Abstract
As is well known, different countries may have a different attitude toward the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order. In those countries that qualify the ratified international human rights law merely as statute, the formal rank of international human rights law is often used as an argument against the binding force of international human rights law on domestic constitutional law. Through a comparative analysis between Germany and Taiwan, though, this paper shows that, despite similar determinations on the formal rank of international (human rights) law, the German and the Taiwanese Constitutional Courts have developed quite different views on the normative significance of international human rights law to their domestic constitutional orders. The different constitutional practices in Germany and Taiwan thus not only reflect Taiwan’s unique international status, but also indicate that the formal rank of international human rights law does not have much to do with its normative binding force on domestic constitutional law. Those who use formal rank as an argument against the binding force of international human rights law on constitutional law presuppose the absolute dichotomy of international and domestic law and thereby overlook the potential compatibility between international human rights law and constitutional law. From a human rights perspective, I argue that international human rights law should not be regarded as an “external” law, but rather as a framework order which delegates domestic constitutional orders to concretize international human rights law according to their own needs or interests so as to fulfill their international task of human rights protection on national level. Viewed this way, the determination on the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order matters only because it has to do with the determination of a certain constitutional order on the way in which it concretizes international human rights law.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
As is well known, different countries may have a different attitude toward the formal rank of international human rights law Footnote 1 in the hierarchy of domestic legal order . While the superiority of international human rights law over national constitutional law is recognized by some legal orders, many if not most countries determine the rank of international human rights law in between the constitution and the statutes or simply as the rank of ordinary statutory law.Footnote 2 In those countries that qualify the rank of ratified international human rights law merely as statutory law, the formal rank of international human rights law is often used as an argument against the binding force of international human rights law on domestic constitutional law . For example, in context of the German constitutional order, international law enjoys the same rank as federal statute. Accordingly, the major opinion maintains that the German Constitution is not bound by the international human rights law .Footnote 3 On the other hand, however, the case of Taiwan tells another story: Although the Taiwanese Constitutional Court itself ruled that international treaties hold the same status as statutory law,Footnote 4 it seems that this determination on the formal rank of international law not at all stops the Court from referring to international human rights law in light of its constitutional interpretation. Moreover, in some rare cases, it seems that the Taiwanese Constitutional Court even recognized the binding force of international human rights law on constitutional law . In view of this contrast between Germany and Taiwan, the following discussion intends to clarify the relationship of international human rights law and domestic constitutional law through exploring why or in what sense the binding force as well as practical influences of international human rights law on constitutional law cannot be totally determined by the formal rank of international law in domestic law. I will argue that, from a framework-oriented point of view, the determination on the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order matters only because it has to do with the determination of a certain constitutional order on the way in which it concretizes international human rights law .
2 The Formal Rank as Well as Normative Role of International (Human Rights) Law in Domestic Law: Lessons from a Comparison Between Germany and Taiwan
2.1 The German Perspective: International Human Rights Law as an Interpretative Tool
As indicated in the introduction, according to the mainstream opinion of the German scholars of constitutional law , international treaties rank as statutory law in German constitutional order. Article 59.2 of the German Basic Law provides, “Treaties that regulate the political relations of the Federation or relate to subjects of federal legislation shall require the consent or participation, in the form of a federal law, of the bodies responsible in such a case for the enactment of federal law. […]” Based on this provision, the German Constitutional Court has constantly held in its case-law that international treaties or agreements, “to the extent that they have come into force for the Federal Republic of Germany, have the status of a federal statute.”Footnote 5 It is thus generally accepted that even the international human rights laws are unlikely to override the German constitutional law and constitutional rights (Grundrechte) . Accordingly, the European Convention on Human Rights only enjoys the same status as statutory lawFootnote 6 and thereby does not have a normative binding force on German constitutional law . In its famous case of Görgülü , for example, the Constitutional Court of Germany held that, while the German public authority is committed to international cooperation, “the Basic Law did not take the greatest possible steps in opening itself to international-law connections.” Rather,
[t]he Basic Law is clearly based on the classic idea that the relationship of public international law and domestic law is a relationship between two different legal spheres and that the nature of this relationship can be determined from the viewpoint of domestic law only by domestic law itself; this is shown by the existence and the wording of Article 25 and Article 59.2 of the Basic Law. The commitment to international law takes effect only within the democratic and constitutional system of the Basic Law.Footnote 7
Under the premise of the supremacy of the Basic Law,
[t]he text of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights serve, on the level of constitutional law, as guides to interpretation in determining the content and scope of fundamental rights and constitutional principles of the Basic Law, provided that this does not lead to a restriction or reduction of protection of the individual’s fundamental rights under the Basic Law – and this the Convention itself does not desire.Footnote 8
In its decision on Sicherungsverwahrung in 2011, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the German Basic Law over the European Convention on Human Rights . As the Court said:
Invoking the European Convention on Human Rights as an interpretation aid for the provisions of the Basic Law is results-oriented, as is the European Convention on Human Rights itself with regard to its enforcement in national law. It does not aim at a schematic parallelization of individual constitutional concepts, but serves to avoid violations of international law. […] Against this background something similar is true of an interpretation of the concepts of the Basic Law that is open to international law as of an interpretation based on a comparison of constitutions: similarities in the text of the norm may not be permitted to hide differences which follow from the context of the legal systems: the human rights content of the agreement under international law under consideration must be ‘reconceived’ in an active process (of reception) in the context of the receiving constitutional system.
