Thesis (J.S.D.)--University of Chicago Law School, 2003. / "June 2003." Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (J.S.D.)--University of Chicago Law School, 2003. / "June 2003." Includes bibliographical references.

Published also as inaugural dissertation, Kiel. / "Literaturverzeichnis": p. 205-215.

No description available.

Pacifism and realism both presuppose an unbridgeable gap between war and morality. The pacifist, abhorring the suffering caused by violence, concludes that war is the consummate evil and rejects it under any circumstances. The realist, beginning from a similar assessment regarding the evil of war, concludes that those who bring war on a peaceful nation deserve all the maledictions its people can pour out. These views reflect the negative duty not intentionally to harm innocent persons, on one hand, and the positive obligation that innocent persons be protected, on the other. The pacifist views the prohibition against harming others as more fundamental; the realist accepts the positive duty to protect others as more basic. Historically, the just war tradition has provided an alternative to these extremes. Recent events in the conduct of wars around the world have, however, called into question the relevancy of certain aspects of the just war tradition for modern wars. In this work I critically examine the notion of a just war in terms of both jus ad bellum, or the justifications for going to war, and jus in bello, or the just means of waging war, as it is reflected in international law. I begin with a discussion of various formulations of the realist's and pacifist's positions and argue that the just war tradition provides a reasonable alternative to either of these extremes. I then briefly trace the historical development of the just war tradition beginning with Roman Law. The purpose of this historical analysis is to identify those moral principles and arguments that inspired the development of various aspects of the just war tradition so that these same principles and arguments can be used as a basis for reevaluating existing rules in light of modern tactics and technology. Finally, I expose and discuss serious deficiencies with the way the just war tradition is reflected in current international law and offer proposals for how these problems might be addressed. My conclusion is that the just war tradition can provide effective guidelines for ameliorating the tragedy of war now and into the 21st Century if the issues I identify are adequately addressed.

No description available.

This thesis develops a theoretical account of the basis and justification for the doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterptise in international criminal law by examining principles governing the ascription of criminal responsibility in English and German criminal law. The first part consists of a comprehensive review of the development of the JCE doctrine, including its historical antecedents, its initial formulation by the ICTY, its subsequent explication by tribunals and academics, and recent alternatives doctrines proposed by the ICC and by commentators. It identifies the main loopholes and contradictions in the construction of these theories, and presents factual scenarios for which these theories, particularly JCE, either have no answers, or problematic ones. The second part examines whether any of the variants of JCE can be justified as principal responsibility. It first identifies elements that distinguish international crimes from their domestic counterparts, and which are pertinent in developing an account of criminal responsibility for international crimes. It also examines the concept of perpetration responsibility in English and German criminal law and theory. It then combines the insights gleaned from these analyses to conclude that only JCE I can be appropriately considered as perpetrator responsibility and proposes a modified version of the doctrine of Organisationsherrschaft in German criminal law as a more accurate characterisation of the role and function of high level participants in mass atrocity. The final part focuses on the concept of accomplice responsibility in German and English criminal law and doctrine to address whether JCE II and JCE III can be justified as modes of secondary criminal responsibility. It concludes that JCE II and JCE III can be retained as distinct modes of accomplice liability using expressive and risk justifications, provided their operation is limited in ways that correspond to principles of secondary responsibility in domestic jurisdictions.

This thesis is concerned with whether international law is capable of evolving to adequately address the adverse impact of international trade practices on the billions of people living in poverty in the world today. To this end, it explores international law’s capacity to integrate ethical obligations into international trade through the hypothetical construction of an ‘international obligation to trade fairly’. Obligations of fairness in international law are defined as necessitating the construction of an obligation to not restrict processes of democracy and distributive justice between individuals and the state. The application of this obligation on international trade is considered necessary in light of global economic interdependence, which has diminished the capacity of the state. An examination of the extent to which such a norm already exists is undertaken before considering the internal and external limitations to the universalization of such a norm. The central obstacles concerning the proposed obligation are identified as relating to the subject of the obligation and the normative force of the obligation. It is argued that due to the ideology and, inter-relatedly, the structure of international law, these obstacles cannot be readily overcome without radical reform.

No description available.

This thesis aims to underline the paradox surrounding cartels in general and international cartels in particular. While they are almost unanimously recognised as the most egregious form of antitrust violations, real political willingness fails to fight efficiently against cartels. Notwithstanding, this paper shows why international cooperation is essential but still unsatisfactory in eliminating international cartels through concrete examples in domestic laws, such as the Fine Arts Auctions Case and export cartel configurations. Existing national and international instruments present advantages and disadvantages. International competition law, including international cartel issues, is still subject to virulent debates within the international community, particularly with respect to the future of a WTO Multilateral Agreement. It raises the question as to what can be suggested in order to solve aspects of these debates in a satisfactory manner and thereby contribute---modestly---to ameliorate the fight against international cartels.