Before You Comment ...
I currently have a little issue with my commenting software. I will try to fix it as soon as possible. In the meantime, just click on the heading of the post that you would like to comment on. You will then get onto the individual post page and from there, the comment feature should work. Sorry for the overhead.
Today, the heads of state and government of the EU member states gathered for a two-day meeting in Brussels. Goal of the meeting is to set up a road map for the successful implementation of a European constitutional treaty. For further information, click here [invitation to the meeting, in English].
After having suffered a major setback two years ago, partisans of the constitutional movement in Europe are still having a hard time achieving a consensus among European statesmen. [For a previous post on this, click here.] Several heads of states have expressed their inclination towards weakening the impact of a possible constitutional treaty. In the run-up to the present meeting, most notably the demands made by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski have put a successful outcome of the meeting into question. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the British government seeks exceptions from major parts of the proposed treaty (e.g. British courts should not be bound by the EU Charter of Human Rights). This request probably does not come as a big surprise, had the British often sought to get special treatment (e.g. Britain does not have the Euro as currency). Of more concern should be the latest statements by Polish Prime Minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. According to the FAZ, in a radio broadcast, Kaczynski had based his request for a different allocation of voting rights on the military and civilian losses in Poland during the Second World War. In particular, according to Kaczynski, Poland should get more votes whereas German votes should be limited. For further information, click here [FAZ article, in German].
Statements like the ones made by Kaczynski are unfortunate as they foil the basic ideas that led to the creation of the European Union: peace and reconstruction. How shall there be peace when focus is still on former animosities? How shall there be reconstruction when focus is still on past events?
Yesterday, the German Federal Court of Justice ruled in favor of the girlfriend of famous German singer and songwriter Herbert Groenemeyer. The issue was whether the taking and publishing of pictures that show the couple during their holidays in Rome would constitute a violation of their privacy rights. The court answered the question in the affirmative stating that the pictures did neither have a connection to a contemporary event nor contribute to a discussion of general interest. In addition, the court noted that the fact that some lyrics of Herbert Groenemeyer's songs allude to private events, does not waive his girlfriend's above-stated privacy rights. For more information, please refer to press release no. 77/2007 (in German) at http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/ (court decision not available yet).
Critics argue that this decision inappropriately cuts back on the right of the press to report on celebrities and would result in non-critical journalism that publishes exactly what celebrities want. The FAZ has more (newsarticle, in German).
Three years ago, the European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment involving private pictures of Princess Caroline von Hannover (Monaco), had strengthened celebrities' privacy rights by instructing courts that are confronted with the balancing of freedom of the press with privacy rights to consider whether the pictures in question contributed to a public debate (Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, ECHR 2004-VI).
Whether yesterday's decision restricts freedom of the press to an extent that is beyond the pale and thus violates existing European and German legal standards will probably be decided by the German Federal Constitutional Court - as the defendant-publisher reserved the right to bring the case to this court for final review.
Last Monday, two different military judges dismissed the cases of two Guantánamo detainees on procedural grounds: According to last year's Military Commissions Act, military commissions have jurisdiction over offenses committed by unlawful enemy combatants. Yet, up to now Guantánamo detainees have merely been designated "enemy combatants" without further distinction between lawful and unlawful.
JURIST has an interesting op-ed (text, in English) on this topic written by Professor Majorie Cohn. Here is a short extract:
The Bush administration may try to fix the procedural problem and retry Khadr and Hamdan. But regardless of whether Guantánamo detainees are lawful or unlawful enemy combatants, the Bush administration's treatment of them violates the Geneva Conventions. Lawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by the Third Geneva Convention on prisoners of war. Unlawful enemy combatants are protected against inhumane treatment by Common Article Three.
Let us see how the Bush administration will react to this recent setback ...
The long anticipated trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor has started in the Hague - without the defendant. In a letter, Taylor called the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL, website) a farce and challenged the court's ability to "dispense justice". Furthermore, Taylor's lawyer Karim Khan informed the court that he had been fired by his client and refused to represent Taylor during the initial meeting. Despite the absence of both defendant and counsel, the court decided to hear the prosecution's opening statements. The trial will continue in three weeks. For further information on the events, click here (JURIST article, in English).
Charles Taylor, who is charged with crimes against humanity and violations of international humanitarian law, seems to assume a similar strategy as former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic: Both tried to discredit the court before which they were summoned. The fact that both the SCSL and the ICTY are ad hoc tribunals, i.e. U.N.(-backed) courts that are established for one particular conflict, certainly invites such conduct. Accordingly, it is all the more important to endorse the International Criminal Court (ICC, website) - an independent and permanent institution with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
Speaking of Srebrenica ... JURIST reports that survivors of the Srebrenica massacre instituted a class action suit against the U.N. and the Netherlands in the Netherlands. The victims accuse both defendants of having failed to patronize refuges placed under their protection. For further details, please refer to the JURIST article (in English).
Today, genocide suspect Zdravko Tolimir was placed into custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY (ICTY press release). Tolimir used to be a close ally of former Bosnian Serb military chief and key figure Ratko Mladic. Tolimir is inter alia charged with genocide for his involvement in the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. Tolimir was arrested in a joint effort by Bosnian Serb and Serbian police while crossing the Bosnian-Serb border. This is the first time that Bosnian Serb police arrests a fugitive wanted by the ICTY. AFP and Jurist have further information on this arrest.
Whether this arrest marks a change in Bosnia Serb attitude towards the ICTY remains to be seen. In any case, under international law, Bosnia Serb police has a duty to cooperate with the ICTY ... It still has the opportunity to fulfill this duty by arresting Mladic, Karadžic et al.
