The interaction between international and domestic legal systems underwent a deep structural change. By means of a literature review concerned with a critical approach of International Law, this Article presents three perspectives: Modern, Imperial Post-Modern, and Deconstructive Post-Modern. Traditional international law scholarship emphasizes the first and the second trends, while this Article presents the third. While the first frames these interactions on the monism-dualism debate, the second establishes an international law prevailing unconditionally over domestic law, international human rights. The third criticizes whether it is still proper to search for an a priori solution for this interaction. By rejecting global governance and the truly common law as alternatives to imperial post-modern international law, this Article emphasizes that legal analysis should identify, stimulate and reinforce the a posteriori customary normative spontaneity of multitude. This Article argues that a serious post-modern international law should be guided by a radical political drive of law, foster a deconstructive interaction of different—spatial, temporal or thematic—representations of law and reject traditional hierarchical solutions and any kind of previous, single and exclusive—national or international—authority between any legal order.

This Article uses social systems theory to examine the increased reliance on a distinction between substantive and procedural international law to resolve cases involving a conflict between jus cogens and state immunity. This presents the problem of an evolutionary relationship between international law and the complex differentiation of world society. International law is shown to be structurally related to the segmentary differentiation of states that underwrites modern society's functional differentiation. At the same time, it is shown to be structurally related to the increasing formulation of global norms that result from advanced functional differentiation. The Article then turns to examining the substantive/procedural law distinction as a solution to this dual functional reference problem. The distinction is shown to not only maintain the autopoiesis of law under these difficult conditions, but to also secure law's continued functional relevance in globalized society. This functionalist perspective is used to expose differences in the self-description and operation of international law, to point out how law has been blind to its own coding, and to highlight opportunities for programming law to respond in a more constructive manner to the challenges of globalization.

This Article discusses the extraterritorial human rights obligations of states and proposes a new approach for conceptualizing them. While extraterritorial state obligations within the concept of state jurisdiction are indisputably recognized, a more comprehensive perspective beyond jurisdiction is generally lacking. This Article aims to fill that gap. First, it discusses the traditional notions of extraterritorial state obligations and demonstrates their weaknesses. Second, a new concept of extraterritorial state obligations borrowing elements from systems theory is then suggested. The Article argues that comprehensive and general extraterritorial state obligations mainly build upon the normative idea of human rights. Human rights have universal validity and prescribe obligations that are independent of the jurisdiction of a state. What matters is that states can violate human rights beyond their jurisdiction and can influence violations of human rights committed by other actors. Finally, this Article outlines the scope and content of extraterritorial human rights obligations of states.

Throughout the last decades, various non-state actors have been actively engaged in different aspects of international governance. More recently, a number of academic contributions explored the extent to which international law governs non-state actors. This Article advances the argument and explores whether non-state actors have developed law making capacities. Initially grounding itself in the Nuclear Tests and Kosovo cases of the International Court of Justice, the Article contends that non-state actors can create international rights and obligations through unilateral law-making processes. After a robust study, the Article concludes that unilateral non-state actions must meet three criteria to have legal effect as international law. First, producing such actions requires non-state actors of significant gravity. Second, other international entities must at least partly recognize these actions. Third, unilateral actions must justify their legal character with legitimate grounds. In meeting these three conditions, such unilateral actions of non-state actors produce international legal effects. As to its broader implications, the Article argues that the scope of international law has expanded to ensure that the voices of major international non-state actors are heard and reflected within the international legal order.

In pursuit of solutions to curb cybercrime, legislators engage in an analysis proportionally weighing freedom of expression and other societal interests. The balance between the two concepts differs dramatically across different jurisdictions. This Article looks into a widely discussed legislative package regulating the online domain, enacted by the Sixth Convocation of the Russian Parliament (2011–2016)—the State Duma. The authors operate under the assumption that the Russian approach might have a broad spillover effect. With this in mind, the authors outline the current status quo regarding Internet regulations in the EU, disentangle and contextualize the legislation under scrutiny, emphasize Russian influence over Eastern European countries, and describe the tumultuous relationship between the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights.

In the face of a recent increase in the number of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the globe—particularly in Europe—counterterrorism has become a main field of political and legal activity once again. In this turbulent context, this Article will look back on how German legislation has reacted to the first significant occurrences of Islamic terrorism in Europe and the United States in the 2000s and how the Constitution has been put in place in the conflict between individual and collective interests by the Federal Constitutional Court in this context. From the wide range of counterterrorism measures that were significantly shaped along the principles of the Constitution since then, this Article takes a detailed look at the legal issues relating to a very specific measure—legislation allowing the shooting down of a hijacked plane. This issue has been vigorously debated among politicians, scholars, and courts in Germany since 2004. It constitutes a vital element of the fundamental legal structures that governs state action that violates certain legal interests in order to protect conflicting ones—a key question for other recent strategies of terrorism as well.