Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-237
A. Stark
Mit seinem Klimaschutz-Beschluss hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht die verfassungsrechtlichen Grundlagen des Klimaschutzes für die nächsten Jahrzehnte erarbeitet. Als erfolgversprechende Stellschraube erwies sich überraschenderweise nicht die staatliche Schutzpflicht, sondern der allgemeine Freiheitsschutz. Der konstitutionalisierte Klimaschutz entpuppt sich in der Sprache der Dogmatik ironischerweise als Freiheitsschutz.
{"title":"Klimaschutz als intertemporaler Freiheitsschutz – Zum Klimaschutz-Beschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts","authors":"A. Stark","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-237","url":null,"abstract":"Mit seinem Klimaschutz-Beschluss hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht die verfassungsrechtlichen Grundlagen des Klimaschutzes für die nächsten Jahrzehnte erarbeitet. Als erfolgversprechende Stellschraube erwies sich überraschenderweise nicht die staatliche Schutzpflicht, sondern der allgemeine Freiheitsschutz. Der konstitutionalisierte Klimaschutz entpuppt sich in der Sprache der Dogmatik ironischerweise als Freiheitsschutz.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132523288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2019-2-135
P. Tiedemann
The Christian churches speak out against the legalization of assisted suicide in a variety of documents by using religiously distant and profane arguments that, however, do not stand up to critical scrutiny. This is all the more astounding as the churches have the tradition of Dolorism and thus a body of belief that makes their position on assisted suicide plausible for explicitly religious reasons. It can be surmised that the attempt to veil the actual religious motivation with the help of bad profane arguments is due to the insight that in the secular world it is not promising to use the language of myth.
{"title":"Assistierter Suizid und der Geist des Katholizismus","authors":"P. Tiedemann","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2019-2-135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2019-2-135","url":null,"abstract":"The Christian churches speak out against the legalization of assisted suicide in a variety of documents by using religiously distant and profane arguments that, however, do not stand up to critical scrutiny. This is all the more astounding as the churches have the tradition of Dolorism and thus a body of belief that makes their position on assisted suicide plausible for explicitly religious reasons. It can be surmised that the attempt to veil the actual religious motivation with the help of bad profane arguments is due to the insight that in the secular world it is not promising to use the language of myth.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"25 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120942847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2020-3-246
K. Kunz
A new kind of penal law seems to emerge. Since the late 1970s, the idea of prevention has gained importance beyond the discussion of the purpose of a penalty for a specific offence. Penalizing is now understood as a reasonable action to avert prospectively anticipated dangers to society. Informal loss of control and mega-dangers demand more control through criminal law. Alongside technical prevention a striking penal attribution of responsibility is demanded. Thus, punishing becomes potentially excessive because it refers to an imaginary, not precisely assessable threat whose definite neutralization is sought. The search for the most comprehensive precaution possible favors the tendency to expand the scope and to tighten the sanctions of criminal law. On the other hand, the criminal prosecution becomes more flexible through practices of diversion, informal agreements, early and discreet dispositions of proceedings.
