The TransAtlantic Assembly

Italy's tragic future

2009-09-04T04:48:00.003-04:00

Silvio Berlusconi is a modern dictator. He controls all the most important functions of the state and is THE key player in the private sphere. Modern dictators are characterized by an ability to disguise their authoritarianism through subtle strategies of marketing and communication. Mr B is unusually suited for this role. Since 1994 he poisoned Italian political life, after having wrecked the italian cultural environment with its commercial televisions. Its legacy, unfortunately, will be massive both culturally and politically. But not in a positive sense.

Thankfully, in the last six months or so the international community begun to realize how deeply corrupt and unacceptable Mr B is. But one should not focus on one single aspect of his public or private life. His holistic philosophy of power and his (lack of) vision for Italy make him a very dangerous client. First of all his philosophy is a new enhanced form of demagogy. Everything is geared to please the crowds and to enhance the god of Audience, interrogated through polls.

His philosophy of action is pragmatic in the worse sense. It is always geared to increase wealth in the private sphere and increase power in the public sphere. Now, I am sure that some may see the former as a good thing. But power for the sake of power is certainly not desirable. The reason why power for power is bad is that it does not follow any coherent design on how to improve on Italian welfare. Pragmatism in Mr B's sense is highly volatile follows the fads and moods of the population far too closely. In the short run, its pay-offs are clear in terms of electoral results and popularity. But the country suffers, and suffers greatly.

Italy's constantly on the brink of a nerve crisis. More of Mr. B will only exacerbate this situation.

The problem is that at the moment Mr B succesfully wiped away any form of political opposition and there are no signs of renaissance on the left. When Mr B will disappear, he may take with him what's left of Italy.

No to Barroso

2009-09-02T05:20:00.003-04:00

Does anyone out there know who Barroso is? More importantly does anybody know what was his best achievement during his four years as President of the European Commission, the highest institution within the EU?

Very few will be able to answer those questions. And even those 'in the know' will have trouble chanting the praise of a strawman.

Here comes the most important question? Why do European Member States want to re-elect him as President?

Sadly, the only possible answer is that Barroso does not do any harm to anyone. That is, he does do nothing except enjoying his relatively privileged position. This is a good reason enough to say NO to Barroso.

Obama's Transatlantic Speech

2008-07-25T06:21:00.002-04:00

Berlin was like a honeymoon between America and Europe. But Obama's honey words, were a little too sweet:

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations – and all nations – must summon that spirit anew.

Nothing wrong with that, but where does it really lead us in practice?
Obama offered a long list of to-do things:

This is the moment:
- when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday.
- when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably.
- for trade that is free and fair for all.
-we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.
-when we must come together to save this planet.
-to stand as one.
-And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world.

I am not sure that THIS is the moment as it has been so for so many years before. Moreover, it will probably be better to say a little about THIS IS HOW we are going to deal with those problems.

The conclusion leaves it all open:

People of Berlin – and people of the world – the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.

Constitutional Dilemmas: NOW available in paperback

2008-01-31T17:22:00.002-05:00

NOW AVAILABLE IN PAPERBACK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Constitutional-Dilemmas-Conflicts-Fundamental-Rights/dp/0199552185/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203439587&sr=1-1

ITALY: the neverending crisis

2008-01-28T12:19:00.000-05:00

Italy is once again in trouble. After Prodi's descent to hell, with the crisis of his government,
we are now deciding on what to do. Here we face a dilemma: either we do the impossible, that is bring together parties that have conflicting interests in order to draft new rules of the political game (in particular bad shape is the electoral law); or we go to elections immediately thereby jettisoning any hope of a stable and efficacious government. It may be stable but not the two at the same time which is what the italian political system is badly in need of.

What will happen? Nothing much. The (bad) news is that Italy will remain unstable and ungovernable.

Secular Europe? Think twice

2007-12-22T07:51:00.000-05:00

On 21st of Dember, Tony Blair converted to Catholicism: see here;

On the same day, Sarkozy held a speech in front of the Catholic bishops in Rome arguing that religion should play a more important role in the french public sphere: see here;

The time is high to engage in a more robust conversation on the place of religion in the european
public sphere.

A good place to start is The Immanent Frame, an SSRC blog that deals with issues of secularism, religion ant the public sphere

The Still Born God

2007-12-14T12:03:00.000-05:00

is a great new book on religion and politics in the West.

Its author, Mark Lilla, is a fantastic scholar in the history of ideas.

The book argues that the West (Europe) was marked by a Great Separation

between political theology and political philosophy. Before Hobbes, European

politics was essentially framed in religious terms. After Hobbes, politics

becomes free from religion. Religious scholarship, as a result, is also profoundly changed.

Instead of focusing on God, it focuses on why men need religion. It is not anymore

about what exist out there, but what we need from inside us.

The book does not attempt to engage on present heated controversies on the role of religion in the public sphere and other such issues. Instead it calmly takes us through a rewarding jouney from the middle-age to the XX century illuminating the relationship between religious and political scholarship.

Highly recommended

Peace studies in Spain and Latinamerica

2007-11-23T13:50:00.000-05:00

I have recently been teaching a master course on Development and Human Rights at the International Master on Peace Conflict and Development in Castellon, University Jaume I. During my stay in Castellón I have the chance to meet a group of people from Spain and Argentina that are actively working in the field of peace studies. This area has developed extensively in Spain in Latin America in the last decades and it constitute an intesting and expansive field of research.

In Granada we have Francisco A. Muñoz at the Instituto de la Paz y los conflictos. More information on this area quite be obtained at his blog titled: naúfragos y navengantes de paz y conflictos . Angeles Arjona works at the University of Almeria. She is sociologist and she is doing and interesting work on interculturaliry and inmigration in Andalucia. You can check Laboratorio de antropologia social y cultural. Alicia Cabezudo has been working for more that two decades on issues on education on human rights and education for in different places in the world. She is also lecturer at the University of Buenos Aires and Rosario in Argentina.

Berlusconi launches a new Party

2007-11-18T16:04:00.000-05:00

Changer tout, pour ne changer rien. To Change everything in order to change nothing.

This is sometimes used to describe the French revolution, but it would apply equally well to Italy in the last few centuries.

At the next elections--which will probably happen in 2008-- we will have two new major parties. The Democratic party representing a centre-left coalition.

And the Party of the People of Liberty. A rather clumsy name for Berlusconi's new party. The move is easy to understand. Berlusconi wants to anticipate any move of his allies who are trying to dethrone him.

Berlusconi, as a result, is launching a coalition of the willing in order to run alone with his new party at the next elections.

These changes, needless to say, are only cosmetic. All remain the same in Italy

A Secular Age

2007-11-05T05:49:00.000-05:00

For all of you who are interested in issues of law, religion and politics in the Transatlantic world (and beyond)., I can warmly recommend Charles Taylor's new book 'A secular age.'

Taylor distinguished three possible meanings of secular, which I would classify as follows:

1-Political secularity: when religious belief is removed from the public sphere to the private sphere as a result of a political compromise

2- Social secularity: when belief fades away from our daily life and does not provide anymore a benchmark for our behaviour

3-Historico-philosophical secularity: it is interested in the evolution of the intellectual framework within which religious belief is understood.

Taylor focuses on the third meaning and explores in an open way what made us move from 1500, when believing was not an option, to 2000 when believing is but an option.

To explain such a paradigm shift, Taylor engages in a story-telling exercise which attempts to unravel the changing conditions of our own religious practices. Pivotal to his story is the emergence of 'exclusive humanism', a way of conceiving human flourishing as an end in itself. According to exclusive humanism each individual is master of his destiny and is empowered to give full meaning to his own life.

This new understanding of human flourishing replaces the Christian one that understood human flourishing as a consequence of god's love, agape. Each individual would therefore have to abandon himself in the hands of god in order to let his life flourish.

To go back to the central question then: what made the shift from 1500 to 2000 possible? the answer is in the book...

When the Church truly and definitely concern with spiritual matters

2007-11-01T12:04:00.000-04:00

A couple of days ago, the Catholic Church beatified 498 Catholics murdered between 1934, 1936-1939 in the course of the Spanish Civil War. This event would not be so controversial if the whole amount of people beatified would not have belonged to one side, the Francoist one . It is curious. All these 498 persons have in common that they were murdered by Republican forces that at that time were the democratic and legitimated government in Spain. Franco imposed his rule against the will of the majority of the people in Spain, but the Catholic Church approved that. During the first years of the dictatorship, cardinal Isidro Goma said that the military coup launched by Franco was " una cruzada cristiana" ( (Christian crusader).
Some persons in Spain think that it is time for the Catholic Church to apologize for this horrible historical mistake. Some persons think that the role of the Catholic Church in Spain was the one of a victim and tyrant. According to the Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory, in Spain there are more than 30,000 persons buried in common graves ( and these are not precisely victims of the Republicans forces). If the beatification process of these 498 persons considered as " martyrs of the twenty century" is non-partisan and political, Why we do not have among these "beatos" any person murdered by the Francoist forces? The official posture of the Catholic Church is because nobody has started the process. Many of these persons have name and surname, their cases have been extensively reported, but some sectors of the Catholic Church remain silent. In this regard, I do not necessarily agree with Lorenzo that the Church should strictly care about spiritual matters, mainly because when they try to do it, there is most of the times a strong ideology behind.

Why the Catholic Church should mind its business

2007-10-22T06:56:00.000-04:00

The Catholic Church tries to conquer the hearts of some people by raising its voice on social issues such as housing and employment. In Italy, this move has been greated with appreciation by the moderate and extreme left wing parties. Here's a report.

But the political position of the Church remains deeply ambiguos: "The essential point is again made by Benedict XVI: from Jesus there comes “full respect for the distinction between, and independence of, what is Caesar’s and what belongs to God”. The Church has a “mediated” task while the “immediate” one falls to the lay faithful. Thus “if on the one hand it acknowledges it is not a political actor”, on the other “it cannot avoid taking an interest in the good of the entire civil community” by “forming in the political and entrepreneurial classes a genuine spirit of truth and honesty”.

In many ways, this position is not healthy at all in a secular democracy. The Church has the luxury of taking strong positions on very controversial issues without ever having to be accountable for them. In short, this is the worst form of demagogy.

Of course, it is very nice to say permanent jobs for everyone and housing for everyone. But unfortunately there is shortage. Political institutions make hard choices between job protection and enhancement of the market. But the problem is: if the job protection is too strong, then it wil be much more difficult to create new jobs. So what looks like a nice ideal, may turn out to be a damning precept.

What is worse is that the Church can say whatever it pleases anyhow it will never have to do the job. That is the reason why, the Church should truly and definetely concern itself only with spiritual matters. It can intervene, as it does, to improve social conditions on a daily basis. But it cannot engage in sweeping policy debates as this is totally outside of its realm, and makes hard choices even more unpalatable for governments which are already facing tough enough social dilemmas.

Brown and the EU Treaty

2007-10-19T12:50:00.000-04:00

Gordon Brown and the EU are two distant planets. But Brown should speak more clearly about it. Recently asked about the new treaty he defined it as a modest piece of housekeeping.

This is not correct. The treaty born out of the abortion of the more pompous sounding constitutional treaty keeps intact most of the institutional and procedural reforms of the previous treaty minus the symbolic constitutional talk.

But the promised reforms are still beefy and certainly not modest as Gordon claims.

The explanation is the following: Brown is not an EU supporter. But he fears even more the possibility of a referendum, which he would very probably lose as the british are hard to convince on EU matters and also because Brown does not believe in it anyhow.

Brown should speak up more clearly and take a clear position vis-a-vis Europe (and regarding his grand political views). Otherwise, he will always sound false.

New Blog on International Law

2007-10-17T14:43:00.000-04:00

Have a look at this new blog on International law. It is called International Law Observer and covers a fairly broad ground!

UNESCO study on the Migrant Workers Convention (ICRMW) in Europe

2007-10-16T21:09:00.000-04:00

While I am on the subject of shamelessly plugging my own work, I might as well mention this report, commissioned by UNESCO and co-authored by myself and Ryszard Cholewinski, on the prospects for ratification of the ICRMW. Here's the blurb:

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, the most important international treaty on the rights of migrants, has not yet been ratified by any European country. This report analyzes the reasons behind the non-ratification. It presents the findings of detailed, UNESCO-commissioned reports into the status of the Convention in seven countries: France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom and Norway. Based in part upon interviews with major migration stakeholders in each country, this study addresses issues such as general awareness of the Convention, political or parliamentary action with regards to it, and the main obstacles to its ratification. It also examines the Convention in relation to the highly developed legal and political system of the European Union overall. Finally, it offers recommendations for future action to increase support for the ratification of the Convention.

Any and all constructive comments welcome!

New volume on international migration law

2007-10-14T17:48:00.000-04:00

This volume, International Migration Law: Developing Paradigms and Key Challenges, edited by Ryszard Cholewinski, Richard Perruchoud and myself, has just been published by Asser Press, and was launched last Thursday at the Georgetown University Law Center.

The volume looks to provide a comprehensive overview of the "field" of international migration law, developing some key themes identified in a 2003 collection edited by Chetail and Aleinikoff, entitled Migration and International Legal Norms, and also indentifying some areas of emerging significance. It consists in six broad sections: state sovereignty and responsibility (including chapters on migration-related aspects of terrorism legislation, detention, and multiple nationality); trade and labour migration (with contributions on, amongst others, GATS Mode 4 and remittances); forced migration (looking at the law relating to refugees and internally displaced persons, and the compensation claims tribunals); human rights (with chapters on migrant workers, migrant women, trafficking and statelessness); regional free movement regimes (in Europe, Africa, South America and the Caribbean); and emerging issues (informal cooperation mechanisms, biometrics and the new EU Borders Code). It brings together works both by established academics, practitioners and younger scholars who have already made a contribution in their respective fields. It will, we hope, be both accessible to students and non-lawyers alike, whilst also being substantial enough to be of use to academics and practitioners already expert in their fields.

Available now in all good bookshops! Well, on Amazon, anyway...

Should the Peace Nobel prize go to politicians?

2007-10-12T10:16:00.000-04:00

I do not think so. To select a man that represents a party is never a good idea. Al Gore, some may say, defends an environmentalist agenda, not a party.

First that agenda is not based on rock but on sand. It may turn out to be solid sand or friable rock, but we do not really know for sure.

Second, Gore is still eligible to run for the US presidency. This may not be realistic, but a small window remains open. I find it less than desirable to openly support someone who may still have big personal/political interests.

Finally, it is unclear what are the real merits of Al Gore. Is he a good movie director/actor? Well then, he already got an Oscar for that. Is he making ground-breaking scientific discoveries? No we can set this aside. Is he communiticating efficaciously an important political message? Yes! And so what? That is the bread and butter of all good politicians. It does not follow that they deserve a Nobel prize for that reason

Natalia Alvarez, fields of work and research interests

2007-10-11T09:30:00.000-04:00

I would like to introduce myself to the bloggers. My name is Natalia Alvarez and I am currently working as lecturer at University of Aberdeen, Scotland. My field of interest are international law, legal theory and human rights. I am researching in the field of violence, legal subject and international law, and I am also participating in a research project on indigenous peoples in Latin- America. My approach to international law is "critical" in the sense of focusing in the unnamed angles of the discipline. These elements can be concepts (violence) peoples (indigenous peoples, women) or places ( Latin-America, Africa) If you are currently working in any of these aspects, I will be happy to hear from you.

Me gustaría presentarme a todos y todas los que participáis de una u otra manera en este blog. Mi nombre es Natalia Alvarez y trabajo como profesora en la Universidad de Aberdeen, Escocia. Estoy interesada en el ámbito del derecho internacional, teoría jurídica y derechos humanos. Mi trabajo de investigación se centra en los aspectos de subjetividad jurídica, violencia y derecho internacional, y en estos momentos estoy colaborando en un proyecto de investigación sobre pueblos indígenas en América Latina. Mi aproximación al derecho internacional es "critica" en el sentido en el que implica una referencia a los aspectos no-nombrados (o anónimos, si lo preferís) de la disciplina. Estos aspectos pueden ser conceptos ( violencia) personas ( pueblos indígenas o mujeres) o lugares ( América- Latina o África) Si estas trabajando en estas áreas, tus sugerencias o aportaciones son bienvenidas.

