I seize this opportunity (again) to reply to the recent post by a distinguished professor Siniša Rodin of Zagreb University, a colleague of mine if I may say so. My writing is motivated merely by discursive purposes and not by anything else - in other words, I am writing purely as an academic to outline the arguments which should disclose a tiny little deficiency in Prof. Rodin's submission.

He writes as follows:

"It is Europe I am talking about. The Europe, envisaged by its founding fathers, who counted on solidarity as a token of common future. The Europe where border disputes are despised and set aside and those who invoke them marginalized and exposed to shame. Europe should construe its identity against negative historic experiences. Against fascism, communism and populist nationalism. All the mentioned historic ideologies have territory and national sovereignty in their core.European Union must not succumb Slovenian populist demands. "
(full post:http://pravo-eu.blogspot.com/)
All nice and well, but these strong claims lack a bit of fairness - at least from the Slovenian perspective - due to the following reasons.

Slovenia has no territorial claims against Croatia. It has always insisted that the border should be determined consensually and both sides have agreed that the decisive date is 25. 6. 1991. This is confirmed by the Badinter's Commission and even written down, at least, in Slo Constitution. Following the uti possidetis iuris int'l principle - the countries shall control those lands that they had at the relevant time, all unilateral moves following thereafter being against the int'l law and as such void. The countries moreover agreed, most recently 3 years ago at Brioni, that they will stand away from any unilateral moves.

However, it has been Croatia - and I leave it up to the reader to come up with the opposite arguments - which has consistently defied its pledge and hence also acted against int'l law at least in the Bay of Piran. A couple of concrete examples should illustrate my point:

1. The Plovanija border crossing. The prime minister of Croatia confirmed it is only of a provisional character. Years later it is a fully fledged border crossing, now even included int the documents submitted to the EU.

2. Piran bay: all of a sudden its name is unilaterally and fully artificially changed into Savudrijska Vala. All of a sudden fishermen from Umag are sent (I leave it up to the reader by whom) to create incidents, to involve Croatian police and to exercise jurisdiction.

3. The four tiny villages at Dragonja - in 1994 Croatia cuts the phone and electricity lines from the municipality of Secovlje and changes the house numbers to Croatian.

4. I will not even mention all the (irrational) affairs with Josko Joras, who was even arrested for bringing home a washing machine and 10 litters of milk just bought in Koper past the, what is supposed to be, a provisional Croatian border crossing point.
 
5. Croatian municipality of Buje decides to sell (sic!) the disputed territory along Dragonja in 2008, irrespective off all the pledges against unilateral moves.

6. The Buje municipality even allowed Croatian hunters to enter the int'l protected Secovlje environmental resort (in 2008) and shoot the birds in a flagrant violation of the int'l convention; the fishermen have planted mussels where they never existed before 1991, etc... and one  could go on and on.... but I will stop here.

Now, after all these years and all these events, to read that Slovenia is acting in a selfish, anti-European, even populist manner strikes one truly by surprise, to use the mildest word possible. Slovenia did not create this border dispute. It has not engaged into unilateral moves, but it has been constantly under pressure of the Croatian fait accompli. Moreover, Slovenia also signed and ratified the Drnovsek-Racan agreement, which would have solved the problems long time ago and forever had Croatia done the same. But it did not, as it failed to do with Bosnia and other neighboring states.

To corner one state by a number of unilateral moves, which are formally confirmed on the level of Croatian legislation and used in the EU negotiation procedure, and to demand solidarity is just a non sequitur. A mala fide non sequitur one could even say - which might even bite its own tail.  "The Europe where border disputes are despised and set aside and those who invoke them marginalized and exposed to shame", it better applies, at least it appears to me so, to Croatia than to Slovenia.

Moreover, sometimes, especially reading Croatian news and arguments, one gets an impression that it is Croatia who is a member of the EU and not Slovenia. It dictates the conditions and, so the argument goes, it might even have the veto over the Lisbon solution. It might even retaliate. Yet, if we have dragged ourselves to the int'l realism - to the power-play -, which I have always hoped it would not happen, then these convictions simply do not hold water. Those who want to enter a golf club, can not simultaneously determine its rules as non-members. Not even if the sky falls down...and the founding fathers roll in their graves.

Of course, this is not the road we should be traveling. Yet, it must be understood that Slovenia can not accept the unilaterally changed border conditions. It is the general international law that mandates Slovenian side to insist on withdrawal of all the measures that could prejudge the border lest it risks acquiescence. Croatia itself has brought the dispute to Brussels. Croatia has made it part of the acquis by relying on the amended national legislative acts, which should confirm its readiness to enter the EU but which simultaneously, volen nolens, more than apparently attempt to prejudge the border dispute resolution.

Finally, if in anyone's, then it is in the Slovenian national interest to see Croatia in the Union as soon as possible. This is for a range of super pragmatic and economic reasons, but I would hope also for some more substantive value-based reasons. Hopefully, the two countries will have got over these skirmishes soon. However, to do so both will have to act in the spirit of new Europe. Both will have to express a degree of reflexivity. For each medal has two sides and any dispute always requires two to scrabmle. The latter fails to be recognized in Prof. Rodin's post.

This is an excerpt from The Conundrum of the Piran Bay, co-authored by Jernej Letnar and myself. I decided to-republish it because it is, unfortunatelly, once again extremely actual. Hopefully somebody learns a lesson from it.

"In the light of the conclusion that no clear answer can be given to the Piran Bay conundrum, a useful a solution might be not drawing a border at all. Since there has never been one, it may never need one. The disputes about the borders should be seen as anachronistic in a contemporary Europe that strives for an ever-closer Union between its peoples. Borders are becoming more symbolic than functional. The law and the facts are that the maritime biological conservation is under exclusive competence of the EU. Within the fisheries sector, Member States are almost entirely pre-empted.60 It follows from this that Member States have lost or in other words delegated their sovereign rights in these fields to a supranational body for their better exercise.

If this is so, Slovenia and Croatia are quarrelling about something that Slovenia has already given up and Croatia has acquiesced, since it strives for as early accession to EU as possible. The core of the dispute between the countries is thus hollow and empty. In other words there is nothing to dispute. To clarify, if the Slovenian interests are in keeping the direct contact with the high seas for the unhampered functioning of its ports, preservation of the sea for the general well-being of the local inhabitants, and the development of tourism, these objectives can be achieved by not drawing a border. The same is true for Croatia, which also wants to preserve the environment and the well-being of its local inhabitants. Above all, it wants to have a direct contact with Italy which it can have since this border undisputedly exists from the time of ex-Yugoslavia.

Without drawing a border and replacing and complementing the regulatory regime in this area by the EU legal regime, which will soon bind both Slovenia and Croatia, both states will get what they want and actually what EU law dictates. The problems of the local fishermen will be solved by the EU four fundamental freedoms, and the problems of the inhabitants in the four disputed villages will be solved in the same way and additionally by the provision of the EU citizenship. With respect to EU citizenship, the decision to award the disputed people in these four villages with a dual citizenship, as it was agreed in Drnovšek-Racan agreement, amounts to contradictio in adiecto. Under EU law it suffices to have only one citizenship of one Member State to enjoy the national and EU benefits.

In essence, the solution of the Piran bay conundrum lies in the abandonment of the old statist approach by facing the new reality that is brought about by the European Union as an ideal worth following. We claim that the border disputes within the EU of today are anachronistic,  ince they belong to the Westphalian understanding of the world, which is being incrementally, but for sure, transcended and rendered obsolete. Slovenia and Croatia should, by having in mind their common destiny in the EU of tomorrow, rely on the agreements already reached and should just declare the waters ranging from Vrsar (Croatia) to Debeli Rtic (Slovenia) as their common waters, where common police control will be exercised, where EU exclusive policy will be implemented, and where it will not matter whether a boat is under Croatian or Slovenian flag. This kind of step forward would ease the tensions between the two nations. These tensions are completely artificial and have been used as a scapegoat for concealing problems internal to the political and economic situation of the both states. The local population, which has lived in peace since time immemorial should not be thrust in the middle of strategic political disputes, rather the culture of co-operation and mutual trust in the spirit of Europe without borders should be promoted."

Full article is available at:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=990183

Our colleague, Źmicier Koroteyew, offers a comprehensive account of legality and legitimacy of 2008 parliamentary 'elections' in Belarus, one of the last standing totalitarian regimes in Europe.

 

'PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS' IN BELARUS: LEGITIMIZED FRAUD?

by Źmicier Koroteyew

 

BACKGROUND

 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Belarus, although dominated by former Communists, was slowly progressing towards democratization. The old national symbols were adopted as the state Flag and Emblem, and the Belarusian language was actively being brought back to public life. However, the economic crisis of the early 1990s created a perfect demand for political populism. Thus, an MP Aliaksandr Lukashenko gained more than 80% of the votes in the first presidential elections of 1994 thanks to his anti-corruption rhetoric and anti-elitist platform. After that, Lukashenko organized a non-violent coup d'état through illegitimate referenda where he appealed to the wide class of modernization-losers and rural and urban lower classes. Since then, the President has concentrated the dictatorial power in both politics and economy. Not a single 'election' in Belarus since 1996 was recognized by the international community as free or democratic.

 

BEFORE THE 'ELECTION'

 

Although the current role of the Belarusian legislature is somewhat close to the Soviet Supreme Soviet, i.e. to legitimize decisions by the executive, the 'Parliamentary election' of 2008 attracted great attention of European states.

The Russian aggression against Georgia showed everybody in Europe that XIX-century methods (as described by Condoleezza Rice) were not history yet. Moscow was back to its old and usual behavior of unpredictability and unreasonable ambitions. In such situation in many EU member states the cold-war fears were remembered again. This was especially relevant in post-soviet Central and Eastern Europe and Poland seemed to be one of the most frightened nations. Since Belarus is the only barrier between Russia and Poland, Warsaw became the most active to drag Belarus away from Russia. After the hostile Belarusian-Polish relations in times of the former conservative government in Warsaw, the current liberal administration was eager to go very far in its pragmatic approach. The Polish foreign minister Radosław Sikorski visited Belarus and became an active lobbyist of Belarusian westernization on the EU level. Such a dynamic change of Polish attitude even provoked accusations that Poland was ready to betray the oppressed Polish minority in Belarus.

Besides foreign policy situation, there has been an essential event in the internal Belarusian political life. Three ultimate political prisoners were released, among them a 2006 Presidential candidate Aliaksandr Kazulin, that had been sentenced to five and a half years in prison. The release of political prisoners was recognized by both USA and EU as a progress in democratization and fulfillment of one out of twelve EU conditions for Belarus.

The following 'elections' pushed the regime to make an impression of a political thaw. The President himself was actively playing and sending signals that he was finally ready to provide at least minimal conditions for competitive election campaign. The rumors were circulating in the independent media that some opposition candidates will get to the Parliament. In his interviews to the European press, President Lukashenko confirmed he was expecting the recognition of the new Parliament, and thus the legitimization of his regime by the EU.

What the EU expected was obviously not expecting a free election, which would be impossible, but at least some political concessions by the regime. Letting some opposition candidates win could have been the easiest solution for Lukashenko in order to create an illusion of democratization and thus satisfy the Europeans. This was the reason why Western sponsors pushed the Belarusian opposition not to boycott the 'elections'. Therefore, only a minor part of the political forces decided not to take part in the 'elections', while the rest decided to give it a chance, stimulated by the hope to be admitted to the Parliament. However, these expectations of the EU were unrealistic, and even such minor concession was impossible for the regime in Minsk.

 

'ELECTIONS'

 

From its very first moment, the 'election' campaign proved that everything would go the usual way and the results would be falsified. Belarusian authorities used their traditional instrument to raise the turnout – advance voting. This technical possibility, originally created for the voters unable cast their vote on election day, has been extensively misused in Belarus for falsifications of the electoral results. The Government used administrative pressure in order to coerce the categories of the voters that are in a way or another dependent on State, such as students, employees of state-run enterprises, etc.; students, for example, were threatened with expulsion from dormitories. According to the official statistics, 26% of the voters took part in advance voting. This figure might have however been underestimated in order not to shock by its artificiality.

Three days before the 'elections', the independent media received from confidential sources a list of approved MPs and made it public. After the official results were announced, it turned out that the list was almost identical to them. The suspicions that the President always approves a draft list of elected MPs beforehand, thus proved to be true.

Numerous violations of electoral procedures have been registered by both the OSCE and by local independent observers. However, the usual procedure of violations which is always carried through in the Belarusian 'elections', is well designed so to hide the falsification. The 'elections' in Belarus are a confirmation the old Stalin's pun: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Thus, the observers are only allowed to watch the counting from a distance from which it is impossible for human eyesight to detect written information.

The falsification itself, however, takes place in the local electoral commissions (usually functioning in school buildings) that are completely in the hands of the regime. The ballot box used in the campaign is not sealed on the bottom, making it possible to falsify the election with a – usual screwdriver. A police superintendent at one of the polling stations in Minsk has noticed and reported officially that a ballot box in his polling station was opened and the unregistered ballots were inserted during the lunch brake.

