Cover des Buchs: Facts Before the European Court of Human Rights
Monographie Open Access Vollzugriff

Facts Before the European Court of Human Rights

How does the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) contend with facts, and how can principles of scientific method be used to critique the factual analyses by the ECtHR in its case-law?
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2022

Zusammenfassung

Diese Arbeit zielt darauf ab, die Tatsachenfeststellungsverfahren des EGMR zu beleuchten, und schlägt vor, dass Prinzipien der wissenschaftlichen Methode angewandt werden können, um die Praxis des EGMR zu analysieren und einer Kritik zu unterziehen. Der Beitrag dieser Doktorarbeit besteht darin, einen analytischen Reflexionsrahmen bereitzustellen, um Fehler in den Tatsachenanalysen durch den EGMR aufzudecken, und somit eine neue wissenschaftliche Perspektive auf EGMR-Entscheide zu bieten.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2022
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8985-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-3322-9
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Schriftenreihe Europäisches Recht, Politik und Wirtschaft
Band
402
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
201
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 14 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. Introduction 15 - 16 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. 1. What Are Facts?
      1. a. Fragmentation
      2. b. International Law and Domestic Law
      3. c. Multi-Perspectivity and Agenda-Setting
    3. 3. Defining Fact-Assessment
      1. a. Ascertaining ‘the Truth’?
      2. b. Other (Potentially Competing) Goals
      3. c. Truth Founded on Evidence
        1. i. Power to Order Parties to Produce Evidence
        2. ii. Power to Conduct Own Investigations
        3. iii. Power to Engage Experts
        1. i. Admissibility of Evidence
        2. ii. The Burden of Proof
          1. (1) Prima Facie Evidence
          2. (2) Preponderance of Evidence
          3. (3) Beyond Reasonable Doubt
      1. a. Applications Before the ECtHR
      2. b. Final Assessment of the Facts
      3. c. Rules on Fact-Assessment and Evidence Before the ECtHR
      4. d. Subsidiarity and Fact-Assessment
    7. 7. Conclusion
  4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. 1. Interdisciplinarity and International Legal Theory
      1. a. Pragmatism
      2. b. The First Step to Interdisciplinarity: Pragmatist Wariness of Dichotomies
      3. c. The Second Step to Interdisciplinarity: the Importance of Context to Inquiry
    3. 3. Positivism’s Arguments against Interdisciplinarity
      1. a. The Chicken or the Egg? – or the Wandering Gaze
      2. b. Adjudicative Facts and Legislative Facts
      3. c. The Intrinsic Link between Facts and Law before the ECtHR
    5. 5. Conclusion
  5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. 1. Principles of Scientific Method
        1. i. The Principle
        2. ii. Case Analysis
        3. iii. Summary and Comment
        1. i. The Principles
        2. ii. Case Analysis
        3. iii. Summary and Comment
        1. i. The Principle
        2. ii. Case Analysis
        3. iii. Summary and Comment
      1. a. Focusing on the Quality of the Fact-Assessment Procedure
      2. b. How Do These Categories Change the Critique of Jurisprudence?