Welcome to Natalia Alvarez, our new blogger!

2007-10-11T09:07:00.000-04:00

Natalia is Lecturer in Law at Aberdeen University, Scotland, UK.

She specializes in International Legal Theory and is particularly interested in Human Rights issues in South America.

She brings a wider perspectives on the Americas than we previously had. In addition, she brings linguistic diversity as she will contribute both in English and Spanish.

New Vest for Old Blog

2007-10-10T12:33:00.001-04:00

Hope you like this new vest for our blog. Any feedback is welcome!

Scottishprudence...

2007-10-10T12:19:00.000-04:00

... is a blog on Jurisprudence based in Scotland.
Worth having a look for those of you who are interested in legal theory and various
other scholarly issues.

Gordon Brown's New Clothes

2007-10-10T06:04:00.000-04:00

Apologies to all our readers for the long summer break due to logistic problems for most of us.

Let's go back to business with a very interesting piece on Gordon Brown's real identity as a politician by Jonathan Freedland on the NYRB.

Gordon, after his first 100 days in power, emerges as a skillfull prime minister who has grand plans on domestic and International politics.

Personally, I have no doubt about his policy skills. The open question which is tellingly not addressed concerns the place of the UK in Europe. More to come on GB's views on Europe...

Constitutional Dilemmas

2007-07-14T06:44:00.001-04:00

is now available in the best bookshops

Brave Serbian Judges!

2007-05-25T03:54:00.000-04:00

Nata Mesarovic and Radmila Dicic Dragicevic, Serbian judges, sentenced the organizers and assassins of the late Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. These men, members of Milosevic’s secret service death squads and criminal gangs, were sentenced to maximal sentences of 40 years of imprisonment. Despite enormous pressure from the underworld and retrograde political forces in Serbia the judges carried on with the process and pronounced their verdict. In this way many argue that the Serbian judiciary passed the test and managed to impose itself as a true and independent third branch of government. For more on this sentence see here, here and here.

Milan on Top

2007-05-24T07:04:00.000-04:00

Three finals and 2 cups in five years: you can hardly do better than that!!

Mickey goes fundamentalist...

2007-05-09T15:16:00.000-04:00

Cartoons and Islamic fundamentalism don't always mix; there are, however, some exceptions, as this clip, from a Hamas TV station (and taken from the website of the Palestinian Media Watch organisation), amply illustrates. It depicts a man in a Mickey Mouse costume leading a children's TV programme, leading them in songs about Coming to Jerusalem for the Time of Death, and the ubiquitous problem-solver that is the AK-47.

This is all assuming, of course, that the subtitles provided are accurate; I am unsure about what the nature and agenda of that organisation is, so this is an important caveat to make. However, if they are at all reflective of the message being portrayed, and whatever one's view on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestine issue, it is difficult to be anything other than disturbed by the message, and in particular the intended audience, of this piece of rhetoric.

Even if, as some may argue, Mickey has been an instrument of child-targeted propaganda for many years before now...

2007 UK Law School Rankings

2007-05-06T17:54:00.000-04:00

This is the Times good universities ranking:

1 Cambridge
2 Oxford
3 Univ Coll London
4 LSE
5 Aberdeen
6 Durham
7 Nottingham
8 Edinburgh
9 King's Coll London
10 Manchester
11 Leeds
11= Warwick
13 Glasgow
14 Strathclyde
15 Queen Mary
16 Dundee
17 Queens, Belfast
18 SOAS
19 Bristol
20 Kent

This is the Guardian's Ranking:

Oxford
Cambridge
London School of Economics
King's College London
UCL
Warwick
Soas
Edinburgh
Birmingham
Aberdeen

Sarkozy Wins.

2007-05-06T17:50:00.000-04:00

Sarkozy wins, he claims he will be the President of everyone. But social unrest and conflicts are ahead. Will he be able to cope with them?

French Elections: A Preamble

2007-05-06T06:26:00.000-04:00

Be it Sarkozy or Segolene, France will have to steer away from the past, the present past and the more remote past.

The present past saw a clear decline in social and economic terms. Social conflicts in France is under the eyes of everyone, although people started acknowledging it only recently. I still remember 1998, when France won the World Cup. Many French friends of mine used that as an example of perfect integration of immigrants a la francaise. I thought back then, and I still think, that the french republican model of integration dramatically failed, despite its good will. A republican model means for French mainstream ideology a value monist system of values based on French Constitutional history since 1789. Multiculturalism, and value pluralism, have always been rejected as impracticable and 'anti-french.' In other words, living in France required people to become French; no alternative was/is possible. This situation needs to be radically reformed.

The more remote past concerns the institutions that moulded the French Nation in the past two centuries. Elite institutions as the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, Ecole Polytechnique, Ecole Normale and all the bodies of the state that go with them are in need of a deep reform as well. Those institutions had an extraordinary success during the age of nations, more or less up to WW2 and few decades after that. Globalisation, however, showed the intrinsic limits of institutions that work within a rigid (french) republican mould. The inability to compete with other institutions in the world is becoming staggering and the only option left is the overhaul of the whole system.

It is unclear whether Segolene or Sarkozy will manage to push forward these massive changes. There is no easy recepee to bring France out of the present stagnation. Perhaps something can be learned from Tony Blair's bitter sweet (more bitter than sweet) rule. He acknowledges nowadays that the greatest battle was the one for the change of attitudes of people ( a cultural change in relation to the way of doing politics in a completely different international landscape). French people are at the moment skeptical, afraid of globalisation, incapable of competing on a wider scale than the national one, and tired of the old Chiral like type of politics. May the next President achieve the difficult mission of change!

Scottish elections/ Does the UK need a "genuine" constitution?

2007-05-04T15:06:00.000-04:00

The actual results for the Scottish election are as follows: the Scottish Nationalists won 20 seats to take their total to 47, and to become, for the first time ever, the largest party in scotland, ending 50 years of Labour domination; Labour lost 4 seats, moving down to 46; the Tories and Lib Dems lost one each, to move down to 17 and 16 respectively; and, in many ways the biggest losers of the night, "others" (such as Greens and Socialists) lost 14 seats - only two greens and one independent remain. There is already a lengthy wikipedia page on the results.

Not huge losses for Labour, then, but significant enough to see them lose the symbolic status of largest party in Scotland, and, more importantly, to make it likely that SNP leader Alec Salmond will be the next First Minister. There was a significant swing from Labour to SNP; this was bolstered significantly, however, by the fact that most of the supporters of the Scottish Socialist Party seem to have opted to vote for the Nationalists after the fairly spectacular, if grindingly inevitable, implosion of their first-choice party; and it is this that largely accounts for the fact that labour are only 4 MSPs down, despite the Nats gaining 20.

We are, it seems, set for some interesting times in Scotland; and this, at least, is to be welcomed. Indeed, it may be that the devolution arrangements, so clearly designed with Labour governments both sides of the border in mind, will be tested in the next few years by an SNP-led executive in Edinburgh dealing with the Tories in Westminster. The inevitably messy politics of coalition are also playing out in Scotland now, with minority government a real possibility as the Liberal Democrats have stated fairly publicly and clearly that the largest party has the "moral authority" to govern, and that a unionist coalition to stop a nationalist government was thus not on the cards (although it remains to be seen whether they will hold firm to this, or perform a laughable u-turn to match that of their 1999 "pledge" on university tuition fees - the jury is out on this one).

The biggest issue, however, has, as one commentator put it fairly early on last night, is "not the count but rather the counting". Lorenzo is correct to note, in his post immediately below, that the Scottish elections turned out to be a shambolic, shameful embarrassment in many ways: hundreds of postal votes not issued in time through nothing other than ineptitude; numerous counts postponed until the next day through teething problems with the new computer systems; and, most importantly, over one hundred thousand spoilt or rejected ballot papers. To try to put that last figure in perspective: let's assume a possible electorate of something like 4 million voters, and a turnout of around the 50% mark (unfortunately, I haven't been able to find accurate figures for these; any info on this would be welcome). That gives us around 2 million people actually casting their votes, of whom 100,000 - or a massive 5% - have been effectively disenfranchised (excepting, of course, the few that will have spoilt their papers on purpose). The reason for this seems clear enough - the decision to switch to a single transferable vote system in the local elections which took place at the same time, and which, for the first time, required not simply putting a cross beside a candidate's name, but providing a set of numbered preferences. There seems to have been clear confusion over which ballot paper requried which marks, with one election officer suggesting that around 60% of those voting were less than sure of exactly how to do so when entering the polling stations.

This much is clear. What is significantly less clear, however, is the extent to which this in any way reflects on the absence of what Lorenzo refers to as a "genuine" constitution - by which, I suppose he means a clear, written document, laying out systematically the "nature of devolution, the place of the House of Lords, and the status of the Human Rights Act". Firstly, it seems clear that none of the difficulties encountered last night would have been in any way reduced by such a move. We do not have to look to ancient history to find that serious electoral difficulties have arisen in states that have provided models for the whole world as to what a "genuine constitution" looks like; and attempts to introduce the constitutional question in these terms and at this time begins to look a little like disingenuous back-door constitutionalism.

Secondly, and at a more general level, it is far from clear that the heirarchy and pre-commitment involved in constitutional entrenchment of the sort that Lorenzo envisages is always entirely desirable; that very often, the attempt to formalise and systematise everything leaves no space for the common sense that has long been a part of the British, and particularly the Scottish, political, social and philosophical mindset (indeed, this is one of the source of one of the most commonly criticised caricatures of the EU in the UK).

Put simply, there is, in the UK, a genuine sense that we don't need a "genuine" constitution; that, for all of their formal imperfections and lack of clear conceptual divisions, the UK political institutions generally function in a largely satisfactory manner. And, in defence of such a viewpoint - which, I think, is the unspoken - perhaps even unconscious - starting position of many of my compatriots - we have in the UK a history of functional political stability, and liberal democratic credentials, that stand up to comparison with even the most heavily constitutionalised of European or American states.

Considerations such as these are not, of course, conclusive one way or the other; they do, however, call for serious engagment from those for whom the UK's lack of a written, or "genuine", constitution is major ethico-political issue. Perhaps we must, in exploring these issues, revisit the classical debate on the French Revolution between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine; in any event, I hope it is a call that Lorenzo will take up in more detail here...

Scottish Elections: the chaos wins

2007-05-04T11:13:00.000-04:00

Everyone expected the results of the elections, but by now it is like waiting for Godot. What characterised the Scottish elections is the lack of clarity produced by a shambolic voting system.

SNP and Labour parties are fighting to the last vote to secure the majority and lack of clarity in these circumstances is not at all positive.

In any case, my feeling as an external beholder is that the UK should engage in a wide constitutional debate as to the nature of devolution, the place of the house of lords, and the status of the human rights act.

This may be the right time to start developing a genuine constitution for the UK.

Major blow to diplomatic assurances/torture memoranda

2007-04-27T15:59:00.000-04:00

To return to an issue that I have blogged on previously, the controversial policy of the UK Government of signing "memoranda of understanding" with states suspected of carrying out or ignoring torture of detainees has been dealt a significant blow with the decision today by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that two terror suspects that were scheduled for deportation to Libya must not be sent back there. The judgement in the case of DD and AS v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, available in full here, although not condemning outright such agreements in the abstract, held that the particular memorandum of understanding between the UK and Libya does not provide enough safeguards to allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under Art. 3 ECHR (the prohibition of torture). The crucial passage from the judgment reads as follows (para. 428):

Although we accept that the MOU and other assurances have been given in good faith by Libya, and that there is no probable risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR were the Appellants to be returned, there remains a real risk that that could happen. That is because there is too much scope for changes to happen, for things to go wrong, and too little scope for a breach of Article 3 to be deterred or for acts which might lead to a breach of Article 3 to be remedied in time, essentially through effective monitoring. There is also a real risk that the trial of the Appellants would amount to a complete denial of a fair trial. We do not exclude the possibility that the SSHD’s case for their deportation could be strengthened over time.

A number of important points can be gleaned from that paragraph alone. Firstly, there need not be any mala fides on the part of the potential receiving state for a memorandum of understanding to be found insufficient to avoid responsibility under Art. 3 ECHR. Secondly, the level of risk necessary that such assurances would be violated is set commendably low: improbable, but genuine. Thirdly, factors such as political volatility, the likelihood of change, and the possibilities for effective monitoring can be essential in determining whether a risk is genuine or not, however improbable. Lastly, the SIAC makes it clear that this is a contextual, and not a general or abstract, judgment, and that changing conditions in Libya over time may mean that diplomatic assurances can be effective in allowing the UK to deport terror suspects there without violating Art. 3 ECHR.

These points, along with a number of others, are dealt with in the judgment in more detail. There is, for example, a lengthy discussion both of Qadhafi's character, and the manner in which his new rapprochement with the West has been driven by an instrumental pragmatism which could, if the situation so demanded, see it reversed, particularly in isolated cases involving the interrogation of islamist extremists (see e.g. paras. 333-372 of the judgment). The Commission concluded that "[t]here is not yet the range of contacts or years of experience of dealing with each other at many different and friendly levels, or the depth of other links between Libya and the UK which would make the diplomatic path predictable" enough for a diplomatic assurance as to the non-resort to torture to be viewed as absolutely watertight (para. 370), even if Libya's recent and continuing rapprochement with the West is a factor of genuine - and increasing - importance in this regard. The necessary chance of such a risk materialising is set out clearly in the following passage (para. 371):

We have accordingly come to the conclusion that although it is probable that [witness for the Home Department] Mr Layden’s judgment as to how the Libyans would observe the MOU in relation to the physical treatment of the Appellants is sound, and that they would not be ill-treated in a way which breached Article 3, we cannot adopt his conclusion that that would be well-nigh unthinkable. Instead we think that there is a real risk that that would happen... We do not therefore have the confidence which we need to have, for the return of the Appellants not to breach the UK’s international obligations. In short there is too much scope for something to go wrong, and too little in place to deter ill-treatment or to bring breaches of the MOU to the UK’s attention.

There is thus also significant consideration given to the matter of monitoring: where the guarantee of adherence to diplomatic assurances rests on a pragmatic ascertation of self-interest (and not, for example, on a growing commitment to human rights, or a culture of honouring one's given word), the first calculation of a regime that thought that it may stand to gain from torturing detainees would not be the threat of sanctions from, or the deteroration in relationship with, the returning state, but whether it could prevent any breach coming to light. The ability of an MOU to work where a regime could use well known ploys to prevent access to a prisoner does depend on the monitoring body having access or the willingness to report obstructions to the sending country. The very real prospect here that a breach could go undetected, or undetected for a long time, means that the potential adverse reaction from the UK would also be delayed or prevented. The downside of any breach could be markedly diminished" (para. 365).

The issue of monitoring, then, becomes vital. The Commission notes, for example, that strong civil society monitoring bodies, such as a free press or genuinely independent NGOs, or even a strong public constituency of popular support for Islamic militancy, are not present. The Commission goes on to note that the body envisaged as implementation monitor, the Qadhafi Development Foundation, although by far the best-placed "NGO" for the job, enjoying a degree of independence unique among Libyan NGOs, is not sufficient for the task. Although it does have an important track record of human rights protection and humanitarian advocacy, it's President is Saif al Islam al Qadhafi, Colonel Qadhafi's second son, who, despite his reformist opinions, is nonetheless still deeply limited in the criticisms he can level at the regime. The QDF, then, would be useful in monitoring the Memorandum in cases in which a rogue guard tortured detainees against the will of the regime; this is not, however, viewed as particularly likely. In the more probable scenario, of torture sanctioned at the highest level, it would be effectively voiceless. The Commission concludes that "[i]t [the QDF] is no more independent of the regime than is Saif himself, and he is not independent" (para. 330).

