Schatten der Globalisierung - Freiheit der Wahl? (German Edition)

This problem is compounded by a second difficulty in that, in law, each corporation is regarded as a separate legal person. As such, a multi-national corporation is in fact a network of different entities all formed in terms of the laws of different countries. The likelihood of successful prosecutions or claims for compensation is very limited in these jurisdictions. A treaty would seek to address these problems. First, it could require all states to adopt laws permitting them to hold corporations that have an office there to account for violations of fundamental rights they commit beyond their borders.

Such an approach would help address the difficulty that no-one state alone wishes to be seen as the sole enforcer of human rights norms, and so become unattractive to businesses. It also stops corporations from exploiting weaknesses in legal systems of states in which violations take place to create a situation of impunity. Secondly, the treaty could place binding legal obligations on corporations to address their impact on human rights across their operations, including when they are structured through subsidiaries and long supply chains.

Thirdly, the treaty could also address technical questions surrounding in which jurisdictions such cases can be brought, how evidence can be gathered, and how remedies enforced. Finally, it can also develop international structures to set reasonable minimum standards that businesses must adopt in relation to human rights that can be applied across the world. Sadly, in Germany, a lot of opposition comes from businesses who are concerned perhaps about the increased costs to ensure they are not in breach thereof.

If the treaty is adopted widely, however, any such costs will have to be borne by competitors too. Indeed, business should not automatically been seen as against rights and it has many opportunities and responsibilities actively to contribute towards the realisation of rights in our society.

• Top Authors.
• The Prodigal Son.
• Boriscat and the Quest for the Golden Carp;
• « Le Monde » and the billionaires | Le blog de Thomas Piketty.

Another equally unacceptable source of opposition comes from rigid lawyers schooled in the idea that international human rights only apply to the activities of states. Lawyers need to learn from the mistakes of Nazi Germany too: In light of its history, Germany has a deep moral responsibility to stand up and lead the world in ensuring respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals particularly where business is concerned.

In a few months, the first draft of a treaty on business and human rights will be debated in Geneva. This offers a major opportunity for the government and business to change course and exercise leadership in meeting its historic and contemporary obligations to ensure a more humane world. Prof Bilchitz will argue the case for a business and human rights treaty followed by a panel discussion on 19 July at 17h00 at Humboldt University, Berlin.

NetzDG and ‘hate speech’

This will be followed by a one-day conference on the topic on 20 July by leading German academics. To put it bluntly — this is attempted blackmail using Germanys undoubtedly horrible crimes between and Bilchitz, for this highly informative and actually convincing article! In fact, any legal interpretation should be based on historical facts as this represents the classical method of historical interpretation.

Auslegung der Gesetze; p. Further, the conclusions drawn by Prof.

Bilchitz are perfectly in line with the view of the Bun-desverfassungsgericht. It ruled that our constitution, the Grundgesetz, is the counter-concept to the Nazi Dictatorship.

This very counter-concept is regarded as identity building to all of us cf. Laid down in our constitution, the German government has to comply with the principle of anti-national socialism. That leads not only the duty to refrain from certain acts but is reflected by various positive obligations, not only affecting inner affairs but the foreign politics alike e. Therefore, one could even go further than Prof. Bilchitz not only putting moral obligations but legal duties on the government: It is highly recognised that merely refraining from a violation does not suffice but there are duties to protect.

Promoting an International Treaty on Bussines and Human Rights would be one legal instrument to protect the Fundamental Human Rights set out in the Grundgesetz, binding not only the gov-ernment but through the famous third party effect private actors likewise. In this context, it is also worth pointing out, that the most important German Fundamental Rights not only protect German nationals but every human being affected by the German authorities or liable private actors.

Therefore, the introduction to the article by Prof. Bilchitz opens up various legal aspects but should not be understood as an accusation. Putting some historical moral obligation on the German people only is what one would certainly call in any other context "racism" or "discrimination". So which historical facts do you want to pick to interpret the law? It was the overcompensation sought for by the Treaty of Versailles that put Germany on the road of destabilisation. Claims like "not only protect German nationals but every human being" which brings us from 80 millions to 7 billions to protect are clearly the next overcompensation ….

