Feed aggregator

Comentario Elcano 47/2015 - 8/9/2015
Mira Milosevich-Juaristi
El proyecto de ley para la descentralización de Ucrania tiene pocas posibilidades de salir adelante y muchas de agudizar la crisis política. Si Kiev fracasa en las reformas, la guerra se prolongará; si las lleva a cabo sin apoyo de los nacionalistas, puede producirse un nuevo Maidan.

A Magyar Afrika Társaság magyarországi menekülttáborokat célzó programja augusztus hónaptól vette kezdetét a befogadó központok közül Bicskén, Nagyfán és Debrecenben. Az eddigi ellátás szélesítése érdekében várjuk orvosok és egészségügyi szakdolgozók jelentkezését, akik csatlakoznának a Társaság önkéntes orvosi csapatához.

További információért keresse Orzói Zsuzsát az ozs@ahu.hu e-mail címen vagy az alábbi telefonszámon: 06 20 211 1669

 

Fotó: kallopeter.hu

Yesterday David Cameron played a political blinder: “We’re here to talk about refugees, but enough of criticising my terrible response on that, I had a British citizen killed two weeks ago.” Understandably, this blindsided most, and the fact that the UK government has committed to sheltering a paltry 4000 Syrian refugees per year, as opposed to larger numbers in Germany and elsewhere has fallen quickly off the front pages. These numbers are an abdication of moral responsibility towards refugees. Nonetheless, the use of a targeted killing against a UK citizen (by the UK government, not our American friends after we revoke their passport) is the topic du jour. Understandably, this has been called our ‘Anwar al-Awlaki moment’ – the first time the government crosses the proverbial rubicon of intentionally and openly killing a citizen that has run off to a foreign country to (supposedly) organise terrorist campaigns against their home state. The UK, of course, has much more recent experience of the moral and legal quandaries of using force against our own citizens due to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Over at Lawfare, Robert Chesney pointed out that this is actually a test of a particular scenario and legal interpretation – the American interpretation of the concept of self defence as it applies to terrorists that has developed since 9/11.

The legal justification, as presented was that this was an act of self defence, broadly in line with American interpretations of self defence versus individuals and terrorist organisations:

As part of this counter-terrorism strategy, as I have said before, if there is a direct threat to the British people and we are able to stop it by taking immediate action, then as Prime Minister, I will always be prepared to take that action and that’s the case whether the threat is emanating from Libya, Syria or from anywhere else….

We should be under no illusion. Their intention was the murder of British citizens. So on this occasion we ourselves took action. Today I can inform the House that in an act of self-defence and after meticulous planning Reyaad Khan was killed in a precision air strike carried out on 21 August by an RAF remotely piloted aircraft while he was travelling in a vehicle in the area of Raqqah in Syria…

Mr Speaker, we took this action because there was no alternative. In this area, there is no government we can work with. We have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots. And there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home. So we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action…

First, I am clear that the action we took was entirely lawful. The Attorney General was consulted and was clear there would be a clear legal basis for action in international law. We were exercising the UK’s inherent right to self-defence. There was clear evidence of the individuals in question planning and directing armed attacks against the UK. These were part of a series of actual and foiled attempts to attack the UK and our allies.

And in the prevailing circumstances in Syria, the airstrike was the only feasible means of effectively disrupting the attacks planned and directed by this individual. So it was necessary and proportionate for the individual self-defence of the UK.

There are, however, significant differences between the UK and the US in both legal opinion and the jurisdiction of international courts.

• Armed conflict: The US claims to be in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda and associated forces, the UK doesn’t. Therefore while the UK talks about IHL and military rules of engagement, this is ‘icing on the cake’ so-to-speak – we’re not at war (proverbially) or engaged in an armed conflict (legally). This aspect of Cameron’s statement is effectively saying that when UK armed forces kill outside an armed conflict, they still consider themselves constrained by the rules developed within it.
• The extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties: A bit of a mouthful for non-lawyers. Unlike America, the UK considers its obligations as extending beyond the territory of the UK, which means that outside armed conflict human rights law definitely applies, and furthermore UK cases have applied human rights standards to matters in the context of armed conflict (much to the chagrin of many people, but that doesn’t matter so much here).
• The European Convention on Human Rights: Unlike the US, we have the ECHR, and we are also subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, meaning that judges beyond our immediate political system can pass judgement on the actions of the state (like, err, Article 2, protecting the right to life – expect to see arguments about 2.a. where “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence”). This is a key difference from the al-Awlaki case as there is no international court with jurisdiction that America accepts that can pass judgement on the American state for his death.
• No constitution: Unlike America, we don’t have a written constitution. This means that whereas the American debate on the domestic legality of killing citizens has plenty of plain text hooks and principles to work from, as well as the separation of powers, the UK debate will likely be more nebulous, involving the royal prerogative, and so on. I’d expect some British anti-monarchists to come out of the woodwork at some point to state that it’s a bit bloody odd that the Queen is technically the one in charge of all of this, and David Cameron ordered a citizen dead based on inherited authority. For American readers worried about the ‘Imperial Presidents’ of Bush and Obama, at least you have the Authorization for the Use of Military Force to complain about, as well as requirements for intelligence oversight, Presidential findings etc etc.

My last thoughts on this (for now) is that this appears to be the way things are going: that the ‘Caroline test‘ will apply to individuals and small scale groups, and that the American “unwilling/unable” test, discussed by Robert Cheney, will propagate. The use of straight up self defence as a justification for targeted killing (as opposed to self defence that leads to/in context of armed conflict) is discussed in a pretty accessible way by Kenneth Anderson in a 2009 paper here. What strikes me about Cameron’s decision is that the US has hewed towards the armed conflict model for justifying targeted killings and explaining their legal rationale, whereas the UK decision appears to be straight self defence. From everything I’ve read about targeted killings, the armed conflict model is better, as it is at least more explicit and requires political declarations of war. The US Congress can always call off its war with al-Qaeda, and hem in the President’s authority. The British political system has markedly fewer constraints on the exercise of power by the Prime Minister.

Mi sem jelzi jobban a nyár elmúltát, mint a hosszú vándorútra kelő madarak népes csoportjainak gyülekezése. A kontinenseket és tengereket, nem egy esetben még az egyenlítőt is átszelő vándorlás a természet és az állatvilág egyik legérdekesebb jelensége.

Segítünk: nem bevándorlók voltak.

The European Defence Agency (EDA) provided technical, contractual and administrative support to the EU Training Mission (EUTM) Mali regarding the procurement of a biomedical incinerator to be installed in Koulikoro.

The requirement for the new equipment, to meet European standards in case of an EBOLA outbreak, was identified by the operation. EDA´s support was requested in May 2015 and the award decision was signed by the former Operation Commander, Brigadier General Alfonso García-Vaquero Pradal in July 2015. The contract, with a budget of 59.000€, includes transportation and on-site maintenance. The incinerator should be operational by mid-September.

This is the first case conducted under the EDA-Athena cooperation arrangement signed on 27 February 2015 which aims at facilitating direct procurement support to CSDP military operations.

EDA supports CSDP operations and missions to meet their operational needs. Based on the combination of industry knowledge, in-house technical expertise and experience in procurement, the Agency helps operations to optimize procurement procedures in order to save resources.

More information:

• Operations support project page

Az ország villanygazdasága felkészülten várja a telet, hiszen a hazai szénkitermelés elérte a tavaly tavaszi áradások előtti szintet – jelentette be tegnap Aleksandar Antić bányászati és energiaügyi miniszter. Mint kifejtette, a kolubarai szénfejtőben a napi kitermelés elérte a 114.022 tonnát, amire immár másfél éve nem volt példa. Ennek a teljesítménynek a megtartása elegendő ahhoz, hogy az ország villanygazdasága ne szenvedjen szénhiányban, és zavartalan legyen a termelés a küszöbönálló télen is –mondta a miniszter.

