Hans Kelsen Memorial Lectures on International Peace and Security Law
The annual Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture honours the important legal theorist, constitutional and international law expert Hans Kelsen, who taught and served as dean at the University of Cologne before he was expelled by the National Socialists in 1933. Every year, a leading figure in international law is invited to honour him.
The series of publications edited by Claus Kreß documents these lectures.
Overview
Overview
Overview
Tenth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
Baltic Lessons for Europe: The Role of International Law in Responding to Russia's Aggression Against Ukraine
On December 11, 2025, the Institute for International Peace and Security Law under the direction of Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Dr. h.c. Claus Kreß LL.M (Cambridge) hosted the tenth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law.
This year's keynote lecture entitled “Baltic Lessons for Europe: The Role of International Law in Responding to Russia's Aggression Against Ukraine” was given by Dr. Gabija Grigaitė-Daugirdė. Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė teaches various disciplines of international law at the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University and is a former Deputy Minister of Justice and former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania.
In her keynote speech, Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė presented a Baltic perspective on the role of international law in dealing with Russia's war against Ukraine. As she explains in her introduction, the Russian aggression poses unprecedented challenges to international law, not least through the proposal of a peace plan that sidelined international law in favor of political expediency. The lecture focuses on a recapitulation of the Baltic states' historical experiences with Soviet imperialism and the role that international law has played in the history of those states. Building on this, Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė elaborates on how Lithuania's experiences with international law have shaped the country's diplomatic commitment to a strong international response to Russia's war of aggression.
She commences her presentation by reflecting on the annexation and occupation of the Baltic states, which had gained independence after World War I, by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991. During this period, Lithuania lost approximately one-third of its population through killings, deportations, and emigration. In her account of Soviet aggression and the restoration of Lithuanian independence in 1991, however, Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė also points out that legal proceedings addressing Soviet aggression and other crimes committed in this context have been limited to date.
Drawing upon these historical experiences, Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė presents the first of three Baltic lessons on the role of international law in responding to interstate violence: “International law liberates and limits justice at the same time.” She begins by describing the pivotal role of international law in affirming the continued existence of the Baltic states after 1940, which contradicts the Soviet claim that the Baltic States had ceased to exist by voluntarily joining the Soviet Union. In the speaker's view, however, Russia's war of aggression demonstrates that international law – and even the definition of a crime of aggression – fails to prevent interstate violence.
The second Baltic lesson focuses on the importance of court decisions in addressing violations of fundamental norms of international law. Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė recalls the Nuremberg Trials, whose central legacy she sees in the proof that criminal prosecution for waging a war of aggression can become reality. Against the backdrop of the failure to prosecute Soviet crimes under international law at the Nuremberg Trials, she also issues an urgent warning against political concessions in dealing with Russia's aggression, as such compromises could have devastating consequences for international peace in the long term. In this context, Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė recalls Lithuania's “own Nuremberg”, referring to rulings delivered by the European Court of Human Rights concerning allegations of genocide against former members of the Soviet state security service in connection with the occupation of Lithuania.
In her third lesson, entitled “Own your independence (and take good care of it)”, Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė turns her attention to other aspects of Lithuania's defense against Russia's hybrid warfare. In particular, she addresses Lithuania's efforts to achieve energy independence from Russia as well as its endeavors to combat Russian propaganda and disinformation. Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė also regards Lithuania's actions against Belarusian participation in Russia's war of aggression, which she discusses in more detail in her presentation, as an integral part of protecting Lithuanian independence.
Throughout her presentation, Dr. Grigaitė-Daugirdė emphasizes that the credibility of international law hinges on the imposition of clear legal consequences in response to Russia's war of aggression. In her view, achieving comprehensive justice for Ukraine preserves the very idea of international order and collective security. She therefore attaches particular importance to the criminal prosecution of Russia's political and military leadership for the crime of aggression and considers the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine to be a significant diplomatic achievement as well as the beginning of a new era of responsibility under international law. Nevertheless, she emphasizes that it remains to be seen whether the tribunal will be able to strengthen the credibility of international law in the long term and deter Russia's imperial foreign policy.