Other issues include the possibility that the length of time spent in detention either pre-trial (paras. 375-376) and on death row (paras. 377-378) could lead, indirectly, to a breach of Art. 3 ECHR, although, in terms of the latter, execution was not viewed as a real risk - even if a death sentence was a real possibility, it was unlikely to be carried out; and the possibility, gleaned from tentative ECtHR dicta, that the probable lack of a fair trial in the receiving state might act as a barrier to deportation ("[t]he ECtHR has not enunciated any general principle that a state bears an indirect responsibility for breaches of the ECHR by states which are not parties but to whose territories someone is deported", para. 397), holding that a "balancing" (at least in terms of derogable rights) between the rights of the deportee and those of individuals he put at risk, or threat to the host state, could be carried out (para. 400). The Commission even dealt with the significance of Qadhafi's strong personal relationship with the outgoing Tony Blair (para. 380). Lastly, the one of the appellants had raised the possibility that, given his family situation in the UK, deportation would amount to a violation of the right to family life contained in Art. 8 ECHR; an idea dismissed by the Commission in this case (paras. 405-414).

The other area of real interest concerns the Commission's judgment with respect to the 1951 Refugee Convention (it does not consider the Convention Against Torture at all, but we may assume that its holdings in terms of Art. 3 ECHR would also be applicable to the UK's obligations inder the CAT, and in particular its own Art. 3 provision on non-refoulement). In short, it seems unlikely that the Refugee Convention will be of particular importance in cases involving suspected terrorists within the UK in the future: one of the appellants, DD, had already been successfully through a refugee status determination in the UK; however, the Commission ruled that the Secretary of State was correct in his assertion that DD's terrorist activities meant that he was excluded from the provisions and protections of the Convention. The relvent provisions of the Convention read as follows:

1. F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that.
(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

33. 1. No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

The Commission considered the claim that, as the acts upon which the UK was relying in excluding DD from protection under the Convention had occurred after the positive refugee status determination, they could not be used to divest him of that status (paras. 110-112). This position seemed to be supported by a Canadian Supreme Court case, Pushpanathan v. Canada (MC1) [1999] INLR 36, in which the Court held that "the general purpose of Article 1F is not the protection of the society of refuge from dangerous refugees, whether because of acts committed before or after the presentation of a refugee claim; that purpose is served by Article 33 of the Convention. Rather, it is to exclude ab initio those who are not bona fide refugees at the time of their claim for refugee status" (para 58 of that judgment). This, however, was not accepted by the SIAC, who, following a judgment of the UK Immigration Appeals Tribunal (in KK v. SSHD [2004] UKIAT 00101) noted that, given the words "prior to his admission to that country as a refugee" were inserted into Art. 1F(b) alone, meant that they could not be read into Art. 1F(a) or (c); thus DD could be stripped of refugee status if he engaged subsequently in "acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" - of which terrorism is a generally accepted example (para. 121).

Lastly, the Commission held that, even if DD were not excluded from protection under Art. 1F, then the non-refoulement provision would not apply as a result of Art. 33(2): "It is obvious from our conclusions about national security that it is our view that there are “reasonable grounds” for regarding him as a danger to the security of the UK", and concluding moreover that neither here nor in Art. 1F was the deporting state required to balance the potential for individual rights violation against the suspects if deported against the risk to itself and its citizens. As soon as the criteria of Arts. 1F or 33(2) were fulfilled, there is no bar under the Refugee Convention to deporting the individual in question (although of course other obligations, such as the ECHR or the CAT may well still apply) (paras. 125-126).

One of the most striking things about this judgment in general is the level of acceptance that the appellants are dangerous men, deeply involved in Islamic militancy and posing genuine threats to the UK's national security. The Commission conducts a detailed review of the appellants' activites, and concludes, for example, that "We are entirely satisfied that DD is a real and direct threat to the national security of the UK... [who] is a global jihadist with links to the Taleban and Al Qa’eda" (paras. 71-72), and that "on the open evidence alone AS is a clear danger to national security. He is an Islamist extremist who has engaged actively and as a senior member with a terrorist group clearly engaged in support work for jihadist activities" (para. 104). The Commission makes, to my mind, a commendable summary of the choice facing it, which has led it to its equally commendable decision (para. 430):

We have given this decision anxious consideration in view of the risks which the Appellants could face were they returned, and those which the UK, and individuals who can legitimately look to it for the protection of their human rights, would face if they were not. We must judge that matter, at least in relation to Article 3 ECHR, by considering only the risks which the Appellants could face on return, no matter how grave and violent the risks which, having chosen to come here, they pose to the UK, its interests abroad, and its wider interests. Those interests at risk include fundamental human rights.

The effect of this passage, which to me nicely encapsulates the tragic dilemma posed by this extremely hard ethical question, is, sadly, somewhat diminished by the almost petulant tone adopted by the Commission in the very next paragraph:

The decision of the ECtHR in Chahal in 1996 provides the framework for that decision. It clearly requires us to consider matters in that way, however slight its reasoning or negligible its response to the substantial minority dissent on the problems posed by a direct threat comparable to that arising here to the interests of the country seeking removal, and on the protection to the human rights of others which the deportation of the Appellants would afford. That decision is part of its established jurisprudence, and in reality we are bound by it.

With these last words, the Commission seeks to challenge the absolute legal prohibition laid down by the ECtHR in terms of refoulement in torture cases, implicitly suggesting instead that this should be subject to the kind of legal balancing act common to many other rights dilemmas. There is no space to go into this in detail here, but many, myself included, although believing that, ethically speaking and at an abstract level, torture can and must be balanced against other possible ethical risks (that there can, philosophically, be no absolutes), it is a different matter entirely to attempt to write that necessary relativism into positive law. It is a subject on which I may blog more soon; for the moment, however, it is enough to refer any reader who have made it this far to Jeremy Waldron's excellent article on the subject, "Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the Whitehouse", 105 Columbia Law Review (2005) 1681-1750.

The EU has long lost its leverage in Kosovo: By Aleksandar Mitic

2007-04-27T10:44:00.000-04:00

[This article is published in the European Voice 26 April - 2 May 2007]

The EU is facing risks over Kosovo: there is a stalemate in the UN Security Council, a division within the EU and not a slight sign of Serbia accepting Martti Ahtisaari's plan on cutting Kosovo away from it.

The special UN Security Council mission to Kosovo will undoubtedly see what has been largely downplayed in the "pinkish" reports drafted by Pristina-based UN chiefs: only 5 percent of the 220,000 Serbs expelled by Albanian extremists from Kosovo have returned, while Serbs living in the shameful, heavy-guarded enclaves lack freedom of movement and express mostly fear and mistrust.

This could also be a good eye-opener for Brussels. The EU has greatly lost in leverage in the last several months: the Kosovo Albanians look at Washington to lead a diplomatic "blitzkrieg" on their behalf, while Serbia and the Kosovo Serbs have found in Moscow a reliable partner ready to oppose an imposed secession.

One thing is now clear: there will be no UN Security Council resolution based on the core of Ahtisaari's proposal because there is simply no agreement on why Kosovo should be the first case in the 62-year long history of the UN in which the body legitimizes a dismemberment of a member country.

Repeating the senseless mantra about Kosovo's "uniqueness" will not fly, while warning about Kosovo Albanians going ballistic if they do not get what they want only reinforces the argument that they are not ready for self-governance let alone statehood.

Ahtisaari's proposal is unfortunately by no means a compromise, unless your definition of a compromise involves a shameful trade off: human rights for territory.

Respect for international law, for recognized borders of Serbia and for the need of the Kosovo Albanian majority to rule itself would get the UNSC to adopt a resolution, the EU to stay united and take its responsibilities in Kosovo. This will bring Pristina and Belgrade firmly on the road to the EU.

Otherwise, it is back to square one on the thin line.

Congress v. the President: Round 2

2007-04-26T18:51:00.000-04:00

As expected, the Democrat-led Senate has also passed the Bill seeking to make continued funding for the Iraq adventure conditional on a definite start date for withdrawal, and a target completion date. Republicans have, again, dismissed the Bill as nothing more than a "stunt", which seems a little disingenuous, given the undoubted strength of feeling involved for many of those who feel that the US should not remain in Iraq. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, given their dependence on US support, senior Iraqi Government officials have taken a similar line, with Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari suggesting that "this is part of the politicking, basically, in Washington and this has been damaging in fact to the security, political development, not only in Iraq, but in the entire region..."

Bush has, naturally, reiterated his intention to use the veto, safe in the knowledge that the Democrats cannot muster enough votes in Congress to override it. Perhaps, however, this is not such a big deal, however it may look to those of us unfamiliar with the Presidential system (for example, for all of the accusations levelled against him in this regard, it is difficult to imagine Blair going directly against a clear Parliamentary vote on an issue such as this; not least of all because only the Queen is constitutionally "empowered" to do so). The BBC provides a helpful comparison of other presidents' usage of the veto power:

George W Bush: 1

Bill Clinton: 38

George Bush Snr: 44

Ronald Reagan: 78

FD Roosevelt: 635

Thomas Jefferson: 0

Roosevelt was in power for 12 years, from 1933-1945; which works out, by my reckoning, at just over one veto per week... Clearly, then, the use of the veto alone is not something that is viewed as in and of itself undemocratic in the US (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the direct electoral mandate of the President); it would be interesting to know, however, what if any the constitutional safguards are in terms of the dramatic situation in which we now find ourselves - namely, the ongoing prosecution of a deeply unpopular war, by a President in the latter years of his period in office, and whose Party suffered heavy losses at the most recent elections (largely as a direct result of that war). Anyone?

A little note on excrements and shop entrance doors

2007-04-26T09:45:00.000-04:00

In an article published in the London Review of Books, Slavoj Zizek, Slovenian sociologist, postmodern philosopher, and cultural critic, used a metaphor of a toilet to compare the cultural differences between the German, French and US,

"In a traditional German toilet, the hole into which shit disappears after we flush is right at the front, so that shit is first laid out for us to sniff and inspect for traces of illness. In the typical French toilet, on the contrary, the hole is at the back, i.e. shit is supposed to disappear as quickly as possible. Finally, the American (Anglo-Saxon) toilet presents a synthesis, a mediation between these opposites: the toilet basin is full of water, so that the shit floats in it, visible, but not to be inspected."

Similarly, the direction in which the shop, restaurant etc. entrance door opens (towards the street or towards the inside of the place) is telling of a particular society’s position towards the notion of the public space and public good. Namely, in US shop doors open towards the outside and thus invade the public space, hence one is to conclude, or that America has bigger side-walks so they can allow such luxury, or that this is something to do with fire prevention (mind you one can always break the glass door), or that private property is more important than the public one. In Europe shop windows usually open towards the inside thus reflecting the nature of our social and political system.

Congress v. the President: Round 1

2007-04-25T23:22:00.000-04:00

Following on quickly from the article to which Lorenzo referred immediately below, it seems that Bush's growing isolation over Iraq is no longer limited to the international plane, or to domestic public opinion; he looks now to be at direct odds even with his own Parliament. The House of Representatives voted this evening, albeit by a narrow 218 votes to 208, to make continued replenishment of the President's war chest conditional on the commencement of troop withdrawal in October, with the planned completion date for this process March 2008. The Bill is set to be voted on by the Senate tomorrow, and, given the Democrat majority in that House too, seems likely to be up for Presidential approval before long.

The Whitehouse reaction? "Tonight, the House of Representatives voted for failure in Iraq - and the president will veto its bill". Utter intransigence, then; and he is not alone. His position is supported by most Republicans, many in the military establishment, and the Iraqi Prime and Foreign Ministers, no less. The criticisms of the last two actors in particular have to be taken seriously; the trouble is, however, that those who are - ostensibly at least - the President's most important audience, the American people, have made their collective will on this issue relatively clear; it is difficult to view Bush's refusal to accept the judgment of Congress as anything other than deeply undemocratic.

the Guardian recently published an interesting opinion piece by Naomi Wolf, "Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps", outlining the basic 10-point blueprint that has historically underpinned the move to fascism in a variety of different states, and suggesting that the US has already made significant progress along a number of these paths. They are

1) Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy;
2) Create a gulag;
3) Develop a thug caste;
4) Set up an internal surveillance system;
5) Harass citizens groups;
6) Engage in arbitrary detention and release;
7) Target key individuals;
8) Control the press;
9) Equate "dissent" with "treason";
10) Suspend the rule of law.

Initial reactions to these claims may well be, as mine was, that they involve some fairly crass hyperbole; however, as the author develops her argument in lucid and eloquent fashion, it becomes clear that the US has indeed progressed worryingly far along a number of these routes (although she does acknowledge, correctly in my view, that the US's democratic traditions and institutions are too strong for the country to be at risk of a descent into fascist totalitarianism). Wolf recounts, for example, the astonishing story of Professor Walter F. Murphy of Princeton University, denied a pass to board a plane at Newark Airport on the grounds that he was on a terrorist watch list. The airline employee, clearly trying to be helpful, inquired as to whether he had been on any peace marches, as "we ban a lot of people from flying because of that". When the ex-Marine Professor indicated that he had given a very public lecture at Princeton that was highly critical of Bush, the response from the airline representative was simple: "That'll do it".

Moreover, the prosecution of the war on terror requires, of course, the creation of a feeling very similar to it amongst the general population, through the constant invocation of life-threatening danger and amorphous yet ever-present enemy; Guantanamo and the even more secret network of CIA prisons throughout the world are performing the task of the Gulag nicely, and seem also to have arbitrary detention (if not release) pretty much covered; and the rhetoric of "with us or against us", so characteristic of the US approach to this whole affair, strongly suggests that Bush will brook no dissent whatsoever, and, indeed, that to do so is "unAmerican" - as the Whitehouse reaction to this evening's vote shows.

We can, perhaps, add another "step" to the list; a confrontation between the strong Leader and the recalcitrant Parliament, in which the former blatantly and steadfastly refuses to give way to the wishes of the people's democratically elected lawmakers on issues of great importance. We have, it seems, reached just this point now; it will be interesting to see how things play out over the next few days.

Bush after Ambush and other stories

2007-04-25T06:18:00.000-04:00

The NYRB has a very interesting piece on the clash between Bush and the Democrats after the recent elections.

For those who have a subscription I also recommend Jeremy Waldron on the US Supreme Court internal clashes of personalities.

And John Gray on our moral nature and the existence of intractable moral dilemmas.

Do you want to know more about Scottish Elections?

2007-04-24T10:06:00.000-04:00

Here's a good link for you: http://www.holyrood2007.net/Scotlandnew/index.php

This is an interesting new e-democracy project, which deserves some attention!

French Elections: a short exchange

2007-04-24T07:09:00.000-04:00

Raphaël Paour (following from previous post)

Hello boys. Sorry to disagree Lorenzo. So far Bayrou has done close to nothing for a simple reason. His score is due to the rejection of Royal, by typical socialist voters, and of Sarkozy, by typical UMP voters. There fore his success seems very much linked to a punctual situation ; and if either Sarkozy or Royal leave the spotlight after the elections, things should get back to normal with an UDF around 10%. During the weeks prior to the elections, some of his closest advisors (J-L Bourlanges in this case) said they were very afraid that if Bayrou was not second or third, the political force which he represents would be wiped clean during the legislative elections. In the past, they were able to gain many seats in Parliament thanks to the agreements they had with the UMP (hence the choice of several leaders from the UDF to fallow Sarkozy rather that Bayrou who will probably be less able to preserve their positions of power). Having heard that several times, I was very surprised to see how happy Bayrou seemed yesterday night. I can't help thinking that it isn't authentic happiness. If he doesn't show that he believes he can create a new movement, no one will. He had no other choice than to pretend he was really satisfied with the result; he’s trying to start a movement, he can’t look depressed.All night yesterday and all day today, I've hearing politicians, journalists and scholars say how great it is for democracy that Sarkozy was able to win back votes that went to Le Pen in previous elections. I think that, the very fact people don't see what is wrong with that shows what kind of a problem we have on our hands. The way Sarkozy was able to appeal to these voters was by picking up Le Pen's discourse, using his words, his images and often his very expressions. Worst, parts of his program are inspired by Le Pen’s, so the similarity isn’t only formal – substantially, their views of society, authority, foreigners, national identity are close. Sarkozy doesn't say the contrary, Le Pen certainly recognizes it. So what has happened? Words and ideas which were before called "racist", "dangerous", "intolerant" are now called "democratic". Somehow it has now become acceptable to defend Le Pen's ideas. Thank you Sarkozy indeed! The fact that his overwhelming success yesterday was due to his ability to appeal to the far right, using partially the FN's racist, authoritative, violent program is a very scary thing for the future in this country.Raphaël Paour

Srdjan Cvijic said...
I agree with a number of the points you raise Raphael, esspecially those referring to Sarkozy swinging to the right. One must closely watch at what will he offer to Le Pen's voters to incite them to vote for him, introduction of a proportional representation system at the legislative elctions possibly? However, I disagree with one point Bayrou is the king maker, if he has the courage to risk and shift in support of Royal but under the condition that she agrees to form a governing coallition after legislative elections. In this way France would follow a political process already in place in Italy, along the lines of the Blarite shift, that is transformation of the traditional left into a third way political groupaion. She would inevitably lose some votes on the far left, whether she will be elected this is a real question?

