DOCSLIB.ORG

Ein WM-Rahmenwerk Aus Der Sicht Praktischer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ein WM-Rahmenwerk Aus Der Sicht Praktischer Study Group Information Ernst M. Felberbauer, Frederic Labarre (Eds.) What Kind of Sovereignty? Examining Alternative Governance Methods in the South Caucasus 8th Workshop of the Study Group Regional Stability in the South Caucasus 3/2014 Vienna, February 2014 Imprint: Copyright, Production, Publisher: Republic of Austria / Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports Rossauer Lände 1 1090 Vienna, Austria Edited by: National Defence Academy Command Stiftgasse 2a 1070 Vienna, Austria in co-operation with: PfP Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany Study Group Information Copyright: © Republic of Austria / Federal Ministry of Defence and Sports All rights reserved February 2014 ISBN 978-3-902944-36-8 Printing: HDruckZ-ASt Stift 853/14 Stiftgasse 2a 1070 Wien Table of Contents Foreword 7 Ernst M. Felberbauer and Frederic Labarre Keynote Address 13 Chris Kendall Opening Address 23 Nadia Alexandrova-Arbatova PART I: SOVEREIGNTY BY OTHER MEANS 31 What Kind of Sovereignty? 33 Craig Nation Joint Management: Peacemaking and Peacekeeping 43 Elena Mandalenakis Models of Sovereignty in the South Caucasus 59 Gayane Novikova Conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the Light of Georgia’s Democratization and Western Integration Process 69 Irakli Mshedlishvili PART II: SOVEREIGNTY AS PERCEIVED IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS 79 Ways to Achieve Stability in the South Caucasus 81 Dalila Pilia 3 The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict: Territorial Integrity or Reconciliation? 91 Nina Selwan Georgia’s Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: Is It Negotiable? 107 Medea Turashvili The Russian Factor: Perspectives on Stabilizing Georgia’s Relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia 117 Elizaveta Egorova PART III: SOVEREIGNTY AS PERCEIVED IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS 131 Armenian Statehood and Sovereignty Games 133 Hrachya Arzumanyan The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-Azerbaijani Conflict: Understanding the Past and Mapping the Future 149 Masis Mayilian Re-engaging Armenia and Azerbaijan in Reconciliation Process: Prospects and Incentives for Nagorno-Karabakh Breakthrough 163 Elkhan Nuriyev Main Obstacles to Perpetual Peace 181 Hikmet Hadjy-Zadeh PART IV: ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF SOVEREIGNTY IN PRACTICE 187 Sovereignties in a Vacuum 189 Rauf Rajabov 4 Possible Initiatives for the Establishment of Stability and Peace in the South Caucasus 201 Stepan Grigorian Alternative Models of Sovereignty in Practice 207 Ofelya Sargsyan and Hans-Jürgen Zahorka Transitional Intervention Strategies for Conflict Transformation in the South Caucasus 223 Tabib Huseynov Sovereignty Issues in the Post-Soviet Conflicts of the Caucasus: The Case of Abkhazia 241 David Matsaberidze Epilogue 261 Frederic Labarre PART V: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 265 Policy Recommendations 267 List of Authors and Editors 275 5 Foreword Ernst M. Felberbauer and Frederic Labarre The 8th Regional Stability in the South Caucasus Study Group workshop was designed to test the boundaries of conflict resolution. Under the title “What Kind of Sovereignty? Examining Alternative Models of Govern- ance in the South Caucasus”, it aimed at exploring the definition of terms and concepts surrounding governance, and to determine whether their application cannot be allocated among conflicting actors, or better yet, put in common. The keynote and opening addresses, delivered by Chris Kendall of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and Dr. Nadia Arbatova re- spectively, have made two important cases. First, sovereignty (or gov- ernance) is no longer (if it ever was) an absolute in a globalizing world. Second, there are still powerful actors and forces who insist that it is, and anachronistically, are jealous of this prerogative, and fear for its erosion if influenced by certain normative processes, such as NATO and EU enlargement. The stalemate in the South Caucasus over the status of the breakaway regions, over the monopoly of authority over resources, functions and territories by central governments, the tensions between Russia and Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan and the overall dilemma about joining the European