Limits to an interpretation that is open to international law follow from the Basic Law. In the first instance, such an interpretation may not result in the protection of fundamental rights under the Basic Law being restricted; this is also excluded by the European Convention on Human Rights itself. This obstacle to the reception of law may become relevant above all in multi-polar fundamental rights relationships in which the increase of liberty for one subject of a fundamental right at the same time means a decrease of liberty for the other. The possibilities of interpretation in a manner open to the Convention end where it no longer appears justifiable according to the recognized methods of interpretation of statutes and of the constitution. Furthermore, even where the Basic Law is interpreted in a manner open to the Convention—just as when the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is taken into account on the level of ordinary law—the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights must be integrated as carefully as possible into the existing, dogmatically differentiated national legal system, and therefore an unreflected adaptation of international-law concepts must be ruled out.Footnote 9
Following this viewpoint of the Constitutional Court , most German scholars of constitutional law maintain that, while the constitutional significance of international human rights law is fully recognized, it by no means suggests that the international human rights law “trumps” the German Basic Law . This point of view is clearly reflected in the recent debates on the right to strike of civil servants. As is well known, in the cases of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey and Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v. Turkey ,Footnote 10 the European Court of Human Rights declared that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to collective bargain and does not allow a general ban on the right to strike for civil servants. This interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights leads to a collision with the constitutional order of the German Basic Law , which, according to the mainstream opinion in Germany, explicitly prohibits the right to strike for civil servants.Footnote 11 Nevertheless, in reaction to the incompatibility between the European Convention on Human Rights and the German Basic Law on this issue, many if not most German scholars insist that the general strike prohibition for civil servants is constitutionally fixed and therefore must not be lifted through constitutional interpretation of the courts even in view of the principle of the Basic Law ’s commitment to international law.Footnote 12 This example shows that, while the European Convention on Human Rights serves as a significant interpretative tool in determining the content and scope of constitutional rights guaranteed in German Basic Law , its practical influence on constitutional interpretation is limited due to lack of formal binding force .
2.2 The Taiwanese Perspective: International Human Rights Law as a Symbol of Internationalization
From a formal perspective, international human rights law has a similar status in Taiwanese legal order. Although there is no specific constitutional provision concerning the rank of international law or international treaties in domestic law, the Constitutional Court of Taiwan (“Judicial Yuan”) explicitly held that international treaties “hold the same status as statutes.”Footnote 13 Interestingly, however, it does not follow from this statement that the Taiwanese Constitutional Court thus has a similar attitude towards the normative role of international human rights law in light of its constitutional interpretation. Rather, both the Taiwanese Constitutional Court and many scholars of constitutional law tend to recognize the special significance of international human rights law based on its international character. As is well known, Taiwan has been isolated from international legal community over the past few decades, while in reality the interaction between Taiwan and the international society has never stopped growing. Against this background, Taiwan has been eager to take part in more international activities, including international agreements on human rights , and thereby tends to regard the reference to international human rights law in light of constitutional interpretation as a symbol of “internationalization ” of Taiwanese constitutional order. In this respect, therefore, it is not surprising that, for many Taiwanese scholars of constitutional law , international human rights law is to be classified as supra-positive legal principles and precisely in this sense has a binding force on domestic law.