Lorenzo Zucca said...
Raph, I think that Le Pen, even if He is hardly acceptable, has concerns that are shared by many people in France. To address those problems is a way of living in a democracy: you try and capture the mood of the majority of people. Sarkozy 'stole' some of Le Pen's concerns but presented them in a way that is acceptable by French standards. Now, if you want to say that French standards of democratic discourse are low and that many people are racist and intolerant in a disguised way, I can only agree with you.My impression on Bayrou may be wrong. It's just a communicative impression. From that viewpoint, I found that Sarkozy was quite nervous, and Royal was very rigid after the result. I think they both feel that they have to do a lot to make sure that they win. Royal more than Sarkozy... I think. Bayrou has a clear strong result, which is a very strong progression from last time he run (In 2002 he had 4% or so; today he almost has 19). He is, if he wants, the Queen maker as Srdjan says. But I am not sure he wants to settle on a compromise at this moment. He would probably work on this result to have a good result at the parliamentary elections and then he will decide.

Srdjan Cvijic said...

I have to make a small clarification, strictly formally speaking no compromise between Bayrou and Royal would be even acceptable at this point, Presidential elections are direct so the president directly represents the people and not some alligment of political parties. This of course does not mean that they cannot make, however, a political agreement, implicit. Yet, the problem is in the formalistic aspect, who is to guarantee to Bayrou that Royal and PS would really support him in the legislative elections. Second, who is to guarantee that Bayrou's voters will vote for Royal or Sarkozy?

More on Kosovo: By Bernhard Knoll

2007-04-24T04:03:00.000-04:00

What should we make of Serbia’s argument, repeated recently by Prime Minister Kostunica at the meeting of the UN Security Council, that it was entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity since its current government is committed to inviting its estranged Kosovo-Albanian cousins back into its polity based on equality and non-discrimination, in recognition of their cultural identity and on the basis of full respect for their internal autonomous arrangements?

The argument is neatly summarised by Srdjan Cvijic: “Milosevic’s regime certainly misgoverned Kosovo, but one can justifiedly ask why the Serbian democratic government should have to pay the price for the abuses of Milosevic’s authoritarian regime". ( In "Self-determination as a Challenge to the Legitimacy of Humanitarian Interventions: The Case of Kosovo’, 8:1 German Law Journal 57-79 (2007), at 74). NATO’s bombing campaign, so the argument continues, has relieved the Kosovo Albanian population of the threat of persecution, and possibly with it, of the option of consuming a right to seek external self-determination.

On whichever side of the debate over the underlying international legal and political reasoning accompanying the status resolution one finds himself, the Serbian idea of ‘more than autonomy, less than independence’ never seemed to gain support amongst the Contact Group which, along with UNOSEK, are effectively arbitrating Kosovo’s fate. Indeed, the forcible re-incorporation of 2 million hostile Kosovo Albanians in a 7,5 million-strong Serbian body politic had always appeared to them as running against the true interests of a stable Serbia.

Beyond the reliance on the notion of remedial secession that may only tentatively reflect an international legal standard, Serbia’s argument is open to challenge on the ground of its current constitutional choices. If Serbia would have been serious in its intention to grant ‘Kosovo and Metohija’ the widest possible range of autonomous rights within its State, it could have entrenched them in its 2006 Constitution. Instead, the Constitution provided for the possibility of severe restriction of autonomous rights, through means of ordinary legislation, in the fields of territorial boundaries, human and minority rights, the management of provincial assets, kind and amount of direct revenues from Republican level, etc. As the Venice Commission has formulated in its recent Opinion, the Constitution “does not at all guarantee substantial autonomy for Kosovo, for it entirely depends on the willingness of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia whether self-government will be realised or not”. (Opinion No. 405/2006), 70^th Sess., Venice, 17-18 March 2007, at 8).

French Presidentials: The winner (for the moment) is: Bayrou

2007-04-23T09:55:00.000-04:00

Sarkozy, Royal, and Bayrou have all celebrated yesterday. Perhaps, paradoxically, the happiest was Bayrou, who claims to have created a new political movement from scratch. He's probably right, as 18,5 % of support is a very hefty portion of the electorate.

Royal and Sarkozy looked more tense. They have to look ahead and prepare for the second round in two weeks time.

I think that the second round will be more a referendum about Sarkozy than a competition between the two candidates. He's in a very good position and at this point he can only lose the contest. If for example the global turn out will be lower, but his electorate will keep on voting, this will mean that he will start with a 35/40 % basis. To reach 50 + % will not be terribly difficult.

Much will depend on what Bayrou's supporters will do. It is likely, however, that Bayrou will not take a public stance in favour of either candidate. To do so, would subsume his new political centre to either right or left, and that is precisely what he wants to avoid as his message is:
we are a 3rd fully independent force.

This will count massively in the legislative elections, which may end up giving some further surprises.

End of an era: 2nd time

2007-04-21T12:10:00.000-04:00

Yesterday in Florence the Italian Party of the Democrats of the Left voted itself out of existence. DS is going to merge with the centrist MArgherita into a larger Democratic Party. This is arguably a further step away of this party from the legacy of the The Italian Communist Party

In 1991 the PCI disbanded to form the Partito Democratico della Sinistra (PDS), with membership in the Socialist International. The communist tendency, led by Armando Cossutta, left the party to form the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista (PRC) or Communist Refoundation Party. A truly earthqacky moment was the PCI congressin Bologna when Ochetto, the leader of the PCI since 1988, stunned the party faithfully assembled in a working-class section of Bologna with a speech heralding the end of communism, a move now referred to in Italian politics as the Bolognina. Italian film direcor Nanni Moretti rendered these moments of transition immemorable in his "La Cosa" - The thing.

In 1998 the PDS, with several smaller parties, the Laburisti (liberal socialists), the Cristiano Sociali (Christian socialists), the Comunisti Unitari (right-wing split of the PRC), the Sinistra Repubblicana (left republicans) and the Riformatori per l'Europa (social democratic trade unionists), co-founded the "Democratici di Sinistra" (DS) or Democrats of the Left party. Later in the same year the Armando Cossutta tendency left the PRC to form the Partito dei Comunisti Italiani (PdCI) or Party of Italian Communists.

Yesterday in Florence not all members of the DS agreed to embark on the project of the formation of the new Democratic Party. Fabio Mussi, the leader of the left wing of the DS, refused to fowllow suit and wished his ex-party colleagues all the best, "good luck comrades" he said. Despite reconciliatory tones (they will continue to support Prodi's coallition government) his message was clear, "we are staying here" (on the left). He announced the formation of the autonomous left wing party faithful to the traditions of European Socialism and hinted at the possibility of assembling the left wing around this entity. To the majority of the party that decided to disband the DS and form the Democratic Party he said "This Party [Democratic Party] will be centrist and American and will not be able to take part among European Socialist parties".

This is in fact the essence of the disagreement between the two parties that indulged in the process of forming the Demoratic Party, whether or not to adhere to the Party of European Socialists, ex-DS wing of the Democratic Party is decisively for while the centrist ex-MArgherita is against. It was obvious from the speech of its leader Rutelli that the intention of ex-MArgherita members will be to make of the Democratic Party a modern European centrist party. Referring to French presidential campaign Rutelli said that it was a shame that Segolene Royal (the Socialist candidate for the presidency) refused to accept the call of some of her party colleagues to join forces with Francois Bayrou and his UDF.

Rutelli and his party certainly have a different conception of state church relations from the ex-DS despite formally defending the secularist positions. On matters related to civil liberties, Italian Democratic Party will certainly not resemble Zapatero's Socialist Government and it is rather probable that it will further lose votes to the left spectrum of italian politics. Should Mussi and DS members who refused to join the Democratic Party succeed in uniting the hoplessly divided Italian left wing parties (Communist Refoundation Party and Party of Italian Communists) the battle on the italian center-right arena will remain open . The dominant position of the Democratic Party is by no means assured.

France and Scotland Face Big Political/Constitutional Changes

2007-04-19T10:26:00.000-04:00

France will elect its new President. Segolene or Sarkozy, or maybe even Bayrou will change the scene of French politics, or at least they will refresh it given that Chirac has monopolized it in the last 12 years.

Very soon, Scotland will also vote for its 'local' elections, perhaps the last. If the SNP (scottish nationalist) wins, then those elections will probably be national in the future. For an European living in Scotland this alone may be a good argument against SNP: why would we vote to lose our vote?

Gordon Brown will look at this election with great interest. If the SNP wins and Scotland goes toward independence, then its chances of becoming a strong prime minister collapse: he could not claim anymore to represent british interests. In any event, UK constitutional politics seemed geared toward a time of change!

All this may contribute to a renewal at the European Constitutional level. France may well have a new referendum on a simplified text, probably a simple Treaty. The UK will have to redesign its European politics. If England remains Euro-Skeptic, Scotland is in general quite Euro-friendly.

Is "La Repubblica" becoming a tabloid?

2007-04-17T10:45:00.000-04:00

In its article "Cofferati father at 60: second child in November"normally a serious and distinguished Italian newspaper writes about Sergio Cofferati, Mayor of Bologna and one of the most popular figures within the Italian Party of Democrats of the Left.

Although the article is listed within the politics section of the newspaper it is entirely concentrating on private life of the Bologna's mayor. It states the mayor's age, that his girlfriend is 20 years younger than him, that he left his wife 3 years ago when he won the municipal elections in Bologna, that his wife went back to live in Rome, that he has already a grown up son who is 30 and works and lives in Milan, even the article says referring to the birth of the child that "the boy or a girl, as far as we know, will be born in November".

When I read the article I first laughed then I had a sudden urge to cry. I am truly shocked by it and hope that this is only an exception and that such intrusion into the irrelevant privacy of italian politicians will not repeat itself.

Witch-hunt in Poland and Polish treason?

2007-04-17T06:21:00.000-04:00

Ignacio Ramonet editorialist of the “Le Monde Diplomatique” criticizes the new Polish Lustration law (see). Namely, in March 2007 the controversial law went into effect and it is judged that it goes further than anything similar in the region, requiring hundreds of thousands of citizens in positions of authority, including academics, journalists, teachers, and state company executives, to declare in writing whether they cooperated with the communist secret services -- or risk losing their jobs.

Polish lustration law differs from those of the rest of Europe for it does not narrow itself to vetting people who hold public office -- MPs, ministers, directors who pursue national interests – but it aims at a much wider group of people.

Ramonet argues that in comparison to the Polish Lustration law McCarthyism in US seems as “amateur anticommunism”. The Polish law requires hundreds of thousands of Polish citizens to officially respond to the question, “Did you secretly and consciously collaborate with the old communist secret service agencies?” After filling in the form responding to the question the individual has to submit the answer to his hierarchical superior at work and this one will in turn send the information to the Institute of Memory in Warsaw. There the information will be checked and subsequently a certificate of “political purity”, as Ramonet puts it, will be issued to the individual under scrutiny. In the case of proved cooperation, journalists for example, will be automatically fired. If an individual refuses to respond or lies risks a prohibition to exercise their profession for 10 years.

Many argue that the law is a result of the ferocious anti-communism of the conservative twin brothers Kaczynski, President and Prime Minister. Opponents of this law say that the law is unconstitutional because a citizens is asked to prove something he did not do. The Polish Constitutional Court will pronounce itself on the law at the beginning of May.

It is undisputable that this law is to say the least problematic. The communist-era secret police harassed large numbers of people, forcing many to sign loyalty declarations or to collaborate. Most people lied, signing the declarations but not really spying. The 2000 verdict of the Polish Supreme Court decided that such people are not to be considered collaborationists. The new law legislates differently. A group of journalists from "Gazeta Wyborcza," which is one of Poland's most influential newspapers and was created by anticommunist dissidents, has announced it is boycotting of the law. The country's largest academic institution, Warsaw University, called on March 22 for the suspension of the new law.

For Ramonet the controversial lustration law logically fits into the nature of policies of the new Polish government. He underlines the example of Roman Giertych, vice-premier minister of Poland and Education Minister from the right-wing League of Polish Families who is famous for his outrageous homophobic policies, as well as anti-Semitist pronouncements of the ministers’ father Maciej Giertych, who is also the member of the European Parliament. The later is on the contrary famous for ambiguous statements that can certainly be branded as anti-Semitic.

From there Ramonet stretches his argument in an interesting fashion. He argues that all these measures constitute an attempt of the ruling Polish elite to return to a pre-communist moral order, a “sick nostalgia” for the pre-WW II period when racism was “proudly displayed”. He argues that certain do not even hesitate to glorify collaboration with Hitler’s Germany against the Soviet Union. At the end of his article Ramonet makes a geopolitical conclusion arguing that the above mentioned political spirit in Poland manages to present Putin’s Russia as the old Soviet Union, which in turn facilitates political moves such as the Polish government accepting to install on its territory the US anti-missile system that is perceived by Russia as a direct threat to its security – despite the opposition of the major EU states. For Ramonet all this “demonstrates how in politics, paranoia, can lead not only to spiritual atrophy, but also to a certain form of treason”.

Although I can fully subscribe to Ramonet’s criticism of the controversial Polish lustration law I consider his later geopolitical argument a simplification. It is more probable that the rationale behind the lustration law can be explained through the logic of Polish internal politics (see)

A malicious reader of Ramonet’s article could conclude that, “alas, non-ideological interpretations are impossible and that Ramonet’s article is also marked by the spirit of paranoia – Communist paranoia”, but this is a malicious reader, I limit myself to ignoring the concluding remarks of his article and accept the critique of the Polish lustration law in an openhearted fashion. It is certainly an interesting reading.

Embryos, Rights and Dilemmas

2007-04-10T11:40:00.000-04:00

Ms Evans's embryos will be destroyed. Her and her partner's embryos had been frozen few years ago. The married couple then split, but Ms Evans wished to use them without her partner's consent, since she's lost fertility after an ovarian cancer operation.

The UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights, including the Grand Chamber (the highest formation of the European Court), declined the request of Ms Evans.

Under these circumstances, the case was particularly difficult to decide and probably raised issues that were not legally solvable. The ambiguous position of the judges and the lawyers who 'feel dreadful' for Ms Evans, but can only decide against her is a sign of a widespread discomfort and the symbol of the existence of a dilemma (for my academic commentary see the European Constitutional Law Review http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ECL, October 2006.

