DOCSLIB.ORG

Changing Views on the Use of Force: the German Position Stefan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Changing Views on the Use of Force: the German Position Stefan Changing Views on the Use of Force: The German Position Stefan Talmon* Contents 1. Introduction 2. Authorization of the Use of Force by the UN Security Council 2.1. Expanding the Concept of Threats to the Peace 2.2. The New Concept of Revived Authorization 2.2.1. The Bombing of Military Targets in Iraq 2.2.2. The War Against Iraq 3. The Right of Self-Defence 3.1. Expanding the Definition of Armed Attack 3.1.1. Attacks on a State's Outposts and Nationals Abroad 3.1.2. Attacks by Non-State Actors 3.2. Widening the Notion of 'Occurrence' of an Armed Attack 3.2.1. Ongoing Attacks 3.2.2. Imminent and Non-Imminent Attacks 3.3. Retaining the Means of Self-Defence 4. Humanitarian Intervention 5. Military Rescue Operations 6. Self-Help Involving the Use of Force 7. Conclusion 1. Introduction Despite all the talk of multilateralism and European integration, decisions on 'war and peace' are still very much a national affair. Referring to the question of the possible use of force against Iraq, on 13 September 2002 German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder said in the German Parliament, the Bundestag: "the fundamental existential questions of the German nation will * Dr., University Lecturer in Public International Law at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St. Anne's College, Oxford. be decided in Berlin and nowhere else."' For a long time, the bitter experience of two devastating world wars shaped Germany's view on the use of force in such a way that there was general agreement that "war and the use of force must never again have their origin in Germany".2 But in recent years the use of military force is once again being seen "as a means of last resort to solve international conflicts".33 In July 1994, the Federal Constitutional Court unfastened the self-imposed 'constitutional straitjacket' that prevented German armed forces from being deployed outside Germany 44 Since then, the Bundestag has decided on more than 50 occasions whether to send German soldiers abroad.5 Over the last 11 years, Germany has moved from participation in UN peacekeeping operations to full-blown combat operations, with and without authorization by the Security Council.66 It has always been accepted, however, that force may only be used in accordance with international law and, especially but not exclusively, the Charter of the United Nations? According to the German Government, the United Nations is founded on the principle of the prohibition of the use of force, a principle that replaces "the law of the strong with the strength of the law".8 The dual nature of the prohibition of the use of force, both as a Charter principle and a rule of customary international law, was accepted by the German Government9 long before it was spelt out by the International 1 Deutscher Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll (Stenographischer Bericht) (hereinafter BT- PIPr.), 14/253, 13 September 2002, p. 25576 (all translations from German sources are by the author). 2 See the speech by Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel at a ceremony to mark the 25th anniversary of Germany's membership of the United Nations hosted by the German United Nations Association Bonn, 14 September 1998, available at �|··717www.germany- 0 1 |,|·" typ="DEC2" xbd="1030" xhg="182" ybd="1757" yhg="1716" ID="I50.27.1">info.org/relaunch/politics/speeches/091498.html>, last visited 28 May 2005. 3 See the policy statement of Chancellor Schroder in the Bundestag on 'Our responsibility for peace': BT-PIPr. 15/25, 13 February 2003, p. 1876. See also the statement of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer at the general meeting of the German Society for Foreign Affairs, 24 November 1999, that "the use of force as a last resort cannot always be avoided", available at �|··717www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/ 0 1 |,|·" typ="BWD" xbd="589" xhg="182" ybd="2048" yhg="2008" ID="I50.33.1">speeches/ 12499.html>, last visited 28 May 2005. 4 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of 12 July 1994, BVerfGE 90, p. 286. 5 See Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksachen (hereinafter BT-Drs.) 15/2742, 23 March 2004, p. 1. 6 For an overview see W. Hermsdorfer, 'Die Auslandseinsatze der Bundesehr', 17 Humanitares Volkerrecht [Hu V] (2004) pp. 17-28. 7 set BT-Drs. 15/2742, 23 March 2004, p. 4. 8 See BT-PIPr. 15/25, 13 February 2003, p. 1876 (Chancellor Schroder). 9 See e.g., BT-PIPr. 10/29, 14 October 1983, p. 1926. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freie Demokraten Trauern Um Klaus Kinkel