Related Posts Bosnia and the problem of generalizable human rights gauges. Tax Evasion and Human Rights. Friendly phrased — that may not be the best way to convince people.

The latter is a Northern Italy separatist party, which has however recently turned into a national party, with some degree of support even in Southern Italy. The elections have confirmed the rise of both parties. However, unlike in other Western European countries, their programmes and actions do not always comply with constitutional conventions, and sometimes clash with a few important provisions of the Constitution.

For a start, their decision to make use of an instrument of private law a contract to regulate their political relationship only superficially resembling the German Koalitionsvertrag has raised some doubts. For example, if coupled with their announced plan to eliminate the clause forbidding parliamentary mandate Article 67 , this is a clear attempt to radically modify the liberal democratic premises of the Italian Constitution. Moreover, the recent events leading to the designation of Giuseppe Conte as candidate Prime Minister and Paolo Savona as Finance Minister have spurred controversies from different perspectives.

As a result, Giuseppe Conte has stepped down. The most delicate issue concerned the question whether the President of the Italian Republic has a power of veto over the choice of the ministers of the government. This is a political observation, which may or may not be right and will not be analysed here. Much more importantly, they have also argued that the Constitution did not allow Mattarella to go against the indications of the winning parties.

• Skippy and Friends Go Sailing!
• The People vs. the Elite: Italian Dialectics and the European Malaise.
• Mind Over Murder: The Svengali Factor;
• Grab Bag 3 (Grab Bag Gay Erotica Anthologies)?
• Brexit, Democracy and the Rule of Law | Verfassungsblog.
• The German NetzDG: A Risk Worth Taking?;

He should respect the will of the majority of the electorate, and should abstain from interfering with the political choices of the future Prime Minister. These considerations are not correct and follow from a superficial reading of the Constitution. He does so through a Presidential Decree, which he himself signs. As a result, he may also choose not to appoint a minister, at least in principle.

Bestselling Series

Second, as pointed out by the Italian President, had the minister been chosen, the position of Italy as regards the Eurozone would have been unclear. This is a sufficient reason to refuse to appoint the minister — bear in mind, not the Prime Minister, but only one of his ministers. Neither the Five-Star Movement nor the League has clearly won an electoral mandate to leave the euro, following a public debate in which all pros and contras have been carefully examined.

On the contrary, especially in the case of the Five Star Movement, their political objectives in this context have been rather ambiguous. The experience of the Brexit referendum, after which, once more information have spread, many Brexiteers have regretted their choice, should caution against quick, unreflective decisions. To be sure, it is not the first time that the President of the Italian Republic refuses to appoint a minister suggested by the Prime Minister. It has happened even recently, with other Presidents and other Prime Ministers including Renzi and Berlusconi , and in much less exceptional circumstances.

Any proposal to impeach the Italian President is pure nonsense. Finally, the Italian case prompts us to reflect on the relationship between people and elite, on the one hand, and on the effectiveness of constitutional settlements, on the other. Those who agree with the Five Star Movement and the League tend to promote direct democracy and popular decisionism at all costs. They disregard some fundamental features of representative democracy, as well as the commitments of the Italian Republic to the security of the European project, as enshrined in the Constitution itself. This does not mean that participation in the Eurozone or in the EU cannot be questioned.

It only means that form and substance should always go hand in hand. Which minister countersigned these decisions of the president? In order for the decision of the President to be counter-signed, there needs to be a formal Presidential decree. In this case there was no formal decision.

Article 92 does not give the President of the Republic the possibility to refuse to appoint either the ministers or the Prime Ministers. He has no discretionary powers. Article 92 may be interpreted and has been interpreted in the past as meaning that the President of the Republic has some degree of discretionality in some circumstances.

The name was rejected by the President and, as a result, he was finally appointed as Defence Minister. In this particular case, the candidate Prime Minister refused to set up a government, because he considered any other possible name as not viable. The problem seems to be similar to Art.

But the interpretation of law seems to be similar, and in a different legal and political framework, why not also include political reasons? Thank you for your observation. The question is whether in this particular case the reason to reject the appointment of a minister is purely political. I believe it is not.