Ninth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
Conditioning-Speech, Aggression and the Evolution of Atrocity Speech Law
On 28 November 2024, Professor Gregory S. Gordon delivered the ninth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law. For the first time, the Lecture was given under the auspices not only of the Institute of International Peace and Security Law, but also of the Cologne Center of Advanced Studies for International History and Law. Professor Gordon currently teaches at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. In the past, Professor Gordon had, among many other things worked for the US Department of Justice, and as a member of the Prosecutions Media Crimes Team at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Professor Gordon had also taught at the University of North Dakota School of Law where he was the Director of the Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies (CHRGS).
The topic of the lecture was ‘Conditioning-Speech, Aggression and the Evolution of Atrocity Speech Law’. Professor Gordon gave his lecture a personal flavor in that he explained the impact that historic events, particularly the commission of macro-crimes, had on him since an early age and how the experience of such events had led to his desire to contribute to the prevention of future atrocities. He also illustrated how atrocities of the past had influenced both the legal evolution and his own perspective on the law. In particular, Professor Gordon recognized the immense significance of hate speech for the commission of crimes under international law and he provided an impressive account of past cases in which individuals had to answer for such speech, as for example in the context of the Nuremberg Trials and before ICTR. Professor Gordon set out the various stages of his scholarly work on ‘Atrocity Speech Law’, a term that he had coined and chosen as the title for his book on the subject published in 2017.
In the latter study, he had not, however, given closer attention to speech acts in relation to the commission of the crime of aggression. This changed under the impression of Russia’s full-fletched war of aggression against Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Professor Gordon initially focused on incitement to aggression. His perspective widened as a result of a co-authored study on Ossip Flechtheim’s Nuremberg investigation into Carl Schmitt’s possible criminal responsibility in the context of Nazi-Germany’s wars of aggression. Schmitt could be seen as having contributed, over an extended period of time, to the laying of the theoretical foundation for Germany’s wars of aggression, by putting forward, as between 1937 and 1945, his theory of ‘great spaces’ (“Großraum”). Professor Gordon considered the case of Carl Schmitt as one of many others that followed and had also already occurred in the past. For example, he mentioned the rhetoric used by Pope Urban II in the lead-up of the first crusade at the end of the 11th century.
Against this background, Professor Gordon proposed the new criminal offence of ‘Aggression-Conditioning Speech’ in order to cover the conduct of persons who create the theoretical basis for a subsequent war of aggression. The focus is not on speech that directly incites to violence but on the ideological conditioning of the addressees over a longer period of time. Professor Gordon recognized the groundwork laid by previous thinkers such as Vespasian V. Pella, who had advocated for the criminalization of propaganda for aggression already in the interwar period. Professor Gordon was sensitive to the need not to unduly curtail the freedom of expression and in order to avoid such a result he proposed five conditions that must all be met. These include, inter alia, the perpetrator's intention to cause aggression, but also the repetition of the relevant speech acts and the need for those acts to be followed by an actual aggression within a reasonably proximate period of time. Professor Gordon stressed that the new crime should not contain a leadership clause, as contained in the definition of the crime of aggression in Article 8bis of the ICC Statute. In his view, the holding of such a leadership is not necessary to exercise a dangerous conditioning effect in the direction of the commission of aggression. After having set out the contours of the new crime, he situated the latter in its systematic context of the inchoate crime of ‘Incitement to Aggression’ and ‘Aggression Speech Abetting’ as a form of individual participation in the crime of aggression.
Professor Gordon concluded his fascinating lecture by expressing the hope for a lively discussion of his reform proposal which would help him to flesh out the elements of the new crime in greater detail and nuance.
Eighth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
The Law of Belligerent Occupation and the West Bank: A Case Study
On July 3, 2024, the Institute for International Peace and Security Law under the direction of Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Dr. h.c. Claus Kreß LL.M (Cambridge) hosted the eighth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law.
This year, Prof. Dr. David Kretzmer, former Professor of International Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, gave the lecture entitled: “The law of belligerent occupation and the west bank: a case study”. Prof. Dr. Kretzmer was a member of the UN Human Rights Committee and is the founding director of the Minerva Centre for Human Rights.
Prof. Kretzmer began his lecture with a reference to the famous quote by Hersch Lauterpacht (“International law is at the vantage point of law”) by admitting that the lecture was “at the vantage point of law and politics”. He also recalled Hans Kelsen's vision of improving compliance in international law and in particular the law of armed conflict through judicial enforcement.