A Subotica-trans Utasszállító Közvállalat a 3-as jelzésű autóbuszainak járatait a polgárok másik autóbuszra való átszálláshoz szükséges igényeihez igazítják. A 16-os jelzésű autóbusz szombaton és vasárnap ezentúl félóránként fog közlekedni. Megváltozik a 6c jelzésű autóbusz útvonala is. A Siemens gyártól a Lifka moziig a megszokott úton halad, innen lefordul a Fasizmus áldozatinak tere felé, majd a Jovan Zmaj utcán át halad a végállomásig, az egykori Jadran mozi épületéig. A visszafelé vezető úton a Maksim Gorkij és a Matija Gubec utcákon közlekedik a Lifka moziig, majd onnan a Zombori úton megy tovább a Siemensig. Az útvonal megváltoztatása miatt hamarosan a menetrenden is változtatnak, közölte a Szabadkai Rádió.

This is the “last chance” Commission…

This dramatic statement was pronounced by Jean-Claude Juncker in October 2014 to Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, during his formal presentation of the College of Commissioners and their proposed 2016-2020 programme.

Juncker to deliver his first ever SOTEU!

On Wednesday 9 September, Jean-Claude Juncker will head back into the Strasbourg hemicycle for his first ever speech on the so-called State of the European Union (or SOTEU). Although not as eagerly expected by citizens and the media as the original USA version, the SOTEU address has become a major milestone in EU politics since it was first launched by former President Barroso in 2008.

As the SOTEU traditionally addresses the EU’s key challenges and provides an opportunity to introduce major policy initiatives, President Juncker is expected to present his main accomplishments from his first year at the helm of the European Commission, as well as lay out his vision to address the burning issues that the EU is currently facing.

In front of him will sit a full parliament of Members who have shown signs of dissatisfaction with their once favourite candidate, their “spitzenkandidat”. Juncker indeed secured his appointment in large part thanks to the support of the European Parliament. A year later, after mostly focusing on Council matters such as Greece and the migration crisis, some might say that the European Parliament has been left in a vacuum with too little legislative work to do. To soften critics, Juncker will have to deliver a balanced speech, calling on all institutions to cooperate for the sake of the future of the EU.

FH Stethoscopes and tweezers to the ready – It’s time to play ‘Operation Europe’

The EU seems in no better shape than last year, and Juncker will need to convincingly perform a series of highly delicate operations to heal the life-threatening conditions Europe is currently fighting, including internal disorder, existing EU weaknesses and international conditions:

• The first year of the Juncker team in office has resulted in a sharp decrease in legislative files, most notably in areas such as sustainability and environmental issues, where the EU traditionally leads the way. Looking at the 2016 European Commission Work Programme, what’s at the forefront of Juncker’s thinking?
• Jobs and growth are the backbone of Juncker’s mandate. Will he use the speech to confirm that his Investment Plan has delivered on its promises, and has boosted Europe’s growth and created jobs? Although recent figures show that unemployment in the euro area is at its lowest since February 2012, is this trend looking set to continue, or will Juncker need to intervene further in order to succeed?
• Through his vision of a more dynamic and effective institution, Juncker has turned the European Commission into a very political animal. But does the European Commission have broad enough shoulders to deliver on its President’s promises?
• Juncker had already identified the “scores of immigrants” arriving at the gates of Europe as a major challenge. Recently calling for “collective courage”, Juncker is expected to present a new proposal that addresses the migration crisis, to show that Europe still has a heart and is willing to help those seeking a better life.
• As opponents continue to vilify TTIP, Juncker will need a lot of elbow grease to progress on negotiations and ensure that the EU remains a competitive trade partner globally.
• The Greek crisis is probably one of the only achievements of this Commission thus far. Although the euro zone Member States have been slapped on the wrist for allowing Greece into the euro zone in the first place and lost credibility for endless “absolute final last possible chance before ultimate and irrevocable catastrophe Councils” to avoid a ‘Grexit’, it seems Juncker’s former role as President of the Eurogroup has paid off in so far avoiding a ‘Grexit’. However, as the Greek crisis is far from being resolved, how will Juncker address the issue moving forward?
• The European Union will rise and speak as one at the Paris Climate conference (COP21) next November. Criticisms concerning the low level of ambition for the conference are increasing, as are fears that COP21 will fail. If the EU wants to breathe life into the climate change debate, courageous proposals need to be made.
• Recent attacks on European soil and the rise of ISIS in the Middle-East have led Juncker to propose reinforced cooperation mechanisms to protect European citizens. Will the European Commission manage to convince EU Member States to have the stomach to work together?
• Juncker is not expected to go into the details of specific EU policies, however the promises of an EU Digital Single Market (DSM) regarding jobs and growth are too important not to mention. DSM and Juncker’s future legacy are joined at the hip.
• The EU cannot be navel-gazing and has to play a central role in international foreign affairs. From the Chinese economic slowdown to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Juncker will have to keep Europe from falling on its knees.
• President Juncker is unlikely to voluntarily touch upon Brexit, which feels like the sprained ankle of the EU… very painful and capable of making us fall any minute. However far right Members of the European Parliament might push Juncker on the issue, aiming to show once again that the EU is on the brink of toppling over.

