The province of Kosovo – 2 million people in 11,000 square kilometres of territory nestled between Serbia to the North and Albania and Macedonia to the South – was thrust into the international limelight when Serbian actions to repress Kosovo Albanian calls for independence made it a subject of international concern at the end of the 1990s. While Kosovo is not unique in becoming well-known for suffering the repressive actions of a parent state, and while it has not even enjoyed the distinction of being the only territorial administration of its time, it appears to be unique in its (potential) impact on the doctrines of international law. On a number of levels, the international community's response to the situation created by Milosevic's actions and NATO's intervention threaten to call fundamental pillars of the post-World War II order into question. It is too early to speculate conclusively on whether the NATO action in Kosovo sans Security Council approval in some measure paved the way for an emerging doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” that, in turn, opened the door to the illegal invasion of Iraq. It seems not implausible to suggest that the apparent success of unauthorised military intervention in Kosovo in stopping mass human rights violations emboldened politicians on both sides of the Atlantic in opting for a moral path over the formally legal one. In any event, grounded as they are in that history, the final status talks on the future of Kosovo represent a serious challenge to the current framing of the international order. It is these issues that this symposium wished to raise and examine.

The governmental role played by the United Nations in Kosovo since 1999 raises a host of questions for international lawyers. Chief among these is whether governmental acts of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) should be subject to review within Kosovo for compliance with applicable legal standards. In principle, such review would be helpful in ensuring UNMIK accountability and in sending the message that the governors—as well as the governed—in Kosovo are subject to the rule of law. However, for many, the prospect of actors in Kosovo second-guessing decisions taken by UNMIK is problematic, partly due to a fear that review could be used to derail the UNMIK-led peacebuilding process in the territory.

Given the scope of authority the United Nations has assumed in order to perform functions of territorial administration both in East Timor and Kosovo, it is, as one commentator remarked, rather surprising that the issue of the legitimacy of the internationalisation of state structures through post-conflict governance has inspired little debate. There are myriad reasons for the erosion of political authority in a territory temporarily administered by the international community – corruption, local obstructionism and internal divisions, failure to promote government transparency, a tenuous link between civil administration and the military command structure, the operation of (inter)national networks of patronage, and general incompetence, to name a few. This article analyses some of the inherent tensions involved in international institution-building. It introduces the variety of actors operating in an internationalised territory as the quest for legitimacy creates tensions between them, and portrays the dynamics that unfold in a process in which notions of legitimacy are subject to institutional contestation.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War were greeted by many as an important step in the unstoppable development of human civilization. Francis Fukuyama even announced, in his celebrated essay of the same name, the “end of history” and the triumph of the liberal democratic model, which, according to him, was soon to become the most dominant, if not the only, form of organized human community.

In October 2005 the German Law Journal published my article which reviewed the major characteristics of German federalism, some common criticisms, and efforts to reform the system in recent decades. These efforts culminated in a Federalism Commission (Kommission von Bundestag und Bundesrat zur Modernisierung der bundesstaatlichen Ordnung [KOMBO]) that was formed in the fall of 2003 and met until December 2004, when the co-chairs announced that the Commission was unable to reach agreement on several issues, in particular the respective roles of the federal and Land (state) governments in higher education policy. The failure of federalism reform was lamented by most observers, and many regretted especially the fact that the Commission had agreed on far more issues than those on which it had disagreed.

The German Real Estate Investment Trust – or, G-REIT – is in the centre of interest in Germany these days and expected to be introduced in Germany in the beginning of 2007. After a preparation phase initiated in 2003 by a lobbying group (“IFD”) under the former German government, the new government has most recently drafted a bill with respect to the introduction of G-REITs (“bill”). This bill remains to be subject to parliamentary discussion and is likely to be partially modified before its final adoption: in addition to its passage in the Bundestag (Federal Parliament), it requires the approval of the Bundesrat (German Federal Council). Following its first reading it will be committed to the Financial Committee, which will conduct hearings. However, the legislator intends to pass the bill in the first quarter of 2007 to take retroactive effect as of 1 January 2007. This essay intends to outline fundamental corporate, capital market, and tax related G-REIT parameters provided for by the G-REIT Act in its present form.