  6. Conclusion 177 - 180 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  7. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. ECtHR Cases
    2. ICJ Cases
    3. WTO Cases
    4. Cases from Other Jurisdictions
  8. List of Legislation 187 - 188 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  9. Bibliography 189 - 198 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  10. List of Abbreviations 199 - 201 Download Kapitel (PDF)

Literaturverzeichnis (201)

  1. ACHR: American Convention on Human Rights, Pact of San José, Costa Rica, adopted on 22 November 1969, available at <https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  2. Annex 2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994, adopted on 2 March 1955, available at <https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/20-val.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  3. Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, CETS No. 197, entered into force 1 February 2008, available at <https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/197>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  4. DSU: Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes, Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement, available at <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dsu_e.htm>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  5. ECHR Protocol No. 11: Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Restructuring the Control Machinery established thereby, 11.V.1994, ETS 155, available at <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Library_Collection_P11_ETS155E_ENG.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  6. ECHR Protocol No. 14: Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the Control System of the Convention, 13.V.2004, CETS 194, available at <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Library_Collection_P14_ETS194E_ENG.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  7. ECHR: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), as amended, available at <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  8. ECJ Statute: Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, available at <https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-08/tra-doc-en-div-c-0000-2016-201606984-05_00.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  9. ECSC Treaty: Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, available at <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Axy0022>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  10. ECtHR Rules of Court: Rules of Court, European Court of Human Rights, amended on 2 June 2021, available at <https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/rules_court_eng.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  11. EFTA Statute: Statute of the European Free Trade Agreement Court (amended 2010), available at <https://eftacourt.int/the-court/statute/>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  12. Euratom Statute: Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ C 327 (26 October 2012), available at <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012A%2FTXT>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  13. IACtHR Rules of Procedure: Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, approved on 16–25 November 2000, available at <https://www.oas.org/36ag/english/doc_referencia/Reglamento_CorteIDH.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  14. ICJ Rules of Court: Rules of Court (1978), entry into force on 1 July 1978, available at <https://www.icj-cij.org/en/rules>, last accessed on 12 July ne 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  15. ICJ Statute: Statute of the International Court of Justice, available at <https://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  16. ICSID Convention: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Convention Arbitration Rules, entry into force on 14 October 1966, available at <https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/ICSID%20Convention%20English.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  17. Iran-US Claims Tribunal Rules of Procedure: Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 3 May 1983, available at <http://www.iusct.net/General%20Documents/5-TRIBUNAL%20RULES%20OF%20PROCEDURE.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  18. ITLOS Rules of the Tribunal: International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Rules, adopted on 28 October 1997, available at <https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/basic_texts/Itlos_8_E_17_03_09.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  19. ITLOS Statute: Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, available at <https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/statute_en.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  20. PCA Arbitration Rules: Permanent Court of Arbitration Rules 2012, available at <https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/pca-arbitration-rules-2012/>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  21. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 55/25 of 15 November 2000, available at <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/protocoltraffickinginpersons.aspx>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  22. Rome Statute: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in force on 1 July 2002, UNTS vol. 2187 No. 38544, available at <https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdf>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  23. SCM Agreement: Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, available at <https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm_01_e.htm>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  24. UNGA Declaration on Fact-finding by the United Nations in the Field of the Maintenance of International Peace and Security: UN GA Res. A/RES/46/59, 9 December 1991, available at <https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_46-59/ga_46-59.html>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  25. Aleinikoff A, ‘Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing’ (1987) 96 Yale Law Journal 943 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  26. Alston P and Knuckey S, ‘The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding: Challenges and Oppotunities’ in Philip Alston and Sarah Knuckey (eds), The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding (Oxford University Press 2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  27. Altwicker T, ‘Evidenzbasiertes Recht und Verfassungsrecht’ (2019) 138(2) Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 181 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  28. Altwicker T, ‘Völkerrecht und Rechtspositivismus - Eine Annäherung mit Kelsen und Hart’ (2012) 10 Zeitschrift für Rechtsphilosophie 46 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  29. Altwicker T and Diggelmann O, ‘How Is Progress Constructed in International Legal Scholarship?’ (2014) 25 European Journal of International Law 425 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  30. Altwicker T and Hansen AE, ‘Presumptions in International Human Rights Adjudication’ (forthcoming, on file with author) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  31. Alvarez JE, ‘Are International Judges Afraid of Science?: A Comment on Mbengue’ (2011) 34 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 81 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  32. Amerasinghe CF, Evidence in International Litigation (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  33. Arnardóttir OM, ‘Res Interpretata, Erga Omnes Effect and the Role of the Margin of Appreciation in Giving Domestic Effect to the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2017) 28 European Journal of International Law 819 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  34. Baade HW, ‘Social Science Evidence and the Federal Constitutional Court of West Germany’ (1961) 23 The Journal of Politics 421 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  35. Barceló III JJ, ‘Burden of Proof, Prima Facie Case and Presumption in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (2009) Paper 119 Cornell Law Faculty Publications 23 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  36. Behboodi R, ‘“Should” Means “Shall”: A Critical Analysis of the Obligation to Submit Information Under Article 13.1 of the DSU in the Canada - Aircraft Case’ (2000) 3 Journal of International Economic Law 563 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  37. Benvenisti E, ‘Margin of Appreciation, Consensus and Universal Standards’ 31 New York Journal of International Law and Policy 843 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  38. Bernardino AL, ‘The Discursive Construction of Facts in International Adjudication’ [2020] Journal of International Dispute Settlement 175 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  39. Besson S, ‘Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Law-What Is Subsidiary About Human Rights?’ (2016) 61 American Journal of Jurisprudence 69 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  40. Besson S and Martí JL, ‘Legitimate Actors of International Law-Making: Towards a Theory of International Democratic Representation’ (2018) 9 Jurisprudence 504 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  41. Bianchi A, International Law Theories (Oxford University Press 2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  42. Bowett DW and others, ‘Efficiency of Procedures and Working Methods: Report of the Study Group Established by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law as a Contribution to the UN Decade of International Law’ (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  43. Bratcher Goodwin M (ed), Baby Markets - Money and the New Politics of Creating Families (Cambridge University Press 2010) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  44. Brems E, ‘Moving Away from N v UK – Interesting Tracks in a Dissenting Opinion (Tatar v Switzerland)’ (Strasbourg Observers) <https://strasbourgobservers.com/2015/05/04/moving-away-from-n-v-uk-interesting-tracks-in-a-dissenting-opinion-tatar-v-switzerland/>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  45. Brems E, ‘Thank You, Justice Tulkens: A Comment on the Dissent in N v UK’ (Strasbourg Observers) <https://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/08/14/thank-you-justice-tulkens-a-comment-on-the-dissent-in-n-v-uk/#more-1685>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  46. Breuer M, ‘“Principled Resistance” to ECtHR Judgments: An Appraisal’ in Marten Breuer (ed), Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm? (Springer 2019) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  47. Brown C, A Common Law of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press 2009) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  48. Brunner A, ‘Subsidiaritätsgrundsatz und Tatsachenfeststellung unter der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention’, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 283 (Springer 2019) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  49. Bürli N, Third-Party Interventions before the European Court of Human Rights: Amicus Curiae, Member-State and Third-Party Interventions (Intersentia 2017) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  50. Cassese S, ‘Ruling Indirectly Judicial Subsidiarity in the ECtHR’ Paper for the Seminar on “Subsidiarity: a double sided coin?" held to coincide with the ceremony marking the official opening of the judicial year of the European Court of Human Rights, 30 January 2015 1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  51. Chang YC, ‘How Does the Amicus Curiae Submission Affect a Tribunal Decision?’ (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 647 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  52. Charney JI and others, ‘The “Horizontal”Growth of International Courts and Tribunals: Challenges Or Opportunities?’ (2002) 96 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  53. Christoffersen J, Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights (Nijhoff 2009) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  54. Clermont KM and Sherwin E, ‘A Comparative View of Standards of Proof’ (2002) 50 American Journal of Comparative Law 243 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  55. Crawford J, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  56. D’Aspremont J, Participants in the International Legal System - Multiple Perspectives on Non-State Actors in International Law (Jean D’Aspremont ed, 2011) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  57. D’Aspremont J and Mbengue MM, ‘Strategies of Engagement with Scientific Fact-Finding in International Adjudication’ (2013) 05 Amsterdam Center for International Law Research Paper Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  58. Damaška M, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  59. Danisch R, Pragmatism, Democracy, and the Necessity of Rhetoric (University of South Carolina Press 2007) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  60. David V and Ganty S, ‘Strasbourg Fails to Protect the Rights of People Living in or at Risk of Poverty: The Disappointing Grand Chamber Judgment in Garib v the Netherlands’ (Strasbourg Observers) <https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/11/16/strasbourg-fails-to-protect-the-rights-of-people-living-in-or-at-risk-of-poverty-the-disappointing-grand-chamber-judgment-in-garib-v-the-netherlands/#more-4046>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  61. Davis KC, ‘An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process’ (1942) 55 Harvard Law Review 364 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  62. de Been W, Taekema S and van Klink B, ‘Introduction: Facts, Norms and Interdisciplinary Research’ in Wouter de Been, Sanne Taekema and Bart van Klink (eds), Facts and Norms in Law - Interdisciplinary Reflections on Legal Method (Edward Elgar 2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  63. Dellavalle S, ‘International Law and Interdisciplinarity’ (2020) MPIL Research Paper Series Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  64. Descartes, R, Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Science (John Veitch trans., Cosimo Books 1st ed. 2008) (1924) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  65. Devaney JG, Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice (Cambridge University Press 2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  66. Dewey J, ‘Context and Thought’ (1931) 12 University of California Publications in Philosophy 203 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  67. Dewey J, ‘The Quest for Certainty’ in Jo Ann Boydston (ed), The Later Works, 1925-1953, Volume 4 (Southern Illinois University Press 1984) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  68. Dodge WS, ‘Res Judicata’ (Jaunary 2006), in Peters A and Wolfrum R (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  69. Dworkin R, ‘Pragmatism, Right Answers and True Banality’ in Michael Brint and William Weaver (eds), Pragmatism in Law and Society (Westview Press 1991) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  70. Dwyer D, The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence (Cambridge University Press 2008) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  71. Dzehtsiarou K, ‘European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 1730 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  72. ECtHR, ‘Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria’ (2019) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  73. Engisch K, Logische Studien zur Gesetzesanwendung (3rd edn., Winter 1963) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  74. Fischer-Kowalski M and Erb K, ‘Epistemologische Und Konzeptuelle Grundlagen Der Sozialen Ökologie’ (2006) 148 Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 33 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  75. Føllesdal A, ‘Subsidiarity and International Human-Rights Courts: Respecting Self-Governance and Protecting Human Rights - Or Neither?’ (2016) 79 Law and Contemporary Problems 147 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  76. Føllesdal A, ‘Exporting the Margin of Appreciation: Lessons for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2017) 15 International Journal of Constitutional Law 359 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  77. Føllesdal A and Tsereteli N, ‘The Margin of Appreciation in Europe and Beyond’ (2016) 20 International Journal of Human Rights 1055 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  78. Foster CE, ‘Court-Appointed Experts’ (February 2019) in Ruiz-Fabri H (ed), Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (online edn) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  79. Franck TM and Cherkis LD, ‘The Problem of Fact-Finding in International Disputes’ (1967) 18 Western Reserve Law Review 1483 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  80. Frank J, ‘“Short of Sickness and Death”: A Study of Moral Responsibility in Legal Criticism’ (1951) 26 New York University Law Review 545 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  81. Gauch Jr HG, Scientific Method in Brief (Cambridge University Press 2012) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  82. Gerards J, ‘Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2018) 