Contact
Work group
Human Rights
Angelika Nußberger is professor of international law, public law and comparative law at the University of Cologne and founding director of the Academy for European Human Rights Protection, Vice-President of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, member of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the Institut de droit international. She was a judge at the European Court of Human Rights elected on behalf of Germany from January 2011 to December 2019 and its Vice-President from February 2017. For her work at the KFG it is important that she has not only studied law, but also literature (German, Russian and French) in Munich, Würzburg, Moscow (1985 study visit) and Boston (visiting researcher at Harvard University 1994/1995).
Angelika Nußberger on universalisms in law, its particularist expressions and characteristics, and current KFG topics:
Chatzoudis, Georgis: „Ein universell geltendes und befolgtes Recht ist eine Utopie“ Interview mit Angelika Nußberger über aktuelle Forschung zu Universalismus und Partikularismus, in: L.I.S.A. The Science Portal (25.02.2025); https://lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/nussberger_universalismus[03.03.2025].
Research Project
War and Law. Responses to military conflicts in Eastern Europe
One of the outstanding features of the post-Cold War period, naively referred to as the "end of history", was the belief in law. The ratification of existing human rights treaties by the former communist states, their accession to international organisations, and the drafting of new and ever more specific treaties testify to the assumption that law should prevail over power politics. This included the hope that wars could be prevented by law. The experience was bitter; none of the preliminary rulings of the European Court of Human Rights or the International Court of Justice could stop the violence. Nevertheless, the belief in law - even in times of war - was not abandoned. The law should help to restore justice after the end of hostilities, bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes or crimes against humanity, or to provide redress for human rights violations
The question is to what extent the belief in universal legal norms and the regulatory and reconciliatory power of the courts has stood the test of reality. The period between 1990 and the present provides many illustrations. All the wars fought during this period were brought before a court. Some judgments, such as the genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro: Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) before the International Court of Justice or the case of Georgia vs. Russia before the European Court of Human Rights are groundbreaking.
The aim of this research project is to analyse the extent to which the courts have been accepted as fair arbiters 'judging wars', and the extent to which they have been able to restore justice both to those affected and to the wider community shocked by the atrocities.
Angelika Nußberger | Nürnberg 2.0? Die Kriege in Osteuropa vor Gericht as video and podcast on Wissenschaftsportal L.I.S.A.