This chapter contains short conclusions regarding the legal nature and aspects of the Security Council, as seen in light of the previous chapters.

This fragment’s argument is to challenge one of comparative law’s most influential assumptions to the effect that there are commonalities across laws (which must ultimately favour unification). The result of flawed reasoning, this postulate is unwarranted. Rather, the comparison of laws must address difference across laws for this is all there is.

This fragment’s argument advocates for the epistemological significance of fieldwork in comparative law.

This chapter assesses the powers of the Security Council in three stages. First, it introduces the scope of the Council’s powers. They are potentially far-reaching, although within a particular field – the maintenance of international peace and security. The chapter then examines specifically the Council’s practice and discretion with respect to determining the existence of a threat to the peace, breaches of the peace, or an act of aggression, under Article 39. Finally, it addresses whether such determinations are subject to judicial review.

In this chapter Germany’s positions on Antarctica, the law of the sea and on air and space law are examined. Concerning the law of the sea, Germany’s response to the Turkey-Libya memorandum of understanding is criticised as one-sided. Further, Germany’s position on migrant rescue operations in the Mediterranean are addressed and criticised as often vague or inexistent. Regarding the South China Sea dispute, it is asserted that Germany takes a more outspoken and active position while avoiding an open and direct confrontation with China. In light of the increasing importance of the Arctic region, Germany developed new policy guidelines in which more restrictive regulation is advocated. In the last part, air and space law, Germany’s activities in preventing an arms race in outer space are addressed, paying particular attention to United Nations negotiations. Moreover, Germany’s criticism of India over an anti-satellite missile test is evaluated as a call for a legally binding instrument prohibiting the destruction of space objects.

This chapter deals with Germany’s perspective on and activities in the United Nations and other international organisations. Germany announced that it would run again for membership of the Human Rights Council. Although Germany was elected, there are signs that not every State supports the country’s human rights policy. Criticism of Syria by the German ambassador to the UN during a session on the USA’s recognition of Israel’s annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan is found to be rather unusual. In declining to regard a Ukrainian language law as a matter of international peace and security, Germany inconsistently adopts a restrictive view on what falls within the mandate of the Security Council. Additionally, Germany’s attempts to put the human rights situation in the DPRK and climate change on the Security Council agenda are covered. Also discussed are Germany’s insistence on the immunity of a German-Tunisian UN arms expert; and Germany voting against an anti-Israel decision at the World Health Assembly in a move towards a new German policy on resolving the Middle East situation in UN bodies.

This chapter is concerned with Germany’s stand on State responsibility and liability. Regarding the former, the German position on State responsibility in the context of arms exports to Yemen is explored. Germany’s reading of the Nicaragua judgment is found to be both unnecessary and incorrect. Further, Germany’s differentiation between ‘bearing responsibility’ and ‘being responsible’ is assessed as being well founded in the context of a missile attack carried out on Saudi Arabia. Concerning the dispute with Greece on war reparations stemming from the two World Wars, Germany’s rejection of claims of reparations, grounded in the opinion that twhe issue is settled, is presented and discussed.

This chapter delves into Germany’s stand on the peaceful settlement of disputes and the International Court of Justice. Germany facilitated talks with the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities, along with the UN secretary-general in Berlin. Although Germany spoke of providing ‘good services’, it meant ‘good offices’, while Germany’s role should not be overestimated.