Union or the Russian Customs Union is a reflection of the tug-of-war between normative frameworks, between a “sovereign democracy” model and a “multilateral interdependence” model of international relations. This workshop is an attempt at finding a solution to those tensions at the South Caucasus level of analysis by challenging and compromising upon traditional concepts associated with statehood. Governance here is taken in its widest sense. It can be understood as administrative governance (management), or the more traditional politi- cal governance. The meaning that we imparted to this concept had to be very wide indeed to encompass the various aspects of the conflicts under study. This is why governance came to be – for the purpose of this 7 workshop – nearly synonymous with “sovereignty”, itself often confused with “self-determination” and “independence.” We are aware that painting these concepts with the same brush is seman- tically and academically risky. But it was necessary for two important reasons. The first is that the workshop organizers wanted to avoid debat- ing matches over the accuracy of the terms, which would have driven discussions away from substance. After all, it would have been difficult indeed to extract workable policy recommendations from a set of aca- demic definitions. More importantly, it was felt that leaving concepts of “governance”, “sovereignty”, or “management”, etc. to the fortunes of academic freedom would unfetter our participants’ minds and would enable the Study Group to carry the brainstorming process farther. The first panel opened discussions on joint, shared or divided concep- tions of sovereignty. Drs. Nation, Mandalenakis, and Novikova offered a variety of ideas and notions on which the Study Group to seize. Alterna- tive models of governance, such as joint sovereignty, characterised by the distribution of administrative authority along jurisdictional (instead of strictly territorial) boundaries; joint management, which applies sov- ereignty over resources and responsibilities, and a typology of sover- eignty, peculiar to the South Caucasus, and borne out of the conflict situation there. The panel gave a broad impression of the avenues available for explora- tion. It aimed at communicating existing possibilities and experiences to the participants from the region, some of whom may not have been aware of them. Panels 2 and 3 had the same objective, but in reverse. Panels 2 and 3 sought to share with the general public (through this pub- lication) and with experts from outside the region how sovereignty and governance was perceived and understood in the South Caucasus. As the reader will be able to determine from reading the contributions, the con- clusions are surprising. The representation was divided according to sub- regions (Western South Caucasus, and Eastern South Caucasus), since no two conflicts are the same, and out of fairness to the parties repre- sented. Also, this division was necessary because of the rich participa- 8 tion we enjoyed from representatives of Abkhazia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia and South Ossetia. We learn through panels 2 and 3 that governance is sometimes linked to territory, sometimes to population, and even to identity. In other words, answers to “what kind of sovereignty” encompass issues of territorial control, (either at the community or central authority levels), self- determination (meaning ethnic and cultural protection), and population control (through the application of force, reminiscent of the old-fashi- oned Weberian definition of “statehood”). South Ossetia and Abkhazia, vis-à-vis Georgia, certainly fit the model of sovereignty as self- determination/cultural and ethnic protection. For Georgia and Azerbai- jan, however, a Weberian understanding of sovereignty means that gov- ernance has to be heavily centralized. In Nagorno-Karabakh more than anywhere else, however, the choices are clear, and driven by the arms race between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hard security concerns are at the forefront, and the security deficit there is balanced by Russia and Armenia together. In all cases, the idea of sharing sovereignty through federal or confederative measures is met with lukewarm enthusiasm. Breakaway regions insist that only full inde- pendence is a guarantee of stability and safety. Whatever the level of detail of discussions on panels 2 and 3, the aim was reached and the Study Group is able to share