    Freie Demokraten trauern um Klaus Kinkel FDP| 05.03.2019 - 10:30 Freie Demokraten trauern um Klaus Kinkel Die Freien Demokraten trauern um ihren ehemaligen Bundesvorsitzenden und Außenminister a.D., Klaus Kinkel. Er starb am Montag im Alter von 82 Jahren. Christian Lindner, Bundesvorsitzender der FDP, schrieb in einer ersten Reaktion: "Der Tod von Klaus Kinkel geht mir nahe. Er war ein aufrechter und bescheidener Mann mit Charakter, dessen freundschaftlichen Rat ich sehr geschätzt habe. Ich habe ihm viel zu verdanken." Lindner würdigte Kinkels Verdienste um Deutschland und Europa: "Klaus Kinkel verstand sich nie als Parteipolitiker, sondern im besten Sinne des Wortes als Staatsdiener. Er erwarb sich so große Verdienste und hat für unser Land und unsere Partei mehr bewirkt, als öffentlich mitunter wahrgenommen wurde." Kinkel habe sich "um diese Partei, aber vor allen Dingen auch um unser Land hoch verdient" gemacht. "Er verkörperte vieles von dem, was wir brauchen: Vernunft, Offenheit und Toleranz. In diesen gefährlichen Zeiten sei Kinkels Bekenntnis zu Europa und dessen Grundwerten nötiger denn je", zollt er dem starken moralischen Kompass des liberalen Urgesteins seinen Respekt. "Wir verlieren mit ihm einen väterlichen Freund. Er war uns bis in diese Tage ein weiser und bisweilen leidenschaftlicher Ratgeber. Dabei war er immer loyal und diskret. Wir werden ihn sehr vermissen", so Lindner. Was er auch tat, er sei in rauem Umfeld ein prinzipientreuer, liebenswürdiger und bescheidener Mensch geblieben: "Er wird uns fehlen." Lindner erklärte: "Als Bundesvorsitzender hat er sich von 1993 bis 1995 für unsere Partei in schwieriger Zeit in die Pflicht nehmen lassen und hat sie trotz damals schlechter Ausgangslage wieder in den Bundestag und die Bundesregierung geführt.
    [Show full text]
  • Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger Bundesjustizministerin Im Gespräch Mit Werner Reuß
    BR-ONLINE | Das Online-Angebot des Bayerischen Rundfunks Sendung vom 19.5.2010, 20.15 Uhr Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger Bundesjustizministerin im Gespräch mit Werner Reuß Reuß: Verehrte Zuschauer, ganz herzlich willkommen zum alpha-Forum. Unser Gast ist heute Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. Sie ist Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages, Landesvorsitzende der FDP in Bayern und, zum zweiten Mal in ihrer Karriere, Bundesministerin der Justiz. Ich freue mich, dass sie hier ist, ganz herzlich willkommen, Frau Bundesministerin. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: Ich freue mich auch, ich grüße Sie. Reuß: Das Bundesjustizministerium gehört ja zu den fünf klassischen Ressorts einer Regierung neben dem Auswärtigen Amt, dem Innenministerium, dem Verteidigungsministerium und dem Finanzministerium. Es drängt allerdings nicht so sehr in den Vordergrund wie andere Ministerien. Ihre Amtskollegin, die bayerische Justizministerin Beate Merk, meinte einmal: "Die Justiz war immer ein zurückhaltendes Ressort." Allerdings gehören sehr viele Bereiche zu Ihrem Ressort, u. a. der Generalbundesanwalt, das Bundesverwaltungsgericht, der Bundesgerichtshof, das Deutsche Patentamt, in dem Sie selbst auch einmal gearbeitet haben. Was sind denn die drei, vier wichtigsten Aufgaben der Bundesjustizministerin? Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger: Die Bundesjustizministerin hat ja mehr Aufgaben als die Länderjustizminister, weil die meiste Gesetzgebungskompetenz für das Strafrecht, für das Bürgerliche Gesetzbuch, für die allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen, für das Insolvenzrecht, das
    [Show full text]
  • Of Germany and EMU
