Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frieden durch Recht im Lichte unterschiedlicher Rechtstraditionen

Die angelsächsische Perspektive

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Frieden durch Recht – Rechtstraditionen und Verortungen

Part of the book series: Gerechter Frieden ((GEFR))

  • 549 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 24.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • 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 

  • Bingham, Tom. 2010. The Rule of Law. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesterman, Simon. 2008. An International Rule of Law? American Journal on Comparative Law 56 (2): 331–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daase, Christoph. 2013. Die Legalisierung der Legitimität - Zur Kritik der Schutzverantwortung als emerging norm. Friedens-Warte: 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Francis. 1993. Protecting the Dispossessed. Washington. DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Eberl, Oliver und Andreas Fischer-Lescano. 2005. Grenzen demokratischen Rechts? HSFK-Report 8/2005. Frankfurt: HSFK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edling, Max M. 2018. Peace Pact and Nation: An International Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Past and Present 240: 267–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferstman, Carla, Thomas Obel Hansen und Noora Arajärvi. 2018. Efforts and Prospect for Accountability for International Crimes Allegations? Essex: University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Lon L.. 1964. The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golove, David. 2002. Human Rights Treaties and the U.S. Constitution. DePaul Law Review 52: 579–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haass, Richard. 2003. Sovereignty: Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities. https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/2003/16648.htm. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Independent International Commission on Kosovo. 2010. Kosovo Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect 2001. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS/20Report.pdf. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Locke, John. 1690 [1689]. Two Treatises of Government. London: Awnsham and Churchill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertus, Julie. 2000. Reconsidering the legality of humanitarian intervention: Lessons from Kosovo. William & Mary Law Review 41: 1743–1787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Claire. 2018. Parliamentary approval for military action. CBP 7166 vom 8. Mai 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitrany, David. 1933. The Progress of International Government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, Barack. 2009. Barack Obama’s Nobel Remarks. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.

  • 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.

  • Orentlicher, Diane F. 2004. Unilateral Multilateralism: United States Policy toward the International Criminal Court. Cornell International Law Journal 36 (3): 415–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pei, Minxin. 2003. The Paradoxes of American Nationalism. Foreign Policy 2003: 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, Pitman B. 1922. An Introduction to the Study of International Organization. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Reinsch, Paul S. 1907. International Unions and their Administration. American Journal of International Law 1 (3): 579–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, W. Michael. 1985. Criteria for the lawful use of force in international law. Faculty Scholarship Series 1985: 278–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Iraq Inquiry (Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors). 2016. Chilcot Inquiry. http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.

  • Reus-Smit, Christian. 2005. Liberal Hierarchy and the Licence to Use Force. Review of International Studies 31: 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 1997. The Real New World Order. Foreign Affairs 76: 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • The Cabinet Manual. 2011. Rn. 5.38. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf. Zugegriffen: 17. Mai 2019.

  • 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 

  • UNSC Provisional Records. 2017. 72nd year, 7919th meeting, 7. April 2017. S/PV.7919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, Michael. 1980. The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics. Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 (3): 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • World Summit Outcome Document. 2005. GA A/RES/60/1.

    Google Scholar 

Rechtsakte

  • Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–40, 115 Stat. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). 2002. Pub. L. No. 107–243, 116 Stat. 1498.

    Google Scholar 

  • War Powers Resolution. 1973. 50 U.S.C. 1541–1548.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    Paulina Starski

Authors
  1. Paulina Starski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulina Starski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Forschungsstätte der Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft e.V., Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Sarah Jäger

  2. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Wolfgang S. Heinz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Starski, P. (2020). Frieden durch Recht im Lichte unterschiedlicher Rechtstraditionen. In: Jäger, S., Heinz, W. (eds) Frieden durch Recht – Rechtstraditionen und Verortungen. Gerechter Frieden. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28715-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28715-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-28714-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-28715-3

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation