individual or collective self-defense of alliance partners. It also examines challenges related to alliance durability and competing treaty obligations that may arise from the parallel security arrangements with partially overlapping partners. The chapter concludes by identifying the potential spillover effects of escalating maritime disputes between various alliance partners with the PRC—as well as with each other—on the United States as a major source of future concern.

DOI: https://academic.oup.com/book/62934/chapter/564289902

Winning an Election Doesn’t Give the Right to Disobey: A Rejoinder to Constitutional Disobedience

Rareș-David Chioreanu

Der Beitrag widerspricht der These, ein Wahlsieg legitimiere "verfassungsrechtlichen Ungehorsam" gegen illiberale Ordnungen. Am Beispiel Ungarns wird argumentiert, dass die Missachtung der Verfassung weder rechtlich zulässig noch politisch klug sei. Stattdessen plädiert der Beitrag für Kooperation, institutionelle Kontinuität und schrittweise Reformen, um bestehende, politisch verfestigte Strukturen zu überwinden. Verfassungsrechtlicher Ungehorsam berge das Risiko, demokratische Prinzipien weiter zu untergraben und autoritäre Dynamiken zu verstärken.

A Critical Look at the Implicit Messages in the CDDH Outcome Document with Elements for the Chișinău Declaration

Wolfgang Benedek

Der Beitrag untersucht das Ergebnisdokument des CDDH im Hinblick auf die geplante Chișinău-Erklärung. Im Fokus stehen die impliziten Botschaften zum Verhältnis von Menschenrechtsschutz, staatlicher Souveränität und Migration. Während das Abschlussdokument formal an bestehenden Standards festhält, deutet seine Ausrichtung auf eine restriktivere Interpretation der EMRK hin. Insbesondere gewinnen sicherheits- und migrationspolitische Erwägungen an Gewicht. Der Beitrag warnt, dass diese Verschiebung das Schutzniveau der Konvention untergraben und mittelbar Einfluss auf die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte nehmen könnte.

Indirekte Enteignung

Markus P. Beham (Tübingen 2026)

Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat mit dem Nassauskiesungsbeschluss einen streng formellen Enteignungsbegriff etabliert. Staatliche Maßnahmen unterfallen diesem nicht, wenn es etwa am Element der Güterbeschaffung fehlt. Folge ist, dass anders als bei der Enteignung auch grundsätzlich kein Entschädigungsjunktim besteht. Dieser Auffassung setzt der Autor eine Neuinterpretation der Eigentumsgarantie entgegen, die sich einerseits auf den Wortlaut des Grundgesetzes, andererseits im Sinne der »offenen Staatlichkeit« auf die Normen des Völker- und Europarechts, ebenso wie auf rechtsvergleichende Überlegungen stützt. Markus P. Beham plädiert damit nicht nur für einen materiellen Enteignungsbegriff, sondern für eine aus dem Mehrebenensystem heraus verstandene, offene Anwendung innerstaatlichen Rechts.

28. Band des Max Planck Yearbook on United Nations Law

Kuratiert von den Chefredakteurinnen Prof. Dr. Erika de Wet und Dr. Kathrin Maria Scherr sowie dem leitenden Chefredakteur Sai Sathyanarayanan Venkatesh. Die Max Planck Foundation und Brill sind gemeinsame Herausgeber des Bandes. Die Printversion erscheint im Jänner 2026.

A UN Peacekeeping Mission Tested to Its Core

Natascha Gojkovic, A United Nations Peacekeeping Mission Tested to its Core: UNIFIL on the Verge of Needing an (Even) More Robust Mandate? Goettingen Journal of International Law (2025) (Pre-Published Article) 1-23. 

https://journals.uni-goettingen.de/gojil/article/view/2596/2251 

Is There a Need for New Digital Human Rights in AI Governance?

Wolfgang Benedek, Is There a Need for New Digital Human Rights in AI Governance? in Tiina Pajuste (ed), Human Rights in the Digital Domain - Core Questions (Cambridge University Press 2025) 19-39.

Open access at https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009606295 

Secessionist Entities and International Law

Benedikt Harzl,  Secessionist Entities and International Law. The South Caucasus Disputes between Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity, and the Quest for a European Engagement Policy (Brill 2025)

https://brill.com/display/title/69379 

The Complaint Procedure Under the Biological Weapons Convention and 'Obligatory Abstention' in the UNSC

Elisabeth Hoffberger-Pippan and Christian Pippan, Inherited Obstruction: The Complaint Procedure Under the Biological Weapons Convention and the UN Charter Rule on Obligatory Abstention in the Security Council, 30 Journal of Conflict & Security Law (2025) 1–18.

https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcsl/kraf001/7974355?utm_source=advanceaccess&utm_campaign=jcsl&utm_medium=email 

27. Band des Max Planck Yearbook on United Nations Law

Kuratiert von den Chefredakteurinnen Prof. Dr. Erika de Wet und Dr. Kathrin Maria Scherr sowie dem leitenden Chefredakteur Sai Sathyanarayanan Venkatesh. Die Max Planck Foundation und Brill sind gemeinsame Herausgeber des Bandes. Die Printversion erscheint im Jänner 2025.

Cooperation à la Carte? (Verfassungsblog)

Hörzer, Anna Lena: Cooperation à la Carte?: Austria’s Stance on Head of State Immunities and Cooperation, VerfBlog, 2024/8/23, verfassungsblog.de/austria-icc-arrest-warrants/, DOI: 10.59704/429964295a694d1f