The SOTEU address will give us a sense of the current mood within the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as an understanding of what Juncker deems his main achievements are so far.

We will closely watch Dr. Juncker perform all these sensitive operations, following the live debate from the EP and online and will regularly take the pulse of our European patient. Follow us on Twitter (@fleishmanEU) to find out how Dr. Juncker is doing fixing patient Europe!

The Institutional Research Unit

Szeptember 5-én kilencedik alkalommal rendeztek sportnapot Felsőhegyen.

C’est un recueil d’articles de Bertrand Badie, paru dans La Croix, que publient les éditions Salvator, précédé d’une substantielle introduction inédite. Ces textes sont classés en trois parties : « Le coût de l’ignorance », « La diversité des violences mondiales » et « La pauvreté des solutions ».

Vous estimez que face aux transformations du monde, notre savoir est périmé. Pouvez-vous développer ?

Il ne faut pas oublier que notre science des relations internationales a été pour l’essentiel forgée au fil de la guerre froide, alors que la mondialisation ne faisait que poindre à l’horizon et que le banal rapport de puissance entre les deux blocs semblait résumer à lui seul la vie internationale. Les acteurs politiques qui sont actuellement au pouvoir ont été formés à cette école. Pourtant, avec l’approfondissement de la mondialisation, les choses ont bien changé et on est passé du temps de la puissance à une nouvelle séquence où le facteur humain et social l’emporte désormais. Nos dirigeants n’ont pas vu venir ce nouveau monde : d’où leur désarroi devant des crises comme celles issues de la migration ou des flux de réfugiés. Il importe donc de concevoir une nouvelle science de l’international qui place le social – et la souffrance- en son centre.

La violence identitaire vous parait-elle la plus dangereuse ?

D’un certain point de vue, oui, car rien n’est prévu pour la réguler et même la contenir. En outre, elle véhicule l’affect et l’imaginaire, là où la violence militaire est beaucoup plus maîtrisable et relève davantage des « monstres froids ». Mais j’ajouterai une idée supplémentaire : la violence identitaire devient de plus en plus le langage du désespoir, de la contestation face aux puissances avec lesquelles on ne peut plus rivaliser, l’arme du faible : elle est donc totale et non plus instrumentale, et irréductible à la négociation.

La diplomatie vous parait-elle en panne ?

Elle l’a été très longtemps, au moins depuis 1989 et la fin de la bipolarité, lorsque les puissances occidentales ont considéré que, n’ayant plus de rivaux à leur hauteur, elles pouvaient substituer la force et la punition à la négociation…On excluait, on sanctionnait, on refusait de parler : bref, tout ce que la diplomatie réprouve. On dévoyait même celle-ci pour en faire un instrument de pénétration économique, ce qui ne relève pas de ses compétences…Avec la négociation réussie sur le nucléaire iranien, il semble qu’on soit quelque peu retourné vers la diplomatie, ce qui est salutaire et à mettre au crédit de la clairvoyance de Barack Obama.

La police vaudoise a indiqué ce mardi que l'arme du tireur de Pully était bien un pistolet d'ordonnance. L'homme avait tiré sur sa compagne entre mercredi et jeudi.