The core of the lecture revolved around the question of the tense relationship between a constitutional court, the government, and the general public. While the status of the West Bank as an occupied territory was still unsettled in the first years after 1967 and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions was denied, Prof. Kretzmer traced back the developments in the following decades using the position of the Supreme Court of Israel as an example. This court acts under great political pressure from the government of Israel. From an initially pragmatic approach, in which the court left open the applicability of the occupation regime in the Geneva Conventions and only examined the conformity of actual practices in the West Bank, the court finally arrived at its current position: the question of the legality of the settlements in the occupied territory is of political nature and therefore non-justiciable. Kretzmer highlighted that the highest national courts in particular act within an institutional political framework and that the domestic limits of foreign policy set by politicians have an impact on how the court assesses its own limited margin for action.
International law, Prof. Kretzmer concluded, could therefore not be understood separately from politics. International courts must take this into consideration when making decisions in highly politicized situations. Otherwise, the international community might lose trust in international justice and Kelsen's vision would remain a distant idea.
Seventh Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
Russia's War against Ukraine: What is the Role for International Courts?
On November 24, 2022, the Institute for International Peace and Security Law, led by its Director Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Dr. h.c. Claus Kreß LL.M (Cambridge), organized the seventh Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law.
This year, Dr. Mykola Gnatovskyy, former Professor of International Law at Taras Shevchenko University in Kiev, and new judge for Ukraine at the European Court of Human Rights as of April 26, 2022, gave the lecture on “Russia's War against Ukraine: What is the Role for International Courts?”.
Dr. Gnatovskyy opened his speech by referencing the first part of Hans Kelsen's work "Peace Through Law". In it, Kelsen explores how peace can be achieved and secured through compulsory, i.e., mandatory, jurisdiction. Against this backdrop, Judge Gnatovskys turned to the current institutionalized architecture of international law, in particular to international courts, in order to shed some light on their achievements, challenges and shortcomings.
Kelsen's idea of international courts exercising compulsory jurisdiction – not subject to the political circumstances in or consent of a state – was expressed by the latter as early as 1944. However, it has not yet been fully implemented, according to Dr. Mykola Gnatovskyy. Before the International Court of Justice as well as the International Criminal Court, the conduct of proceedings still depends on the (politically motivated) consent of certain states. Gnatovskyy pointed out that the involvement of international courts in the Ukraine conflict since 2014 has been limited to a few decisions so far, those being of provisional character in most cases. Departing from this, Dr. Gnatovskyy highlighted that international jurisdiction on the question of the legality of the use of force has not yet developed far, especially when measured against the goal formulated by Kelsen.
In the context of the war in Ukraine, Dr. Gnatovskyy emphasized the potential of the International Criminal Court. However, amendments to the International Criminal Court Statute are necessary in order to activate its potential in providing accountability concerning the crime of aggression. Alternatively – or cumulatively – a special tribunal for the crime of aggression would also be possible, ideally with the support of the United Nations. This possibility and its legal framework were discussed in greater depth in the subsequent round of questions.
Judge Gnatovskyy concluded by calling on international courts to see the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to demonstrate their relevance and fulfill their role in restoring peace.
This would also be a step in the spirit of Hans Kelsen: to create peace through law (and through courts applying this law).
Sixth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
A Means to an End: How Fritz Bauer used the Courtroom for a Reckoning with the German Past
On November 18, 2021, the Institute for International Peace and Security Law, led by its Director Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Dr. h.c. Claus Kreß LL.M (Cambridge), hosted its sixth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law.
Dr. Ronen Steinke, editor at the Süddeutsche Zeitung and author of the book "Fritz Bauer: oder Auschwitz vor Gericht", gave this year's keynote lecture entitled "A Means to an End: How Fritz Bauer used the Courtroom for a Reckoning with the German Past." Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the event was held in a hybrid format: The 2G+ rule applied within the hall while the event was simultaneously broadcast via livestream.