with you the sophisticated regional under- standing of sovereignty and governance in the South Caucasus. Panel 4 was designed to elicit practical proposals and measures on how it would be possible to contemplate joint management, shared sover- eignty and allocation of functional responsibilities across various levels of governance and government. The celebrated cases of joint manage- ment of the Inguri River hydroelectric power plant, of the Ergneti market were alluded to. But so were models of shared political governance (shared or divided sovereignty). In particular, allusions to the cases of South Tyrol, the Aland Islands were informative, but even more so were the ones from troubled regions, such as South Sudan, Papua New Guinea and Bougainville, which found workable solutions through shared sov- ereignty. This allowed the participants to tackle the issue of status in 9 new ways, and notably to propose a step-by-step
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Irish Language in Meals Will Also Be Available on Reservation
    ISSN 0257-7860 Nr. 57 SPRING 1987 80p Sterling D eatp o f S gum äs Mac a’ QpobpaiNN PGRRaNpORtb CONfGRGNCC Baase Doolisl) y KaRRaqpeR Welsb LaNquaqc Bills PlaNNiNQ CONtROl Q tpc MaNX QOVGRNMCNt HistORic OwiNNiNG TTpe NoRtp — Loyalist Attituöes A ScaSON iN tl7G FRGNCb CgRip Q0DC l£AGU€ -4LBA: COVIUNN CEIUWCH * BREIZH: KEl/RE KEU1EK Cy/VIRU: UNDEB CELMIDO *ElRE:CONR4DH CfllTHCH KERN O W KE SU NW NS KELTEK • /VWNNIN1COV1MEEY5 CELM GH ALBA striipag bha turadh ann. Dh'fhäs am boireannach na b'lheärr. Sgtiir a deöir. AN DIOGHALTAS AICE "Gun teagamh. fliuair sibh droch naidheachd an diugh. Pheigi." arsa Murchadh Thormaid, "mur eil sibh deönach mise doras na garaids a chäradh innsibh dhomh agus di- 'Seinn iribh o. hiüraibh o. hiigaibh o hi. chuimhnichidh mi c. Theid mi air eeann- Seo agaibh an obair bheir togail fo m'chridh. gnothaich (job) eite. Bhi stiuradh nio chasan do m'dhachaidh bhig fhin. "O cäraichidh sinn doras na garaids. Ma Air criochnacbadh saothair an lä dhomh." tha sibh deiseil tägaidh sinn an drasda agus seallaidh mi dhuibh doras na garaids. Tha Sin mar a sheinn Murchadh Thormaid chitheadh duine gun robh Murchadh 'na turadh ann." "nuair a thill e dhachaidh. "Nuair a bha c dhuine deannta 'na shcacaid dhubh-ghorm Agus leis a sin choisich an triuir a-mach a' stiiiireadh a’ chäir dhachaidh. bha eagail agus na dhungairidhe (dungarees), Bha baga dhan gharaids, an saor ’na shcacaid dhubh- air nach maircadh an ehr bochd air an rarhad uainc aige le chuid inncaian saoir. Bha e mu gorm is dungairidhc , .
    [Show full text]
  • “Éire Go Brách” the Development of Irish Republican Nationalism in the 20Th Into the 21St Centuries
    “Éire go Brách” The Development of Irish Republican Nationalism in the 20th into the 21st Centuries Alexandra Watson Honors Thesis Dr. Giacomo Gambino Department of Political Science Spring 2020 Watson 2 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Literature Review: Irish Nationalism -- What is it ? 5 A Brief History 18 ‘The Irish Question’ and Early Roots of Irish Republicanism 20 Irish Republicanism and the War for Independence 25 The Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921, Pro-Treaty Republicanism vs. Anti-Treaty Republicanism, and Civil War 27 Early Statehood 32 ‘The Troubles’ and the Good Friday Agreement 36 Why is ‘the North’ Different? 36 ‘The Troubles’ 38 The Good Friday Agreement 40 Contemporary Irish Politics: Irish Nationalism Now? 45 Explaining the Current Political System 45 Competing nationalisms Since the Good Friday Agreement and the Possibility of Unification 46 2020 General Election 47 Conclusions 51 Appendix 54 Acknowledgements 57 Bibliography 58 Watson 3 Introduction In June of 2016, the people of the United Kingdom democratically elected to leave the European Union. The UK’s decision to divorce from the European Union has brought significant uncertainty for the country both in domestic and foreign policy and has spurred a national identity crisis across the United Kingdom. The Brexit negotiations themselves, and the consequences of them, put tremendous pressure on already strained international relationships between the UK and other European countries, most notably their geographic neighbour: the Republic of Ireland. The Anglo-Irish relationship is characterized by centuries of mutual antagonism and the development of Irish national consciousness, which ultimately resulted in the establishment of an autonomous Irish free state in 1922.