In comparison with the academic discussions, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court has rarely referred to international human rights law in its constitutional adjudication. Nevertheless, it can be inferred from the 12 cases in which international or regional human rights treaties were mentioned that, from the viewpoint of the Constitutional Court, international human rights law actually plays a significant role in determining the content of the Taiwanese Constitution and especially constitutional rights. For example, in Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 587 , the Constitutional Court held that “A child’s right to identify his/her blood filiations was declared by Article 7, Section 1, of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child , validated on September 2, 1990. The right to establish paternity is concerned with a child’s right to personality and shall be protected under Article 22 of the Constitution.”Footnote 14 Moreover, Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 710 went one step further and indicated that even the special constitutional provisions dealing specifically with the sensitive relationship with the Chinese People must comply with the corresponding international human rights treaties . As the Court said:
The Preamble of the Additional Articles of the Constitution stipulates, “To meet the requirements of the nation prior to national unification, the following articles of the Constitution are added or amended to the Constitution in accordance with Article 27, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3; and Article 174, Subparagraph 1, of the Constitution: […]” Article 11 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution provides, “Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law.” […] Given that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are currently governed by different political entities, restrictions are therefore imposed on the freedom of people from the Mainland Area to enter into the Taiwan Area (see J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 497 and 588). However, after formally obtaining permission from the competent authorities and having legally entered the Taiwan Area, the freedom of movement of people from the Mainland Area should in principle be protected by the Constitution (see Article 12 and Paragraph 6 of the General Comment No. 15 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Except where immediate actions are otherwise required in response to a threat to national security or social order, the mandatory deportation of a person from the Mainland Area who legally entered into the Taiwan Area must fulfill corresponding due process requirements (see Articles 13 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights). In particular, mandatory deportation of Mainland spouses who have been permitted to legally enter into the Taiwan Area requires extra caution because it significantly affects marriages and family relationships.Footnote 15
These examples show that, while international human rights law ranks merely as statutory law in Taiwanese legal order, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court tends to recognize its binding force on domestic constitutional law insofar as the international human rights laws and treaties are generally deemed to be principle- and value-oriented and as such bind the domestic constitutional order.Footnote 16
3 A Human Rights Perspective on the Significance of International Human Rights Law in Domestic Constitutional Order
3.1 International Human Rights Law as “External Law ?”
The foregoing discussion shows that, while both in Germany and in Taiwan the international human rights treaties formally rank as ordinary statutory law, the German and the Taiwanese Constitutional Courts as well as constitutional law scholars construe the relationship between international human rights treaties and domestic constitutional rights in a very different way. As mentioned above, it is generally accepted in Germany that the formal rank of international human rights laws and treaties as statutes already implies their limited normative significance to domestic constitutional order and constitutional norms.Footnote 17 On the contrary, it is frequently argued in Taiwan that international human rights laws and treaties enjoy the same rank as statutes and thereby are to be recognized as “part of the law.” As such, they serve as the effective and binding norms in domestic legal order . Moreover, according to the general opinion in Taiwan, this recognition usually means that international human rights laws and treaties have a binding force even in relation to domestic constitutional law , as it is important to Taiwan to claim itself to be part of the international legal community . On one hand, the different attitudes towards the binding force of international human rights law on constitutional law in Germany and Taiwan clearly reflect the incomparable international status of these two countries: Many German scholars of constitutional law believe that the standards of human rights protection in Germany and especially through the German Constitutional Court are relatively high in international comparison. To this extent, they resist the overreaching influences of international human rights law on domestic constitutional law because they are worried that Europeanization and internationalization might do harm to the high quality of human rights protection in German constitutional order.Footnote 18 By contrast, most Taiwanese are not only fully aware of the fact that Taiwan has been isolated from the international legal community for a long time, but also tend to recognize that the level of human rights protection in Taiwan falls behind the international standards. Accordingly, they feel it necessary to frequently refer to international human rights laws and treaties both from the perspective of international relations and from the viewpoint of human rights protection.Footnote 19 On the other hand, though, this contrast between Germany and Taiwan reveals common ground in the sense that the majority opinions in both countries tend to regard international human rights law as “external law .”Footnote 20 Precisely under this presupposition, international human rights law is either limited to “interpretative tool” in reaction to the fear of invasion by international human rights laws and treaties, or it is automatically classified as something superior and progressive and in this respect may replace domestic constitutional law without difficulties.