The 2008 'election' was striking for its extremely low turnout as reported by independent observers. Although the official turnout was 75.3%, the independent observers estimated it at much less than the required 50%.

 

AFTER THE 'ELECTIONS'

 

The official 'election' results created a dilemma for Europe. On the one hand, the 'elections' were clearly undemocratic. Belarus is situated in Europe and therefore it is not possible to accept certain things there, that would otherwise be possible for other regions of the world. Recognition of the electoral fraud would ruin the image of European diplomacy and would be considered a betrayal for the opposition in Belarus. On the other hand, there is a clear necessity to turn the regime in Minsk towards Europe. The visions of single European countries on the Belarusian problem differed. Generally, the neighboring countries, like Poland or the Baltic states, were more interested in cooperation with Belarus for obvious economic reasons, while West European states could afford being less flexible.

Doubts were mostly over with the resolution of the European Parliament, with 597 vs. 31 MEPs saying 'yes' to cooperation with Belarus. However, the resolution and the following European decisions were a compromise solution of the above-mentioned dilemma. The European Parliament recommended to lift visa sanctions against Belarusian state officials for a period of half a year, except for those suspected of connections with the 'death squad' or the electoral fraud. The visa sanctions for the President himself were omitted in the resolution. The Luxembourg meeting of the EU foreign ministers agreed to enforce the decision of the European Parliament and to exclude President Lukashenko from the sanction list. As a consequence, the Belarusian ruler now has a right to enter the EU; nevertheless, it is doubtful that any European country would want to invite 'Europe's last dictator.'

The initial dilemma for the EU decision makers was also relevant for the Belarusian opposition. There are now two clear positions on the further actions of opposition. The 2006 Presidential candidate Alaksandar Milinkievič, who is still more popular than the leaders of other opposition parties, is calling for negotiations between Lukashenko's Government and the EU. Dr. Milinkievič claims that there is no other choice; if the current regime does not turn to the West, he claims, Russia will eventually get total control over Belarus. Surprisingly, this position was also supported by the famous initiator of the Belarusian Popular Front in the late 1980s Zianon Paźniak, known for his anti-Russian positions, who now lives as a political refugee in the USA. The other part of the opposition is still insisting on inter-Belarusian dialogue, having in mind the round table discussions in Eastern European countries in the late 1980s. 

The development of the situation in Belarus however largely depends on the good will of the Belarusian ruler. Nevertheless, the ultimate economic problems caused by increase of gas prices and huge rise of foreign debt do not allow playing games with Europe, because it will not give any effect in the nearest future. In addition, the constant and increasing economic pressure by Russia makes the decision makers operate just in a short run.

 

Źmicier Koroteyew has a B.A. in International Relations from Belarus National University (Minsk) and M.A. in Political Science from Central European University (Budapest). Currently is a Ph.D. candidate at Polish Academy of Sciences (Warsaw). Źmicier has several publications on foreign policy issues in Belarus and abroad. Mail to: dkorotey[at]staszic.adminpan.waw.pl

Vse od prve polovice leta 2005, ko so francoski in nizozemski volivci na referendumu s prepričljivo večino zavrnili Pogodbo o Ustavi za Evropo, Evropska unija išče izhode iz tako nastale ustavne krize. Vsi poskusi doslej so se izkazali za neuspešne. Po začetnem šoku, ki mu je sledilo kar dvoletno obdobje refleksije, se je kot svetloba na koncu tunela vendarle pojavila nova reformna pogodba iz Lizbone. Ta je po vsebini povzela številne rešitve iz propadle ustavne pogodbe in hkrati po izrecni volji evropskih voditeljev iz besedila umaknila vse, kar bi lahko kakorkoli spominjalo na ustavo. Po prepričanju mnogih je bil namreč prav ustavni koncept tisti, ki je prestrašil volivce in jih spodbudil h glasovanju proti.

Toda tudi ta domneva in na njeni podlagi ustvarjena pričakovanja so se slednjič izkazala za račun brez krčmarja. Potem ko je večina držav članic že ratificirala novo reformno pogodbo, seveda na varnem mestu v nacionalnih parlamentih in tako daleč stran od neposrednega vpliva 'neukih' državljanov, si Irska zaradi svoje ustavne ureditve tega ni mogla privoščiti. Prav v času slovenskega predsedovanja Uniji je razpisala referendum, katerega izid je bil, tako kot v primeru pogodbe iz Nice nekaj let poprej, negativen. Irski volivci so izrekli jasen ne Lizbonski pogodbi ter t.i. bruseljskim evrokratom, za kar je bila, čeprav seveda samo v slovenskih medijih, vsaj posredna kriva tudi slovenska vlada kot predsedujoča Uniji.

 Ne glede na to, kdo zares nosi odgovornost za propadli irski referendum, ki jo politični in pravni analitiki enkrat pripisujejo irski vladi, drugič pa apatični evropski Komisiji, dejstva ostajajo jasna. EU je še naprej primorana delovati v skladu z objektivno zastarelo pogodbo iz Nice, na podlagi katere je še manj kot na razširjeno članstvo 27 držav članic pripravljena na velike svetovne politične, varnostne in ekonomske izzive. Teh pa v zadnjem času ne manjka. Čez noč se je namreč prek Atlantika priplazila hladna senca finančne krize in prvič v zgodovini pahnila Evro-območje v recesijo. Če dodamo k temu še napete odnose z Rusijo, vekomaj nestabilni Balkan, našo sosedo Hrvaško, ki brez spremembe obstoječih ustanovnih pogodb v Unijo najverjetneje sploh ne more vstopiti, ter zaključimo s skrajno zapletenim vprašanjem morebitnega članstva Turčije, je slika vse prej kot rožnata.

 Iztekajoče se francosko predsedovanje Uniji tako skorajšnjemu češkemu predsedstvu prepušča precej neprivlačno in zamotano dediščino. Toda Čehi imajo morda še več problemov sami s seboj. Njihov kontroverzni predsednik Vaclav Klaus navkljub pretežni naklonjenosti češkega javnega mnenja do Unije ne zamudi nobene priložnosti za razširjanje evroskepticizma, največkrat v obliki skrajno demagoških izjav. Češka vlada je poleg tega po nedavnem porazu na lokalnih volitvah izrazito oslabljena, medtem ko parlament, kljub pritiskom iz Bruslja, ne more nadaljevati postopka ratifikacije Lizbonske pogodbe, dokler o njeni skladnosti z ustavo ne odloči češko ustavno sodišče.