    [Show full text]
  • South Caucasus and the Global Geopolitics
    3-5 February 2014- Istanbul, Turkey 717 Proceedings of INTCESS14- International Conference on Education and Social Sciences South Caucasus and the Global Geopolitics Erik Davtyan Gyulbekyan st. 38A-28, 0051 Yerevan, Republic of Armenia [email protected] Keywords: Geopolitics, International relations, South Caucasus Abstract. The research presents the analysis of geopolitical developments of the South Caucasus since the collapse of the USSR. The research aims at investigating the role of the South Caucasus in world geopolitics, the balance of power in the region and the circumstances providing the balance, geopolitical interests of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, the trilateral interaction between these states, as well as Russia, Turkey, USA, European Union, the clash of national interests of above mentioned states. Current research also scrutinizes the role of the regional conflicts (issues of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh). In order to accomplish the presentation of the topic and to provide a complete notion about the geopolitics in South Caucasus and its place in world geopolitics, a comparative analysis is given over the regional developments of 1990s and those of 2000s. Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, as well as neighboring states hardly manage to solve the challenges of international regional relations, still leaving a myriad of issues unsolved. Due to new realities the South Caucasus has entered the first decade of the XXI century, being transformed into a geopolitically more important region as well as gaining energy and transit significance for global geopolitical powers. Aforesaid constitutes the main accent of the research 1. Introduction The whole world with its approximately 200 states is divided into continents, which are in their turn divided into regions and sub-regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Uti Possidetis</Em>
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 80 Issue 1 Symposium: Final Status for Kosovo: Article 15 Untying the Gordian Knot December 2004 Some Key Principles for a Lasting Solution of the Status of Kosova: Uti Possidetis, the Ethnic Principle, and Self- Determination Zeinullah Gruda Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Zeinullah Gruda, Some Key Principles for a Lasting Solution of the Status of Kosova: Uti Possidetis, the Ethnic Principle, and Self-Determination, 80 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 353 (2005). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol80/iss1/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. SOME KEY PRINCIPLES FOR A LASTING SOLUTION OF THE STATUS OF KOSOVA: UTI POSSIDETIS, THE ETHNIC PRINCIPLE, AND SELF-DETERMINATION ZEJNULLAH GRUDA, PHD* I. THE OPTIONS FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE KOSOVA ISSUE Kosova is a subject sui generis. Resolution 1244 placed Kosova under the mandate of the U.N. and authorized an international civil and security presence.) Resolution 1244 stresses the temporary character of the current situation and envisions that the future status of Kosova will be determined later. The Resolution leaves open all options for final status, from the inde- pendence of Kosova up to the restoration of Serbian authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating Trans-Ingur/I Economic Relations Views from Two Banks
    RegUlating tRans-ingUR/i economic Relations Views fRom two Banks July 2011 Understanding conflict. Building peace. this initiative is funded by the european union about international alert international alert is a 25-year-old independent peacebuilding organisation. We work with people who are directly affected by violent conflict to improve their prospects of peace. and we seek to influence the policies and ways of working of governments, international organisations like the un and multinational companies, to reduce conflict risk and increase the prospects of peace. We work in africa, several parts of asia, the south Caucasus, the Middle east and Latin america and have recently started work in the uK. our policy work focuses on several key themes that influence prospects for peace and security – the economy, climate change, gender, the role of international institutions, the impact of development aid, and the effect of good and bad governance. We are one of the world’s leading peacebuilding nGos with more than 155 staff based in London and 15 field offices. to learn more about how and where we work, visit www.international-alert.org. this publication has been made possible with the help of the uK Conflict pool and the european union instrument of stability. its contents are the sole responsibility of international alert and can in no way be regarded as reflecting the point of view of the european union or the uK government. © international alert 2011 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 full attribution.