18 Human Rights Law Review 495 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  83. Gerards J, General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2019) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  84. Glanzberg M, ‘Truth’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018) <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  85. Grando MT, Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement (Oxford University Press 2009) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  86. Haack S, Defending Science - Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (Prometheus Books 2003) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  87. Habermas J, Faktizität und Geltung (Suhrkamp 1998) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  88. Hage J, ‘Facts, Values and Norms’ in Sanne Taekema, Bart van Klink and Wouter de Been (eds), Facts and Norms in Law: Interdisciplinary Reflections on Legal Method (2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  89. Hamann H, Evidenzbasierte Jurisprudenz (Horst Dreier, Ulrike Müssig and Michael Stolleis eds, Mohr Siebeck 2014) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  90. Hanson NR, Patterns of Discovery (Cambridge University Press 1958) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  91. Hart HLA, ‘Essays on Bentham’ [1982] Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  92. Heinz A and Robert Florence Michèle, ‘Sachverhaltsfeststellung Und Sachverhaltsüberprüfung’, (2015) 9 Aktuelle Juristische Praxis (AJP) 1223 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  93. Helmholz R, ‘Ockham’s Razor in American Law’ (2006) 21 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 109 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  94. Hempel CG and Oppenheim P, ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation’ (1948) 15 Philosophy of Science 135 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  95. Holmes OW, ‘The Path of the Law’ (1897) 10 Harvard Law Review 457 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  96. Huhn WR, ‘The Use and Limits of Deductive Logic in Legal Reasoning’ (2002) 42 Santa Clara Law Review 813 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  97. Hume D, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, (L A Selby-Bigge ed, Oxford University Press 1902) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  98. Jachec-Neale A, ‘Fact-Finding’ (March 2011) in Peters A and Wolfrum R (eds), Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (online edn) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  99. Jachtenfuchs M and Krisch N, ‘Subsidiarity in Global Governance’ (2016) 79 Law and Contemporary Problems 1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  100. James W, ‘Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth’ in Simon Blackburn and Keith Simmons (eds), Truth (Oxford Readings in Philosophy 2010) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  101. Jones KA, ‘The WTO and National Sovereignty’, Who’s Afraid of the WTO? (Oxford University Press 2004) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  102. Jost F, ‘Soziologische Feststellungen in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen’, Schriften zur Rechtstheorie, Bd. 84 (Duncker & Humboldt 1978) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  103. Kazazi M, Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A Study on Evidence Before International Tribunals (Kluwer Law International 1996) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  104. Kelsen H, ‘Legal Technique in International Law’ (1939) 10 Geneva Studies Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  105. Kelsen H, Pure Theory of Law (Max Knight Trans.) (University of California Press 1967) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  106. Kelsen H, Reine Rechtslehre (Matthias Jestaedt ed, Studienaus, Mohr Siebeck 2008) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  107. Kelsen H, General Theory of Law and State (3rd ed, The Lawbook Exchange Ltd 2009) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  108. Kennedy D, ‘Challenging Expert Rule: The Politics of Global Governance’ (2005) 27 Sydney Law Review 1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  109. Klink B Van and Taekema S, ‘A Dynamic Model of Interdisciplinarity. Limits and Possibilities of Interdisciplinary Research into Law’ (2008) 8 Tilburg Working Paper Series on Jurisprudence and Legal History 1 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  110. Koskenniemi M, From Apology to Utopia (Cambridge University Press 2009) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  111. Koskenniemi M, ‘Law, Teleology and International Relations: An Essay in Counterdisciplinarity’ (2011) 26 International Relations 3 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  112. Koskenniemi M, ‘International Law as “Global Governance”’ 199 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  113. Krebs S and others, ‘The Legalization of Truth in International Fact-Finding’ (2017) 211 Chicago Journal of Internadional Law 83 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  114. Kriele M, ‘Theorie der Rechtsgewinnung’ (1976) 41 Schriften zum Öffentlichen Recht 367 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  115. Letsas G, ‘Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation’, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2007) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  116. Leurdijk JH, ‘Fact-Finding: Its Place in International Law and International Politics’ (1967) 14 Netherlands International Law Review 141 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  117. Levit N, ‘Listening To Tribal Legends: An Essay on Law and the Scientific Method’ (1989) 58 Fordham Law Review 263 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  118. Lieckweg T, ‘Recht und Wirtschaft: Strukturelle Kopplung’, Das Recht der Weltgesellschaft (de Gruyter 2003) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  119. Lind D, ‘Logic, Intuition, and the Positivist Legacy of H.L.A. Hart 135, 136 (1999)’ (1999) 52 SMU Law Review 135 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  120. Lippuner R, ‘Die Abhängigkeit unabhängiger Systeme: Zum Begriff der Strukturellen Kopplung in Luhmanns Theorie Sozialer Systeme’ [2010] <http://www.uni-jena.de/Roland_Lippuner.html>, last accessed on 12 July 2021. Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  121. Livingston SG, ‘The Politics of International Agenda-Setting: Reagan and North-South Relations’ (1992) 36 International Studies Quarterly 313 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  122. Luhmann N, Ausdifferenzierung des Rechts. Beiträge zur Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie (Suhrkamp 1981) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  123. Luhmann N, Soziale Systeme (Suhrkamp 1984) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  124. Luhmann N, Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp 1990) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  125. Luhmann N, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp 1997) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  126. Luhmann N, Einführung in die Systemtheorie (Dirk Baecker ed, Carl-Auer Verlag 2002) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  127. Luhmann N, Kontingenz und Recht. Rechtstheorie im interdisziplinären Zusammenhang (Johannes FK Schmidt ed, Suhrkamp 2013) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  128. Luhmann N, Systemtheorie der Gesellschaft (2nd edn, Suhrkamp 2017) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  129. Mbengue MM, ‘International Courts and Tribunals as Fact-Finders: The Case of Scientific Fact-Finding in International Adjudication’ (2011) 34 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 53 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  130. McCormick MS, Believing Against the Evidence: Agency and the Ethics of Belief (Routledge 2015) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  131. Mégret F, ‘Do Facts Exist, Can They Be “Found,” and Does It Matter?’ in Philip Alston and Sarah Knuckey (eds), The Transformation of Human Rights Fact-Finding (Oxford University Press 2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  132. Meyer-Ladewig J, ‘Art. 25’, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention Handkommentar (4th edn, Nomos 2017) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  133. Misak C, Truth and the End of Inquiry (Oxford University Press 2004) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  134. Misak C, Cambridge Pragmatism: From Peirce and James to Ramsey and Wittgenstein (Oxford University Press 2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  135. Misak C, ‘The Pragmatist Theory of Truth’ in Michael Glanzberg (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Truth (Oxford University Press 2018) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  136. Nissani M, ‘Fruits , Salads , and Smoothies: A Working Definition of Interdisciplinarity’ (1995) 29 The Journal of Educational Thought 121 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  137. Novaković M, ‘Men in the Age of (Formal) Equality: The Curious Case of Khamtokhu and Aksenchik’ (2019) 67 Belgrade Law Review 216 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  138. Oellers-Frahm K, ‘Article 92 UN Charter’ in Andreas Zimmermann and others (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2012) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  139. Palchetti P, ‘Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States: Intervention and Beyond’ (2002) 6 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 139 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  140. Paul J, The Legal Realism of Jerome N. Frank: A Study of Fact-Skepticism and the Judicial Process (Martinus Nijhoff 1959) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  141. Pauwelyn J, ‘Defenses and the Burden of Proof in International Law’ in Lorand Bartels and Federica Paddeu (eds), Exceptions and Defences in International Law (Oxford University Press) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  142. Pauwelyn J, ‘The Use of Experts in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (2002) 51 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 325 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  143. Pavčnik M, ‘Das „Hin- und Herwandern des Blickes“ (Über die Natur der Gesetzesanwendung)’ in Shing-I Liu and Ulfrid Neumann (eds), Gerechtigkeit - Theorie und Praxis. Justice - Theory and Practice (1st edn, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co KG 2011) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  144. Peirce CS, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. V: Pragmatism and Practicism (Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss eds, Harvard University Press 1934) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  145. Peters A, ‘The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization’ (2017) 15 International Journal of Constitutional Law 671 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  146. Peters A and Altwicker T, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (2nd edn, Beck 2012) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  147. Peters A and Altwicker T, ‘Die Verfahren beim EGMR’ (2018) MPIL Research Paper Series Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  148. Picker C, ‘International Law’s Mixed Heritage: A Common/Civil Law Jurisdiction’ (2008) 41 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1083 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  