340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of Periodical (664)
- Article (611)
- Working Paper (467)
- Review (299)
- Book (166)
- Conference Proceeding (125)
- Part of a Book (69)
- Contribution to a Periodical (61)
- Doctoral Thesis (47)
- Report (25)
Language
- German (1886)
- English (614)
- French (12)
- Italian (11)
- Multiple languages (9)
- Spanish (9)
- Portuguese (5)
- Latin (4)
- dut (1)
- mis (1)
Keywords
- Deutschland (83)
- Recht (18)
- global justice (18)
- Aktienrecht (17)
- Urheberrecht (17)
- Kapitalmarktrecht (16)
- Coronavirus (14)
- climate change (14)
- human rights (14)
- Corporate Governance (13)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (1364)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (157)
- Präsidium (129)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (110)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (83)
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (71)
- House of Finance (HoF) (59)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (54)
- Institute for Law and Finance (ILF) (51)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (47)
The EU legislator responded to the challenges of the digital transformation and the increase of online communication with Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSMD), which intends to establish a legal framework for the use of copyright and related rights in the online environment. Germany transposed art 17 CDSMD through a new Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (OCSSP Act), which entered into force on August 1, 2021. This paper examines whether the terms and conditions and other publicly accessible copyright policies of eight services (i.e., YouTube, Rumble, TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, SoundCloud, and Pinterest) changed upon the entry into force of the OCSSP Act. For this purpose, we reviewed and analyzed the relevant German-language websites of the services four times between July 2021 and November 2021. Our data collection reveals few changes in the terms and conditions of platforms over time but significant differences between the services in relation to their use of content recognition technology. The concluding section discusses the implications of these findings for the future of copyright policy in the EU.
Art 17 Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSMD) offers not only a new perspective on service provider liability but also on user rights in the digital sphere of copyright law. The Directive obliges Member States to enable users of online content sharing service providers to assert the use of an exception or limitation before a court or another judicial authority. Hence, art 17 CDSMD foresees a subjective, that is, enforceable, right of the user deriving out of the exceptions and limitations of copyright and related rights. Yet, there is no clear guidance on how to transpose this requirement into national law, neither in art 17 CDSMD nor within the judgment of the CJEU in the annulment proceeding or the guidance of the EU Commission. This generates uncertainty for Member States, for which the concept of enforceable user rights is novel. The paper examines the requirements which art 17 CDSMD sets out for digital user rights and the difficulties for Member States to comply with them. The example of the German transposition of art 17 CDSMD shows that a high standard of user protection is not necessarily accompanied by a respective enforceability mechanism.
Identifying, classifying, and analyzing arguments in legal discourse has been a prominent area of research since the inception of the argument mining field. However, there has been a major discrepancy between the way natural language processing (NLP) researchers model and annotate arguments in court decisions and the way legal experts understand and analyze legal argumentation. While computational approaches typically simplify arguments into generic premises and claims, arguments in legal research usually exhibit a rich typology that is important for gaining insights into the particular case and applications of law in general. We address this problem and make several substantial contributions to move the field forward. First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions (2.3M tokens and 15k annotated argument spans). Finally, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain and provide a thorough expert-based evaluation. All datasets and source codes are available under open lincenses at https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments.
Economic misery, ecological unsustainability, and the remedial responsibility of the global affluent
(2024)
The global affluent are contributing to and benefiting from the systemic cause of economic misery and ecological unsustainability. Some philosophers have invoked this relational point to discuss the responsibility of the affluent because by doing so, they assume, one can formulate a more compelling argument than non-relational arguments. This paper supports this relational strand by drawing upon David Miller’s theory of ‘remedial responsibility.’ Although Miller himself seems to deny the said relational point, this paper shall defend it based upon critical economic studies. The first section summarises Miller’s non-relational argument. The second section assesses it, and in the process develops what can be described as a ‘relational remedial theory of global justice.’ The third section discusses a few significant problems that this theory would encounter. Specifically, it argues that the establishment of a ‘cosmopolitan democracy,’ which would facilitate dialogues among global citizens, may serve to overcome those problems.
The climate crisis is beset by depoliticization. Couched as an issue that experts must solve through technological or technocratic knowledge, discussion about how to address environmental degradation is not amenable to democratic action or dissensus. This paper argues that approaching climate change through a human rights framework risks reinscribing such depoliticization and that this is politically hazardous. Human rights discourse can impede the demos’ exercise of power, obscure exercises of hegemony, and, via a fixed notion of progress, discourage normative contestation. This discourse’s depoliticizing potential is further attested to by the debate over human rights’ relationship to the depoliticizing ideology of neoliberalism. Moreover, beyond the language of human rights, the larger legal phenomena of judicialization and juridification may further contribute to depoliticization. Depoliticization is risky because it can provoke politicizing backlashes likely to issue, in the case of climate change, in antidemocratically nationalistic and authoritarian responses to the environmental emergency.
Constitutional environmental rights provisions may be utilised to mitigate climate impacts either directly through climate litigation or indirectly through other types of environmental rights claims. Much of the focus in recent literature has been on climate litigation, so this article focuses on the climate mitigation prospects of the latter (i.e. non-climate cases). Examples from resource extraction, a major contributor to climate change, are used to demonstrate how this occurs through a discrete, case-by-case or project-by-project approach to address environmental harm from activities that contribute to climate change. The extent to which resource-producing nations have constitutionally entrenched environmental rights protection reveals new avenues for addressing climate change that may expand current understandings of the legal strategies that are available to public interest litigants. As this human rights-based approach gains momentum around the world, it has the potential to have a ‘snowball effect’ on a global scale that may complement other climate mitigation strategies.
Human rights arguments have been successful before several domestic courts across Europe in imposing more ambitious action in cutting greenhouse gas emissions upon governments. Yet, the integration of climate justice concerns in those judicial decisions have been insufficiently studied. This paper seeks to contribute to such endeavor by analyzing the cases of Urgenda v. The Netherlands, Klimaatzaak v. Belgium and Neuebauer v. Germany against the climate justice framework. In Part One we set out our analytical framework. A climate justice approach acknowledges that climate mitigation, like the effects of climate change itself, is distributional in nature. In particular, climate justice highlights the unequal distribution of burdens and benefits across three dimensions: international (justice between states); intergenerational (justice between generations); and intragenerational (justice between social groups along socio-economic, racial and gender determinants). In Part Two, we offer a close reading of three key rights-based mitigation decisions to evaluate how judges have accounted for the various dimensions of climate justice. Detailing the contrasted approaches of climate justice in those decisions, we also point to a common reluctance to engage in intragenerational justice reflected in the failure to fashion rights-based obligations which take into account the inequalities across communities and social groups.
According to Article 8 of the Paris Agreement, parties to the treaty recognise and commit to address, avert and minimise losses and damages associated with adverse effects of climate change. For many societies, such as Small Island Developing States, loss and damage is a matter of survival. Global warming and sea-level-rise are threatening the territories and livelihoods of vulnerable low-lying island states and thereby undermining many of the fundamental human rights and freedoms of individuals living in these societies. This paper looks at loss and damage through the concept of reparations in the context of the coloniality of climate. By studying the case of the Marshall Islands and its history with nuclear testing, the paper argues for a connection between irreversible loss and damage and the right to remedy and reparation by proposing that the nuclear legacy represents a grave violation of the human rights of the Marshallese and has led to a permanent loss of land and other severe impacts on health, culture and livelihoods, which now are exacerbated by climate change.