It follows from these brief observations that, unlike the general impression, the formal rank of international law in domestic legal order does not have much to do with the binding force of international human rights law on domestic constitutional law . Nor is it able to clarify the interaction between international human rights law and domestic constitutional law . This explains why the German Constitutional Court as well as many German scholars cannot but recognize the special significance of the European Convention on Human Rights to German Basic Law even though they insist that international human rights treaties rank merely as statutory law.Footnote 21 The decisive factor in determining whether or in what sense international human rights law has a binding force on domestic constitutional law, therefore, lies not in the formal rank of international law in domestic law, but rather in the theoretical presuppositions with regard to the relationship between international human rights law and national constitutional rights. As illustrated above, the majority opinions in Germany and Taiwan distinguish themselves from each other to the extent that they have a different attitude towards the role as well as function of international human rights law in pursuit of the realization of human rights . Nevertheless, a closer look reveals that both the German and the Taiwanese discussions regard international human rights law as external law from the very beginning and on this basis believe that a conflict between international human rights law and domestic constitutional law could only be avoided either by absolutely denying the quasi- or supra-constitutional significance of international human rights law or conversely by simply substituting the international human rights standards for the domestic ones. In this way, however, the human rights issue is inevitably turned into the competence issue (particularly with regard to the relationship between international and domestic courts), whereby the protection of human rights can no longer play the central role.
3.2 International Human Rights Law as a Framework Order
The classification of international human rights law as external law from the perspective of domestic legal order corresponds to the general dualistic impression that international law and national law are qualitatively different. However, even regardless of the question whether this viewpoint on the nature of international and national law is persuasive, the “external law”-presupposition itself triggers human rights concern. First, those who insist that international law and national law are heterogeneous legal norms tend to overlook the potential compatibility between international and domestic human rights law. In other words, they tend to presuppose that the contents both of international human rights law and of domestic constitutional rights norm are predetermined and fixed and thereby resistant to external influences. In this way, however, they neglect that, at the domestic level, even a norm collision with international human rights law could be avoided through constitutional interpretation which takes international human rights laws and treaties into account.Footnote 22 From this point of view, the “external law ”-presupposition inevitably runs counter to the protection of human rights because it fails to notice the dynamic dimensions of human rights developments. Secondly, and more fundamentally, it seems that this “external law ”-presupposition is based on the classic conception of sovereignty , according to which any intervention of international human rights law into domestic constitutional law may threaten the self-determination of national (legal) order.Footnote 23 As a result, for (normal) countries like Germany, it is plausible to insist on national sovereignty in cases where national constitutional rights norms are not compatible with international human rights law . On the other hand, even though in reality Taiwan has not been allowed to join or to ratify any international human rights treaties after it left the United Nations in 1971, the mainstream opinion in Taiwan seldom challenges the binding force of international human rights law on the basis of national sovereignty precisely because it is fully aware of Taiwan’s special international situation. The cases of Germany and Taiwan thus illustrate that, from the viewpoint of the “external law ”-presupposition, the potential conflict between national sovereignty and human rights could only be avoided either by ignoring the former or by sacrificing the latter. Clearly, this point of view misconstrues the relationship between national sovereignty and human rights particularly in the age of internationalization and globalization of human rights protection.Footnote 24
These analyses indicate that, overall, the “external law ”-presupposition fails to notice the framework character of international human rights law , that is to say, it neglects that international human rights norms, just like the human rights norms of national constitutions, are usually not fully predetermined provisions, but rather consist of numerous task delegations on the basis of which the national constitutional orders are authorized and at the same time obliged to concretize international human rights norms so as to fulfill the ultimate goal of international human rights law .Footnote 25 From a framework-oriented point of view, therefore, neither international nor national human rights norms are to be interpreted as content-fixed norms. Rather, in light of the multi-level system of human rights , in which most mechanisms of human rights protection are to be concretized and implemented by the national authorities, the human rights norms both on international and on national level are open to communication, influence as well as dynamic development.Footnote 26 Viewed this way, the international human rights law functions not as external law which either threatens or is ready to replace the domestic constitutional order, but rather as delegation norm that needs to be concretized through domestic constitutional law and precisely in this sense calls for cooperation with national law. Moreover, to the extent that international human rights law constitutes a framework order of human rights protection, it is apparent that a monistic view on the relationship between international and national human rights law not necessarily endangers the national sovereignty .Footnote 27 On the contrary, the monistic view that recognizes the superiority of international human rights law presupposes and guarantees enough room for national self-determination in the sense that, from a framework-oriented perspective, the superiority of international human rights law does not indicate that all the national mechanisms of human rights protection must be predetermined or completely dominated by international human rights norms.Footnote 28 As mentioned before, the framework character of international human rights law already implies the delegated power of national authorities in pursuit of the realization of human rights protection. Accordingly, the national constitutional order is bound by international human rights law only in the sense that it is obliged to contribute to the realization of the goals set by the framework order of international human rights law .