A kúlai Népkör Magyar Művelődési Központ a hétvégén nyolcadik alkalommal tartotta meg legnagyobb rendezvényét, a Hagyományőrző Napot. Negyven bográcsban rotyogott a birkapaprikás, a kicsit szeszélyes időjárás sem rontotta el a versenyzők kedvét, a hangulat jó volt. A rendezvénynek ezúttal is a helyi sporttér adott helyet, amelyet a Horvátországból, Bosznia-Hercegovinából, Magyarországról és a környező településekről érkező csapatok népesítettek be.

Um das Milizsystem in der Schweiz zu stärken, setzt die liberale Denkfabrik auf die ausländische Wohnbevölkerung: Sie soll politisch aktiviert werden – auch aus demokratischer Notwendigkeit.

Qu’est-ce que la démission et l’arrestation (le 3 septembre) de l’ancien président guatémaltèque Otto Pérez Molina signifient de l’atmosphère politique et juridique du pays ?
Le Guatemala a toujours été un pays à la fois marqué par les scandales liés à l’impunité face aux crimes – des forces armées et de la police principalement – et aussi face à la corruption politique. En 2006, un accord a été trouvé avec l’ONU en vue de créer une commission juridique particulière – Commission internationale contre l’Impunité au Guatemala (CIGIG) – qui assiste les autorités en vue d’aider à mettre fin à cette situation.
La population reste sceptique sur le changement des mœurs politiques du pays et l’exprima via des manifestations de rue, mais le travail effectué par cette commission de l’ONU a permis à la population de soutenir cet effort, ainsi qu’à la justice de faire son travail. Par conséquent, le président de la république, à trois jours de l’élection présidentielle, a été démis de ses fonctions par le parlement, mis en examen et incarcéré. C’est une situation tout à fait inédite au Guatemala et en Amérique latine mais qui ne préjuge en rien l’évolution même du pays.

Quels étaient les enjeux des nouvelles élections présidentielles et législatives organisées ce dimanche 6 septembre ? Comment expliquer l’arrivée en tête de Jimmy Morales (parti du Front de Convergence nationale) ?
C’est le paradoxe de la situation : d’un côté un évènement ébranle le système institutionnel, entrainant une exigence de réforme mais d’un autre il y a une élection présidentielle qui se déroule comme si le pays vivait dans une parfaite normalité. Les candidats étaient déconnectés de ce qui s’était passé durant ces dernières semaines au Guatemala à tel point que beaucoup d’électeurs ne souhaitaient pas voter considérant que cela ne valait pas la peine et que ces élections n’avaient aucun rapport avec la situation actuelle.
Si l’on s’intéresse aux résultats, le candidat arrivé en tête est un candidat traditionnel de droite, en dépit de son profil particulier d’animateur de télévision, d’humoriste, avec également un profil religieux qui est un critère important au Guatemala. Son rival est un homme d’affaires qui est dans une situation personnelle très contestée, dénoncé pour avoir financé sa campagne électorale de façon très opaque et ayant dépassé les plafonds de dépenses autorisés. La troisième candidate est la femme d’un ancien président de la république qui, en 2011, avait essayé de se présenter (alors que la loi ne le permettait pas) en divorçant de son époux pour des raisons de convenance électorale, sans succès.
Il y a une offre électorale et politique présentée aux électeurs qui n’a aucun rapport avec les enjeux et les conséquences des décisions de justice de la semaine dernière.

Quelles sont les perspectives de changement à travers ce nouveau vote ? Le Guatemala peut-il profondément réformer ses institutions et mettre fin à la corruption de l’oligarchie économique et politique du pays ?
Il est difficile de répondre à cette question. Il y a effectivement aujourd’hui une exigence de réforme qui est posée par les tribunaux, secondés par des ONG et une partie de la population. Certaines institutions politiques sont tout à fait en marge de ces exigences et il va falloir trancher. Le président par intérim jusqu’au mois de janvier est considéré comme un homme de justice, et a signalé avoir entendu le message mais il n’occupe qu’une fonction temporaire. Quel que soit le candidat élu, il faudra voir si celui-ci aura la capacité politique et la volonté de procéder à des réformes qui correspondent à l’attente des guatémaltèques.