{"title":"Das neue Strafrecht","authors":"K. Kunz","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2020-3-246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2020-3-246","url":null,"abstract":"A new kind of penal law seems to emerge. Since the late 1970s, the idea of prevention has gained importance beyond the discussion of the purpose of a penalty for a specific offence. Penalizing is now understood as a reasonable action to avert prospectively anticipated dangers to society. Informal loss of control and mega-dangers demand more control through criminal law. Alongside technical prevention a striking penal attribution of responsibility is demanded. Thus, punishing becomes potentially excessive because it refers to an imaginary, not precisely assessable threat whose definite neutralization is sought. The search for the most comprehensive precaution possible favors the tendency to expand the scope and to tighten the sanctions of criminal law. On the other hand, the criminal prosecution becomes more flexible through practices of diversion, informal agreements, early and discreet dispositions of proceedings.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129853616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2023-1-6
P. Albrecht, W. Naucke, G. Pfeifer
{"title":"Kontinuität und Ambivalenz in der rechtswissenschaftlichen Arbeitsweise","authors":"P. Albrecht, W. Naucke, G. Pfeifer","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2023-1-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2023-1-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132980480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2022-2-109
E. Wagner
Ces dernières années, il a été de plus en plus reconnu que le service de messagerie Telegram possède un pouvoir structurel grâce au soutien de publics partiels et présente des facettes d'un réseau social qui devraient être traitées de manière appropriée par la réglementation. L'article suivant traite de la question de savoir dans quelle mesure le cadre réglementaire actuel des services de communication offre des possibilités d'imposer et de faire respecter des obligations de modération et de suppression liées au contenu. A cette fin, le service en tant que tel et les différents modes de communication qu'il permet sont d'abord examinés plus en détail. Sur cette base, il est ensuite possible de procéder à une classification juridique des modalités d'utilisation décrites dans les différents concepts de réglementation du droit des médias et de la communication. Il apparaîtra clairement que toutes les approches réglementaires actuelles liées à la gestion du contenu présupposent une volonté fondamentale de coopération de la part des opérateurs de plateforme, qui peut ensuite être renforcée par des incitations économiques. Par conséquent, indépendamment des problèmes de classification factuelle existants, l'inefficacité du cadre réglementaire, que l'on peut actuellement observer en ce qui concerne Telegram en particulier, est également due au fait que l'opérateur du service ne conçoit pas encore l'espace de communication fourni selon des rationalités économiques, et que les potentiels d'autorégulation basés sur cela ne peuvent donc pas être utilisés. Les défis qui en découlent et les solutions possibles sont également discutés.
{"title":"Telegram als Herausforderung für die Plattformregulierung","authors":"E. Wagner","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2022-2-109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2022-2-109","url":null,"abstract":"Ces dernières années, il a été de plus en plus reconnu que le service de messagerie Telegram possède un pouvoir structurel grâce au soutien de publics partiels et présente des facettes d'un réseau social qui devraient être traitées de manière appropriée par la réglementation. L'article suivant traite de la question de savoir dans quelle mesure le cadre réglementaire actuel des services de communication offre des possibilités d'imposer et de faire respecter des obligations de modération et de suppression liées au contenu. A cette fin, le service en tant que tel et les différents modes de communication qu'il permet sont d'abord examinés plus en détail. Sur cette base, il est ensuite possible de procéder à une classification juridique des modalités d'utilisation décrites dans les différents concepts de réglementation du droit des médias et de la communication. Il apparaîtra clairement que toutes les approches réglementaires actuelles liées à la gestion du contenu présupposent une volonté fondamentale de coopération de la part des opérateurs de plateforme, qui peut ensuite être renforcée par des incitations économiques. Par conséquent, indépendamment des problèmes de classification factuelle existants, l'inefficacité du cadre réglementaire, que l'on peut actuellement observer en ce qui concerne Telegram en particulier, est également due au fait que l'opérateur du service ne conçoit pas encore l'espace de communication fourni selon des rationalités économiques, et que les potentiels d'autorégulation basés sur cela ne peuvent donc pas être utilisés. Les défis qui en découlent et les solutions possibles sont également discutés.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133304913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2020-1-9
Herwig Roggemann
The author places the Corona Pandemic in a geopolitical context and sees it as "an unexpected challenge for the international community as a community of peace and law". The article pursues a post-crisis scenario and develops political and legal options for easing the Ukrainian conflict. In the author's view, the aim is to "finally begin to expand the 'Common European House' that has been planned for three decades".
{"title":"Aspekte des Russland-Ukraine-KonfliktsUrsachen – Auswirkungen – Überwindung","authors":"Herwig Roggemann","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2020-1-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2020-1-9","url":null,"abstract":"The author places the Corona Pandemic in a geopolitical context and sees it as \"an unexpected challenge for the international community as a community of peace and law\". The article pursues a post-crisis scenario and develops political and legal options for easing the Ukrainian conflict. In the author's view, the aim is to \"finally begin to expand the 'Common European House' that has been planned for three decades\".","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123250407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2021-2-136
C. Franzius
The Federal Constitutional Court declared the transformation path to climate neutrality as established by the legislature in the Climate Protection Act to be unconstitutional. Not mainly the result of this climate decision but the reasoning of the Federal Constitutional Court is spectacular. Above all, the innovation in the German “Dogmatik” of fundamental rights is surprising. The Federal Constitutional Court does not modify its jurisprudence on the duty to protect resulting from fundamental rights but rather adheres to it and finds that “currently” the duty is not violated, nonetheless not ending its examination there. With the concept of advanced interference-like effects of fundamental freedom rights, the Court refers to fundamental rights as rights of defense against the state. This has caused irritation, remains partially vague and should be used as an opportunity to take a closer look at the new figure of advanced interference-like effects in the context of intertemporal safeguarding of freedom.