Dr. Steinke began his lecture by taking the audience to one day of the Auschwitz trial that occurred in November of 1964, from the perspective of journalist Horst Krüger. A journey through the life and work of Fritz Bauer ensued, who was to become one of the central drivers of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. According to Fritz Bauer's understanding of criminal law, who dedicated his life to ensuring the perpetrators of National Socialist crimes were held accountable, punishment could only pursue preventive purposes and is thus future-oriented. Dr. Steinke quoted Bauer's question: does it really make a difference if 40 more men were sent to prison or not? What, if not retribution, should be the aim of this trial, whose defendants seemingly no longer posed a threat to society and fit into post-war society in an almost eerily conformist manner, just as they had acted in conformity under the National Socialist regime? Dr. Steinke succeeded impressively in reconciling Bauer's understanding of criminal law with his practice as a public prosecutor. Contrary to what even admirers and students of Fritz Bauer criticized at the time of the Auschwitz trials, Dr. Steinke showed that there was not necessarily a contradiction between Fritz Bauer's theory and practice. In the Auschwitz trial, Bauer pursued the idea of prevention: not to prevent the commission of further crimes by the 22 defendants in Frankfurt, however, but towards the audience of the trial – the German population, who were able to get an idea of the extent of the horror in Auschwitz for the first time through the trials. Dr. Steinke impressively demonstrated that Bauer's implementation of his theory in practice also had a harsh consequence. Bauer ultimately saw the 22 defendants of the Auschwitz trials in Frankfurt, and he himself admitted this, at least as "scapegoats" who were needed to teach society a lesson and therefore as "A means to an end".
Fifth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
Iran, Nuclear Weapons and International Law - From a deal to a mess?
On November 26, 2020, the Institute for International Peace and Security Law, led by its Director Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Dr. h.c. Claus Kreß LL.M (Cambridge), hosted the fifth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law.
Dr. Masahiko Asada, Professor of International Law at Kyoto University and former President of the Japanese Society of International Law, gave this year's keynote lecture entitled "Iran, Nuclear Weapons and International Law - From a deal to a mess?". Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the lecture was held virtually, allowing the Institute to welcome numerous interested viewers from all over the world.
In his lecture, Dr. Masahiko Asada described the course of international tensions due to the Iranian nuclear program. By way of a coming to an agreement laid out in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), concerns should have been settled – at least in the foreseeable future. However, the withdrawal of the USA and Iran's disregard for certain treaty obligations have caused the conflict to come to a head once again. Dr. Masahiko Asada explained the complex content of the JCPoA and the developments since the USA withdrew from the agreement in detail. He then addressed questions raised by recent events: In August 2020, for example, the USA requested the UN Security Council trigger the "snapback" mechanism regulated in the nuclear agreement.
Dr. Masahiko Asada concluded the fifth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture by assessing the future of the nuclear agreement, especially in light of Joe Biden's election as next US President.
The sixth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law is eagerly awaited.
Fourth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
Silencing Diaspora Dissent: Mapping Responses to Clandestine - or not so Clandestine - Extraterritorial Assassinations
On November 28, 2019, the Institute for International Peace and Security Law hosted the fourth annual Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law.
This year, Dr. Larissa van den Herik, Vice-Dean of Leiden Law School of Public International Law at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies at Leiden University, was invited to honor the great international law scholar. She gave a lecture entitled: “Silencing Diaspora Dissent: Mapping Responses to Clandestine – or not so clandestine – Extraterritorial Assassinations”.
Dr. Larissa van den Herik began her lecture by listing the cases of Khashoggi, Skripal, Kim Jong-Nam and the Mykonos-assassination as examples to outline the topic in more detail. She argues that these incidents should not be viewed in isolation but rather be placed in a wider context. In doing so, she focused on changes in the way these killings were committed and derived specific legal questions from this.
We would like to thank Dr. Larissa van den Herik for her fascinating insights and the equally inspiring private seminar on the following day. We would also like to thank Prof. Kreß for making this event possible.
The fifth Hans Kelsen Lecture is already eagerly awaited.
Third Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law
Peace Through Law? International Norms, Transitional Justice and the Negotiation of Peace and Security Lawin the Sudans
On 8 November 2018 the Institute for International Peace and Security Law, directed by Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Dr. h.c. Claus Kreß, held its third Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture on International Peace and Security Law.