GAL at NYU

2007-04-03T10:09:00.000-04:00

A quick post to flag a project that I have recently become involved with: the emerging field of Global Administrative Law, a research project involving a wide network of scholars, based at New York University. The project is driven by two basic insights: firstly, that much of the global or transnational regulation currently viewed under the rubric of "governance" can be properly seen as regulatory administration; and secondly that a body of administrative law is emerging that seeks to regulate that regulation. There is, however, both a descriptive and a prescriptive element to the research agenda: not merely what are the principles of an administrative law character that are shaping global governance, but also what should they be. The website provides the following working definition of the project (which is fleshed out in much more detail in a couple of conceptual papers on the issue):

Much of global governance can be understood as regulatory administration. Such regulatory administration is often organized and shaped by principles of an administrative law character. Building on these twin ideas, we argue that a body of global administrative law is emerging. This is the law of transparency, participation, review, and above all accountability in global governance. We posit an increasingly discernible “global administrative space”, in which the strict dichotomy between domestic and international has broken down, administrative functions are performed in complex relations between officials and institutions not organized in a single hierarchy, and regulation using non-binding forms often proves highly effective in practice. Exercises of public power in the global administrative space are increasingly channeled, and controlled, by mechanisms of an administrative law type. These include rules requiring greater transparency, adoption of notice-and-comment procedures in rule-making, and the opening of new or strengthened avenues of judicial and administrative review. We thus regard global administrative law as encompassing the legal mechanisms, principles, and practices, along with supporting social understandings, that promote or otherwise affect the accountability of global administrative bodies, in particular by ensuring these bodies meet adequate standards of transparency, consultation, participation, rationality, and legality, and by providing effective review of the rules and decisions these bodies make. We describe this field of law as “global” rather than “international” to encompass the enmeshment of national and intergovernmental regulation, the increasing roles of private regulators and public-private hybrid bodies, the wide array of informal institutional arrangements that now operate alongside formal institutions, and the foundations of the field in normative practices, and normative sources, that extend beyond international law sources.

The Project distinguished among, but seeks to encompass each of, five main types of globalized administrative regulation. These are: (1) International Administration, by formal international organizations (such as United Nations Security Council individual sanctions programs, or UN administration of territory); (2) Network Administration, based on collective action by transnational networks of cooperative arrangements between national regulatory officials (such as the Basel Committee of national bank regulators); (3) Distributed Administration conducted by national regulators under treaty, network, or other cooperative regimes (such as the Basel Convention on transboundary movement of hazardous wastes); (4) Hybrid Administration, by hybrid intergovernmental-private arrangements (such as ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers); and (5) Private Administration, by private institutions with regulatory functions (such as the ISO, the International Organization for Standardization).

New systems of administrative procedures, review mechanisms, and decisional principles have arisen to promote greater accountability in decision-making by this rapidly proliferating variety of global regulatory administrative bodies. The subjects of such global regulatory systems include individuals, firms and other economic actors, states, and non-governmental organizations. Global Administrative Law is an emerging field of law and practice addressing both the new structures of administrative law and international law that have arisen in these different institutional contexts, and their normative dimensions, including regime integrity, protection of subjects' rights and promotion of democratic values.

It seems to me that, from this useful and provocative working definition, a number of interesting questions immediately arise at an abstract, general level: in what sense can these administrative law principles be justifiably characterised as "global" (in that the negative justification offered, in contradistinction to the "international", may be necessary but insufficient to justify this rhetoric)? Does it really make sense to talk of one unified global administrative space, rather than a plurality of spaces? What is the relationship of global administrative law to the emerging, if at least equally vague, sphere of "global/international constitutionalism"? And how do the administrative law ends of transparency, participation, review and accountability relate, if at all, to notions of democratic governance?

Such issues are only a small, if important, part of the research agenda. Much focus otherwise is on empirical studies of actual administrative regimes, in order to discern what the principles and norms guiding there function are, and what elements, if any, seem to be common among them. The website provides access to a large number of articles and working papers on the issue. As I mentioned, it is a project that I have recently become (heavily) involved with, so any and all comments on it are welcome!

Speech by Dr Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany and President of the European Council, to celebrate the 50 years of the EU

2007-03-25T08:41:00.000-04:00

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen,
Today we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaties of Rome. The venue of our celebrations today could hardly be more symbolic. For we are celebrating in Berlin. A city that until 18 years ago was divided by a Wall, by barbed wire, by soldiers with orders to shoot. In which people paid with their lives for seeking to escape to freedom.

I grew up east of this city, in the German Democratic Republic. When the Treaties of Rome were concluded I was just three years old. I was seven years old when the Wall was built. It divided also my own family. I did not believe I would ever be able to travel to the West until I was a pensioner. Only a few metres from here was the point where any walk I took would be at an end. But then the Wall collapsed after all. That was a defining moment for me: I realized that nothing ever has to stay the way it is.

That is a source of immense hope for all those who are not ready to countenance the injustices of our world. It is a source of immense hope, too, by the way, for all those in Europe who still endure oppression – like the people of Belarus. Today they are celebrating their independence day. Our thoughts are also with them today and our message to them is: Human rights are indivisible! Europe is with you!

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason we can celebrate this special anniversary here in Berlin of all places is because half a century ago a number of Europe's political leaders set about building a European peace project the like of which had never been seen before.

For let us be honest: 50 years of the Treaties of Rome – in the context of history that is hardly more than the blinking of an eye. And whether it will one day be more than that, whether on 25 March 2057 the centenary of the Treaties of Rome will be celebrated in a Europe of peace and freedom, democracy and the rule of law? We do not know.

None of all this can be taken for granted. All of it must be repeatedly strengthened and defended anew. Stagnation means regression. Building trust takes decades. And overnight it can be undermined. Any cleavage will soon have Europe out of step - sooner than some might think. In short, European unification must be striven for and secured time and time again. That is our guiding mission for the future. That is what is at the heart of today's anniversary celebrations.
Certainly the world today is not the same as the world 50 years ago. The six founding members are now 27 Member States. What started with freedom from tariffs has now progressed into a common currency. A world dominated by two blocs is today a world with a number of different power centres.

In such a world we must ask ever anew what holds Europe together also in this century, what the essence of its identity is. For me the answer is clear. The source of Europe's identity are our shared, fundamental values. They are what holds Europe together.

Let us not forget: For centuries Europe had been an idea, no more than a hope of peace and understanding. Today we, the citizens of Europe, know that hope has been fulfilled.
It has been fulfilled because the founding fathers of Europe were thinking in terms well beyond their own generation. They were thinking in terms well beyond their own time. They were thinking in terms also well beyond purely economic freedoms.

Three years before the signing of the Treaties of Rome the European Defence Community had foundered. But that was not the end of Europe. Despite that disappointment the preamble of the Treaty establishing the European Community began with a statement of determination – I quote – "to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe..." - end of quote.

The founding fathers of Europe knew that in the long run the economic and the political could not be kept separate.
Fifty years of the Treaties of Rome – that means for me, to put it in a nutshell, a dream has come true!

This dream could come true because we citizens of Europe have learned over the past 50 years to make the most of our identities and diverse traditions, the lively variety of our languages, cultures and regions.
This dream could come true because we let ourselves be guided by that quality which for me gives Europe its true soul, that quality which made the Treaties of Rome possible.
That quality is tolerance. We have taken centuries to learn this. On the way to tolerance we had to endure cataclysms. We persecuted and destroyed one another. We ravaged our homeland. We jeopardized the things we revered. Not even one generation has passed since the worst period of hate, devastation and destruction.

Today, however, ladies and gentlemen, we live together as was never possible before.
Each Member State has helped to unite Europe and strengthen democracy and the rule of law. Thanks to the yearning for freedom of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, the unnatural division of Europe is now consigned to the past.

One of the men who signed the Treaties of Rome in 1957, Maurice Faure, is amongst us today, as I said earlier. Today, exactly 50 years later, we can assure Maurice Faure and his comrades, in the words of our Berlin Declaration, that "we have a unique way of living and working together in the European Union. We, the citizens of the European Union, have united for the better."

United for the better – how can we preserve, strengthen and deepen what we have achieved so that it stands the test of the next 50 years at least ?
We can do it, I believe, by concentrating on what is our greatest strength - the power of freedom, freedom in all its manifestations:

The freedom to express our opinions freely, even when others do not like them.
The freedom to believe or not to believe.
The freedom of enterprise.
The freedom of artists to create their work as they see fit.
The freedom of the individual in his responsibility for the whole community.

When we count on the power of freedom, we are counting on the individual. The individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. And if I may make a personal comment, I would add that this view of the individual is for me also part and parcel of Europe's Jewish-Christian heritage.
This view of the power of freedom and the dignity of the individual was already implicit in the European Coal and Steel Community established before the Treaties of Rome. With the signing of the Treaties of Rome in 1957, for the first time in Europe's history the peoples of Europe came together of their own free will to create a common project with common rules.

That is why today in Berlin we can reaffirm our commitment to a Europe of equal rights for all Member States, both large and small, old and new.
On its own every European country is too weak to successfully tackle the global challenges we face. That is why there can only be one answer: we must not act alone but together in a united Europe.

The age of globalization makes one thing increasingly clear to us: the decision in favour of Europe is also a decision in favour of a certain way of life. It was and remains a decision in favour of our European model. It combines economic success and social responsibility. Only together can we continue to preserve our ideal of European society in future.
Only together can we ensure economic and social standards also internationally.
For we should not deceive ourselves: the world will not wait for Europe. Other regions of the world are developing at a breathtaking pace.

Europe therefore needs one thing above all else: it needs to be dynamic. For if it is not dynamic there can be no prosperity in Europe. And if it is not dynamic, solidarity within Europe will diminish. A dynamic Europe is a Europe of dynamic growth. That creates jobs. That rewards achievement. That will help tackle bureaucracy.
That strengthens Europe's strengths. They lie in the knowledge and ability of Europe's citizens, in education, research and innovation. That is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion.

Europe must also lead the way in renewable energies, energy efficiency and protection of our climate. We adopted an Action Plan on this at the European Council in early March. We want to make our contribution to averting the global threat of climate change. But for that we need allies throughout the world.
For Europe will be increasingly compelled to deal with external influences in future anyway due to globalization.

A common Foreign and Security Policy in Europe is therefore absolutely vital. But, of course, this policy should not be isolationist but must be based on cooperation with partners outside Europe. I firmly believe that close, amicable relations with the United States of America and a strong NATO are and will remain in Europe's fundamental interest.
This is not at odds with enhanced intensification of European cooperation. Rather, it is the other side of the same coin.

A comprehensive strategic partnership with Russia is just as important to Europe. We need both a strategic partnership with Russia and the transatlantic alliance. They are most certainly not mutually exclusive. After all, it is Europe which has developed a modern understanding of integration: embedded institutional structures instead of "them against us" attitudes, the formation of axes and go-it-alone policies. Europe must never divide, or allow itself to be divided, over any issue.

Only if Europe stands together will we be able to successfully fight terrorism, organized crime and illegal immigration. Only then will we be able to successfully defend liberties and civil rights, also in the struggle against those who oppose them. Then racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia will never again stand a chance.

Then we can work towards the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the world and ensure that people do not become victims of war, terrorism and violence, that poverty, hunger and diseases such as AIDS are driven back. We want to promote freedom and development in the world.
In our Berlin Declaration we expressly state our commitment to continue promoting democracy, stability and prosperity beyond the borders of the European Union.

The importance of this commitment cannot be overestimated. And it quickly becomes very tangible. For instance, on a day like today we also think of people in Zimbabwe and Darfur. The suffering there is unbearable. We want to take this opportunity to call upon Sudan's President Bashir to finally comply with the UN resolutions. I want to state frankly that we have to consider stronger sanctions.

With this – as well as with the new UN resolution on Iran adopted yesterday – we demonstrate our commitment to shouldering global responsibility together with our allies and partners.
However, ladies and gentlemen, even on a festive occasion such as this we should not fool ourselves. If we are to safeguard the European way of life and assume global responsibility, Europe needs to be able to act, to act more effectively than it can at present.
For we know that the European Union will continue to thrive both on openness and on the will of its Member States to consolidate the Union's internal development.

The internal structures must be adapted to an enlarged Union with 27 Member States. What has to be done here? My answer is clear: the European Union needs more and it needs better defined competences than it has at present: in energy policy, in foreign policy, in justice and home affairs.

It has to determine more clearly for what the Member States are responsible and for what the Community is responsible.
It must concentrate on core tasks and preserve the unique features of the Member States wherever possible.

It must ensure that even with 27 or more Member States its institutions function efficiently, democratically and in a way which citizens understand. Much is at stake.
It is true that anyone who hoped that 50 years after the Treaties of Rome we would have a Constitutional Treaty will be disappointed.

But it is also true that anyone who hoped that Europe would be aware of the need to strengthen its institutional make-up will find that our Berlin Declaration points the way forward. For we know that we must always renew the political shape of Europe in keeping with the times.
It is therefore both important and necessary that today here in Berlin, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are united in our aim of placing the European Union on a renewed common basis before the European Parliament elections in 2009.

I am working to ensure that a roadmap for this can be adopted at the close of Germany's EU Presidency, and I am counting on your support.
I am certain that it is not only in the interests of Europe, but also of the individual Member States and the citizens of Europe, that this process be brought to a successful conclusion.
Not to do so would be an historic failure. What we decide will have an impact for a long time to come, for better or for worse.
But, ladies and gentlemen, there is really no need to talk about failure. Europe has overcome major obstacles so many times. The negotiations on the Treaties whose 50th anniversary we are celebrating today is a prime example of this.
I read that one delegation member – I believe it was a British diplomat – is supposed to have said at the time, and I quote: "The future treaty you are discussing has no chance of being agreed; if it was agreed, it would have no chance of being ratified; and if it was ratified, it would have no chance of being applied" - end of quote. I wonder, ladies and gentlemen, what this negotiator would have said about today's celebrations.

But he was not the only one who was less than enthusiastic about the treaty. One rather prominent French politician is reported as saying at the time that - and I quote: "Treaties, you see, are like girls and roses; they last while they last". Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the rose tree has grown considerably since 1957 and today an admittedly not so young girl is even among the signatories of the Berlin Declaration.

And, finally, a Belgian newspaper, La libre belgique, wrote at the time of the negotiations on the Treaties of Rome that the Germans were all important doctors and well-organized; the French were well bred, loved plans and theories. The Italians wore wonderful ties and stockings and even statistics exploded like fireworks in their country.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are all of this and much, much more. That is Europe. Scepticism, contradictions, diversity, even some much loved clichés, but not least – courage. Europe is all of that.
Europe is much more than dairy cows and the Chemicals Directive. Just look around – people from 27 European states are gathered here today. There are pupils and students from the ERASMUS programme. There are musicians from the Youth Orchestra of the European Union playing for us conducted by Vladimir Ashkenazy.

Sometimes I think that if we are so much preoccupied with extending and renewing our shared European house, we could easily overlook its greatness and uniqueness in the midst of all the construction work.
For after all the wars and boundless suffering, something very special has emerged.
We, the citizens of Europe, have united for the better. For we know, Europe is our common future.

That was a dream for many generations. Our history reminds us that we must protect this for the good of future generations.
And so I hope that the citizens of Europe will say in 50 years' time:
Back then in Berlin, the united Europe set the right course.
Back then in Berlin, the European Union embarked upon the right path towards a bright future. It went on to renew its foundations so that it could make its contribution here in Europe, this old continent, as well as globally, in this one large yet small world we live in.
For a better world. For people everywhere. That is our mission for the future.

Thank you.

Declaration on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the signature of the Treaties of Rome

2007-03-25T08:30:00.000-04:00

For centuries Europe has been an idea, holding out hope of peace and understanding. That hope has been fulfilled. European unification has made peace and prosperity possible. It has brought about a sense of community and overcome differences. Each Member State has helped to unite Europe and to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. Thanks to the yearning for freedom of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe the unnatural division of Europe is now consigned to the past. European unification shows that we have learnt the painful lessons of a history marked by bloody conflict. Today we live together as was never possible before.
We, the citizens of the European Union, have united for the better.