    [Show full text]
  • Geo-Economics
    58 Volume 8 Issue 1-2 2014 THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION GEO-ECONOMICS Vladimer PAPAVA D.Sc. (Econ.), Professor, Rector of the Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University (Tbilisi, Georgia). Vakhtang CHARAIA Doctorate Candidate at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University (Tbilisi, Georgia). REGIONAL RAILWAYS IN THE CENTRAL CAUCASUS AND GEORGIA’S ECONOMIC INTERESTS Abstract his article examines two regional rail- The article also looks at such important way projects, one of which—Kars- aspects of both projects as construction or T Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku (KATB)—is al- restoration cost, financial and freight turn- ready reaching completion and the sec- over, profitability, direct and indirect eco- ond—restoration of the Abkhazian Section nomic benefits, and social effects. It also of the Trans-Caucasian Railway (ASTCR)— gives recommendations for improving these is still being discussed at the political level. regional railway transportation projects. KEYWORDS: railway, regional cooperation, the Central Caucasus, conflict resolution, investments, transport corridors, KATB, ASTCR. Volume 8 Issue 1-2 2014 59 THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION Introduction The Georgian economy has undergone enormous changes during the twenty years of its inde- pendence.1 Since the beginning of the 1990s, railway routes in the Central Caucasus2 have, for many, primarily political, reasons, been essentially disrupted. The conflicts that erupted at the beginning of the 1990s and continue to this day have remained an insurmountable obstacle to social and eco- nomic integration and the development of certain countries and the region as a whole.3 The prospects for restoring transport routes in the Central Caucasus are being examined not only from the commercial and social and economic angle, but primarily in the security context.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening the Russian–Georgian Railway Link Through Abkhazia
    CORE POLICY BRIEF 05 2013 Visiting Address: Hausmanns gate 7 gate Hausmanns Address: Visiting NO Grønland, 9229 PO Box (PRIO) Oslo Institute Research Peace Opening the Russian– Georgian railway link - 0134 Oslo, Norway Oslo, 0134 through Abkhazia A challenging Georgian governance initiative [email protected] www.projectcore.eu (CORE) India and Europe in Resolution Conflict and Governance of Cultures Soon after the parliamentary elec- Key Questions tion in 2012 Georgia’s new gov- ernment declared its willingness to How important is the restoration of the railway link for Georgia and Abkha- reconstruct and reopen the former zia, and particularly for the purpose of railway communication link with conflict resolution between the two? Russia through Abkhazia, which What are the political risks involved in the railway project? ISBN: ISBN: www.prio.no was interrupted as a result of the Does the new initiative meet the in- 978 978 Georgian–Abkhaz war in 1993. terests of all countries in the Caucasus - - 82 82 - - With its confidence-building charac- 7288 7288 region? - - 515 516 ter, the initiative is part of a broader - - 0 7 (print) Georgian foreign policy strategy aimed at re-establishing political and (online) economic relations with Russia, a development that would represent a significant geopolitical challenge for the countries of the South Cauca- sus. The initiative will test Tbilisi’s ability to prevent any changes to Abkhazia’s current political status and to keep the project purely eco- nomic in nature. Nona Mikhelidze Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) Opening the railway: A confidence- building measure The victory of Bidzina Ivanishvili’s coalition in the 2012 parliamentary elections in Georgia has brought about a fundamental change to the Georgian–Abkhaz peace process.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Infrastructure in International Relations: the Case of South Caucasus
    International Journal of Social Sciences Vol. III (4), 2014 The Role of Infrastructure in International Relations: the Case of South Caucasus Erik Davtyan Erik Davtyan- Yerevan State University, 1 Alex Manoogian, Yerevan 0025 Armenia. Email: [email protected] Abstract The research is concentrated on the impact of hard types of infrastructure on international relations in South Caucasus. The matter of fact is that transport, energy and water management infrastructures have always played a key role in the formulation of foreign strategies of Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan. The dislocation of various types of infrastructure has highly influenced the level of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Sometimes the economic and political relations of South Caucasian republics with the neighboring states (i.e. Russia, Turkey and Iran) have been conditioned by the “quantity” and the “quality” of infrastructural development that Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan possessed. Therefore the research aims at investigating the impact of regional infrastructures on regional affairs in the post-Soviet era, simultaneously drawing parallels with the pre-Soviet period, i.e. during the independent nation-states of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan (1918-1921). The immense progress in high technologies has had a prominent impact on state communications in the scope of national security concepts of the three states. Thus, the struggle for “more infrastructures” becomes more and more important in the context of geopolitical terms, therefore the struggle “through infrastructures” is considered to be one of the efficient ways of policy-making process in the “South Caucasian concert”. Keywords: South Caucasus, infrastructures, balance of power, international relations, geopolitics 22 International Journal of Social Sciences Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • From Classical Conception to Modern Self-Determination
    THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES: FROM CLASSICAL CONCEPTION TO MODERN SELF-DETERMINATION O PRINCÍPIO DA AUTODETERMINAÇÃO DOS POVOS: DA CONCEPÇÃO CLÁSSICA À AUTODETERMINAÇÃO MODERNA Juan Manuel Indacochea Jauregui1 Walter Abanto Rojas2 Abstract: In recent times, international practice has provided new cases of decolonization, but also of mutually agreed secessions with a previous independence referendum, as well as violent ruptures. Although the unilateral secessions are not well received by the international community, they are not only possible, but they have been favored by the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo. This paper analyzes new cases involving the right to self-determination, to later try to identify new holders of the right to self- determination in the light of modern international practice. It focuses on the “wide self- determination” approach, the so-called “modern self-determination”, whose holders are not “peoples under colonial rule, foreign domination and alien subjugation”. Keywords: Autonomy, Democracy, Independence, Self-Determination, Secession, Statehood. 1 Master in International Law by the University of Paris-Nanterre, France. Master in Law by the University of Strasbourg, France. Former Consultant of the Andean Court of Justice. Lawyer from the PUCP, Peru. 2 Bachelor in Law from the PUCP, Peru. Ex Teaching Assistant (PUCP). PhD Candidate at Florida International University (FIU). Resumo: Nos últimos tempos, a prática internacional forneceu novos casos de descolonização, mas também de secessão mutuamente acordada, com um devido referendo de independência, além de rupturas violentas. Embora as secessões unilaterais não sejam bem recebidas pela comunidade internacional, elas não são apenas possíveis, mas foram favorecidas pela Opinião Consultiva do CIJ sobre a legalidade da declaração de independência realizada pelas Instituições Provisionais de Auto-Governo de Kosovo.
    [Show full text]
  • Objet: Examen Des Sanctions Disciplinaires Pouvant Être Infligées
    Direction générale Bibliothèque, Recherche et Documentation NOTE DE RECHERCHE Liberté d’expression des parlementaires […] Objet: Examen des sanctions disciplinaires pouvant être infligées par les parlements des États membres en raison d’une opinion exprimée ou de propos tenus par un député devant l’assemblée. Exposé des motifs pour lesquels des sanctions peuvent être infligées et recensement des cas d’application concrets les plus significatifs […] Septembre 2017 […] P L A N Synthèse…..………………………..………………………………. p. 1 Tableaux récapitulatifs......................………………………………. p. 25 Réponses au questionnaire..……………………..………………….. p. 31 Droit allemand…………………..………………….……………… p. 91 Droit bulgare…………………..…………………………………… p. 96 Droit espagnol…….…………………………………...…………… p. 102 Droit finlandais.………………..………………………………...… p. 111 Droit français…………………………………………………...….. p. 113 Droit hongrois……………..……………..………………………… p. 120 Droit irlandais……………..……………..………………………… p. 127 Droit italien……………………………………………………….... p. 136 Droit letton……………………………..…………………………... p. 143 Droit polonais.……………………………………………………… p. 146 Droit du Royaume-Uni..…………………………………………… p. 155 Droit tchèque………………….……………………………………. p. 163 Cour EDH et ACPE………………………………………………… p. 173 1 SYNTHÈSE INTRODUCTION 1. La liberté d’expression des parlementaires s’inscrit dans la tradition juridique de tous les États membres. Elle se traduit par le fait que les parlementaires doivent être protégés, en leur qualité d’élus, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions au sein de l’enceinte parlementaire. 2. Cependant, cette protection ne signifie pas qu’un parlementaire, n’ayant pas respecté les règles de conduite au sein de son assemblée, ne puisse être sanctionné disciplinairement pour son comportement perturbateur. 3. La présente note vise la liberté d’expression des membres des Parlements nationaux des États membres sous deux aspects distincts. D’une part, le régime de sanctions disciplinaires infligées par ces Parlements à leurs membres pour les propos tenus dans leurs fonctions parlementaires et la mise en œuvre effective de celui-ci.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Corrupt Practices As Foreign Policy Tools
    CORRUPTION AS STATECRAFT Using Corrupt Practices as Foreign Policy Tools Transparency International (TI) is the world’s leading non-governmental anti-corruption organisation, addressing corruption and corruption risk in its many forms through a network of more than 100 national chapters worldwide. Transparency International Defence and Security (TI-DS) works to reduce corruption in defence and security worldwide. Author: Dr Karolina MacLachlan Research provided by: Nikolai Topalov Transparency International Anti-Corruption Center, Armenia Transparency International Bosnia & Herzegovina Editors: Katherine Dixon, Leah Wawro, Deirdre Mahony With thanks for feedback and assistance to: Transparency International EU N-OST Public Eye This report was funded by Open Society European Policy Institute as well as UK aid from the UK government. © 2019 Transparency International. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in parts is permitted, providing that full credit is given to Transparency International and provided that any such reproduction, in whole or in parts, is not sold or incorporated in works that are sold. Written permission must be sought from Transparency International if any such reproduction would adapt or modify the original content. Published July 2019. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of February 2019. Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes
    [Show full text]
  • The Good Friday Agreement and a United Ireland Author(S): Rory Montgomery Source: Irish Studies in International Affairs , 2021, Vol
    The Good Friday Agreement and a United Ireland Author(s): Rory Montgomery Source: Irish Studies in International Affairs , 2021, Vol. 32, No. 2, Analysing and Researching Ireland, North and South (2021), pp. 83-110 Published by: Royal Irish Academy Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3318/isia.2021.32b.5 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Royal Irish Academy is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Irish Studies in International Affairs This content downloaded from 78.18.134.155 on Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:56:35 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms The Good Friday Agreement and a United Ireland Rory Montgomery Former Irish Diplomat; Queen’s University Belfast (Mitchell Institute) and Trinity College Dublin (Long Room Hub) ABSTRACT The bedrock of the Good Friday Agreement is an intricately interwoven and balanced set of principles, understandings and commitments regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. However, although its section on constitutional issues is of profound historic importance, little of it was freshly negotiated in the 1996–98 Multi-Party Talks. It was not a major topic in the negotiations. In the debate about the possibility of a united Ireland, the Agreement is a key point of reference, as will be outlined in this article.
    [Show full text]