Vseeno pa bo nekaj potrebno storiti. Izhod iz zagate, nastale z irskim ne, je v luči vsega povedanega treba poiskati čim prej.  Irska vlada si je zaenkrat s tihim dogovorom z institucijami EU ter državami članicami izposlovala nekaj mesecev za predlaganje rešitve. Njeno iskanje v sodelovanju s strokovnjaki s področja prava EU tako že nekaj časa intenzivno poteka. Rešitev je lahko več. Zanimivo je, da se je v množici predlogov nedavno ponovno znašla tudi ideja vse-evropskega referenduma, ki pa je trenutno docela pravno neizvedljiva. Bolj realno je pričakovati, da si bo Irska skušala izgovoriti posamične izjeme, t.i. opt outs, od ustanovne pogodbe, in tako spremenjeno pogodbo ponovno predložila v odločanje volivcem. Zelo malo verjetno je namreč, da bi se tej dolžnosti izognila z ustreznim amandmajem k ustavi.

Vse to pa, seveda, ne prinaša nobenega zagotovila, da si bodo irski volivci na temelju posameznih pogodbenih drobtinic premislili in na vnovičnem glasovanju pogodbo tudi podprli. Ker ponovnega negativnega izida tako ni moč izključiti, bi veljalo razmišljati tudi o drugih, bolj radikalnih rešitvah. Med njimi se vse glasneje omenja tudi možnost bolj prožne evropske integracije. V skladu z njo vse države članice ne bi nujno v enaki meri nastopale v vseh politikah Unije. Tako imenovana ideja Evrope več hitrosti bi potemtakem kljub izrazitemu odporu, na katerega je še vse do nedavna naletela v političnih kakor tudi v akademskih krogih, lahko postala realna rešitev krize Evropske unije. V ta namen bi slednja sicer morala do potankosti znova premisliti svoje poslanstvo ter način delovanja. Toda, ali ni prav to tisto sporočilo, ki ga Uniji pošiljajo nezadovoljni irski državljani?

A friend of mine has recently shared an excellent video clip with me explaining, as succinctly as it gets, all the mis(t)ery that is behind our most recent financial crisis.

Here is the link:

http://rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=73619

Enjoy it!

Kot smo ze pisali na nasem blogu, je ena najvecjih pridobitev zamenjave oblasti v Sloveniji leta 2004 ta, da so pocasi, tik pred skorajsnjimi volitvami pa v celoti, padle maske. Karte so na mizi.

Dokazov je toliko, da jih ni moc nasteti. Toda najlepse se je predstavil v tej luci kar osrednji SLO casopis (sic!) sam, ko je njegov odgovorni urednik zapisal:

"Časopis Delo je že konec junija v uvodniku Sobotne priloge zavzel izhodiščno stališče do letošnjih parlamentarnih volitev in do danes ostaja nespremenjeno: Slovenija potrebuje spremembo oblasti. Utemeljitev je preprosta: sedanja vladajoča koalicija zapušča državo v bistveno slabšem stanju (gledano relativno in absolutno), kot jo je pred štirimi leti ob velikih upih volivcev dobila v upravljanje."

Krasno: sedaj bo vsaj za vselej zakopana floskula o notranjem pluralizmu nasih medijev.

Le-ti so v zadnjih mesecih odigrali zares neslavno vlogo. Z letecimi sloni so si za vselej postavili ogledalo, v svojem skrajno enostranskem trobljenju pa so sli tako dalec, da je njihova prepricevalna vrednost dosegla tocko 0, ali pa se je spustila se nize.

V taksnem sistemu Gleichschaltunge je užitek in hkrati dolžnost biti v Opoziciji. V takšni z velikim O, da se bomo razumeli.

Aleksandar Isajevič Solženjicin passed away yesterday night. One of the few remaining critical Russian intellectuals has often been described as embodiment of 'a moral consciousness of Russia'. What follows is the section from his Nobel Lecture in 1970, which responds perfectly to challenges of our contemporary world.
 
'But today, between the writers of one country and the writers and readers of another, there is a reciprocity if not instantaneous then almost so. I experience this with myself. Those of my books which, alas, have not been printed in my own country have soon found a responsive, worldwide audience, despite hurried and often bad translations. Such distinguished western writers as Heinrich Böll have undertaken critical analysis of them. All these last years, when my work and freedom have not come crashing down, when contrary to the laws of gravity they have hung suspended as though on air, as though on NOTHING - on the invisible dumb tension of a sympathetic public membrane; then it was with grateful warmth, and quite unexpectedly for myself, that I learnt of the further support of the international brotherhood of writers. On my fiftieth birthday I was astonished to receive congratulations from well-known western writers. No pressure on me came to pass by unnoticed. During my dangerous weeks of exclusion from the Writers' Union the WALL OF DEFENCE advanced by the world's prominent writers protected me from worse persecutions; and Norwegian writers and artists hospitably prepared a roof for me, in the event of my threatened exile being put into effect. Finally even the advancement of my name for the Nobel Prize was raised not in the country where I live and write, but by Francois Mauriac and his colleagues. And later still entire national writers' unions have expressed their support for me.

Thus I have understood and felt that world literature is no longer an abstract anthology, nor a generalization invented by literary historians; it is rather a certain common body and a common spirit, a living heartfelt unity reflecting the growing unity of mankind. State frontiers still turn crimson, heated by electric wire and bursts of machine fire; and various ministries of internal affairs still think that literature too is an "internal affair" falling under their jurisdiction; newspaper headlines still display: "No right to interfere in our internal affairs!" Whereas there are no INTERNAL AFFAIRS left on our crowded Earth! And mankind's sole salvation lies in everyone making everything his business; in the people of the East being vitally concerned with what is thought in the West, the people of the West vitally concerned with what goes on in the East. And literature, as one of the most sensitive, responsive instruments possessed by the human creature, has been one of the first to adopt, to assimilate, to catch hold of this feeling of a growing unity of mankind. And so I turn with confidence to the world literature of today - to hundreds of friends whom I have never met in the flesh and whom I may never see.

Friends! Let us try to help if we are worth anything at all! Who from time immemorial has constituted the uniting, not the dividing, strength in your countries, lacerated by discordant parties, movements, castes and groups? There in its essence is the position of writers: expressers of their native language - the chief binding force of the nation, of the very earth its people occupy, and at best of its national spirit.

I believe that world literature has it in its power to help mankind, in these its troubled hours, to see itself as it really is, notwithstanding the indoctrinations of prejudiced people and parties. World literature has it in its power to convey condensed experience from one land to another so that we might cease to be split and dazzled, that the different scales of values might be made to agree, and one nation learn correctly and concisely the true history of another with such strength of recognition and painful awareness as it had itself experienced the same, and thus might it be spared from repeating the same cruel mistakes. And perhaps under such conditions we artists will be able to cultivate within ourselves a field of vision to embrace the WHOLE WORLD: in the centre observing like any other human being that which lies nearby, at the edges we shall begin to draw in that which is happening in the rest of the world. And we shall correlate, and we shall observe world proportions.

