European integration has forced constitutional law scholars to abandon the perspective of methodological nationalism. Prior to the emergence of the interpretative problems raised by the intersection of domestic and European law, the dominant legal paradigm conceived of “constitution” and “state” as two inseparable terms. With the intensification of European integration and economic globalization, many different constitutionalist interpretations have emerged which all share a belief in the State's loss of centrality, such as post-, supra- and transnational constitutionalism, constitutionalism without the state and multilevel constitutionalism.

The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999, committed 29 European nations, including Germany, to develop a system of higher education

The United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (“the Consular Convention”). It requires in Article 36(1)(b) that the competent authorities of each State party inform the consulate of another party if the latter's national is arrested and requests that the consulate be notified. Article 36(1)(b) further requires the authorities to inform the person arrested of the right to communicate with the consulate. Article 36(2) says that the rights in Article 36(1) are to be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso “that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.”

On June 30, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Filártiga v. Peña-Irala. In this landmark case, the Paraguayan plaintiffs sought to hold Americo Norbeto Peña-Irala, a high-ranking Paraguayan police officer, liable for torture that led to the death of Joel Filártiga in Paraguay. They rested their main jurisdictional argument “upon the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, which provides: ‘The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.'” The Second Circuit held, “[D]eliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties. Thus, whenever an alleged torturer is found and served with process by an alien within our borders, § 1350 provides federal jurisdiction.” It added that “Our holding today, giving effect to a jurisdictional provision enacted by our First Congress, is a small but important step in the fulfillment of the ageless dream to free all people from brutal violence.”

Reporting on one year of the Bundesgerichtshof's (BGH – Federal Court of Justice) jurisprudence in criminal affairs is always a delicate matter. We have decided to limit ourselves to report on a variety of cases, which are reported in the official records of the BGH and edited by members of the Court. The Court's official journal, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen (BGHSt), gives a fair mixture of decisions, which the judges themselves consider important enough to be included therein. However, the triage of decisions found there entails but a small portion of the BGH's work, chosen case-by-case without taking heed of producing a representative share. In order to come to a reasonable number of decisions to include in this report we had to leave aside several decisions notwithstanding their importance. We abstain from reporting on the case of El Motassadeq, who was charged with abetting in murder in 3066 cases in connection with the 9/11-attacks in the USA and was acquitted for lack of evidence. This case has been reported extensively elsewhere. We also desist from reporting on the Gartenschläger case, which deals with a special incident at the former German-German boarder. A survey of recent decisions of the BGH in the context of the former East-German regime was included in last year's report to the Annual for German and European Law (AGEL).

It is an irony of our times. The 9/11 attacks catapulted international humanitarian law (IHL) – otherwise known as the “laws of war” or the “law of armed conflict” – into popular conversation as never before. Who ever heard of Common Article 3 before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan? Can anyone recall arguing about the criteria for prisoner of war status before the Taliban and al Qaeda? Was anyone parsing the difference between civilian trials, courts martial and military commissions before Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?

In the last week of February 2008, the University Assistants of Public Law from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland came together in Heidelberg for their annual conference to discuss “Security, Freedom and (the) Public(ity).” A better date for the meeting could not have been chosen; on the day the conference started, the German Constitutional Court declared online searches by German intelligence agencies to be unconstitutional and came up with a new dimension of human rights protection for the privacy of computer network systems. This pathbreaking jurisprudence was omnipresent at the conference; it had already been in the opening-speech by Justice Brun-Otto Bryde (Gießen), a member of the First Senate of the Constitutional Court, which was to render its decision the very next day. It was brought up in numerous discussions during the conference and it was the main topic on the panel discussion with Paul Kirchhof (Heidelberg), a former Justice in the same Senate who was known as the “Professor from Heidelberg” during Angela Merkel's 2006 election campaign, and Fredrik Roggan, a Berlin lawyer and chairman of the civil rights association “Humanistische Union,” who argued the case before the Court. Perhaps it was all a coincidence, but questions of freedom and security have remained on the everyday agenda, in a political context as well as constitutional debates, ever since September 11, 2001.