{"title":"Die Figur eingriffsähnlicher Vorwirkungen: Zum Klimabeschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts","authors":"C. Franzius","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2021-2-136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2021-2-136","url":null,"abstract":"The Federal Constitutional Court declared the transformation path to climate neutrality as established by the legislature in the Climate Protection Act to be unconstitutional. Not mainly the result of this climate decision but the reasoning of the Federal Constitutional Court is spectacular. Above all, the innovation in the German “Dogmatik” of fundamental rights is surprising. The Federal Constitutional Court does not modify its jurisprudence on the duty to protect resulting from fundamental rights but rather adheres to it and finds that “currently” the duty is not violated, nonetheless not ending its examination there. With the concept of advanced interference-like effects of fundamental freedom rights, the Court refers to fundamental rights as rights of defense against the state. This has caused irritation, remains partially vague and should be used as an opportunity to take a closer look at the new figure of advanced interference-like effects in the context of intertemporal safeguarding of freedom.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122087308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-270
Nils Grosche
The contribution explores a difference between two sets of cases regarding fundamental rights. On the one hand there are applications of common duties with typical fundamental rights implications. On the other hand there are applications where the relevant fundamental rights implications are much less typical and appear as a rather unique outlier. The described difference may lead to an unconvincing difference regarding the relevant constitutional standard of justification of governmental interference. This is highlighted by a case issued by the Federal Administrative Court concerning a Sikh demanding an exception from the duty to wear a helmet when motorcycling due to religious beliefs. The court held that the religious dimension of the case requires justification only by referring to touched upon competing constitutional values. However, the court also sets a strikingly low bar to pass this seemingly higher standard. Against this background, the contribution argues in favour of a stronger reflection on the difference between applications of common duties with typical fundamental rights implications and outlier cases. It highlights the relevance of this difference when assessing the question whether or not a common duty can be considered to interfere with fundamental rights. This approach mirrors case law of the European Court of Justice.
{"title":"Allgemeine Pflichten und ihre grundrechts(a)typischen Anwendungsfälle","authors":"Nils Grosche","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-270","url":null,"abstract":"The contribution explores a difference between two sets of cases regarding fundamental rights. On the one hand there are applications of common duties with typical fundamental rights implications. On the other hand there are applications where the relevant fundamental rights implications are much less typical and appear as a rather unique outlier. The described difference may lead to an unconvincing difference regarding the relevant constitutional standard of justification of governmental interference. This is highlighted by a case issued by the Federal Administrative Court concerning a Sikh demanding an exception from the duty to wear a helmet when motorcycling due to religious beliefs. The court held that the religious dimension of the case requires justification only by referring to touched upon competing constitutional values. However, the court also sets a strikingly low bar to pass this seemingly higher standard. Against this background, the contribution argues in favour of a stronger reflection on the difference between applications of common duties with typical fundamental rights implications and outlier cases. It highlights the relevance of this difference when assessing the question whether or not a common duty can be considered to interfere with fundamental rights. This approach mirrors case law of the European Court of Justice.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126350408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2020-1-60
Clémentine Boulanger
Angesichts von Covid 19 versinken Staaten in einen Gesundheitsnotstand, um die Pandemie einzudämmen, die eine konstant steigende Zahl von Opfern fordert. Der Gesundheitsnotstand bringt Maßnahmen hervor, die an jene vom Philosophen Michel Foucault beschriebenen Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der Pest im 17. Jahrhundert oder auch die während der beiden Weltkriege des 20. Jahrhunderts ergriffenen und von Giogio Agamben hervorgehobenen, erinnern. Überwachung und soziale Kontrolle treten auf, Ausnahmegesetzgebung wird verabschiedet und der Rechtsstaat hält den Atem an in Luxemburg und den umliegenden Staaten an. Ziel des vorliegenden Aufsatzes ist es, die von den Staaten im Kampf gegen Covid 19 eingesetzten Maßnahmen zur Überwachung und sozialen Kontrolle ans Licht zu bringen und die Auswirkungen des Ausnahmezustands auf die Zivilgesellschaft zu verstehen.