I
In the European Union, we are turning our common ideals into reality: for us, the individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable. Men and women enjoy equal rights. We are striving for peace and freedom, for democracy and the rule of law, for mutual respect and shared responsibility, for prosperity and security, for tolerance and participation, for justice and solidarity.
We have a unique way of living and working together in the European Union. This is expressed through the democratic interaction of the Member States and the European institutions. The European Union is founded on equal rights and mutually supportive co-operation. This enables us to strike a fair balance between Member States' interests.
We preserve in the European Union the identities and diverse traditions of its Member States. We are enriched by open borders and a lively variety of languages, cultures and regions. There are many goals which we cannot achieve on our own, but only in concert. Tasks are shared between the European Union, the Member States and their regions and local authorities.

II
We are facing major challenges which do not stop at national borders. The European Union is our response to these challenges. Only together can we continue to preserve our ideal of European society in future for the good of all European Union citizens, This European model combines economic success and social responsibility. The common market and the euro make us strong. We can thus shape the increasing interdependence of the global economy and ever-growing competition on international markets according to our values. Europe's wealth lies in the knowledge and ability of its people; that is the key to growth, employment and social cohesion.
We will fight terrorism and organised crime together. We stand up for liberties and civil rights also in the struggle against those who oppose them. Racism and xenophobia must never again be given any rein.
We are committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts in the world and to ensuring that people do not become victims of war, Terrorism and violence. The European Union wants to promote freedom and development in the world. We want to drive back poverty, hunger and disease. We want to continue to take a leading role in that fight.
We intend jointly to lead the way in energy policy and climate protection and make our contribution to averting the global threat of climate change.

III
The European Union will continue to thrive both on openness and on the will of its Member States to consolidate the Union's internal development. The European Union will continue to promote democracy, stability and prosperity beyond its borders.
With European unification a dream of earlier generations has become a reality. Our history reminds us that we must protect this for the good of future generations. For that reason we must always renew the political shape of Europe in keeping with the times. That is why today, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are united in our aim of placing the European Union on a renewed common basis before the European Parliament elections in 2009.
For we know, Europe is our common future.

EU and Christian Values

2007-03-24T11:44:00.001-04:00

While the EU celebrates its 50th anniversary, the Pope admonishes it. Ratzinger is incessantly repeating that the EU needs to recognize its Christian roots.

Can we dismiss his claim or do we have to take it seriously? Secularists, who are the overwhelming majority in Europe, believe that we should not even pay attention to it.

But an increasing number of religious people feel excluded and non-represented by the European and the national institutions.

The biggest risk is the polarization of our European societies, making cohabitation even more difficult than it is now. Moreover, rejecting religion altogether may have the opposite effect of making the religious minorities more vocal and ultimately stronger.

This is a real dilemma which deserves close attention on the part of politicians, the civil society and academics.

Europe at 50: Another Perspective

2007-03-22T07:23:00.000-04:00

Timothy Garton Ash provides an interesting discussion in Prospect.

Here's an excerpt:

Europe has lost the plot. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the treaty of Rome on 25th March 2007—the 50th birthday of the European economic community that became the European Union—Europe no longer knows what story it wants to tell. A shared political narrative sustained the postwar project of (west) European integration for three generations, but it has fallen apart since the end of the cold war. Most Europeans now have little idea where we're coming from; far less do we share a vision of where we want to go to. We don't know why we have an EU or what it's good for. So we urgently need a new narrative.

Attempts of Dialogue on Afghanistan between America and Italy

2007-03-21T12:43:00.000-04:00

Italy proposes an international conference for peace and stability.
And America listens interested... Is this a sign of Bush's new multilateral approach?
too soon to say, or perhaps too late!

For a report have a look here: http://www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2007/03_Marzo/21/Alema.shtml

Here's an excerpt:

Unexpectedly, the United States yesterday did not rule out an “international conference for peace and stability in Afghanistan”, the carefully crafted diplomatic formula adopted by [Italy’s foreign minister, Massimo – Trans.] D’Alema for a political solution to the Afghan crisis.The State Department’s spokesman, Sean McCormack, said that “it could be a constructive suggestion”. “We want to understand some of the details”, he continued. “Fundamentally, you want to get the opinion of the Afghan Government and President Karzai about this. So I think it’s really an idea that merits some discussion”. “And to see”, concluded Mr McCormack, “whether or not, on the basis of that discussion, you move forward or not”.

50 Ways to Praise the EU

2007-03-20T23:35:00.000-04:00

To follow on from my post some time ago on the importance of recognising the benefits, as well as criticising the problems, of the European Union, it is worth flagging briefly this list, compiled to mark the 50th anniversary of the Union and undoubtedly partially tongue-in-cheek, in today's Independent: 50 Reasons to Love the EU, backed up by this more detailed explanation of each item, and by this editorial and comment piece.

As mentioned, some of the "reasons" provided are, well, a little suspect: No. 14, for example, on "making the French eat British beef again", or No. 37, which proclaims that "Europe's bananas remain bent, despite sceptics' fears", are both mildly amusing padding; No. 13, which praises the "small EU bureaucracy" on the grounds that it has less employees than the BBC is certainly contestable (number of employees not being the only, or indeed always the most important, indice of the "size" of a bureaucratic machine); while No. 42's claim that the "EU gives more, not less, sovereignty to nation states" is still at best an open question, theoretically.

These and other asides aside, however, many of the list entries do contain powerful affirmations of the Union's success, even if there aren't - quite - 50 of them: the abolition of the death penalty and the eastward spread and entrenchment of democratic principles; the increased mobility of youth and labour; stauncher support for minority languages; and, of course, the end - for the foreseeable future - of war between European nations, to name but a few.

Also noteworthy is the theme, running throughout the list, that the UK has missed out on many of the benefits that the Union has brought to its other members, from the Euro, through the effective dismantling of border controls, to a general increase in multilingualism; and the idea that this is both symptom and cause of the manner in which debate within Britain focuses almost exclusively on the Union's shortcomings. The editorial on the subject begins thus:

The European Union will celebrate its 50th anniversary this weekend with an all-night party in a rejuvenated Berlin. It is a joyous coincidence that the anniversary should fall in the middle of the German presidency. What more conclusive evidence could there be of what the European Union has achieved than around-the-clock festivities beneath the Brandenburg Gate? The symbol of Europe's post-war division has now become the most potent symbol of Europe's unity.

Of course, the EU as it has evolved from the six-member European Economic Community is far from flawless. From the remoteness of its institutions, through its clumsy administrative structures, to its labyrinthine bureaucracy, the EU can appear all too often as a cobbled-together machine of Heath-Robinson complexity. Nor are perennial complaints about the "democratic deficit" without foundation...

But none of this should be allowed, as it all too often is in Britain, to eclipse the truly remarkable success of the European project.

Amen to that.

Obama like Orwell

2007-03-20T08:41:00.000-04:00

Obama launches the first serious attack on Hilary Clinton. In a suggestive video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8FRXO-QV0), Clinton is portrayed as imposing top down her 'conversation' with the people that look brainwashed and uniformised. The video suggests that Clinton is a control freak that would like to transform America into an Orwellian state of permanent control of individuals.

Obama promises that 1984 (the famous Orwell's political tragedy) will not happen in 2008.

Chirac's Legacy

2007-03-19T12:25:00.000-04:00

In few months, it will be over. Chirac will be a simple citizen after 50 years of politics in France and Europe.

What will be his legacy? there are many sceptics on this point, the most prominent is probably the economist which had a very hard article last week. here: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8850710

Here's a passage:

Mr Chirac's popularity rating has slumped from a second-term high of 60% during the Iraq war, according to TNS-Sofres, a polling organisation, to just 29% today. Midway through 2006, he became the most unpopular president under the French Fifth Republic since polling began.

Cardinal Martini pleads for a more articulate Church

2007-03-16T07:56:00.000-04:00

Martini, the former Cardinal of Milan, spoke in clear terms against the stubborn repetition of the moral superiority of the Catholic Church.

Instead of doing so, the Church should promote its model as a good model. For example, the Church's understanding of family is not intresically superior to others and without reasons. The Church should articulate its reasons why it thinks that its family model may be more appealing that one put forward by competing ways of thinking.

Only speaking to the people in their own words will finally give the Church the moral leverage that it has lost, at least in Europe

Pope against Rights

2007-03-15T04:41:00.000-04:00

The Vatican pursues its offensive line against the liberalisation of Italian society, but its message is obviously applicable to the whole world.

The battle is directed at the moment against the same sex union project of law. In Europe, Spain, France, Benelux, the UK and other States have already adopted legislation to this effect.

The Pope's turn of the screw include also some curious policies such as strengthening the use of latin during Mass. Read here.

Italy: a new immigration law

2007-03-13T08:21:00.000-04:00

The draft proposal will be presented in Parliament next week.

You can find a report here.

Here's an excerpt:
The eight-page text, drafted by the legal offices of the Interior and Social Solidarity ministries, is finally ready. It will introduce a series of fast tracks for hiring home helps, carers and those with special skills, such as engineers and university staff, but entry will also be open to unskilled foreign workers.And to all those who already speak Italian.

American Universities and Equality

2007-03-12T10:23:00.000-04:00

...do not go hand in hand. Rich people have a privileged access to the best Universities, as this interesting study in the NYRB confirms.

here's an excerpt:

The causes and consequences of these dispiriting facts are complex, and the cost to society—moral and material—is high. There is moral cost in the shortfall between the professed ideal of equal opportunity and the reality of rising inequality. As for the material cost, "there has never been reason to believe that all outstanding candidates will be able to pay whatever fees are charged without help," as Bowen and his colleagues put it, and "society at large needs all the trained talent it can marshal."

Bye Bye Chirac

2007-03-12T05:38:00.000-04:00

President Jacques Chirac has announced that he will not run for a third mandate. After 12 years, and at 74, he decides to 'serve the French people in other ways.'

As a result 2007 will see the end of two heavyweight of European politics, Chirac and Blair, who have dominated the scene for the past 10 years or so.

We can only hope that after them, Europe and the world will be less polarized.

Energy and Europe: Not Without Hope

2007-03-09T06:42:00.000-05:00

That is what Angela Merkel said yesterday in Brussels:

The European Union should make a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in relation to 1990 values and to increase by 20% the share of renewable energies. That is the goal Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel has set her sights on. At the end of the first working day of the European Council meeting in Brussels, she appeared confident that on this point the Member States would reach agreement.

The Chancellor also made clear, however, that on the specifics more discussions were needed. "What we can achieve I will only be able to announce at the end of the Council."The atmosphere during the discussion in the evening, Angela Merkel noted in Brussels, had been very positive and constructive. The debate had been a very serious one, since the goal was highly ambitious. "We want the EU to make a binding commitment to this goal," she pointed out.

"It is important that we can tell the G8 members that Europe has made a real commitment. That gives us a measure of credibility," the Council President emphasized. There are two goals at stake, she noted.

The first concerned the share of renewable energies, meaning wind, water, sun and biomass. "Nuclear energy," she made clear, "does not fall into this category."

The second concerned the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. In this context nuclear energy could count as a low CO2 emitting energy source. This was an issue France in particular had raised.

Catholics, pain and Europe

2007-03-08T12:24:00.000-05:00

Are Catholics in Europe moving onward or backward?

Some medieval practices that are spreading again in Italy suggests the latter:

Here's an interesting article:

Here's an excerpt:

Catholics and the Return of the Spiked Metal “Cilicio”.

The unfortunate senator and Opus Dei numerary Paola Binetti fell into the trap of admitting on television that she was familiar with the “cilicio”, a spiked metal garter, and attempted to explain why it is used: “It forces us to reflect on the fatigue of living. It is the sacrifice of a mother waking up at night because her baby is crying”.

8th of March

2007-03-08T04:30:00.000-05:00

Women's day.

This is the year of Segolene Royal, Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel.

Royal is still misterious. Is she going to reform France at the root, or will she bring more of the old (French socialism).

Hillary is very ambitious and very experienced. But unfortunately, many men do not like ambitious women, or at least that is my feeling. They should give her a chance.

Angela Merkel is doing well despite many things. Her government formed by a large coalition is a slow machine. But Germany is improving economically and Europe is following. Merkel is also leading the European Council with more energy and ideas than their recent predecessors (notably Tony Blair).

We can only hope that 2007 will be a succesfull year for Women!

The European Council is coming up...

2007-03-07T07:17:00.000-05:00

...It will take place on the 8th and 9th of March. This is Angela Merkel's message:

Europe is at an important crossroads. If we act decisively now, we have a chance of effectively counteracting the dangers of climate change. Climate and energy policies are therefore at the centre of this European Council. We must use the spring meeting to decide on a strategy which will safeguard our energy supply and ensure climate protection on a sustainable basis. Our response to this issue will have repercussions for the future of Europe and beyond.

Europe is currently experiencing an economic upturn. The reforms undertaken as part of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment are beginning to bear fruit. We should use this positive development to further modernise Europe and its industry and make them fit to face the challenges ahead.We also intend at the forthcoming meeting to take measures to boost employment and reinforce the social dimension, as well as to promote better regulation.We begin our consultations on Thursday evening at 17.30 with an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering.

Following this, the first working session will take place from 18.00 to 20.00. It will be devoted to questions of energy policy and climate protection policy. Last December we decided that we would work out an action plan in the area of energy policy for Europe and tackle the political, economic and external repercussions of energy policy and climate protection policy in that context. The Commission submitted a proposal on this subject in January 2007. We shall discuss a number of priority measures at our spring Council and we shall have the opportunity on this occasion to set out a European strategy with ambitious goals and timetables. I have asked the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to give an introductory presentation on the subject.

David Cameron's Europe: Old, Boring, and Flawed

2007-03-06T06:29:00.000-05:00

David Cameron, leader of the Tories in the UK, wrote a piece on his view of Europe together with Mirek Topolanek, prime minister of the Czech Republic.

The lack of ideas and projects of Mr Cameron is staggering. He claims he started a movement for european reform. He is probably unaware of the fact that there are thousand similar movements across Europe.

He makes three points as to where Europe should go. First, it should be committed to an open market. Second, it should be committed to a nationalist perspective. Third, it should be committed to a strong Transatlantic bond.

The third point is probably where we agree. It needs no commentary, if to say that he is stating the obvious. The second point goes backward instead of going forward. Europe was and is a succesfull project because it manages to go beyond national states. To fall back to that pre-WW2 position would be a dramatic failure. The first point is at best, and again, stating the obvious problem of competition in a globalized world. Everyone is aware of that. Cameron does not offer anything interesting or different or constructive.

Here's the text:

Fifty years ago this month, the post-war generation of mainland Europe came together to articulate a project conceived in hope and forged by necessity: the hope was for a peaceful and prosperous future; and the necessity was economic ruin and political division. In signing the Treaty of Rome, they laid the foundations of the European Union.

In 1973 Britain, at a time of its own economic weakness, joined what was then still a small club of nations. It was not an easy start. Britain already had strong links with strategic partners around the world through the Commonwealth, family ties and trade. And public and political opinion was split over the relative merits of membership.

This ambivalence was to characterise much of Britain’s relationship with the EU ever since. This is in stark contrast to the Czech experience. When the Iron Curtain came crashing down and a politically plural culture and free trade took root, there was little ambivalence towards the EU: joining it was a priority, not an afterthought It was necessary to entrench the new found freedoms which the Czechs fought so hard to win and the prosperity which they had so longed for.

Our countries joined the European Union for different reasons and with different enthusiasms. And we have had different experiences. But today, as leaders of our respective country’s leading centre-right political parties, we are united with a common purpose: to make the EU change so it can be a force for good in the twenty-first century.

Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, we have a new Europe, facing new challenges and with a new generation of leaders. But we have the same EU, still too attached to the tenets of centralisation and regulation and still too interested in itself, rather than worldwide challenges such as globalisation, climate change and global poverty. A new, positive agenda for Europe means reconnecting it to these urgent priorities. It means moving towards a new flexibility and dynamism. And it means looking outwards to the world.

That is why we launched the Movement for European Reform. We will be carrying out a comprehensive review of the EU’s policies, priorities, institutional capabilities and budget, it is open to all those - public servants, professionals, diplomats, business-leaders and students - who share our determination to make the EU work better. We want to pioneer a new agenda for Europe, underpinned by what we believe to be the three key commitments for a forward-looking EU.

