Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (148)
- Conference Proceeding (101)
- Article (97)
- Part of a Book (15)
- Doctoral Thesis (11)
- Review (11)
- Preprint (3)
- Report (2)
- Other (1)
Language
- English (389) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (389) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (389) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutschland (14)
- Democracy (8)
- Corporate Governance (7)
- human rights (7)
- law (7)
- Internet (6)
- Law (6)
- Rule of Law (5)
- climate change (5)
- democracy (5)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (389) (remove)
“Protection of the environment“ and “sustainability“ are more significant than ever. The legal system contributes an important share to the protection of the environment. However, an overview of the German private environmental liability law shows that conventional tort law is not a suitable basis for civil liability for the environmental consequences of officially approved emissions of greenhouse gases. In general, one of the main problems of private environmental liability law lies in proving the individual causality of the conduct of an emitter, as the lawsuit of a Peruvian homeowner against a German energy company pending before the Higher Regional Court of Hamm illustratively demonstrates. The outcome of this lawsuit, which may have an outstanding significance for the status and development of private environmental liability law in Germany, is awaited with great anticipation. The article also briefly examines recent developments in private environmental liability law outside Germany and the question to what extent insurance can be an instrument to protect the environment.
This paper analyses disclosure duties in insurance contract law in Germany on the basis of questions developed in preparation of the World Congress of the International Insurance Law Association (AIDA) 2018. As risk factors are within the policyholder’s sphere of knowledge, the insurer naturally depends on gaining such knowledge from its policyholder in order to calculate and evaluate premium and risk. Legal approaches as to how the insurer may obtain relevant information and the legal consequences differ in national insurance contract laws around the globe. Taking part in this legal comparison, the paper describes the key elements of such a mechanism from a German perspective and comprises both duties of the policyholder and duties of the insurer.
As for the policyholder, these issues are differences between a duty to (spontaneously) disclose and a duty not to misrepresent as a reaction to questions of the insurer, the prerequisites and remedies of such duty, the subjective standard of the disclosure duty and a duty to notify material changes during the contract term. On the other hand, the paper also addresses an insurer’s duty to investigate, a duty to ascertain the policyholder’s understanding of the policy and a duty to inform during the contract term or after the occurrence of an insured event. In doing so, the paper offers a comprehensive and critical overview on the transfer of knowledge in the insurance (pre-)contractual relationship.
The very idea of the European Convention on Human Rights is to bring the laws of contracting states into line with fundamental human rights principles. Where the Convention is not explicit, the Court should never rule restrictively so as to reduce the scope of a general right. In the case of homeschooling, the Convention sets forth the general principle that “the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” It must not, therefore, allow a contracting state to eliminate a means of achieving this desired by parents—unless the state can show that the means in question is ineffective.
A Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is a systematic risk assessment tool, enabling organizations to maintain compliance with data protection regulations, to manage privacy risks and to provide public benefits through the success of privacy-by-design efforts. An actual practical implementation of a PIA framework has been realized in the context of RFID applications encompassing detailed steps for the PIA process; a first successful review has been completed. The PIA also allows to introduce a pro-active mitigation of privacy risks through technical and organizational controls. The better the precautionary measures realize the relevant privacy objectives, the less likely will occur with the PIA process afterwards. The recent proposal for a far-reaching revision of the EU Data Protection Directive envisages to state a specific requirement to implement a PIA process. Indeed, since risks for privacy and non-disclosure of personal data are different in not identical circumstances, the protection measures should also be different, i.e. technology should assist in trying to achieve the (at least) second-best solution for the implementation of the data protection regime by a PIA. Insofar, privacy rules can be individualized and matched with the concrete needs in the given environment.
With the Council regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, that came into effect May 31, 2002 the European Union has introduced a legal framework for dealing with cross-border insolvency proceedings. In order to achieve the aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of insolvency proceedings having cross-border effects within the European Community, the provisions on jurisdiction, recognition and applicable law in this area are contained in a Regulation, a Community law measure which is binding and directly applicable in Member States. The goals of the Regulation, with 47 articles, are to enable cross-border insolvency proceedings to operate efficiently and effectively, to provide for co-ordination of the measures to be taken with regard to the debtor’s assets and to avoid forum shopping. The Insolvency Regulation, therefore, provides rules for the international jurisdiction of a court in a Member State for the opening of insolvency proceedings, the (automatic) recognition of these proceedings in other Member States and the powers of the ‘liquidator’ in the other Member States. The Regulation also deals with important choice of law (or: private international law) provisions. The Regulation is directly applicable in the Member States3 for all insolvency proceedings opened after 31 May 2002.
As the numbers of people moving internationally increased in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, states tried more rigorously to regulate borders and counteract the problem of fugitives crossing international borders to evade arrest. This presented a legal challenge to domestic state power that increasingly defined its sovereignty on jurisdiction within borders. It is this issue and within this important era of globalization and law formation that Bradley Miller’s book examines how British North American colonies and post-Confederation Canada reacted to the problems posed by international fugitives through ideas and practices of extradition. His work goes beyond the traditional perspective of examining extradition treaties to view the practices of extradition in action, the everyday challenges states faced, and how the key concepts of sovereignty and international law were understood in relation to extradition. ...
In memory of Brigitte Haar
(2021)
Nachruf auf Brigitte Haar (1965-2019).
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.