ORCID Profile
0000-0003-4425-6246
Current Organisation
Murdoch University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Nomos
Date: 2016
Publisher: Mohr Siebeck
Date: 2003
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 2003
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Date: 2022
Publisher: Brill | Nijhoff
Date: 2014
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 12-02-2014
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 07-09-2015
Publisher: Mohr Siebeck
Date: 2020
Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing
Date: 28-02-2013
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 06-1999
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156599000151
Abstract: This decision of the House of Lords is significant because it is the first decision of a major court of an important country refusing to grant a former head of state immunity from adjudication in the context of alleged gross violations of human rights. It is shown that state immunity, diplomatic immunity and head of state immunity are to be distinguished and the rules pertaining to head of state immunity are explained. Whereas the author agrees with the result of Lords' decision, he disagrees with the reasoning because the majority circumvented the immunity question by artificially qualifying the alleged human rights violations of General Pinochet as private acts.
Publisher: Mohr Siebeck
Date: 2012
Publisher: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
Date: 2012
Publisher: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften
Date: 2001
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 03-2000
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156500000169
Abstract: The third decision of the House of Lords in the Pinochet matter is significant, because the House of Lords upheld the majority view taken in the first decision: heads of state can, under certain circumstances, be held responsible for gross violations of human rights in the criminal courts of a foreign country. The decision is based on three main pillars. The Lords had, first, to clarify what constitutes an extradition crime under the Extradition Act 1989 second, to construct torture as an international crime and, finally, to reject the plea of immunity of a former head of state in the context of the international crime of torture.
Publisher: Nomos
Date: 2015
Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Date: 25-10-2019
Abstract: The relationship between the European Union (EU) and its member states has recently been the subject of several legal proceedings in the German Federal Constitutional Court (GFCC) and the European Court of Justice. The backdrop to the underlying controversies were policies instituted by the European Central Bank (ECB) dealing with the economic and monetary situation in various member states in the context of the sovereign debt crises to influence interest rates, combat deflationary tendencies and keep inflation under but close to the ECB’s 2% inflation target. Especially so-called outright monetary transactions (OMTs) and the corresponding OMT-program and a particular high volume public sector asset purchasing program (PSPP) announced by the ECB have been controversially discussed. Legally, the controversies are about the prohibition for the ECB to finance debt held by the EU or member states (Article 123 TFEU) and about the delineation of economic policy (Article 119 et seq . TFEU), which lies in the hands of the members states, and monetary policy (Article 127 et seq . TFEU), which is exclusively in the hands of the ECB. The GFCC in its decisions propagated a restrictive approach emphasizing the role of the member states and pointing to the doctrines developed by it around ultra vires acts and so-called identity review. This paper attempts to shed some light on this controversy and argues that beyond the legal controversy lies a deeper problem of the relationship between judicial and political decision-making that the GFCC should exercise restraint in exercising its functions and remember its own doctrine of “open constitutional norms” developed in a different context but applicable here as well.
No related grants have been discovered for Jurgen Brohmer.