In pursuit of solutions to curb cybercrime, legislators engage in an analysis proportionally weighing freedom of expression and other societal interests. The balance between the two concepts differs dramatically across different jurisdictions. This Article looks into a widely discussed legislative package regulating the online domain, enacted by the Sixth Convocation of the Russian Parliament (2011–2016)—the State Duma. The authors operate under the assumption that the Russian approach might have a broad spillover effect. With this in mind, the authors outline the current status quo regarding Internet regulations in the EU, disentangle and contextualize the legislation under scrutiny, emphasize Russian influence over Eastern European countries, and describe the tumultuous relationship between the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights.

Over the last decades, various groups seeking international legal recognition of new human rights claims have succeeded in their endeavors. Some movements have crafted such convincing demands that their participation has even become an implicit condition of the legitimacy of the resulting human rights documents. But what are the bases of claims for new human rights, and how do they help to confront the argument that human rights’ expansion also entails their dilution? This Article explores narratives based on two different concepts, namely the political-science concept of affectedness and the legal-ethical concept of vulnerability. It does so by drawing on the process for the recognition of peasant human rights at the United Nations. The Article explores what it understands as the peasant critique of existing human rights by looking at the differences and interrelations between affectedness and vulnerability-based argumentation. It argues that an approach premised purely on affectedness, and thus focused on participation, is less empowering than one that includes a regard for vulnerability, which serves as a heuristic device for identifying and challenging inequalities, demands substantive outcomes, and can serve to craft a convincing theoretical account of human rights protections.

Application of international treaty and customary international law at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is increasingly recognized by scholars as problematic regarding legal certainty. This Article seeks to illustrate why this is and to propose reform. Through comparing judicial approaches in the application of international law at the CJEU to its approach in internal case law, it is argued that in the frequent absence of proportionality in external case law the Court has utilized, redeployed, or varied other judicial devices in an effort to retain the discretion which proportionality affords. These are argued to effect legal certainty and established concepts of justice within the EU legal system. Accordingly, it is submitted that proportionality should be transplanted fully and openly to external relations case law and that support for this can be extrapolated from existing literature.

Blindfolded Justice never cracks a smile. Laws don't joke around. In Bertolt Brecht's The Caucasian Chalk Circle, People's Judge Azdak instructs us that “the law must always be dispensed with complete seriousness.” “Because it's such a serious matter,” Solomon would have said. “Because it's so stupid,” Azdak explains, “and gone before you know it.”

Suggested Citation: Peer Zumbansen, Contracting in the Internet: German Contract Law and Internet Auctions, 2 German Law Journal (2001), available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=65 “One Click, one buy, delivery within 48 hours”. Similar offers for goods of all kinds are common to the internet today. And yet, there is a great number of intricate problems involved with doing business in the internet. The uncertainties of doing business online have prompted an abundance on legislation, both on the European as well as the national level. Still, when turning to the courts for a clear doctrine of, say, the conclusion of contracts in the internet, there remains a considerable void. Cases addressing the question whether the fundamental contract rules apply to internet transactions have generally answered in the affirmative. But when the particularities of contractual governance in the internet are involved, the jurisprudence grows thin. In this respect two recent decisions by lower Courts in Germany that deal with the question of internet-auctions, merit closer attention. The Landgericht Münster's (Regional Court of the city Münster) ruling from the beginning of last year provoked considerable irritation and thereby illuminated how much the field remained in need of intensive judicial attention. In the same time period, the Amtsgericht Sinsheim (Local Court of the city Sinsheim) had simply affirmed conclusion of contract through an onlineauction in a similar case. The decision of the Münster Court was recently overruled by the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (OLG [Higher Regional Court in the city Hamm]). The appeal of the OLG Hamm decision to the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH [Federal Court of Justice]) is still pending. Because of their importance to the rapidly growing internet market place and the largely unresolved questions regarding contract law in that realm, the Landgericht Münster and OLG Hamm decisions merit attention, especially in anticipation of the BGH's ruling on the issues they raise.