    Comment [COMMENT1]: NOAM Task Force on Economic and Monetary Union Briefing 3 Second Revision The Federal Republic of Germany and EMU Directorate-General for Research Division for Economic Affairs The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the European Parliament's position. The Commission's recommendation to the Council is that Germany satisfies the criteria for the introduction of a single currency. The EMI notes in its report that, in order to bring the debt ratio back to 60%, considerable further progress towards consolidation is necessary. Luxembourg, 20 April 1998 Contents PE 166.061/rev.2 EMU and Germany Introduction 3 I. Economic convergence 3 (a) Price stability 4 (b) Budget deficits 5 (c) Government debt 8 (d) Participation in the exchange rate mechanism 10 (e) Long-term interest rates 11 (f) Economic growth, unemployment and the current account balance 12 II. Legislative convergence 13 (a) Scope of necessary adaptation of national legislation 13 (b) Overview and legislative action taken since 1994 14 (c) Assessment of compatibility 15 III. The political background 15 (a) The "Euro petition" 15 (b)The Federal Government 16 (c) The Bundesbank 17 (d) The Christian-Democratic Union (CDU) 18 (e) The Christian-Social Union (CSU) 20 (f) The Free Democratic Party (FDP) 20 (g) The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) 21 (h) Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 23 (i) The Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) 23 (j) The debate in the universities 23 (k) Trade and industry 25 (l) The trade unions 26 (m) The German banks 26 Tables and figures Table 1: Germany and the Maastricht criteria 3 Table 2: Inflation 4 Table 3: Government debt dynamics 8 Table 4: Sustainability of debt trends 9 Table 5: Spread of the DEM against median currency 10 Table 6: Long-term interest rates 11 Figure 1: National consumer price index 5 Figure 2: Government deficits 6 Figure 3: State of government debt 8 Figure 4: Development of long-term interest rates 12 Figure 5: Real economic growth and unemployment rates 13 Authors: C.
    [Show full text]
  • Deutscher Bundestag
    Plenarprotokoll 14/97 Deutscher Bundestag Stenographischer Bericht 97. Sitzung Berlin, Mittwoch, den 5. April 2000 Inhalt: Eintritt der Abgeordneten Grietje Bettin in den Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling CDU/CSU . 8982 D Deutschen Bundestag . 8980 A Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin BMZ . 8983 A Detlef Dzembritzki SPD . 8983 B Tagesordnungspunkt 1: Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin Befragung der Bundesregierung (Finan- BMZ . 8983 C zierungskonferenz für Südosteuropa in Brüssel am 29./30. März 2000) . 8979 B Ina Lenke F.D.P. 8983 D Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin Dr. Edith Niehuis, Parl. Staatssekretärin BMZ . 8979 B BMFSFJ . 8984 A Christian Schmidt (Fürth) CDU/CSU . 8980 A Eckart von Klaeden CDU/CSU . 8984 D Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin Fritz Rudolf Körper, Parl. Staatssekretär BMI 8985 A BMZ . 8980 B Jürgen Koppelin F.D.P . 8985 B Peter Weiß (Emmendingen) CDU/CSU . 8980 C Fritz Rudolf Körper, Parl. Staatssekretär BMI 8985 B Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin BMZ . 8980 C Peter Rauen CDU/CSU . 8980 D Tagesordnungspunkt 2: Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin BMZ . 8980 D Fragestunde (Drucksache 14/3082) . 8985 C Klaus-Jürgen Hedrich CDU/CSU . 8981 A Kommunikationstechnische Realisierung des Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin Konzeptes „Arbeitsamt 2000“ BMZ . 8981 A MdlAnfr 2, 3 Peter Weiß (Emmendingen) CDU/CSU . 8981 B Hans-Joachim Fuchtel CDU/CSU Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin Antw PStSekr’in Ulrike Mascher BMA . 8985 C, 8986 B BMZ . 8981 C ZusFr Hans-Joachim Fuchtel CDU/CSU 8985 D, 8986 C Dr. Eberhard Brecht SPD . 8982 A ZusFr Eckart von Klaeden CDU/CSU . 8986 C Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Bundesministerin BMZ . 8982 A Auswirkungen des Entwurfs einer Änderung Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Communities and the Habitus of Restraint: Germany and the United States on Iraq