149. Plant B, ‘Expert Evidence and the Challenge of Procedural Reform in International Dispute Settlement’ (2018) 28 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 464 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  150. Popper K, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutchinson & Co 1959) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  151. Posner R, Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy (Harvard University Press 2003) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  152. Potter J, ‘Testability, Flexibility: Kuhnian Values in Scientists’ Discourse Concerning Theory Choice’ (1984) 14 Philosophy of the Social Sciences 303 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  153. Putnam H, Pragmatism: An Open Question (Blackwell 1995) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  154. Putnam H, The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays (2nd edn, Harvard University Press 2003) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  155. Ramcharan BG, International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights (Bertrand G Ramcharan ed, 2nd edn, Brill Nijhoff 2014) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  156. Rebsomen E, Recotillet M and Teuma C, ‘Preventive Detention as a “Penalty” in the Case of Ilnseher v. Germany’ (Strasbourg Observers) <https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/11/10/preventive-detention-as-a-penalty-in-the-case-of-ilnseher-v-germany/#more-4026>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  157. Riddell A, ‘Evidence, Fact-Finding, and Experts’ in Cesare PR Romano, Karen J Alter and Yuval Shany (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press 2014) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  158. Riddell A and Plant B, Evidence before the International Court of Justice (British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2009) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  159. Ridi N, ‘Precarious Finality? Reflections on Res Judicata and the Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Case’ (2018) 31 Leiden Journal of International Law 383 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  160. Robert H. Schmidt, ‘The Influence of the Legal Paradigm on the Development of Logic’, (1999) 40 Texas Law Review 367 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  161. Romano CPR, ‘The Role of Experts in International Adjudication’ (2009) Legal Studies Paper No . 2011-04, Société française pour le droit international Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  162. Sanders M, ‘The Fact / Opinion Distinction : An Analysis of the Subjectivity of Language and Law’ (1987) 70 Marquette Law Review 673 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  163. Sandifer D V, Evidence Before International Tribunals (rev edn, University Press of Virginia 1975) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  164. Sands PJ and Mackenzie R, ‘International Courts and Tribunals, Amicus Curiae’ (January 2008), in Peters A and Wolfrum R, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (online edn) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  165. Schlüter A, ‘Beweisfragen in der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte’ in Armin von Bogdandy and Anne Peters (eds), Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol Band 288 (Springer 2019) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  166. Schürer, S, ‘Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte als Tatsacheninstanz – Zur Bedeutung divergierender Sachverhaltsfeststellungen durch den EGMR am Beispiel einiger Schweizer Fälle’ (2014) Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 512 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  167. Schupbach JN and Sprenger J, ‘The Logic of Explanatory Power’ (2011) 78 Philosophy of Science 105 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  168. Schwebel S, ‘A Site Visit of the World Court’, Justice in International Law: Further Selected Writings of Stephen M. Schwebel (Cambridge University Press 2011) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  169. Searle J, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge University Press 1969) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  170. Shany Y, Questionsof Jurisdiction and Admissibility before International Courts (Cambridge University Press 2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  171. Shivakumar D, ‘The Pure Theory as Ideal Type: Defending Kelsen on the Basis of Weberian Methodology’ (1996) 105 Yale Law Journal 1383 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  172. Sinclair MBW, ‘The Use of Evolution Theory in Law’ (1987) 64 University of Detroit Law Review 451 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  173. Slama S and Parrot K, ‘Étrangers Malades: L’Attitude de Ponce Pilate de La Cour Européenne Des Droits de L’Homme’ (2014) 101 Plein Droit I Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  174. Stefanelli JN, ‘ICJ Arranges for Expert Opinion on Reparations in DRC v. Uganda’ (American Society of International Law, International Law in Brief) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  175. Stoyanova V, ‘The Grand Chamber Judgment in S.M. v Croatia: Human Trafficking, Prostitution and the Definitional Scope of Article 4 ECHR’ (Strasbourg Observers) <https://strasbourgobservers.com/2020/07/03/the-grand-chamber-judgment-in-s-m-v-croatia-human-trafficking-prostitution-and-the-definitional-scope-of-article-4-echr/>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  176. Stoyanova V, ‘Dancing on the Borders of Article 4 Human Trafficking and the European Court of Human Rights in the Rantsev Case’ (2012) 30 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 163 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  