This annual lecture series is organized to honour Hans Kelsen, the renowned expert in legal theory, constitutional law and international law. He had accepted the University of Cologne's call to join its Law Faculty and served as its dean before being forced to flee from the Nazis in 1933. In his honour, every year the University of Cologne invites an authority in the field of international law to speak. Last year Professor Sarah Cleveland, the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and Constitutional Rights at Columbia Law School in New York accepted the Institute's invitation.
This year the Institute welcomed Ms Dr. Sarah Nouwen as its keynote speaker who spoke on the subject of "Peace Through Law? International Norms, Transitional Justice and the Negotiation of Peace in the Sudans". Ms Nouwen is assistant director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at Cambridge University and a world renowned voice on the topic of transitional justice.
Following the ceremonial greeting by Professor Kreß, Dr. Sarah Nouwen began her lecture by touchingly pointing out that Hans Kelsen had been Sir Hersch Lauterpacht's doctoral superviser - who was the founder and namesake of her Institute - saying the connection of her Institute to this lecture series was only natural.
Starting with Hans Kelsen and his work on the the relationship between law and peace she then linked it to the burning question of today: how to transition from war to peace in post-conflict societies.
Having raised this question, she presented different conceptions of transitional justice, ranging from a deontologial approach which considers transitional justice as a possibility to realise human rights in a post-conflict society to a consequential approach, which views transitional justice as a toolbox in achieving various goals in post-conflict societies. She then discussed the International Criminal Court's role in conflicts and named Columbia as a positive example of how the Court helped the peace process by being involved but at the same time showing restraint.
She stressed the need for legal professionals to examine the specific implementation or non-implementation of individual peace treaties in order to gain the full picture of their normative values. In any case, it would be fatal and could lead to disappointment in societies if political expectations were equated to legal normes.
Besides this very interesting examination of this new legal field of transitional justice, the audience was especially moved by her sharing interviews she had conducted with former parties to the conflicts, political actors and survivors in Uganda and Sudan.
This inspirational lecture by Dr. Nouwen then offered the guests of the Third Hans Kelsen Lecturean opportunity to delve into an indepth discussion at the reception that followed in the University's main building as well as at a private seminar with her and the Institute's team the following day.
The Institute for International Peace and Security team expresses its gratitude to Professor Kreß for once again making such a successful academic exchange possible and is already looking forward to the fourth Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture next year!
Second Hans Kelsen Memorial Lectures on International Peace and Security Law
Strengthening Legal Protections in Modern Armed Conflict
»Zweimal macht noch kein Gewohnheitsrecht, es sei denn, wir gehen von ›instant custom‹ aus«. Mit diesen Worten begrüßte Professor Claus Kreß, Direktor des Institute for International Peace and Security Law der Universität zu Köln, zur zweiten »Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture« seines Instituts. Es hinderte ihn und die geladenen Gäste freilich nicht, den feierlichen Anlass entsprechend zu begehen. Festrednerin war Sarah Cleveland, Professorin an der New Yorker Columbia Universität und US-Expertin im UN-Menschenrechtsausschuss. Sie sprach zum Thema »Strengthening Legal Protections in Modern Armed Conflicts«.
Cleveland begann ihren Vortrag mit der Feststellung, dass internationale bewaffnete Konflikte weit genauer geregelt seien als nicht-internationale bewaffnete Konflikte. Dies habe historische Gründe, zeige jedoch ein Missverhältnis auf, da 80 % der Opfer von bewaffneten Konflikten seit 1945 solche in nicht-internationalen seien. Die bestehenden Regelungen – der Gemeinsame Art. 3 der Genfer Konventionen sowie das Zusatzprotokoll II (soweit ratifiziert) – ließen viele Fragen unbeantwortet. Zudem gebe es Probleme bei der Klassifikation von bewaffneten Konflikten und – im Falle von einer Staatenallianz bei nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten – Koordinationsschwierigkeiten zwischen solchen Staaten, die das Zusatzprotokoll II ratifiziert hätten, und solchen, für die nur der Gemeinsame Artikel 3 der Genfer Konventionen gelte. Dies führe zu Rechts- und Schutzlücken.