{"title":"Surveiller pour soigner","authors":"Clémentine Boulanger","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2020-1-60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2020-1-60","url":null,"abstract":"Angesichts von Covid 19 versinken Staaten in einen Gesundheitsnotstand, um die Pandemie einzudämmen, die eine konstant steigende Zahl von Opfern fordert. Der Gesundheitsnotstand bringt Maßnahmen hervor, die an jene vom Philosophen Michel Foucault beschriebenen Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung der Pest im 17. Jahrhundert oder auch die während der beiden Weltkriege des 20. Jahrhunderts ergriffenen und von Giogio Agamben hervorgehobenen, erinnern. Überwachung und soziale Kontrolle treten auf, Ausnahmegesetzgebung wird verabschiedet und der Rechtsstaat hält den Atem an in Luxemburg und den umliegenden Staaten an. Ziel des vorliegenden Aufsatzes ist es, die von den Staaten im Kampf gegen Covid 19 eingesetzten Maßnahmen zur Überwachung und sozialen Kontrolle ans Licht zu bringen und die Auswirkungen des Ausnahmezustands auf die Zivilgesellschaft zu verstehen.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127825275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-290
Emil Krude, A. Pilniok
Depuis quelque temps, la discussion sur les droits d'expression des membres du gouvernement a gagné du terrain dans le débat constitutionnel en Allemagne. Elle est devenue essentielle à la doctrine du droit de l'organisation constitutionnelle, bien quèlle ne soit pas incontestée. La présente contribution examine les exigences posées par la Cour Constitutionnelle Fédérale allemande (BVerfG) en établissant des restrictions aux déclarations des membres du gouvernement. Les auteurs entendent démontrer que les critères de décision posés par la Cour pour garantir l'égalité des chances entre les partis politiques nécessitent une modification. La ligne de jurisprudence de la Cour est non seulement doctrinalement incohérente, mais aussi peu convaincante du point de vue de la théorie constitutionnelle. En effet, la jurisprudence de la Cour constitutionnelle révèle une interprétation contestable du rôle du gouvernement dans le système parlementaire allemand. Ainsi, la Cour devrait envisager de revenir à sa ligne de jurisprudence initiale d’établir un devoir de neutralité en ce qui concerne l’utilisation ministrérielle des ressources gouvernementales.
{"title":"Die Äußerungsbefugnisse von Regierungsmitgliedern","authors":"Emil Krude, A. Pilniok","doi":"10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-290","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-7869-2021-3-290","url":null,"abstract":"Depuis quelque temps, la discussion sur les droits d'expression des membres du gouvernement a gagné du terrain dans le débat constitutionnel en Allemagne. Elle est devenue essentielle à la doctrine du droit de l'organisation constitutionnelle, bien quèlle ne soit pas incontestée. La présente contribution examine les exigences posées par la Cour Constitutionnelle Fédérale allemande (BVerfG) en établissant des restrictions aux déclarations des membres du gouvernement. Les auteurs entendent démontrer que les critères de décision posés par la Cour pour garantir l'égalité des chances entre les partis politiques nécessitent une modification. La ligne de jurisprudence de la Cour est non seulement doctrinalement incohérente, mais aussi peu convaincante du point de vue de la théorie constitutionnelle. En effet, la jurisprudence de la Cour constitutionnelle révèle une interprétation contestable du rôle du gouvernement dans le système parlementaire allemand. Ainsi, la Cour devrait envisager de revenir à sa ligne de jurisprudence initiale d’établir un devoir de neutralité en ce qui concerne l’utilisation ministrérielle des ressources gouvernementales.","PeriodicalId":275616,"journal":{"name":"Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128459200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：