First, the EU should be clearly and unambiguously committed to open markets. With increased and fierce competition from countries such as India and China, Europe has to take the steps that make our economies both open and dynamic. Responding to this challenge means discarding the old habits of regulation and fighting for free trade both within and without.

But free trade must also be fair. As the world’s largest trading block, the EU has a responsibility to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are shared by everyone. We should use trade liberalisation at home to provide economic opportunities, and spur development, abroad. This EU must use its collective muscle to push the World Trade Organisation to reduce the tariffs which entrench poverty in the developing world.

Second, the EU should be committed to a Europe of nation states. This means matching the growing flexibility of the globalised economy with flexibility in the political compact between Brussels and member states. At the moment, the EU’s default response to the challenges of our times is always to reach for more power- not least through a new Constitution for Europe. There is a strong tendency to do this by debating the future of 500 million people behind closed doors. This is precisely why so many people feel disenfranchised by the European project. For the EU to be relevant in the 21st century, it must respect equal status for all EU members and, while maintaining the single market as the EU’s core, give more flexibility in areas where member states may want either closer or looser control.

A more flexible EU also means one that can continue to expand. The enlargement of the European Union – from just six in 1957 to 27 members today - has helped entrench democracy and stability from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. That is a marvellous achievement. But we cannot now allow arguments over institutional structures to block further enlargement. That means holding out a real prospect of membership to the Western Balkans, to Turkey, to the Ukraine.

Third, the EU should be committed to a strong transatlantic relationship. Europe and the United States have a deep and wide history of friendship based on shared objectives. That this remains the case today can be in no doubt. Whether it is in rising to the challenge of globalisation, articulating a coherent and progressive response to climate change, confronting the imperative of energy security, or advancing wealth creation and the principles of freedom across the world, EU member states must understand that we can achieve most by working with America, rather than against it.

Today, the Movement for European Reform is holding its inaugural conference in Brussels. A vast array of thought provoking policy-makers, thinkers and members of the public will outline how best they think Europe can marry these principles with the priorities of the 21st century: globalisation, global poverty, climate change and international security. After a year of consultation, it will publish its suggestions. Most importantly, we want to hear from you- visit our website and have your say on our shared future.

Our two countries came to the European project with different histories and motivations. But today, as a new generation of Europe’s leaders, we are committed not only to establishing a new political grouping in the European parliament, but also too making the EU fit for the 21st century: one that is a force for good in the world; one that leads by example; and one that delivers. Join us in building an EU that we can all be proud of.

Europe and North Korea

2007-03-06T06:04:00.000-05:00

Another interesting area in which the European Presidency is actively engaged (statement released by the Presidency):

Today (Tuesday, 6 March), a delegation of the European Union, led by Germany´s EU presidency, will travel to Pyongyang in North Korea for two days of high-level political talks (6 8 March).

The aim of this trip by the EU Troika is to promote the rapid implementation of an agreement reached on 13 February in Beijing during the Six-Party Talks on North Korea´s nuclear programme. The European Union expressly welcomed this agreement. Furthermore, the delegation will emphasize that the EU expects the Six-Party Talks to continue with a view to implementing all the agreements included in the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005.

The European Union is committed to security and stability in the region and to the goal of a denuclearized Korean peninsula. For that reason, both Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, as representative of the German presidency of the EU Council, and Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union Javier Solana, have welcomed the efforts made by the Six Parties and the understandings they have reached.

For the EU, the trip also is of an exploratory nature since the outcome of the visit will provide important guidelines for discussions within the EU as to its future relations with North Korea.The Troika delegation comprises Germany´s current EU presidency as well as representatives of the European Commission and the Secretariat General of the European Union. Portugal, which will take over the EU presidency after Germany, will also participate.

Europe and the Future of Georgia

2007-03-05T09:05:00.000-05:00

The Presidency of the EU has issued the following statement:

The European Union reiterates its full support for the territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders and emphasises that it does not recognise the legitimacy of the so-called "Parliamentary elections" held in Abkhazia, Georgia, on 4 March 2007 and of the local elections held on 11 February 2007.

The European Union holds the view that elections in this region of Georgia can only be valid after all refugees and internally-displaced persons are given the right to a safe, secure and dignified return to their homes.

The European Union urges the parties concerned to immediately resume negotiations in order to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Europe: 50 years after!

2007-03-02T12:03:00.000-05:00

On March 25th, it will be the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome (1957), the founding Treaties of the European Union.

Here's a good link to prepare for celebration!

Here's a brief intro:

On 25 March 1957, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) for joint research and civil use of nuclear energy were founded with the signing of the Treaties in the Musei Capitolini in Rome. The two Treaties entered into force on 1 January 1958 after being ratified by the six Member States. Prior to this, the European Coal and Steel Community had been created in 1952 while the attempt to establish a European Defence Community had failed in 1954. But plans for European integration did not end there. As early as 1956, the Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak presented his report on the draft Community Treaties foreseeing the creation of the EEC.
The merger treaty of 1965 brought the bodies of the three Communities together. The new group was commonly referred to as the European Community. This became part of the European Union (EU) in 1993.
As successfully as the Economic Community developed, the Atomic Energy Community created little momentum. Since the treaties for both Communities were signed that day in Rome, however, we usually talk about the "Treaties of Rome" in the plural.

Merkel pushes Europe (and its constitution)

2007-03-02T11:24:00.000-05:00

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, is now presiding the Council of the European Union. Yesterday, she has delivered before the Bundestag, an interesting policy statement as an introduction to the forthcoing meeting of the council.

Every pro-European expects very much from the German presidency, also because Germany is doing very well economically at the moment. This is a breath of fresh air for Europe as a whole, as the economist pointed out few weeks ago.

The presidency only lasts for 6 months, so if something has to happen it will have to happen very soon. Here's a calendar of the proposed actions.

Here's the policy document.

And here's an excerpt where she mentions the European Constitution:

We know that the question as to what will happen to the Constitutional Treaty after our Presidency is – I believe rightly so – vitally important to our Presidency and, even more so, to the future of the European Union. It will determine how we go into the 2009 European elections. We know that we cannot shape the European Union's common future on the basis of the Nice Treaty. We need a treaty which focuses more on regional, that is to say, subsidiary responsibility, which renders Europe's institutions efficient, which makes it clear what unites the European Union. That is why we will carry on working until June on a roadmap to determine how we should proceed with the Constitutional Treaty. Initial consultations have shown that, despite all the difficulties, there is widespread consensus that we have to send the message that this European Union is capable of action.

The End of the Italian Crisis

2007-03-02T09:53:00.000-05:00

Today, Prody got the green light in the lower chamber of Parliament, La Camera. This was an expected result, as the majority in this chamber is clear, as opposed to the thin majority in the Senate.

The good side of the story is that the response to the crisis was quick and relatively painless.
The drawback is that Prodi's government is an unstable government in constant search of a majority.

His 12 points to govern Italy, shows that the Italian Constitution does not really facilitate the role of prime minister as a leader of the government.

Partly, this is perhaps due to Prodi's lack of charisma; partly, however, it comes down to the heavily parliamentarian regime in Italy. The prime minister is in many cases the puppet in the hands of the parliament and has no safeguards against mutinies

Yoo Shall Torture

2007-03-01T08:45:00.000-05:00

Professor John Yoo gave a huge contribution to Bush's administration in its more troublesome period (2001-2003). His memo in defense of Torture is one of the most controversial, and in my mind, repelling documents ever written by a lawyer working for a government.

Yoo may have taken Alexander Hamilton as a role model, but he does not understand that boldness does not equate with lack of intellectual honesty.

Yoo's most recent book on this and other issues 'War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror,' has been admirably reviewed by David Luban in the New York Review of Books.

Prodi Survives, but how long?

2007-03-01T04:44:00.000-05:00

Prodi survives, for the moment. The italian higher chamber gives green light to the government. But only few votes guarantee the numerical majority.

How long will Prodi-bis last? Not too long, I suspect. Enough to change the electoral law and to achieve few other reforms (probably small).

And there we go, we will vote again in a year or so.

Italy's Never-ending Political Instability

2007-02-28T07:00:00.000-05:00

Prodi will face the Senate this evening. In his speech yesterday he underlined the priority of the electoral law, which was modified by Berlusconi just before the elections last year.

If that is the priority, then Prodi clearly believes that his government (if the senate approves) will not last very long.

I believe that neither Prodi nor Berlusconi should run in case we had elections soon. They are both old and compromised. They are clearly unable to bring together a sensible coalition. Prodi's case is clear now, but Berlusconi's coalition is in pieces as well. Notably, the centre right party (UDC- Christian Democrats), does not want to accept B's leadership anymore.

Is Anti-Americanism serious in Italy?

2007-02-27T06:52:00.000-05:00

Anti-Americanism in Italy is still present, unfortunately. Its roots are the communist movements that were very strong in the 70's and in the 80's. In 1976, the communist party
got the 33% of the votes.

Today, Italy is still partly stuck with its past and display irrational anti-american feelings.
Here's an interesting article on the issue.

Democrats: Struggle for Power

2007-02-26T11:41:00.000-05:00

Here's a briliant article on the NYRB describing the struggle for the democratic leadership in the US.

This is an introduction:

Who will be the Democrats' nominee for president, and how will that choice affect the center of gravity? The three leading contenders—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama—are making starkly different pitches to voters, based on quite different assumptions about what the party needs to do to break its stalemate. The next year and a half—in which we'll see if the Democrats make a success of their congressional majority and who captures the presidential nomination—will be the most consequential eighteen months the party has faced in some time.

Play it Again, Romano

2007-02-26T10:12:00.000-05:00

This Wednesday, Prodi is going to go back to Parliament to have his government (the same) re-approved.

He will obviously start with the Senate, as it is in the Senate that he lost the majority. It seems that some of the right wing senators are willing to support Prodi this time round, so his majority will increase, but it is unclear whether this move will make the government more stable.

Tribute to Ennio Morricone

2007-02-26T05:49:00.000-05:00

Morricone is one of the greatest italian musician alive. The Oscar he won for his career at 78 testifies of a monumental achievement. But of even greater impact are his words: 'the prize is not an ending point, it is a starting point to improve further.'

Humility and continuous self-development are the most important characters of a great Man.

French Presidential Elections: Segolene Royal

2007-02-25T06:10:00.000-05:00

Segolene is a mistery. Both to french and non-french. She is very keen to appear modern, a XXI century socialist.
Yet, the programme she has unveiled recently is only about welfare redistribution in a very old fashion socialist style.

Economically she is nothing really new. Socially, she claims she will be tough on crime and disorder, and this reminds us of Tony Blair. But Tony is nothing new. Plus, Tony without his economic achievement is close to nothing especially if you judge by his international politics.

So, who is Segolene, and what is XXI century socialism? Unfortunately, to look for an answer to this questions may be like 'waiting for Godot.'

Scotland v Italy, 17-37: you'd better believe it!

2007-02-24T12:04:00.000-05:00

This is a fine European Week-end. One needs to get away from politics and law from time to time...

Prodi's Lack of Leadership

2007-02-23T12:46:00.000-05:00

Below are Prodi's non-negotiable conditions in case he will be offered
a second term in office.

Points 11 and 12 in particular show how weak is the former prime minister vis-a-vis the subcomponents of his coalition. Point 12, for example, says that the Prime Minister should be able to express the view of the government in case of contrasting viewpoints within the cabinet.

But, isn't that an implicit pre-condition of any government??? Do we really have to stress the importance of a self-evident truth?

The fact that Prodi feels the need of stressing it, is a sign of his weakness.

1. “Respect for international and peace commitments. Ongoing support for foreign policy and defence initiatives established in a UN framework and for Italy’s international commitments deriving from membership of the European Union and Atlantic Alliance, with reference among other things to the country’s current commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. Incisive action for the support and promotion of the asset represented by Italian communities abroad”.
2. “Strong commitment for culture, school, university, research and innovation”.
3. “Rapid implementation of the infrastructure plan, and in particular the European corridors, including Turin-Lyon. Commitment on sustainable mobility”.
4. “Programme for the efficiency and diversification of energy sources: renewable sources, and localisation and completion of regasification plants”.
5. “Continuation of liberalisation action and consumer protection in the context of services and professions”.
6. “Permanent attention and concrete commitment in favour of the South, starting with security”.
7. “Concrete, immediate action to significantly reduce public spending and spending related to political and institutional activities (politics-related costs)".
8. “Reorganisation of the welfare system with close attention to financial compatibility, focusing on low pensions and young people. With a commitment to source a proportion of the necessary resources by rationalising expenditure, partly by means of the unification of welfare institutions”.
9. “Reviving policies in support of the family by the extension of more substantial family allowances to all and a concrete plan for a significant increase in nursery schools”.
10. “Rapid solution of incompatibilities involving government and parliamentary appointments, in compliance with already agreed procedures”.
11. “In order to impress greater coherence on communication, the prime minister’s spokesperson will assume the role of spokesperson for the executive”.
12. “In line with this principle, to ensure full effectiveness of the government’s action, the prime minister shall have the authority to express the government’s position in a unitary fashion in case of contrast”.

Italian Crisis reveils troubled TransAtlantic Relations

2007-02-23T09:58:00.000-05:00

It is interesting to see that the Italian Government, whose majority was very thin anyhow, fell on a TransAtlantic issue, ie the American military base in Vicenza.

We need greater clarity on these type of issues. On the Italian side, I think that it is of the outmost importance to abandon any stereotypical adversion to the US. We are on the same side, we share the same values, and we have to keep cooperating as best as we can. It is only a small group of italian 'pseudo post-neo- communist' who think that America is a danger.

There's a lot to do on the American side, however. Bush did everything to create a very unilateralist image of the US. In Europe, and in the rest of the world, this means that many people do not trust America anymore. Its action is often perceived as purely self-interested, as opposed to based on a well balanced view of international relations and politics, not to mention a degree of principle.

And the Crisis goes on...

2007-02-23T06:12:00.000-05:00

The good thing about italian politics is that it is never dull. Something is happening all the time.
Fellini's movie " E la nave va" (and the Boat sails on) is a good metaphor for it. But at times the boat can sink and Italy is taking a lot of risks... Berlusconi's ghost is haunting us again.

You can find a report on the governmental crisis here.

Italian Government falls on American military base in Vicenza

2007-02-21T12:01:00.000-05:00

The Italian government went down in Parliament. The issue was an American military base in Vicenza and the parliament had to decide whether to give a green light.

Most of the extreme left wing was opposed to it, and d'Alema, the foreign affair minister, did not manage to convince them to vote in favour of the military base.

As a result, d'Alema has resigned and the government will have to be reshuffled. It is likely that Prodi will form a second government, but d'Alema will not be in it anymore.

Hard times ahead for Prodi who will certainly not be strengthened by this accident.

North Korea: Past and Future

2007-02-21T07:15:00.000-05:00

North Korea is still a ticking bomb. An interesting article on the NYRB examines recent developments and future scenarios.

Here's the interesting conclusion:

Oddly though, what Kim Jong Il would decide if asked to choose between the bomb and a full, normal, nonbelligerent relationship with Washington has never been tested. Very likely, a working relationship with the United States would prove more subversive of the North Korean dictatorship than the efforts to isolate it and punish it have been. It is something that a new administration might try, assuming it is not already too late.

Distant Brides and Plural Societies

2007-02-20T11:05:00.000-05:00

A court in Italy has recognized the validity of a marriage celebrated via telephone and in conformity to Pakistani laws. The woman will now be allowed to join her husband, who is presently in Italy, thanks to the norms that facilitate family reunion in Europe.

Yet another challenge to the Catholic conception of marriage? Is Italy moving to a value pluralist understandig of Marriage? In many ways, this is certainly the case. In this particular event, however, it simply comes down to a question of private international law.

The Vatican and Same Sex Couples

2007-02-19T16:13:00.000-05:00

Today Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, met some of the Vatican Archibishops to talk about the new same sex partnership law proposal. It is reported that the dialogue went well.