Staaten hätten begonnen, auf diese Schwierigkeiten zu reagieren; so sähen manche Militärhandbücher etwa die Anwendung von einigen Regeln des internationalen bewaffneten Konflikts für bestimmte Situationen der nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikte vor. Allerdings geschehe dies meist als politische Entscheidung und nicht in dem Bewusstsein, sich einer rechtlichen Pflicht zu unterwerfen.
Der Umstand, dass der nicht-internationale bewaffnete Konflikt nicht umfassend geregelt sei, sei besonders auf drei Aspekte zurückzuführen. Zum einen auf den Umstand, dass sich Völkerrecht traditionell an Staaten richte und dabei deren Souveränität besonders schütze. Regelungen für nicht-internationale bewaffnete und damit häufig interne Konflikte seien deshalb hauptsächlich den nationalen Rechtsordnungen überlassen worden. Zum anderen seien Staaten nur ungern bereit, einer nicht-staatlichen Gegenpartei den Status von Kombattanten zu verleihen. Neben bestimmten Rechten verleihe ihnen dies auch Legitimität. Schließlich verlange das traditionelle Recht der bewaffneten Konflikte eine gleichmäßige Anwendung der Regeln durch alle Parteien des Konflikts. Realistisch könnten jedoch viele bewaffnete Gruppen detaillierte und umfassende Pflichten (wie die Regeln des internationalen bewaffneten Konflikts) gar nicht umsetzen; würde man jedoch die Pflichten der Staaten an die Fähigkeiten der bewaffneten Gruppen angleichen, so führe dies zu einem Unterbietungswettlauf (›race to the bottom‹).
Lösungsansätze, um vor diesem Hintergrund den Herausforderungen des nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikts Herr zu werden, seien zahlreich. Jeder dieser Vorschläge könne helfen; allerdings adressierten sie häufig nur einzelne Aspekte von Konflikten (wie Internierungen), seien nicht bindend (wie die ›Copenhagen Process Principles and Guidelines on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations‹), nicht spezifisch genug oder umstritten (wie die Studien des Internationalen Komitees vom Roten Kreuz zum Gewohnheitsrecht). Diese Ideen könnten deshalb keine umfassende kurz- oder mittelfristige Lösung für eine Regelung von nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten bieten.
Cleveland ging dann eingehender auf zwei weitere Lösungsmöglichkeiten ein. Zunächst sprach sie die Möglichkeit der Anwendung von Menschenrechten im bewaffneten Konflikt an. Die Vorstellung, dass Menschenrechte in Friedenszeiten, Konfliktsvölkerrecht jedoch in Zeiten des Krieges gelte, sei ahistorisch und nicht belegbar; vielmehr seien Derogationsklauseln ein Hinweis darauf, dass Menschenrechte auch in bewaffneten Konflikten Anwendung fänden (wenn keine entsprechende Erklärung erfolge). Für nicht-internationale bewaffnete Konflikte bestünde dabei in besonderem Maße die Möglichkeit der Anwendung von Menschenrechten (nicht zuletzt wegen der beschriebenen geringen Regelungsdichte).
Allerdings stellt die Anwendung von Menschenrechten im nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikt auch nur eine Teillösung dar und sei weiteren Herausforderungen wie der Frage der extraterritorialen Anwendbarkeit und Anwendung von Menschenrechten ausgesetzt. Zudem gaben Menschenrechtsregime nicht immer eine Antwort auf konkrete Fragen, was dann doch einen Blick ins Recht der bewaffneten Konflikte erforderlich mache (und sei es als Analogie aus dem Recht der internationalen bewaffneten Konflikte). Allerdings sahen viele Menschenrechtsregime prozedurale Pflichten vor, die auch individuelle Rechtsbehelfe enthielten. Dies sei vielleicht der wichtigste Beitrag, den Menschenrechte zur Regelung von nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten leisten könnten.