4 Conclusion: The Formal Rank Issue from the Framework-Oriented Perspective
The foregoing analysis not only illustrates that the determination on the formal rank of international law in domestic legal order does not have much to do with the binding force of international human rights law on national constitutional law , but also suggests that the contemporary mainstream opinion on the issue of the relationship between international and national human rights norms misconceives the binding force of international human rights norms exclusively as a content-based predetermination because it interprets the human rights norms in an over-materialized way and thereby neglects the cooperative dimension of the interaction between international and national human rights law. As previously argued, from a framework-oriented point of view, recognizing the binding force of international human rights law on national constitutional law by no means indicates that the contents of national human rights norms are to be determined and dominated by international human rights laws and treaties. Rather, the international human rights law has a binding force merely in the sense that, as a framework order , the international human rights law delegates and at the same time obliges the national constitutional orders to concretize international human rights norms and in this way to fulfill the task of human rights protection.
The foregoing discussion does not imply that the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order is not important at all. Rather, from a framework-oriented perspective, the phenomenon that international human rights law ranks differently in different countries reflects the fact that, precisely on the basis of the delegating framework order of international law, the national legal orders are usually delegated to determine the most appropriate rank of international human rights law so as to protect human rights in a way most suitable to domestic interests and needs.Footnote 29 As illustrated above, though, the determination on the formal rank does not and should not affect the binding force of international human rights law on domestic constitutional law . Especially in light of the multi-level system of human rights , it is precisely a cooperative interaction between international and national human rights norms that is able to contribute to the maximal realization of human rights . Observed this way, the framework order of international human rights law argues for a monistic construction of the relation of international to domestic law on one hand and yet puts special emphasis on the constructive role of national constitutional law in pursuit of human rights realization on the other hand. For the national constitutional order, therefore, international human rights law is neither external nor heterogeneous law, but rather sets the human rights goals that are to be fulfilled particularly by the national constitutional orders.
Notes
- 1.
In context of this paper, international human rights law primarily refers to international treaties or agreements on human rights. This specification does not imply that this paper argues for an absolute distinction between international treaties and customary international law, but rather results from the fact that international treaties or agreements on one hand and customary international law on the other hand are sometimes ranked differently in the hierarchy of domestic legal order. For example, according to the German Basic Law, customary international law (including those norms qualified as ius cogens) enjoys a higher status in the hierarchy of German legal norms in comparison with ordinary international treaties. See, e.g., Talmon (2013, pp. 12–16), Herdegen (2015, pp. 176–180), Tomuschat (2013, Rn. 26–27), Vöneky (2013, Rn. 26), Geiger (2009, pp. 152–153, 160–161), Czerner (2007, pp. 548–549), Rojahn (2001a, Rn. 37–40), Rojahn (2001b, Rn. 37), Krumm (2013, pp. 366–367), Lehner (2012, p. 400) and Payandeh (2009, pp. 471–475, 486).
- 2.
- 3.
See Sect. 2.1 for further discussion.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
See BVerfGE 111, 307 (318).
- 8.
BVerfGE 111, 307 (317).
- 9.
See BVerfGE 128, 326 (369–371). For an official English translation of this decision, see Bundesverfassungsgericht (2011).
- 10.
See EGMR, Urteil vom 12.11.2008, NZA 2010, 1425; EGMR, Urteil vom 21.4.2009, NZA 2010, 1423.
- 11.
See only Battis (2011, Rdnr. 71, 73).
- 12.
Ibid., Rdnr. 65, 67. See also Widmaier and Alber (2012, pp. 401–402), Lindner (2011, p. 306), Scholz (2014, pp. 582–583) and Kees (2015, pp. 73–77). This opinion is supported by a series of decisions of the administrative courts, including a recent decision of the Federal Administrative Court of Germany. See only OVG Münster, Beschluss vom 23.4.2012, NVwZ 2012, 890 (892, 898); VG Osnabrück, Urteil vom 19.8.2011, NVwZ-RR 2012, 323 (325); BVerwG, Urteil vom 27.2.2014, NVwZ 2014, 736 (738–742). For an overview of Germany’s debates on the right to strike for civil servants, see Seifert (2009), Schubert (2012) and Traulsen (2013).
