Of all anti-terror-laws adopted in Germany in the last thirty years, one of the most famous measures is certainly the so-called Kontaktsperregesetz, an Act introducing the possibility of incommunicado detention in the case of imminent terrorist threats. It is the prime example of how far reactive legislation can go, under the pretext to fight terrorism. This form of incommunicado detention was adopted in 1977, by introducing a new section (section 4, Sections 31–38) to the Introductory Act to the Judicature Act (Einführungsgesetz zum Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, hereinafter EGGVG). The provisions were enacted in response to a particular terrorist incident, and have not been applied since. Surprisingly enough, in April 2006, a seemingly new provision was added to this regime (Section 38a EGGVG), however, as we will later see, this regulation is in fact not new, but has only changed its systematic position within the enormous legislative forest of Germany, and, at the same time, its legal nature (from transitory to permanent). Section 38a EGGVG extends the scope of application of incommunicado detention considerably, by allowing it to be used not only in terrorist cases, but also for other forms of criminal organizations like mafia. It thus increases the possibility of prisoners to be absolutely isolated from other inmates, family, friends, and even from their defense counsels, for up to thirty days; a period which can be prolonged for an indefinite period of time, provided that certain requirements are met.

For the first time, national provisions governing the quantification of respective compensation amounts due for public purposes expropriation and for unlawful expropriation were declared unconstitutional by the Italian Constitutional Court's decisions No. 348 and 349, issued on 24 October 2007, because they were in contrast with the international obligations stated in Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter the “ECvHR”), Article 1.

This note addresses the proscription of terrorist financing under transnational law. It considers both criminal and civil regulatory frameworks. Although the 9/11 attacks certainly galvanized jurisgeneration in this area, important treaties and customary principles preexisted those attacks. Insofar as the law on this topic is quite robust, this note does not provide a typology of every legal prohibition that touches upon terrorist financing. Instead, it offers an overview of the subject matter through case-studies drawn from international treaties and Alien Tort Claims Act litigation in the United States, and it also places the regulatory framework of terrorist financing within both lex lata and lex ferenda regarding the proscription of terrorism generally.

The movie The Lives of Others is not simply a voyage back in time. For many, it is an introduction to an entirely new world, albeit a world with troubling resonance for the so-called “War on Terror.” Director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck peels back the iron curtain to expose the day-to-day lives of an unlikely assemblage of artists, spies and Apparatchiks in East Germany right before the regime fell. Several themes are presented: the emptiness of power perverts an ideology and those who should wield the public's trust; the goodwill of a cold-hearted, intrusive spy becomes the salvation of a reluctant revolutionary; a neighbor's desire for self-preservation costs a lover her life. This widely acclaimed movie underscores the fragility and insecurity of normal life in East Germany and invites movie-watchers to reflect on the fragile quality of their present-day business, personal and social relationships.