And who, if not writers, are to pass judgement - not only on their unsuccessful governments, (in some states this is the easiest way to earn one's bread, the occupation of any man who is not lazy), but also on the people themselves, in their cowardly humiliation or self-satisfed weakness? Who is to pass judgement on the light-weight sprints of youth, and on the young pirates brandishing their knives?

We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.

And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood, not to support false actions! Let THAT enter the world, let it even reign in the world - but not with my help. But writers and artists can achieve more: they can CONQUER FALSEHOOD! In the struggle with falsehood art always did win and it always does win! Openly, irrefutably for everyone! Falsehood can hold out against much in this world, but not against art.

And no sooner will falsehood be dispersed than the nakedness of violence will be revealed in all its ugliness - and violence, decrepit, will fall.

That is why, my friends, I believe that we are able to help the world in its white-hot hour. Not by making the excuse of possessing no weapons, and not by giving ourselves over to a frivolous life - but by going to war!

Proverbs about truth are well-loved in Russian. They give steady and sometimes striking expression to the not inconsiderable harsh national experience:

ONE WORD OF TRUTH SHALL OUTWEIGH THE WHOLE WORLD.

And it is here, on an imaginary fantasy, a breach of the principle of the conservation of mass and energy, that I base both my own activity and my appeal to the writers of the whole world.'
 
From Nobel Lectures, Literature 1968-1980, Editor-in-Charge Tore Frängsmyr, Editor Sture Allén, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1993

Dejstev - tisto, kar se je zgodilo, se ocitno ne da skriti. Vselej priplava vsaj nekaj na dan, kar doda majhen kamencek v koncni mozaik resnice.

Prav je, da vemo, kdo smo in kaj smo.

V družbeni konstrukciji slovenske realnosti so bili v preteklosti pa vse do dandanes pravi obrazi nekterih skrbno prikriti.

RTV Slovenija je v svojem sredinem prispevku vsaj malo odškrknila vrata in nekateri imajo možnost pogledati se v ogledalo.

Uživajte: http://www.rtvslo.si/play/dokumenti-komunisti-vodili-urednisko-politiko/ava2.17869296/

One of the high-flying aspirations in the wake of Slovenian independence and the expected thorough democratization of its public space, was a construction of a healthy pluralist society. I must admit I was on the side of those who believed that this can be achieved by law, in particular by constitutional law. In that regard, most of our hopes have been dedicated to constitutional adjudication and/of key constitutional principles and freedoms, specifically freedom of speech. 

Now, a little less than 10 years later, we have hit the ground of a crude reality. Apparently wrong means have been identified for otherwise  praiseworthy objectives. Pluralism can not be gained through law, not even through its superior pronunciation: constitution. If in social terms - in terms of existing social capital of a particular community there is simply not enough human resources to carry pluralism through, a political system will not be pluralist, it will not be sound and not genuinely democratic.

The experiences with the currently outgoing political establishment in Slovenia have truly been rewarding. Whatever judgment of its performance one might hold, something is indisputable. Existence of a first non-continuity government after 60 or so years, revealed the depth and breadth of socio-political pathologies of the Slovenian polity. The veil of deception, like in temple, has been cut in half and everybody was compelled to show his/her real face.

The result: a stunning world-view hegemony of civil-society elites, shallowness if not straightforward emptiness of those who should preserved the rule of recognition; Gleichschaltung of the journalist class and an overall economic monopoly of the nouvelle post-communist richesse.

In such a social situation law can be of little use - and neither can be, and increasingly less, reason. 

This is a disquieting conclusion in all its might, I know. But it is a fact. We have to come to terms with it - to see where this deeply structural democratic - or even worse: social decency deficit - can be grabbed for the purposes of its healthier reconstruction.

The latter can, doubtlessly, be done - the question remains whether still during our own epoch.

Is it worth our energy? This is a question that anyone, including you, should answer for herself.

The otherwise rather steady and tranquil Slovenian political quotidian has lately been perturbed by a judicial unrest. The justices in black robes decided to call a strike, properly so called. The judicial chambers will close down, the files will be kept shut and all the plaintiffs and defendants will have to stay home. Reason: the wages are too low. The judges want to be on a level playing field with the MPs. The Constitutional Court ruled so and so be it, or paret mundus.

In reality, the situation is indeed worth of a grave concern. Behind these rather tiny skirmishes about money there is a real and very dark world of Slovenian justice that has long been entangled in a vicious circle, without anyone, or so it seems, having noticed that. What is it that I have in mind?

1st: the courts and the carriers of a judicial function have lost all reputation and trust in the eyes of the ordinary people in the last 15 years. We are drowning in judicial delays, case-load keeps piling up and ordinary people have felt that on their skin. If one has to wait 5, 10 or even more years for a justice to be done, anything else is hardly to expect.

2nd: the judges are badly if not even miserably payed. This has led to a brain drain and the best minds fled into private practice. Those who have stayed work in a hostile environment - disrespected by the people - with loads of fat cases.

3rd: government wants to see more work done. It is willing to pay more for it, but only those judges who would contribute more. However, solidarity among judges works against this. They ALL want a better pay and oppose additional payment as a motivation for more work. Market rationale has no domicile in courts, they claim. Hence, we have a clash between the government and the judges.

This means that all fronts are open: judges are unhappy with the working conditions, government is dissatisfied with their output and the citizens are upset with both of them. It is difficult to see where this vicious circle could be cut up. What is clear, a justice on strike is not a right way to proceed. It will make things only worse.

US President G.W. Bush recently visited Slovenia for the second time. In his own words, "It's interesting, my first visit as U.S. president to Europe included a — my first stop in Slovenia. My last visit as U.S. president to Europe includes first stop in Slovenia. It's a fitting circle."

Regardless of what one thinks of his polices, it is interesting to observe that he already in 2001 invented probably catchier phrase to describe uniqueness of Slovenia than any so far invented by Slovenian Tourist Board. He notedat that time that Slovenia is like a slice of heaven. This time around he slightly modified his phrase to Slovenia as “a big slice of heaven”. It appears that it would be a good idea for Slovenian Tourist Board to follow up on such catchy phrase. Admittedly, such phrase may seem amusing to some US TV presenters (See J. Stewart’s Daily Show) , but it undoubtedly catches people’s attention.