- 13.
See Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 329.
- 14.
See Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 587. For an official English translation of this decision, see Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (2004a). See also Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 372, Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (1995a), Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 392, Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (1995b); Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 582, Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (2004b), for similar arguments concerning the normative significance of international and regional human rights law to the constitutional interpretation of the Taiwanese Constitutional Court.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
In contrast with international human rights law, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union law (primary law in particular) is qualified by most German scholars as “supranational law” based on the highly integrative character of the European Union, so that its human rights norms – especially the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – are in principle recognized to enjoy superiority over domestic law. Nevertheless, even such superiority (the so-called “primacy in application [Anwendungsvorrang]”) is never deemed absolute in the opinion of the German scholars as well as the German Constitutional Court. See only Voßkuhle (2010, pp. 3–4), Masing (2015, pp. 477–478) and Peterson (2012, pp. 248–255).
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
For a more detailed analysis, see Hwang (2016a, pp. 93–98).
- 21.
- 22.
In light of the German debate on the right to strike for civil servants, for example, the alleged conflict between the German Basic Law and the European Convention on Human Rights could have been avoided simply through a more dynamic understanding of Article 33.5 of German Basic Law, where the term “traditional principles of the professional civil service” is apparently open to interpretation. For a detailed analysis of this issue, see Hwang (2017).
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
This dimension of Monism (with primacy of international law) has been clearly demonstrated by Hans Kelsen’s international legal theory. See only Hwang (2014a, pp. 577–586).
- 29.
References
Bäcker M (2015) Das Grundgesetz als Implementationsgarant der Unionsgrundrechte. EuR 50:389–414
Battis U (2011) Art. 33. In: Sachs M (ed) Grundgesetz: Kommentar, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Bergmann J (2006) Diener dreier Herren? – Der Instanzrichter zwischen BVerfG, EuGH und EGMR. EuR 41:101–115
Bleckmann A (1996) Der Grundsatz der Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit der deutschen Rechtsordnung. DÖV 49:137–145
Buchholtz G (2014) Streiken im europäischen Grundrechtsgefüge. In: Zum Harmonisierungspotenzial des Art. 6 Nr. 4 ESC in der Anwendung des EGMR und des EuGH. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Bundesverfassungsgericht (2004) Order of the Second Senate of 14 October 2004—2 BvR 1481/04. http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2004/10/rs20041014_2bvr148104en.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Bundesverfassungsgericht (2011) Judgement of the Second Senate of 4 May 2011—2 BvR 2365/09. http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2011/05/rs20110504_2bvr236509en.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Chang W-C (2009) The convergence of constitutions and international human rights law: on the practice of Taiwan’s constitutional interpretations. In: Liao FF-T (ed) Constitutional interpretation: theory and practice, vol 6 Part l. Institutum Iurisprudentiae (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica, Taipei, pp 223–272 [張文貞 (2009), 憲法與國際人權法的匯流—兼論我國大法官解釋之實踐, 收於: 廖福特主編, 「憲法解釋之理論與實務」第六輯(上冊), 中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處: 臺北市, 頁223–272。]
Chang W-C (2012) An examination on the implementation of the two covenants after two years: with a focus on judicial practice. Thought Words J Humanit Soc Sci 50:7–43 [張文貞 (2012), 兩公約實施兩週年的檢討: 以司法實踐為核心, 思與言: 人文與社會科學雜誌, 第50卷第4期, 頁7–43。]
Czerner F (2007) Das völkerrechtliche Anschlusssystem der Art. 59 II 1, 25 und 24 I GG und deren Inkorporierungsfunktion zugunsten der innerstaatlichen EMRK-Geltung. EuR 42:537–563
Denza E (2014) The relationship between international and national law. In: Evans MD (ed) International law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 412–440
Di Fabio U (2005) Die Kultur der Freiheit. C.H. Beck, München
Di Fabio U (2013) Erosion des Staates. In: Hogrebe W (ed) Transzendenzen des Realen. V&R Unipress, Bonn University Press, Göttingen, pp 165–187