Daneben gibt es eine zweite Möglichkeit: Staaten könnten unilateral in nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten die Regeln für den internationalen bewaffneten Konflikt anwenden. In der Praxis geschieht es bereits heute, dass diese Regelungen von Staaten für bestimmte Fragestellungen im nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikt herangezogen oder auch direkt angewendet würden – dann jedoch meist als politische Entscheidung und nicht im Bewusstsein einer rechtlichen Pflicht. Zudem geschieht es nur bezogen auf einzelne Konstellationen, wie den Umgang mit Krankenhäusern als mögliches legitimes Ziel, und nicht umfassend, was die Gefahr eines Rosinenpickens mit sich bringt. Cleve-land hat vor diesem Hintergrund mit Sir Daniel Bethlehem eine gemeinsame Forschungsgruppe gebildet, bestehend aus wissenschaftlichen und praktisch tätigen Experten aus verschiedenen Staaten. Diese Gruppe sei die Regelungen des internationalen bewaffneten Konfliktes Artikel für Artikel durchgegangen und habe diese daraufhin überprüft, ob sie auch im nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikt aus praktischen Gesichtspunkten zur Anwendung kommen könnten. Ergebnis sei ein Regelungsregime für den nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikt, das – mit einigen spezifischen Ausnahmen – die Regeln des internationalen bewaffneten Konflikts enthalte. Dieses Regime könne nun von Staaten unilateral für die eigenen Streitkräfte als in nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten bindend erklärt werden.
Die Vorteile dieser Lösung seien, dass damit ein detailliertes Regelungsregime auch für nicht-internationale bewaffnete Konflikte entstehe, das die Disparität zwischen dem Recht der bewaffneten Konflikte und Menschenrechten verringere, die Koordinationsschwierigkeiten zwischen Staaten, für die unterschiedliche Regelungen gelten, reduziere sowie beweise, dass die Möglichkeit zur Anwendung der Regelungen des internationalen bewaffneten Konflikts im nicht-internationale bewaffneten Konflikt bestehe. Letzteres könne den Trend zu einer vereinheitlichten Regelung verstärken. Die einseitige Erklärung biete eine kurz- und mittelfristige Lösung zu erhöhter Rechtssicherheit und einem höheren Schutzniveau in Zeiten, in denen ein Konsens von Staaten zu weiteren Kodifizierungen unrealistisch erscheine.
Das Projekt berücksichtigt vier Punkte besonders. Zum einen gehe es um einen umfassenden Ansatz, der ein Rosinenpicken verhindert. Die Idee der unilateralen Erklärung von Staatensollte zudem nicht als eine rein politische Entscheidung verstanden werden, sondern mit rechtlicher Bindungswirkung ausgestattet werden. Dies erhöhe die Schutzwirkung und Legitimität und erleichtere die Koordination zwischen Staaten. Eine einseitige Erklärung von staatlicher Seite breche mit einem der Grundprinzipien des humanitären Völkerrechts: der gleichmäßigen Anwendung der Regelungen. Jedes andere Vorgehen, was die Regelungen im nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikt ausbauen solle, würde die bewaffneten Gruppen mit unrealistischen Pflichten belasten. Allerdings ist dieses Vorgehen nicht grundsätzlich revolutionär. So richtet sich Menschenrechtliche Pflichten auch primär an den Staat. Schließlich sei zu berücksichtigen, dass Ziel der Anwendung von Regelungen des internationalen bewaffneten Konflikts nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikten nicht das Absenken des Schutzniveaus sei und auch nicht die Schwelle, ab der von einem nicht-internationalen bewaffneten Konflikt gesprochen werde, angehoben werden solle. Insbesondere auch Menschenrechtliche Verpflichtungen der einzelnen Staaten blieben bestehen und ergänzten die Regelungen – gerade durch Verfahrensrechte von Individuen.
Selbst wenn mit der zweiten »Hans Kelsen Memorial Lecture« noch keine rechtlich verbindliche Gewohnheit begründet worden sein sollte, so waren sich die Gäste beim anschließenden Empfang doch einig, dass es sich um eine sehr schöne entstehende Tradition des Kölner Instituts für Friedens-sicherungsrecht handelt, die auch diesmal wieder reichlich Anregung für vertiefte Diskussionen und Nachdenken bereithielt. Genau dies hat sich das Institute for International Peace and Security Law zur Aufgabe für Forschung und Lehre gemacht und behandelt unter der Leitung von Claus Kreß seit 2012 Fragen zu ius contra bellum, ius in bello sowie zu den Herausforderungen von transitional justice und Völkerstrafrecht.
First Hans Kelsen Memorial Lectures on International Peace and Security Law
Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt and Hermann Jahrreiß at Cologne and Nuremberg