In the changed constellation of statehood, national rule of law is amplified by international legal governance as a field-specific judicial administration of international settlement of a dispute. In some fields of international politics – trade and human rights for example – judicial proceedings have been introduced that OECD states obey by a majority. Simultaneously, other political fields such as environment and security are less administered concerning proceedings and conduct of the state. The different levels of judicial administration express incomplete global legal governance. In the global area, legal protection for central public goods is not safeguarded by an integrated legal system with normative and legal hierarchy. This can lead to instability of the current situation. We examine if national actors’ reactions on these incomplete legal governance are rather demands of progressive judicial administration, or of judicial de-administration; or if they consider the status quo as unproblematic. Furthermore, we analyze if the decisions made by the involved and disputing authorities have a fragmentizing, moderating, or integrating effect. We will focus on the reactions in cases of dispute along the two conflict lines security versus liberal human rights, as well as economy versus social human rights and environment, because a slightly judicially administered sector clashes with a highly administered sector. We can draw conclusions from this comparison about the stability of legal power under the conditions of new constellations of statehood. Additionally, based on the new concept of reflective judicial administration, normative reform suggestions can be formulated for the design of international legal governance.
Final report 2015 in German
Project application 2011-2014 in German
Project application 2007-2010 in German
Project application 2003-2006 in German