Geiger R (2009) Grundgesetz und Völkerrecht: mit Europarecht. In: Die Bezüge des Staatsrechts zum Völkerrecht und Europarecht, 4th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Grimm D (2013) Der Datenschutz vor einer Neuorientierung. JZ 68:585–592
Herdegen M (2011) Europarecht, 13th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Herdegen M (2015) Völkerrecht, 14th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Huber PM (2008) Unitarisierung durch Gemeinschaftsgrundrechte – Zur Überprüfungsbedürftigkeit der ERT-Rechtsprechung. EuR 43:190–199
Hwang S-P (2013) Grundrechtsschutz unter der Voraussetzung des europäischen Grundkonsenses? Kritische Bemerkungen zur „margin of appreciation“-Doktrin am Beispiel des Inzest-Urteils des EGMR vom 12.4.2012. EuR 48:307–322
Hwang S-P (2014a) Zur Aktualität des entmaterialisierten Monismus bei Hans Kelsen: Dargestellt am Beispiel der Entwicklung des Europäischen Verwaltungsverbundes. AöR 139:573–595
Hwang S-P (2014b) Grundrechte unter Integrationsvorbehalt? – Eine rahmenorientierte Überlegung zur Debatte um die Bindung der Mitgliedstaaten an die Unionsgrundrechte. EuR 49:400–419
Hwang S-P (2016a) The role of international/regional human rights treaties in constitutional interpretation. Taiwan Democracy Q 13:85–129 [黃舒芃 (2016a), 國際及區域人權公約在憲法解釋中扮演的角色, 臺灣民主季刊, 第13卷第1期, 頁85–129。]
Hwang S-P (2016b) Grundrechtsoptimierung unter dem Vorbehalt des unionsrechtlichen Vorrangs? – Zur Auslegung des Art. 53 GRCh im Lichte des Vorrangs des Unionsrechts. ZeuS 19:369–388
Hwang S-P (2017) „Auslegungshilfe“ ernst genommen: Zum Spannungsverhältnis zwischen der EMRK und dem GG am Beispiel des beamtenrechtlichen Streikverbots. VerwArch 108 (forthcoming)
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (1993) Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 329, 24 December 1993. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=329. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (1995a) Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 372, 24 February 1995. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=372. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (1995b) Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 392, 22 December 1995. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=392. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (2004a) Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 587, 30 December 2004. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=587. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (2004b) Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 582, 23 July 2004. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=582. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, R.O.C. (2013) Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 710, 5 July 2013. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=710. Accessed 20 Nov 2016
Kees A (2015) Bricht Völkerrecht Landesrecht? Der Staat 54:63–95
Kelsen H (1966) Principles of international law, 2nd edn. Tucker RW (ed) Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Kelsen H (1981) Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. Beitrag zu einer Reinen Rechtslehre, 2. Neudruck der 2. Aufl. 1928. Scientia Verlag, Aalen
Kelsen H (2000) Reine Rechtslehre. Mit einem Anhang: Das Problem der Gerechtigkeit, 2. Aufl. (1960), Nachdruck 2000. Verlag Österreich, Wien
Krumm M (2013) Legislativer Völkervertragsbruch im demokratischen Rechtsstaat. AöR 138:363–410
Kure Y (2011) The impact of the convention on the rights of the child made to Taiwan’s family law—to review the rights thereof with the Constitutional Interpretation No. 587. Taiwan Int Law Q 8:151–188 [吳煜宗 (2011), 《兒童權利公約》與台灣親子法—再訪子女知其出自的權利與釋字第587號解釋, 台灣國際法季刊, 第8卷第2期, 頁151–188。]
Langenfeld C (2002) Die Stellung der EMRK im Verfassungsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Bröhmer J (ed) Der Grundrechtsschutz in Europa. Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium aus Anlass des 65. Geburtstages von Prof. Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Georg Ress. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 95–108
Lehner M (2012) Treaty Override im Anwendungsbereich des § 50d EStG. iStR 21:389–404
Lin C-F (2010) The role of the two international covenants in supplementing constitutional protection of human rights—a framework. Taiwan Bar J 14:23–41 [林佳範 (2010), 論兩公約對憲法人權保障的補充—一個初步架構的探討, 全國律師, 第14卷第3期, 頁23–41。]
Lindner JF (2011) Dürfen Beamte doch streiken? DÖV 64:305–309
Lübbe-Wolff G (2010) Der Grundrechtsschutz nach der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention bei konfligierenden Individualrechten – Plädoyer für eine Korridor-Lösung. In: Hochhuth M (ed) Nachdenken über Staat und Recht: Kolloquium zum 60. Geburtstag von Dietrich Murswiek. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 193–209