    Review of International Studies (2007), 33, 285–305 Copyright British International Studies Association doi:10.1017/S0260210507007516 Security communities and the habitus of restraint: Germany and the United States on Iraq CORNELIU BJOLA AND MARKUS KORNPROBST* Abstract. Borrowing from Norbert Elias, we introduce the habitus of restraint to the study of security communities. This habitus constitutes a key dimension of the glue that holds security communities together. The perceived compatibility of practices emanating from the habitus that members hold fosters the collective identity upon which a security community is built. The violation of a member’s habitus by the practices of another member, however, disrupts the reproduction of collective identity and triggers a crisis of the security community. Our analysis of Germany’s reaction to Washington’s case for war against Iraq provides empirical evidence for the salience of the habitus for the internal dynamics of security communities. Introduction At first glance, it is surprising that Saddam Hussein triggered the deepest post-World War II rift in the usually amicable relationship between the United States and Germany. The two countries share many values that should have prevented action taken against a vicious dictator from becoming a contentious issue. Saddam Hussein’s longstanding record of gross human rights abuses and aggression against other states should have been yet another reason to draw the two allies even closer together. This scenario, however, failed to materialise. Not only did the United States and Germany fail to find a common ground on Iraq. They even started to fundamentally question the nature of their relationship.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratisation European Neighbourhood
    DEMOCRATISATION IN THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD DEMOCRATISATION IN THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD MICHAEL EMERSON, EDITOR CONTRIBUTORS Senem Aydın Michael Emerson Hendrik Kraetzschmar Alina Mungiu-Pippidi Hryhoriy Nemyria Ghia Nodia Gergana Noutcheva Nikolay Petrov Madalena Resende Uladzimir Rouda Emad El-Din Shahin Bassam Tibi Nathalie Tocci Marius Vahl Richard Youngs CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound analytical research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today. The chapters of this book were in most cases initially presented as working papers to a conference on “American and European Approaches to Democratisation in the European Neighbourhood”, held in Brussels at CEPS on 20-21 June 2005. CEPS gratefully acknowledges financial support for this conference from Compagnia di San Paolo, the Open Society Institute, the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the US Mission to the European Union in Brussels. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors writing in a personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect those of CEPS or any other institution with which the authors are associated. ISBN 92-9079-592-1 © Copyright 2005, Centre for European Policy Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies. Centre for European Policy Studies Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels Tel: 32 (0) 2 229.39.11 Fax: 32 (0) 2 219.41.51 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ceps.be CONTENTS Preface Introduction 1 Michael Emerson Part I.
    [Show full text]
  • Hertkorn.Pmd
    The Impact of September 11th on European Security and Defense Policy and Coercive Prevention: The German Perspective by Michaela C. Hertkorn INTRODUCTION Upon entering office, the newly elected Bush Administration put issues such as missile defense on top of its foreign and security policy agenda.1 However, given transatlantic discourse up to the attacks of September 11th, topics like the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) still seemed relevant to partners on both sides of the Atlantic. This paper shall argue that while the focus of conflict prevention lies in the prevention of the outbreak of violence, preventive diplomacy and its coercive elements also strive at preventing further regional escalation and the re-occurrence of violence. In that sense, conflict prevention is strongly linked with post-conflict peacekeeping. Transatlantic relations, particularly in the late 1990s, served as a context to organize and coordinate peacekeeping in the Balkans, with the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the main diplomatic, political, and economic platforms in the absence of corresponding UN mandates. How are transatlantic relations relevant to the topic of conflict prevention? Given European interest in institutionalizing conflict prevention within the bodies of the EU in the second half of the 1990s, they do matter. While there were intentions to incorporate conflict prevention within the Council of Ministers, today within the EU, conflict prevention is a strong focus of the EU Commission. To mainstream conflict prevention, cooperation between the High Representative of EU Foreign and Security Policy on the one side and the EU Commission on the other side seems necessary to successfully link issues of conflict prevention with the common foreign and security policy of the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Deutscher Bundestag Gesetzentwurf
    Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 14/0 14. Wahlperiode 03.04.2001 Gesetzentwurf der Abgeordneten Hans-Joachim Otto (Frankfurt), Rainer Funke, Prof. Dr. Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig, Ina Albowitz, Dr. Klaus Kinkel, Gerhard Schüßler, Dr. Hermann Otto Solms, Hildebrecht Braun, Rainer Brüderle, Ernst Burgbacher, Ulrike Flach, Horst Friedrich, Hans-Michael Goldmann, Joachim Günther, Dr. Karl-Heinz Guttmacher, Klaus Haupt, Dr. Helmut Haussmann, Ulrich Heinrich, Walter Hirche, Birgit Hombur- ger, Dr. Werner Hoyer, Dr. Heinrich L. Kolb, Gudrun Kopp, Jürgen Koppelin, Ina Lenke, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Dirk Niebel, Günther Friedrich Nolting, Detlef Parr, Cornelia Pieper, Dr. Irmgard Schwaetzer, Dr. Max Stadler, Carl-Ludwig Thiele, Dr. Dieter Thomae, Jürgen Türk, Dr. Wolfgang Gerhardt und der Fraktion der F.D.P. Entwurf eines Gesetzes für eine Reform des Stiftungszivilrechts (Stiftungsrechtsre- formgesetz) A. Problem Am 14. Juli 2000 wurde im Deutschen Bundestag die Reform des Stiftungssteuerrechts beschlossen. Damals kündigte die Bundesregierung die Vorlage eines Gesetzentwurfs zur Reform des Stiftungszivilrechts an. Zwar hat sich mittlerweile eine Arbeitsgruppe des Bundes und der Länder der Thematik angenommen. Prak- tikable Ergebnisse stehen aber bis heute aus. Ob in absehbarer Zeit mit einem Regierungsentwurf zur Reform des Stiftungsrecht gerechnet werden kann, hat die Bundesregierung in ihrer Antwort auf eine entsprechende Kleine Anfrage der F.D.P.-Bundestagsfraktion (Drucksache 14/5055) offen gelassen. Über die Parteigrenzen hinweg besteht aber weiterhin Einigkeit darin, daß eine weitere Stärkung der Stiftungskultur in Deutschland ein modernes Stiftungsrecht voraussetzt. In der Praxis verzweifeln potentielle Stifter immer wieder an den bürokratischen Strukturen der Stiftungsbe- hörden. Zudem gelten Stiftungen und ihre Tätigkeiten in der Öffentlichkeit immer noch als wenig transpa- rent.
    [Show full text]
  • Stenographischer Bericht 123. Sitzung
    Plenarprotokoll 14/123 Deutscher Bundestag Stenographischer Bericht 123. Sitzung Berlin, Mittwoch, den 11. Oktober 2000 Inhalt: Erweiterung der Tagesordnung . 11783 A Aussage des Staatssekretärs im Auswärtigen Amt Pleuger hinsichtlich einer Eingliederung des BMZ in das Auswärtige Amt Tagesordnungspunkt 1: MdlAnfr 4 Befragung der Bundesregierung: Aktuali- Peter Weiß (Emmendingen) CDU/CSU sierung des deutschen Stabilitätspro- gramms . 11783 A Antw StMin Dr. Ludger Volmer AA . 11790 A Hans Eichel, Bundesminister BMF . 11783 B ZusFr Peter Weiß (Emmendingen) CDU/CSU 11790 A Hans Michelbach CDU/CSU . 11784 B ZusFr Jürgen Koppelin F.D.P. 11790 D Hans Eichel, Bundesminister BMF . 11784 C Zugang zur gesetzlichen Rentenversicherung Jürgen Koppelin F.D.P. 11786 A für Tagesmütter Hans Eichel, Bundesminister BMF . 11786 B MdlAnfr 6, 7 Rainer Brüderle F.D.P. 11787 A Ina Lenke F.D.P. Hans Eichel, Bundesminister BMF . 11787 B Antw StSekr Peter Haupt BMFSFJ . .11791 A, C Hans Michelbach CDU/CSU . 11788 A ZusFr Ina Lenke F.D.P. .11791 B, C Hans Eichel, Bundesminister BMF . 11788 B Aufnahme von Transporten abgebrannter Eckart von Klaeden CDU/CSU . 11788 D Brennelemente Hans Eichel, Bundesminister BMF . 11788 D MdlAnfr 8, 9 Dr. Paul Laufs CDU/CSU Tagesordnungspunkt 2: Antw PStSekr’in GilaAltmann BMU 11792 C, 11793 A Fragestunde ZusFr Dr. Paul Laufs CDU/CSU . 11792 D, 11793 B (Drucksache 14/4206) . 11788 D ZusFr Eckart von Klaeden CDU/CSU . 11793 C Eventuelle Eingliederung des BMZ in das Aus- Nichteinladung Österreichs zu den Einheitsfei- wärtige Amt erlichkeiten am 3. Oktober 2000 MdlAnfr 1 MdlAnfr 12, 13 Peter Weiß (Emmendingen) (CDU/CSU) Dr. Klaus Rose CDU/CSU Antw StSekr Erich Stather BMZ .
    [Show full text]
  • President Clinton's Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign
    President Clinton’s Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign Leaders, Representatives, and Dignitaries from January 23, 1993 thru January 19, 20011∗ 1993 Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, January 23, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, January 23, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine, January 26, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, January 29, 1993, White House Telephone call with Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel of Turkey, February 1, 1993, White House Meeting with Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel of Germany, February 4, 1993, White House Meeting with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, February 5, 1993, White House Meeting with President Turgut Ozal of Turkey, February 8, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus, February 9, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom, February 10, 1993, White House Telephone call with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, February 10, 1993, White House 1∗ Meetings that were only photo or ceremonial events are not included in this list. Meeting with Foreign Minister Michio Watanabe of Japan, February 11, 1993,
    [Show full text]
  • Germany and the Question of Turkey's Membership in the European Union
    materiały studialne PISM research papers Germany and the question of Turkey’s membership in the European Union ADAM SZYMAŃSKI No. 4, MARCH 2007 SPIS TREŚCI Niemcy wobec rozszerzenia Unii Europejskiej o Turcję /5–21/ 1. Uwarunkowania stanowiska Niemiec wobec tureckiej akcesji . 8 2. Władze niemieckie wobec członkostwa Turcji w UE . 9 2.1. Lata 1996–1998 – okres rządów Helmuta Kohla . 10 2.2. Lata 1998–2005 – okres rządów Gerharda Schrödera . 12 2.3. Lata 2005–2006 – okres rządów Angeli Merkel . 18 3. Konkluzje . 20 CONTENTS Germany and the question of Turkey’s membership in the European Union /23–40/ 1. Factors determining Germany’s position on Turkey’s accession . 26 2. Official German policy on Turkish membership in the EU. 28 2.1. 1996–1998: the Helmut Kohl government . 28 2.2. 1998–2005: the Gerhard Schröder government . 31 2.3. 2005–2006: the Angela Merkel government. 37 3. Conclusions. 39 Germany and the question of Turkey’s membership in the European Union 25 Enlargement of the European Union is an incremental process which begins before formal accession of a given state and continues thereafter. One can distinguish four main areas of studies of this subject. These are: 1) the policy of candidates for EU membership; 2) the policy of member states towards EU enlargement; 3) European Union’s enlargement policy; 4) the consequences of this process.1 In this study it is the second of these areas that will be analysed, with the focus on the policy followed by German governments and presidents on the question of the accession of Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Kosovo: German Politics and Policies in the Balkans
    THE LEGACY OF KOSOVO: GERMAN POLITICS AND POLICIES IN THE BALKANS Wolfgang-Uwe Friedrich editor GERMAN ISSUES 22 American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University THE LEGACY OF KOSOVO: GERMAN POLITICS AND POLICIES IN THE BALKANS Wolfgang-Uwe Friedrich Wolfgang Ischinger Rudolf Scharping GERMAN ISSUES 22 The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) is a center for advanced research, study, and discussion on the politics, culture, and society of the Federal Republic of Germany. Established in 1983 and affiliated with The Johns Hopkins University but governed by its own Board of Trustees, AICGS is a privately incorporated institute dedicated to independent, critical, and comprehensive analysis and assessment of current German issues. Its goals are to help develop a new generation of American scholars with a thorough understanding of contemporary Germany, deepen American knowledge and understanding of current German developments, contribute to American policy analysis of problems relating to Germany, and promote interdisciplinary and comparative research on Germany. Executive Director: Jackson Janes Research Director: Carl Lankowski Board of Trustees, Cochair: Steven Muller Board of Trustees, Cochair: Harry J. Gray The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. ©2000 by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies ISBN 0-941441-51-2 Additional copies of this AICGS German Issue are available from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Suite 420, 1400 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-2217. Telephone 202/332-9312, Fax 202/265-9531, E-mail: [email protected], Web: http://www.aicgs.org C O N T E N T S Foreword ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]