Parallel to exponential proliferation and ever-increasing allegations of human rights violations by transnational corporations, the sparks produced by the friction between the normatively distinct disciplines of business and human rights have invited scrutiny across the media, academia, and industries alike. Given the fact that regulatory capacities of home and host states have evidenced an inability to keep pace with the developments, concerted efforts at the international level are imperative. By constructing its own benchmark of adequacy with reference to regulatory instruments' underlying objectives, this Article explores whether the existing regulatory framework is adequate, with a particular focus on the UN Framework and UN Guiding Principles—currently the most robust regime yet. The Article's analysis centers on (1) the terminologies utilized, (2) the human rights due diligence mechanism, and (3) access to remedies requirements, to reveal their inherent inadequacy with the hope of warning against uncritical acceptance and to inform future developments.

Derrida's death caused a surprising reaction in the media, being responsible for a great number of articles, commentaries and announcements. It seems that now, with his death, one of his inventions – the most famous and misinterpreted one which is widely used to define his philosophical style and which is known as “deconstruction” – has finally been understood. Fortunately, in the most respected newspapers in Brasil, articles with a good survey of Derrida's work were published not only by journalists but also by literary critics, economists, lawyers and psychoanalists. But, unfortunately, the philosophers, or the ones that call themselves philosophers, seem to have insisted on ignoring the fertility of his thoughts.

How could one conclude the preceding collection of texts and create the closure necessary for the recognizability, citability, and, indeed, untouchability of this “Special Section on Derrida” within the German Law Journal? And how could one determine the multiple significations of each and all these texts, and connect them through a single thread? And, finally, how is one to respond to the preceding questions? Do they call for an analytical reflection on the structural indeterminacy of conclusion, or for an ethical reflection on its justice?

This Article is dedicated to what is arguably one of the most significant tests to which constitutionalism has been subject to in recent times. It examines the theoretical and practical challenges to constitutionalism arising from the profound technological changes under the influence of artificial intelligence (AI) in our emerging algorithmic society. The unprecedented rapid development of AI technology has not only rendered conventional theories of modern constitutionalism obsolete, but it has also created an epistemic gap in constitutional theory. As a result, there is a clear need for a new, compelling constitutional theory that adequately accounts for the scale of technological change by accurately capturing it, engaging with it, and ultimately, responding to it in a conceptually and normatively convincing way.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that even when using trusted legal tools, courts may run into challenging problems. Governments reacted to an unprecedented (at least in the context of post-WW2 era of fundamental rights) global crisis by adopting measures that drastically limited fundamental rights in order to protect the lives and health of many. Courts, of course, were entrusted with protecting fundamental rights against governmental overreach. The question was, how strict should the courts be when reviewing governmental acts. On the one hand, they could have relied on substantive proportionality assessment. This option, however was virtually ignored and most courts have opted for a deferential approach. This article analyzes both of these approaches, their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately it argues that a third option - semiprocedural review - is the best way out of this judicial conundrum. Relying on comparative as well as theoretical arguments, it argues that semiprocedural review is the best way to deal with challenging empirical question - even under conditions of epistemological uncertainty.

Human existence and dignity, just like human unity itself, are not actually rights. The essence of humanity, as regards the law, is inaccessible. Because of this, human life and dignity are included in the catalogue of human rights and in modern constitutions as the sources of rights, as inviolable values beyond the law. The law must guarantee that these inviolable values are respected and protected.

In January 2003, two Yemeni citizens were arrested by German police forces at the airport of Frankfurt. The arrest took place pursuant to the request of an American judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action was considered to be a blow against international terrorism and should have demonstrated the functioning of the German-American cooperation in the war against this scourge. However, due to general considerations as well as the concrete circumstances of the case, the extradition of the two persons took more time than would be expected from a smoothly running cooperation. All legal remedies were exhausted in the Yemenis’ efforts to avoid extradition to the United States, and even now, an individual complaint has been brought before the European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg. The two Yemeni citizens were finally extradited more than ten months after their arrest in November 2003.

For the first time in the \“New Market\”\'s history, a claim for damages against Infomatec, a NEMAX-company has been ruled in favor of plaintiff. Nemax is the index in which New Market companies are quoted. On September 26, 2001, the Landgericht (Regional Court) Augsburg granted a compensation worth DM 100.000 for a former shareholder of Infomatec [\“company\”]. This article will first give a brief survey of the facts as well as an explanation of the so-called \“Ad Hoc-notifications\” under German securities law before outlining the Court\'s holding.