Masing J (2015) Einheit und Vielfalt des Europäischen Grundrechtsschutzes. JZ 70:477–487
Nettesheim M (2016) GG Art. 59. In: Maunz T, Dürig G (Begr.) Grundgesetz-Kommentar, 78. Ergänzungslieferung – Stand: 09/2016. C.H. Beck, München
Papier H-J (2006) Umsetzung und Wirkung der Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte aus der Perspektive der nationalen deutschen Gerichte. EuGRZ 33:1–3
Payandeh M (2009) Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit als Verfassungsprinzip. Ein Beitrag des Grundgesetzes zur Einheit von Völkerrecht und nationalem Recht. In: Häberle P (ed) Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart. Neue Folge. Band 57. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 465–502
Peterson N (2012) Determining the domestic effect of international law through the prism of legitimacy. ZaöRV 72:223–259
Polakiewicz J, Kessler A (2012) Das Streikverbot für deutsche BeamtInnen. Die Bedeutung der Rechtsprechung des EGMR für deutsche Gerichte. NVwZ 31:841–845
Richter D (2010) Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts – Die unfreundliche Erlaubnis zum Bruch völkerrechtlicher Verträge –. In: Giegerich T (ed) Der „offene Verfassungsstaat“ des Grundgesetzes nach 60 Jahren. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit einer großen Errungenschaft. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 159–178
Rojahn O (2001a) Art. 25. In: von Münch I, Kunig P (eds) Grundgesetz-Kommentar, Band 2: Art. 20–69, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Rojahn O (2001b) Art. 59. In: von Münch I, Kunig P (eds) Grundgesetz-Kommentar, Band 2: Art. 20–69, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Ruffert M (2007) Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und innerstaatliches Recht. EuGRZ 34:245–255
Schaffarzik B (2005) Europäische Menschenrechte unter der Ägide des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. DÖV 58:860–868
Scholz R (2014) Öffentlicher Dienst und Daseinsvorsorge: Verfassungsimmanente Schranken des Arbeitskampfes. In: Bultmann PF, Grigoleit KJ, Gusy C, Kersten J, Otto C-W, Preschel C (eds) Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht: Institute, Kontexte, System: Festschrift für Ulrich Battis zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, München, pp 577–585
Schorkopf F (2007) Grundgesetz und Überstaatlichkeit. Konflikt und Harmonie in den auswärtigen Beziehungen Deutschlands. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Schröder H (2013) Ist ein funktional differenziertes Streikrecht für Beamte iSv. Art. 11 EMRK mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar? AuR 61:280–285
Schubert C (2012) Das Streikverbot für Beamte und das Streikrecht aus Art. 11 EMRK im Konflikt. AöR 137:92–117
Schweitzer M (2010) Staatsrecht III. Staatsrecht, Völkerrecht, Europarecht, 10th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg
Seifert A (2009) Recht auf Kollektivverhandlungen und Streikrecht für Beamte – Anmerkungen zur neuen Rechtsprechung des EGMR zur Vereinigungsfreiheit –. KritV 92:357–377
Stein T (2006) Völkerrecht und nationales Steuerrecht im Widerstreit? iStR 15:505–509
Talmon S (2013) Die Grenzen der Anwendung des Völkerrechts im deutschen Recht. JZ 68:12–21
Thym D (2006) Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz und Familienzusammenführung. NJW 59:3249–3252
Tomuschat C (2013) Staatliche Entscheidung für die internationale Offenheit. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band XI: Internationale Bezüge, 3rd edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, § 226
Traulsen C (2013) Das Beamtenstreikverbot zwischen Menschenrechtskonvention und Grundgesetz. JZ 68:65–72
Vöneky S (2013) Verfassungsrecht und völkerrechtliche Verträge. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Band XI: Internationale Bezüge, 3rd edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, § 236
Voßkuhle A (2010) Der europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund. NVwZ 29:1–8
Widmaier U, Alber S (2012) Menschenrecht auf Streik auch für deutsche Beamte? ZeuS 15:387–416
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this chapter or parts of it.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hwang, SP. (2018). Does Formal Rank Matter?. In: Nakanishi, Y. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Human Rights Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6129-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6129-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6128-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6129-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)