The Church is very skeptical about such proposal, but it seems as if they want to engage in a discussion to test new ideas.

Is it a sign of conversion on the part of the Vatican? We can only hope so. But I doubt it.

French Presidential Elections: 2 Months to Go

2007-02-17T10:44:00.000-05:00

France will change its head very soon. After 12 years of Chirac, this election will be very heated and important.

For those who want to follow the election closely, please have a look here (in french).

CIA's kidnappings in Italy

2007-02-16T10:15:00.000-05:00

Some further judicial frictions between Italy and the US. After the accidents involved in the killing of an italian secret agent (Calipari) in Iraq, Italy is trying again to bring some US CIA agents before the courts. Here's a report

Berlusconi's government is very likely to have turned a blind eye on the practice of rendition. Prodi will not be as lineant.

Europe copies American Green Card

2007-02-15T06:11:00.000-05:00

It will be called Blue Card, but the idea is the same as the Green Card. Highly skilled immigrants will have privileged status. This way, Europe wants to compete with Canada and the USA for the market of brains. For a good report, please see here

It would be all well and good, if Europe really had a competitive private market able to integrate quickly highly skilled people, in particular young ones. But the very problem is that jobs markets in France, Germany, Italy and Spain are quite rigid and biased in favour of more experienced people, rather than young and talented.

This might have changed in the last few years, if you listen to the report of the Economist on European Business. Who are the Champions--in business terms-- the Economist asks. Surprisingly, the competition between China and America is won by... Europe.

The relative health of the German economy, coupled with the efficiency of London, a struggle to improve of Paris, the disappearance of Berlusconi in Italy and the good term of Madrid all contribute to a renewed hope of European Competitiveness.

Red Brigades and Terrorism in Italy

2007-02-14T07:12:00.000-05:00

In a time of international terrorism, homegrown 'communist' terrorists sound almost like a joke. But in Italy they aren't.

Red Brigades are still working and plotting against the state and some personalities. They hate particularly labour lawyers, one wonders why.

Few years ago, Marco Biagi, a labour law professor and counsel of the government was killed in Bologna.

Yesterday, the italian police captured a bunch of red brigades who were plotting to kill Pietro Ichino, another famouse labour law expert. You can find a report here.

Same Sex Unions and Religion

2007-02-12T10:51:00.000-05:00

The italian project of a civil union law is provoking extreme reactions in the country, as it was sadly predictable. The Vatican is trying to insist on the inviolability of the family understood as the union between a man and a woman. The Church is unable to understand that discrimination vis-a-vis homosexuals is comparable to any other type of discrimination based on race, or religion.

For a more balanced religious view, listen to Michael J Perry, a Catholic Law Professor at Emory, in his recent book Toward a Theory of Human Rights:

"I expect that within the next generation or two -within the lifetime of our children's children-- the understanding will come to be widely shared, in the world's liberal democracies, that refusing to recognize same-sex unions, if not morally akin to outlawing interracial unions, is nonetheless bereft of any non demeaning rationale.'

Toward a Theory of Human Rights by Michael J Perry

2007-02-09T06:05:00.000-05:00

This book does exactly what it claims: it attempts to develop a theory of human rights. Perry suggests that a theory of human rights should deal with three basic issues. First, the moral foundation of human rights. Second, the normative relationship between the morality and the law of human rights. Third, the institutional arrangements that best protect human rights.

To each of these three issues Perry offers very stimulating, and conspicuously controversial, treatment. He argues that the moral foundation of human rights can be defined in terms of the principle of dignity and inviolability of each human being. The trouble is, Perry argues, that secular people cannot offer a proper justification of dignity and inviolability. The only sound rationale is religious.

Once the foundation established, the following step is to explain in what way the morality of human rights influences the law of human rights. This is inextricably linked to the two claims of inherent dignity and inviolabililty. In legal terms, it means that those who commit to that morality will have to do all they can to enact laws that do not violate human beings, and refrain from relying on laws that do violate human beings.

Perry takes three areas to illustrate his claims. Death penalty, Abortion, and Same sex unions. Not afraid of challenging conventional understanding, he argues that his morality of human rights requires that death penalty be abolished. It requires that the pre-viability abortions be banned; and that same sex unions be recognised.

All this, however, is not as straightforward as it looks in normative terms. For, the institutional perspective nuances the general picture in many ways. The main question is to know what role should the courts play. Perry argues that the US system of judicial review coupled with judicial supremacy, gives excessive powers to courts. In other words, he disapproves of judicial ‘ultimacy,’ the fact that the US supreme court has the last word on the most controversial issues. Instead, he favours something close to the Canadian system, that he deems a system of judicial ‘penultimacy.’ The Supreme Court expresses itself on controversial issues, but the parliament can, if it wants, overrule the court’s decision thanks to the Canadian ‘notwithstanding clause.’ Perry presents this solution as an elegant compromise that conciliate judicial review with democratic participation. He says the same for the UK HRA 1998.

In the US, judicial ultimacy is not likely to be removed. To mitigate its effect, Perry suggests that court should adopt a deferential attitude along the lines proposed by James Bradley Thayer. Roughly, thayerian deference requires courts to apply the rule of the clear mistake—that is, interference only when the statute is clearly wrong. Thayerian deference is not grounded on the belief that the legislative or the executive are better equipped to take hard decisions. Thayer believes instead that a non-deferential system of judicial ultimacy would render citizens less politically and morally awake. Institutions may make mistakes and the way to redress them is to fight political battles not to devolve all the power to review those decisions to courts.

How does this affect the treatment of the relevant issues from the US point of view? Death penalty violates the constitution, but the court should so rule only if it believes that the legislator has made a clear mistake. Pre-viability Abortion violates the constitution, but the same caveat applies. Finally, the ban on same sex unions is unconstititutional, but court should be deferential along the same lines.

Perry’s book is very welcome. He is right to insist from the beginning to the conclusion that the work on theories of human rights has just begun. His contribution will no doubt advance the debate because it focuses on central issues without seeking approval. His theses are clearly exposed and highly controversial. The debate can begin.

It should begin and take place globally. And here’s my first criticism to Perry’s book. As many Anglo-American scholars, he ignores almost entirely the debates in non-english speaking countries. Most of European countries have produced fine scholarship on these issues, and a lot of this material is also available in English. One example above all is Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights, translated in English and published by OUP.

This leads to a second point. One may argue that Perry draws a distinction between Human Rights and Constitutional Rights. He may then claim that theories have been produced on the latter but not on the former. Indeed, at the beginning he seems to concentrate on international human rights as opposed to domestic constitutional rights. But by the end of the book it is clear, that the morality of human rights he finds in the international arena should also apply domestically, say at the level of the US Supreme Court.

I would find such a distinction helpful as it could underline another major difference between international human rights and domestic constitutional rights. The latter are nowadays well protected precisely because of judicial review, while the former are far away from being effectively protected. This may also point to the fact that Perry’s criticism to judicial review is exaggerated. One may suggest, not so foolishly, that liberal democracies came to protect constitutional rights so robustly precisely because of judicial review. If anything, the UK example shows that during Thatcher’s government rights were not respected and judges had little weapons to fight back. Moreover, parliament was incapable to stand alone for the rights of the citizens. It is such an abuse that led the labour government to entrench rights and to protect them through judicial review.

Now Perry could say that the HRA does not introduce a system of judicial ultimacy, but only an elegant compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review. Whether that is an elegant compromise, I have many doubts. Whether it will work in the long run, it is another open issue. The HRA is in the eyes of many either too much or too little. It is too much in the very eyes of those who have entrenched it and then complained that it bound excessively the executive in its war against terrorism. Its too little in the eyes of many advocates who fought for a bill of rights, Lord Lester for example, and thought that the HRA could be a first step toward a fully entrenched and fully reviewable bill of rights.

The most controversial of all issue, however, is that of the foundation of rights. Many liberal philosophers, starting from Rawls and Habermas, have amply shown that our secular democracies have borrowed a lot from religious concepts. Dignity and inviolability of human beings may well be concepts of Christian origins, but our societies have translated those concepts to our secular frameworks. This is not to deny their Christian root, to the contrary. But liberal democracies, beyond translation, also made possible the effective protection of dignity and inviolability of human beings. This was not true of the period preceding the establishment of liberal democracies, which we could deem the age of the Res Publica Christiana. During those ages, dignity and inviolability of human beings might have been already strong Christian principles, but their violation in practice also was very common. We may say, therefore, that liberal democracies brought to a totally different stage those principles, and to a certain extent the Church is catching up with the recognition of the importance of the consequences that we may want those principles to have.

Thus, liberal democracies not only translated those principles, but they also transformed them into tools for the improvement of the society. Religion can claim part of merit, but it also has to acknowledge the intrinsic merits of liberalism, as far as the redefinition and concrete protection of those principles is concerned.

To engage with Perry’s book does not detract anything to its quality. To the contrary, the quest for a proper theory of human rights should probably start there.

Same Sex Unions in Italy

2007-02-09T05:49:00.000-05:00

Italian Government has presented today its legislative proposal for same sex unions. If you read italian, you can have a look at the proposal here.

The proposal still has to be voted in parliament (both lower and higher chambers). Amendments are likely to be presented.

That said, the text is a very big effort of Prodi's majority to find a compromise between the religious and the secular wing of the coalition. Any amendments would risk to compromise the compromise (if I may say).

One important proviso, this proposal has the main goal of recognising de facto couples, including homosexual couples. It does not allow homosexual to get married.

It is still an important step toward the recognition of rights and duties of stable, non-married, couples.

A final point: the debate is likely to be intense. The vatican has already intervened many times to discourage this possibility.

Machism in Italy: Women are still an object.

2007-01-31T10:49:00.000-05:00

Many newspapers report today last Berlusconi's gaffe. In public, he makes appreciative comments of young italian ladies; Berlusconi's wife did not like them and challenged him publicly to apologize.

Internationally, this news can only be interpreted in one way: Berlusconi is an old man with a very machist perspective on women.

Unfortunately, in Italy, many people still recognize themselves in this horrific image. It is sad and despicable, but that is the way it is. Of course, only a chunk of the population would share Mr B's attitude. Needless to say, those who support him in this, are also those who vote him. The rest of the population is likely to be shocked and appalled by the very possibility of such a behaviour.

Kofi Annan's Last words

2007-01-29T11:40:00.000-05:00

Here, you can find Kofi Annan's last speech on the Middle East to the UN.

Berlusconi's Successor?

2007-01-26T09:42:00.000-05:00

Berlusconi elects his successor: it will be Mr Fini a clever italian politician with a very dark past.
Fini was formed politically in the ranks of MSI (Italian Social Movement) a post-fascist party created
after the end of the Second World War.

When Fini became the President of MSI, he did his best to mutate it into a democratically acceptable party.
The output was Alleanza Nazionale. The mutation, however, has never been complete. Many representatives in that party hold on to the post-fascist credo and they are less than presentable.

Mr Fini himself managed to sell a much more palatable image. But it is less than clear whether he could lead a coalition of moderate people, when his own party has such a daunting past, and nebulous present.

Former allies are probably the most dissatisfied: to the right, the northern ligue disapproves of national alliance precisely because Fini's party is in favour of national unity, while the northern party is all for federalism.

The other, former, Chritian ally declares itself uninterested: Berlusconi's coalition is not that fashionable anymore

The ECHR has a New President

2007-01-24T10:38:00.000-05:00

Jean Paul Costa is the new President of the European Court of Human Rights. His mandate has just begun. He replaces the former Swiss President, Luzius Wildhaber. Here's Costa's interesting speech.

Scotland & Kosovo

2007-01-23T11:24:00.000-05:00

The Guardian argues how a possible supervised independence for Serbia’s Province of Kosovo might play the role of a precedent in other cases such as Scotland for example. The Guardian writes, “The breakaway British region of Scotland could be among the beneficiaries of this week's expected UN recommendation that Kosovo be granted provisional independence from Serbia, leading in time to full sovereign status. If the plan backed by the US, Britain and Germany is formally accepted by the UN Security Council, it will be taken as an important international legal precedent by would-be separatist movements from Georgia to Moldova to Chechnya, and possibly also the Scottish National party.” For more information read here.

New Books on Theories of Human Rights

2007-01-22T22:02:00.000-05:00

A Couple of good titles for those of you interested in Theories of Fundamental Rights.

The first, just published, is Tim Macklem's Independence of Mind, Oxford University Press.

The second is M.J.Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law and Courts published by CUP (forthcoming 2007)

I add Constitutional Dilemmas: Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights, just to make three.

Serbian 2007 Elections: Victory of the Pro-European Forces

2007-01-22T11:32:00.001-05:00

On the Serbian parliamentary elections held yesterday 21^st of January 2007 Pro-European political block won the majority of votes. The largest number of citizens voted for the Ex-Milosevic’s ally Serbian Radical Party but this party will not be in a position to form the new government, both because no party seems willing to ally with them (because of the international pressure) as well as they themselves publicly announced would not form a coalition with any of the parties that entered the Parliament, apart from the parties of national minorities and possibly the Socialist Party of Serbia.

The electoral results are the following: Serbian Radical Party won 81 seats, Democratic Party (of the Serbian President Boris Tadic) won 65, Democratic Party of Serbia (of the Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica) won 47, G 17 Plus 19, The Coalition led by the Liberal Democratic Party 15, ex-Milosevic’s Socialist Party of Serbia 16 and the parties of national minorities 7. In other words political parties that were in power during the ancien regime of Milosevic won 97 seats, while the parties that governed Serbia in the post-Milosevic period won 153 seat. In the parliamentary elections of 2003 this ratio was 104 vs. 146, while in the 2000 elections post-Milosevic parties won as much as 176 seats, leaving the parties of the ex-regime on meagre 74.

Bearing in mind the fact that Serbia is undergoing a painful (but arguably a rather successful) transition process, it is rather surprising even that the populist opposition parties did not win even more. As far as the governing coalition of the Prime Minister Kostunica is concerned they suffered a significant blow. Together (DSS, NS, G 17 and SPO) they won 66 seats (SPO 0 since they did not manage to cross the threshold of 5%), while after the 2003 elections they held 110 (They ruled in a position of a minority government thanks to the votes of ex-Milosevic’s party Socialist Party of Serbia). The biggest victor in these elections is the newly founded Liberal Democratic Party that together with its coalition partners managed to enter the Parliament and win 15 seats. This party is largely formed of the ex-members of the Democratic Party and together with the Democratic Party holds the claim over the political legacy of the late Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. Democratic Party, the main-stream reformist, centre-left party of the Serbian President Boris Tadic is also a winner of these elections (the best result ever of this party) although their supporters, who hoped to win more in the elections, are left with a bitter (for them) perspective of having to deal with PM Kostunica’s Democrats for the formation of the new government.

There are several scenarios for the formation of the new government but two are the most likely:

1) The coalition of the DS, DSS-NS Coalition and the G 17 Plus is the most probable outcome, although it remains uncertain who will lead this coalition, the candidate of DS Bozidar Djelic, the current Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica, the leader of G 17 Plus Mladjan Dinkic or a neutral technocrat able to rally the abovementioned parties together. The Coalition grouped around the Liberal Democratic Party is unlikely to take part in the government, both because the Party of the Serbian Prime Minister is unready to cooperate with them and also because they are most likely to benefit from the coalition of DS and DSS in the long run. Some or all parties of the national minorities that managed to enter the Parliament will most probably take part in the new government.

2) All other coalitions are highly unlikely since they are likely to cause serious political damage to both DS and DSS. According to the Serbian Constitution (article 109) if the aforementioned block of parties does not manage to make an agreement on the formation of the new government in three month, Serbia will have the new elections. The entire Pro-European block will not profit from the new elections, both because of the possible negative outcome of the future Kosovo status negotiation as well as because of the dissatisfaction of the voters with their inability to reach an agreement. So the two Democratic parties must reach an agreement, the sooner the better for Serbia and its citizens.