Our friend, Fozia Lone, writes about a case of Kashmiri student maltreated in Tihar jail in India.

Subject: Urgent Action, Innocent Kashmiri Student Muhammad Rafiq Shah, ill-treated in Tihar jail  

I would like to bring to you attention the plight of the innocent Kashmiri student who was perusing his postgraduate studies at the University of Kashmir before he was arrested on 29 October 2005 for carrying out blasts on the eve of Diwali in New Delhi.  As per the press report published in the Daily Greater Kashmir he is languishing in jail from last three years without any trial.  In his open letter from the Tihar jail, Muhammad Rafiq Shah explains that ‘I am innocent and falsely implicated in the case by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in collaboration with Special Task Force of Kashmir Police’.  This statement was previously corroborated by the then Delhi Police chief, KK Paul as well as the then vice-chancellor of Kashmir University, Professor Abdul Wahid Qureshi.  

According to the press report published in Daily Greater Kashmir on 23 March 2008, vice-chancellor had testified that ‘Rafiq was in the Islamic Studies department on the day of Delhi blasts’. As a matter of fact in 2006, five persons were produced UP Police in which they accepted that they were behind the Delhi blasts. The letter that Rafiq wrote from the Tihar Jail explains how his dignity was dishonoured by the Delhi Police when he was forced to: drink urine, suck the private parts of co-accused and share a single cell with pig to offend his religious sentiments. (See http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=23_3_2008&ItemID=34&cat=1)

The whole Kashmiri community has expressed their concern about the maltreatment of the Kashmiri student and similar acts the Government of India is involved in.  This case is the representative of the several cases where Kashmiri people were falsely implicated in the various parts of India and persecuted.  Such inhuman activities are not only against the international human rights law but also against the declared policy of zero tolerance by India in human rights cases concerning Kashmir.

I will be grateful if the concerned organisations in the respective countries could bring this matter to the attention of the respective States and diplomatically pressurise the Government of India to investigate this matter which could facilitate the release of Rafiq who is innocent.  I would be grateful if all in their individual capacity could spread this message so that the human life could be saved from further torture.  It must be recalled that India is a member of the civilised international community and a party to various human rights covenants she has an utmost obligation to stop any kind of human rights abuse within her country.  I will be obliged for considering this letter as an expression of my genuine complaint and would appreciate an urgent action on this issue.

Yours Sincerely,

Fozia Lone

Arguably, the most prolific Basque writer to date, Bernando Atxaga, has now an excellent personal website. His novel "the Accordionist's Son" on idiotcracy of eternal squabbles between right and left spheres of every society (in his case Basque-Spanish society) is now available also in English translation. Atxaga has won the 2008 Grinzane Cavour prize for this novel. Here is the summary of book in Basque:

"Liburu honek Bernardo Atxagaren aurreko guztiak hartzen ditu bere baitan. Irakurleek lehendik ere ezagunak zaizkien pertsonaiak eta gaiak aurkituko dituzte orrialde hauetan, eta, tarteka, Obabakoak edo Gizona bere bakardadean bezalako liburuen barruan sentituko dira. Aldi berean, ordea, berria egingo zaie dena: mundu zabalagoa eta sakonagoa aurkituko dute, giza esperientziari estutik lotzen zaiona. Bernardo Atxagak berak elkarrizketa batean adierazi zuen bezala: "Orain arteko guztia sartu nahi dut liburu batean, eta nire idazle bizitzako atal bat itxi berriro hutsetik hasteko. Horrez gain, jakin-mina daukat, noraino iritsi ote naitekeen lehengo bideetatik, zer-nolako obra idatz dezakedan".

The Law Section of the Organising Committee of College of Arts & Social Sciences Postgraduate Conference, at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland invites graduate students undertaking legal research to submit abstracts for consideration. The Conference will take place over two days (11-12 June) in the beautiful surroundings of King’s College, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. The aim of the Conference is to give graduate students in law from across Scotland, the United Kingdom, Europe and the world the opportunity to present papers reflecting excellence in legal research. This event aims to bring together postgraduate, in particular research students with an interest in all aspects of legal research, but particularly those with a comparative, European, international or interdisciplinary perspective.  Our goal is to encourage all areas of legal research at the conference.  You are invited to be an active participant in the symposium by presenting a piece of your own work to an audience of other PhD students, academics and interested members of the public. This will give you the valuable opportunity to practice talking about your own work alongside others at similar stages in their academic careers. “Moving forward”, the theme of the conference, is designed to allow as many people as possible to discuss recent developments in law.

The Netherlands has been often criticised for a shameful role of its soldiers in the UN peacekeeping force during the genocide of 7,000 Bosnian men and boys in Srebrenica. However, the Dutch government took a tiny but an important step last week in direction of correcting dark past of its military forces. On Wednesday, the Dutch foreign minister noted in a meeting with the foreign minister of Slovenia, who holds EU presidency, that the Netherlands will block the EU Stabilization and Association Agreement with Serbia until crimes against humanity and war crimes suspect Gen. Mladič is arrested. He told the reporters that "if Serbia really wants a European future, they must also cooperate with the handing over of one of the persons who is responsible for the only genocide in the European continent after the second World War". One would wish that also Slovenia as presiding country of the European Union would join Dutch and Belgian stance.

 

Londonski tednik The Economist objavlja v zadnji stevilki izcrpno analizo koncepta druzbene odgovornosti podjetij. Priloga je brezplacno dostopna na spletni strani omenjenega tednika.

„Wir leben in einer Zeit des wilden Kapitalismus", sagte Jancar im Gespräch mit der F.A.Z., „die Jungen wollen Jobs, Wohnungen, Prestige und Erfolg, und die wollen sich dabei nicht stören lassen. Niemand leugnet mehr, was in diesem Land einmal geschehen ist, aber man überlässt das den Historikern. Es ist einfach, zu sagen, dass wir einmal Faschisten und Antifaschisten hatten und dass das jetzt vorbei ist. Aber die Geschichte war leider viel komplizierter, schon vor 1945 und erst recht danach." Richter, die einst politische Urteile fällten, sind immer noch im Amt, und dieselben Journalisten, die ihnen Beifall pflichteten, schreiben heute noch Leitartikel. Dieselben Leute, die früher Marxismus und Jugoslawismus verordneten, geben jetzt Lektionen in Liberalismus und Parlamentarismus, in Aktienrecht, Pressefreiheit und Bürgersinn. Das Establishment ist nicht abgetreten, es hat sich neu eingekleidet. Zwar ist eine konservative Regierung an der Macht, aber die gesellschaftliche Hegemonie behaupten die alten Seilschaften.

Dies wiederum fördert die Verbiesterung ihrer Gegner. Liberale gegen Klerikale, Linke gegen Rechte, Partisanen gegen Domobranzen (Heimwehren): Slowenien ist immer noch das „Zerrissene Volk", wie die slowenische Historikerin Tamara Griesser-Pecar ihr Buch über Okkupation, Kollaboration, Bürgerkrieg und Revolution in den Jahren 1941 bis 1946 nannte. Er habe diese Debatten satt, die immer wieder bei den Partisanen und den Domobranzen endeten, sagt Jancar, ob nun über den Verkehr in Laibach diskutiert werde oder über Windmühlen an der Küste. Slowenien sei zugleich eine sehr offene und eine sehr geschlossene Gesellschaft. „Jeder weiß vom anderen, was dessen Vater und dessen Großvater getan hat, das geht über Generationen und reicht bis in die aktuellen politischen Debatten. Das ist typisch für kleine Länder, in Irland ist das ähnlich. Aber diese Atmosphäre tut dem Land nicht gut."

Am Anfang ist der Schutt, FAZ, 23. December 2007

Well, it has been high time to disprove those who have, in a disappointment, visited our Blog and to their amazement were still greeted in Christmas mood. It is not that we are still partying or taking it off that the Best Wishes post is still on the top of the Blog, it is simply that the spill-over in 2008 was so rapid that we have not since found any time to drop a line or two. Let's start in 2008, then!

Our first post is dedicated to the Slovenian EU Presidency. Fourteen days have passed now and things are already unrolling. If leave aside the weary priorities and the forthcoming challenges of the Presidency, it is more interesting to observe one interesting phenomenon that has been painted by European media in the last days.

They have been constructing a story following which there is a tension between Slovenia and France as the next in a row. France is said to be deliberately downplaying Slovenian efforts, perhaps even demeaningly, stealing it the necessary and usually accompanying limelight.  See: http://euobserver.com/9/25452

There must be apparently a pinch of salt in that, since Slovenian Prime Minister in his yesterday's speech in the EP, suggested that maybe indeed our Presidency will not be so prominent and flamboyant, but that we are still not competing with anyone. Slovenia is committed to the EU project as a whole.

However, another news this morning strikes in: Slovenia criticizes French Mediterranean Union proposal. See:http://euobserver.com/9/25470/?rk=1

The Question is: how many of these tensions are real, how much are they inflated by the media, and if they are real or not how the either case can be explained? 

Dragi bralci in nakljucni obiskovalci nasega bloga: ob prihajajocih praznikih vam zelimo veliko osebnega miru in zadovoljstva, drzavljanskega ponosa in zanosa ter vse najboljse v letu 2008.

Dear friends of Globalawanadpolitics: We wish you all the best for the Festive Season and a courageous New Year 2008. 



(courtesy of www.bled.si)

There are a couple of recurring issues in Slovenian public life along with several figures that emerge periodically to give them a new and fresh spin. Usually this happens just before general elections and it seems that this time we shall see no exception.

The especially prominent and always dazzling role has been played by the Hribar couple: The Moral Authority Wife and the Philosopher Husband. In the last fifteen or so years this honorable couple has committed that many personal political upheavals that it is just impossible to recall and even less name them all. 

The Moral Authority was first the ideological forerunner of the Slovenian spring but has turned against them and cried: Wolf, Wolf, or rather: Halt the Political Right. It was halted indeed for 12 years. Then the Philosopher stepped in and delivered his damning verdict blaming the left of the Vulgo or, even more obscenely, of Vulvo liberalism. The left lost for the first time in the independent Slovenia and the political Spring very much cleaned of the old guys took the floor. 

Yet, now the time has come for another salto mortale. The Philosopher has just announced a new political judgment. In the leading Slovenian newspaper - in its widely read and influential Saturday Issue - he literally debunked, also on a personal note, the Prime Minister and the government as such. His diagnosis of the government's work is through and through fatal - actually so deplorable that the Philosopher spent long sentences excusing himself for the support he had initially awarded the government with. But he has been, as all the voters indeed, betrayed. For the best, if truly inconceivable, comes at the end: the alleged final aim of the present government is to reinstate Slovenia as a Catholic State. The circle is now complete.  

And here we are back in the future. Again the time has come to scare the moderate voters, the political middle, by the Evil of Catholicism and its proponent the cross-waving Church. Were this not Slovenia, I could not believe that it is almost 2008. I truly do not and can not understand how philosophers and moral authorities just do not see that their virtuous enterprise constantly trumps the feelings of those who belong to Catholic faith and who have all and equal rights to be full citizens of the Slovenian polity.

Moreover, I would imagine to myself, at least that much I have learned so far, that morality and philosophy are about identifying principles to which one SHOULD stick. It can not be that any elections and even shorter term benefits of certain political caste, be it left or right, merits abandoning causes about which we should feel and care deeply.  Or perhaps morality and philosophy ceased to be what they used to be and should be.

There is something terribly wrong... in Slovenia, I am afraid. In the public spirit and in the collective conscious and subconscious. It has never been cleared of poison that has been accumulating in its veins from 1848 on and culminated in a complete collapse of its immunity system in the 1945. Therefore the positions are skewed and volatile, prone to shift from day to day.

However, there are still some, I believe, whose eyes remain open and capable of looking and, indeed, seeing... Those remain genuine moral, if perhaps not, philosophical authorities.





 

Respect for freedom of press lies at the heart of every modern democratic society. In the last months discussion on freedom of press in Slovenia has been manipulated by former totalitarian political parties, oligarchic corporate groups, and their journalistic voices in the Slovenian media. In doing so, they have constructed media reality, which does not correspond to what is actually happening in the Slovenian society. Last example includes political take-over of the weekly magazine Mag, the only remaining independent political weekly in Slovenia. We will talk about situation in the Slovenian media more in the forthcoming months. For now, Globalawandpolitics publishes a public protest statement by journalist magazine Mag, which is worth reading:

 

Public statement by journalists of magazine Mag

"We, Mag journalists, protest against the deliberate political take-over of the weekly magazine at which we are employed. The magazine Mag, which has been published since 1995, was created as a response to media single-mindedness; in it were presented alternative points of view, which could not be expressed in other media. During the period of Slovenia's accession to Euro-Atlantic alliances, Mag decisively advocated membership of both the EU and NATO. The candidate for new responsible editor, Veso Stojanov, opposed NATO in his articles, in addition to which he comes from a different circle of thought than present Mag readers. Although the weekly Mag has changed owners or publishers three times since its founding, its editorial policy has not been changed. The newspaper house Salomon 2000, which bought Mag from the company Interdat, was even proud that it could publish a weekly with politically relevant contents and opinions. The then management of Delo, under the leadership of Tomaž Perovič, also had a similar position at the time of buying the magazine. It did not revoke Mag's right to autonomy and the expression of various political positions. Under the present owner, sales of Mag have increased by approximately half. The highest growth has been marked precisely in the period since Silvester Šurla took over the editorship. Sales of recent numbers have exceeded 14,000 copies, which in view of conditions on the market for political magazines, is an exceptional success. This clearly did not persuade the members of the Delo supervisory board to confirm as responsible editor of Mag an editor who had already proved to be successful.

In fact, they initially offered this position to him, but deferred the appointment when he submitted his programme. Meanwhile, the president of the supervisory board, Andrijana Starina Kosem, and vice-president, Stojan Zdolšek, exercised politically motivated pressure on him, commented on several contributions and interviews and demanded a different political content. In particular, they were upset by articles on dubious managerial buy-outs of companies, about about-turns in the SOVA affair, interviews with president of LDS Katarina Kresal and Koper mayor Boris Popovič, and questions a journalist posed to Izola mayor Tomislav Klokočovnik prior to the an interview and then demanded that the interview deal with them. Starina Kosem told Šurla that 'tycoons' are good for Slovenia and that in Mag they should blame the prime minister, Janez Janša, most for inflation and not the Mercator chain of shops. She even demanded that we write articles critical of the Janša government. Andrijana Starina Kosem and Stojan Zdolšek thus wanted to exploit the magazine Mag for their own political and business interests, as well as the interests of Pivovarna Laško, which wished to take over the largest shopping chain, Mercator. In September, in fact, they had asked Šurla to write an article in Mag on how Pivovarna Laško does not abuse its monopoly on the Slovene drinks market, although some distinguished economists believe otherwise. Šurla of course resisted all these pressures, since it was a matter of interference by the supervisory board in the editorial autonomy of Mag.

The last straw was an interview in Mag with Prime Minister Janez Janša, which had a wide public response, in which he apportioned most blame for the disputed sale of Mercator to the president of the supervisory board of Delo, Andrijana Starina Kosem, who at that time had been his state secretary and president of the supervisory board of KAD (Capital Investment Fund). On the very day that the aforementioned interview was published, the supervisory board held an extraordinary session and published a public call for applications for a new responsible editor of Mag. The call for applications was a farce, since it was known in advance that it was punishment of the editorial staff because it had resisted the pressures, and that a candidate would be chosen who would fulfil the wishes of the supervisory board. When Šurla drew public attention to the politically motivated pressures that Kosem and Zdolšek had exerted on him, he was told that he was already out of the running. It is also of interest that the selected candidate as new responsible editor of Mag, Veso Stojanov, is even himself a member of the supervisory board, since he represents the employees on it. There is therefore no doubt that he would know what kind of content the supervisors wish in the new Mag and what kind would no longer be allowed to appear in the magazine. Stojanov has already announced in some media a change in editorial policy, which is supposed to be harmonised with the owners, and similarly a strengthening of staff, about which the Delo publishing house had previously been unwilling to listen.

It is therefore clear that the editorial changes at Mag are above all a political take-over of the magazine or, in view of the already published opinions of the future responsible editor, even a revolutionary take-over. As journalists on Mag, we appeal to the Slovene public, representatives of the state and civil society to support us in the struggle against the political and capital destruction of the weekly magazine. The forced diametrically opposed editorial policy will destroy the most important part of what Mag has represented ever since its foundation: a different view of conditions in society from the prevailing one in the Slovene media. Journalists of Mag also have the right to free expression under the Law, Constitution and international conventions, and our faithful readers have the right to an independent weekly magazine."

Igor Kršinar, representative of the journalists of Mag,
Brigite Ferlič Žgajnar, Nenad Glücks, Biserka Karneža Cerjak, Silvester Šurla

The representatives of all three EU's main institutions proclaimed today (12 December) the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter was signed at gathering in the Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament (EP) by EP President Hans-Gert Poettering, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, and the current head of the Council of EU member states, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates.  The text of the Charter of fundamental rights includes six categories of rights for all EU citizens and residents - dignity, freedoms, equality, solidarity, citizens' rights and justice. The Charter will be attached as a separate declaration to the new treaty that EU leaders will sign in Lisbon tomorrow (13 December) and will be legally binding upon the Member States as soon as the treaty itself enters into force. If the Reform Treaty of Lisbon becomes binding upon Member States, then applicants could explicitly invoke Charter's provisions before the Court of First Instance and European Court of Justice.
 

It has been recently brought to our attention that the Reform Treaty does not bring just a fresh legal basis and a new impetus for the development of the European integration, rather it provides for a whole new definition what the Union stands for. 

Indeed, Acer Institute claims it has invented, or rather re-invented a new definition of the Union - this time a positive one. We quote:

" a Union of Citizens and Members States must be identified from a legal point of view as a new category of international law and that the European Union can be defined as an organisation of sovereign states, in which the citizens of the Member States are also citizens of the Union and in which the governance of the Union is not only bound by the rule of law, but is also required to meet similar democratic standards as the governance of the respective Member States." source: Acer website

It is difficult to see how this definition is supposed to enthrill anyone. It is basically just a restatement of a well known practice, with a reiteration that Union is a new category of international law. All this we know - what is rather more interesting is to explain: what is it that makes the integration a new category and how precisely shall be distinguished from the existing ones and why in the first place?

As it seems another round table of wise men will need to be summoned, but we do fear that with the present mindset there can be no breakthrough... 


 

Brooklyn law school organises on 16 November a symposium on corporate liability for grave breaches of international law. Here is their overview: 

As the global economy expands and develops, corporations and other business entities face new challenges under national and international law. This symposium will examine one of the thorniest emerging issues: What are corporations' responsibilities under international law for their activities at home and abroad? The conference will analyze corporate liability for human rights abuses and other grave breaches of international law.

The symposium's panels will compare doctrinal and theoretical cases for civil liability for human rights abuses by corporations, paying special attention to the   Alien Torts Claims Act in the United States. It will also examine the concepts of "aiding and abetting" and complicity as applied to allegations of corporate human rights abuses and consider legal instruments other than civil liability that might be developed to discouragecorporation from engaging in human rights abuses. Such alternative instruments include domestic and international criminal law, the use of disclosure under different regulatory regimes, and the United Nations' Human Rights Norms for Corporations. The principal papers of the symposium will appear in the forthcoming issue of the Brooklyn Journal of International Law.

More info is available here: http://www.brooklaw.edu/rsvp