177. Stoyanova V, Human Trafficking and Slavery Reconsidered (Cambridge University Press 2017) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  178. Stoyanova V, ‘Sweet Taste with Bitter Roots: Forced Labour and Chowdury and Others v Greece’ (2018) 1 European Human Rights Law Review 67 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  179. Taekema S, ‘Beyond Common Sense: Philosophical Pragmatism’s Relevance to Law’ (2006) The Tilburg Working Paper Series on Jurisprudence and Legal History. Working Paper 06-02 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  180. Tamanaha BZ, Realistic Socio-Legal Theory: Pragmatisam and a Social Theory of Law (Claredon Press 1997) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  181. Tams CJ, ‘Art. 50’ in Andreas Zimmermann and others (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2012) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  182. Timmer A, ‘S.H. and Others v Austria: Margin of Appreciation and IVF’ (Strasbourg Observers) <https://strasbourgobservers.com/2011/11/09/s-h-and-others-v-austria-margin-of-appreciation-and-ivf/#more-1268>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  183. Traynor RJ, ‘Fact Skepticism and the Judicial Process’ (1958) 106 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 635 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  184. Vannier M, ‘Caught between a Rock and a Hard Place – Human Rights, Life Imprisonment and Gender Stereotyping: A Critical Analysis of Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia (2017)’ in Sandra Walklate and others (eds), The Emerald Handbook of Feminism, Criminology and Social Change (Emerald Publishing Limited 2020) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  185. Vargas-Quesada B and Moya-Anegon F de, Visualizing the Structure of Science (Springer 2007) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  186. Venzke I, ‘International Law as an Argumentative Practice: On Wohlrapp’s The Concept of Argument’ (2016) 7 Transnational Legal Theory 9 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  187. Vick DW, ‘Interdisciplinarity and the Discipline of Law’ (2004) 31 Journal of Law and Society 163 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  188. Vogiatzis N, ‘The Relationship Between European Consensus, the Margin of Appreciation and the Legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court’ [2019] European Public Law 445 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  189. von Bogdandy A and Venzke I, In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press 2014) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  190. Vuille J, Lupària L and Taroni F, ‘Scientific Evidence and the Right to a Fair Trial under Article 6 ECHR’ (2017) 16 Law, Probability and Risk 55 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  191. Walker VR, ‘Preponderance, Probability and Warranted Factfinding’ (1996) 62 Brooklyn Law Review 1075 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  192. White GM, The Use of Experts by International Tribunals (Syracuse University Press 1965) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  193. Wieringa S and others, ‘Rethinking Bias and Truth in Evidence-Based Health Care’ (2018) 24 Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 930 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  194. Wiik A, Amicus Curiae Before International Courts and Tribunals (Nomos/Hart 2018) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  195. Wildhaber L, Hjartarson A and Donnelly S, ‘No Consensus on Consensus?’ (2013) 33 Human Rights Law Journal 248 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  196. ‘William of Ockham’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019) <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/>, last accessed on 12 July 2021 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  197. Wolfrum R and Möldner M, 'International Courts and Tribunals, Evidence' (August 2013) in Peters A and Wolfrum R (eds), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edn) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  198. Wonnell CT, ‘Truth and the Marketplace of Ideas’ 19 UC Davis Law Review 669 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  199. Woolhandler A, ‘Rethinking the Judicial Reception of Legislative Facts’ (1988) 41 Vanderbilt Law Review 111 Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  200. Council of Europe (ed.), Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (Brill Nijhoff 1969) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229
  201. Zippelius R, Juristische Methodenlehre (10th edn, Beck 2006) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.5771/9783748933229

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus der Reihe "Schriftenreihe Europäisches Recht, Politik und Wirtschaft"
Cover des Buchs: Das Einstimmigkeitsprinzip in der Steuergesetzgebung der Europäischen Union
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Julia Gramer
Das Einstimmigkeitsprinzip in der Steuergesetzgebung der Europäischen Union
Cover des Buchs: National Constitutional Identity
Monographie Vollzugriff
Jakob Gašperin Wischhoff
National Constitutional Identity
Cover des Buchs: Der Faktor Zeit im Rechtsschutz der Union
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Janis Hesse
Der Faktor Zeit im Rechtsschutz der Union
Cover des Buchs: Anlegerinformationen im europäisch determinierten Kapitalmarktrecht
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Sebastian J. Kasper
Anlegerinformationen im europäisch determinierten Kapitalmarktrecht
Cover des Buchs: Die Rechtsstellung des Generalanwalts am Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union
Monographie Vollzugriff
Jonas Brügmann
Die Rechtsstellung des Generalanwalts am Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex