GlobaLawandPolitics: Recent Comments

Comment on Pogled v ogledalo

2009-01-01T18:21:18Z

Vsekakor je za Slovence v tem trenutku bolj aktualno, pa tudi zahtevnejše, preučevati kršitve medijske svobode, ki so se zgodile v času vlade Janeza Janše, zlasti v Delu, Večeru, RTVSlo, Primorskih novicah, ipd...

Comment on Catch the Thief - or How Slovenia Purportedly Defies the Very Founding Fathers of Europe

2008-12-19T18:12:40Z

Again, even if all Slovenian border claims are right, it is not because Siniša, Matej or Jernej say so. It is not enough to say something three times and have right. In any case, this kind of discussion is of no interest for me. The point is that Slovenian government is denying Croatia access to EU on illegitimate grounds. National interest of territorial nature to quote e.g. Mr. Žbogar http://www.dnevnik.si/novice/aktualne_zgodbe/1042231079 is not a legitimate interest in the negotiating process. European union was established precisely in order to avoid territorial claims. Insisting on them is perverting the idea of Europe.

Comment on Catch the Thief - or How Slovenia Purportedly Defies the Very Founding Fathers of Europe

2008-12-19T18:00:38Z

Sinisa,

facts illustrating Croatian unilateral action re border in and around Piran bay in past fifteen years can be easily proved hic et nunc. A number of them are mentioned in the current Matej's post. To be clear, it is a high time that Croatian politics and academic steps down from its historical-driven cocky view of its relationship with Slovenia and other neighbours. In other words, it is a new ball game and it is a high time to settle this dispute peacefully following Matej's and mine proposal in the conclusion our article.

Jernej

Comment on Catch the Thief - or How Slovenia Purportedly Defies the Very Founding Fathers of Europe

2008-12-19T16:35:11Z

Dear Matej, I read your response at the GlobalLawandPolitics blog with interest. However, it is missing the point. I am not saying that Croatia is right or wrong, or Slovenia indeed. I could easily imagine all Slovenian agruments being right and all Croatian arguments being wrong. That is, however, irrelevant for my argument. What I am trying to say is that territorial issues are not a part of the acquis and have to be settled outside the accession package. If Germany, took Slovenia's position in 1951 instead of going to the ICJ to settle North Sea continental shelf cases, there would have not been the European Union today. My criticism of Slovenia's position is focused at 3 points: First, it is misusing negotiating process by resurrecting the most hideous claims Europe can imagine - territorial claims. Second, it is destroying EU's credibility in the Western Balkans. Third, it is encouraging states of Western Balkans to follow the suit. I doubt anyone in the EU is prepared to follow or condone that.

Comment on Kje leži dr.ing. Črtomir Nagode?

2008-08-26T12:15:14Z

http://www.rtvslo.si/kultura/modload.php?&c_mod=rnews&op=sections&func=read&c_menu=1&c_id=44068

Comment on Justice on Strike

2008-05-20T08:50:12Z

Well said. It is difficult to disagree with your account of situation in the Slovenian justice. It is on young generation to change the current and bring back trust in the judicial system.

Comment on Kosovo's Declaration of Independence

2008-02-29T21:22:45Z

Jernej, thanks for the comment. I mostly agree with your analysis, and as a matter of policy, I support Kosovo's independence. But there are many related legal issues that should be discussed in this "fait accompli" phase. Almost beyond any shadow of doubt, Kosovo today IS a State, given (or assuming) that all the "traditional" statehood criteria have been met, and assuming that all potential "contemporary" criteria, such as external independence and respect of the people's will, are fulfilled as well. It remains ambiguous, though, whether the »act of creation« itself was lawful: as prevailing views in scholarship and jurisprudence (e.g. Quebec) suggest, the existence of a right of SD (being the antidote to the terr. integrity principle) does not automatically award the privillege of unilateral secession, unless certain conditions are met (primarily the exposition of the population to serious HR violations/denial of internal self-det., and the inabilty to implement the right of internal self-det. within the boundaries of the parent state. There might be reasons to doubt (and I am simply trying to expose these) whether these conditions were indeed met on 17 Feb, given the changes in Serbian government, and its declared preparedness to re-grant Kosovo a high level of autonomy within Serbia. On the other hand, ITA's continuing presence indicates that the situation in K remains volatile, while the failure of the final status negotiations show that all viable alternatives have been exhausted. A second question is the legality of recognitions. Entirely accepting the common view that it is merely declaratory of statehood (or rather, of »international legal personality« of a newly emerged »state« proper) and that (non-)recognition is in political discretion of states, the question remains whether there are any legal obstacles to recognising Kosovo, such as SC Res 1244 and related documents (eg Helsinki Final Act), expressing states' commitment to respect Serbia's terr. Integrity, or the principle of non-recognition of situations arising out of serious violations of fundamental IL norms. In this situation, I don't see the latter being the case, but the role of Res 1244 should be carefully considered – have those recognizing states which had previously been repeating the mantra of Serbia's territorial integrity not acted against the principle of good faith? The legality of recognition might also depend on the (non-)existence of external SD right at the moment of declaration of independence, if one was to accept the idea that otherwise the act of creation of K should be deemed illegal in the first place...At the same time, one must seriously consider numerous legal consequences of non-recognition, such as acceptance to international institutions and accession to int'l agreements, postal relations, travelling of citizens,.... These are all crucial and complex politico-legal questions and I would enjoy further discussion. Take care!

Comment on FAZ: Am Anfang ist der Schutt

2008-01-20T21:42:19Z

No tole sm pa spregledu. Dobr da ste pokopiral.

Comment on The perplexing wonders of Slovenia

2007-12-22T15:22:22Z

I agree. I always try not to be unfair and judge someone's qualities according to his world-view or political agenda, but I have to say that Tine Hribar is a terrible philosopher. A charlatan. He can play his role of the "big wise man" only in Slovenia, where the general public still seems to believe him (although he is mostly made fun of in philosophical circles). I am actually relieved now that he has changed his opinion again (or should I say, now that he has shifted his perpetual moral indignation to another subject): I was feeling somehow uneasy when he was supporting the same political stance as I did - he is someone in whose company I'd rather not be found. (As to Spomenka Hribar, I prefer to keep my opinion on her on to myself: whatever I said would be ungenlemanlike).

Comment on Freedom of Press in Slovenia I

2007-12-19T21:05:05Z

Having read the infamous petition, which has not been critically viewed by the media despite both obvious lies and insane exaggerations it includes, as well as the order of recepients it was addressed to. Even though the prime minister himself was the first to pinpoint a strange content match of the same petition with the Social Democrats' media evaluation, I deemed the fact worth of consideration and after comparing the two knew how things were standing. Which is what most of the public never does, even worse - nor do the journalists. Everything - or anything for that matter - published is viewed as solid truth by the majority of the public, resulting in true arguments holding no real weight as well as making the struggle of those who take time to back up their claims pointless.
Garmin, even though your commentary includes a logical thesis at first glance, it fails to cope with the everintriguing reality in Slovenia - is it possible that almost six hundred journalists sign a petition with a shortsighted goal of softening the government defenses a year ahead of the parliamentary elections (with a huge side effect of discrediting the country as a whole, especially since the situation is pretty much a diametral opposite of the described) in a time where the govt. has no other option but to commit to EU presidency? Sadly, the answer is yes.
As for Mr. Stjepić, do not even try to convince me that a journalist can be apolitical. I did not follow the path of Mr. Jančič closely, but judging by his appearances, articles as well as his associates at Delo, he has been more than objective for Slovene circumstances. Probably not a frontman by nature, but I see no reason to hold anything against him, therefore I find it absurd to see you calling him a henchmen. Mr. Slivnik on the other side has had a firmly shaped political profile throughout the years, making certain interesting contributions during his time. I do not particularly approve of him for various reasons, but his path at Delo outdates Janša's first position as a minister.
Also, I do not wish to favorize MAG beyond a reasonable degree, but fact remains that it was the only magazine able to step out of the usual one-sided frame and make quality contributions on the long term as well as write about the issues noone else wrote about (I wonder why?). Comparing MAG authors switching to Delo as pamphlet writers promoted to real journalism is an utter nonsense. Since I know a lot of the journalists at Delo, they've been there long before this government and are still around, I happen to know how their articles are made. Regardless of topic or a wider area of coverage, most of it are below any acceptable level of journalistic contributions. For many columns, be they political or general, one needs not to know the details to establish the author is heavily overpaid no matter what his monthly salary is.
Freedom of expression? Sure, based on proof. Saying something does not change the obvious. You are wrong.