Say No to the EU Death Penalty the Lisbon Treaty Allows Death Penalty and Killing of People by the State

September 2009 No 17 ISSN 1422-8831 Current Concerns PO Box CH-8044 Zurich Phone: +41 44 350 65 50 Fax: +41 44 350 65 51 E-Mail: [email protected] Current Concerns Website: www.currentconcerns.ch The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, AZB and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law 8044 Zurich English Edition of Zeit-Fragen Say No to the EU Death Penalty The Lisbon Treaty Allows Death Penalty and Killing of People by the State. An interview with Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider Oliver Janich, “Focus-Money”: Professor Charter and under due consideration of the It is actually the normal case. If the Constitu- The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Schachtschneider, according to your lawsuit “explanations” listed in the Charter giving tional Court does not want to tackle an issue, European Union does not contain any prec- against the EU Treaty of Lisbon at the Bun- the sources of these provisions. it simply does not comment on it. edence or reservation of national fundamen- desverfassungsgericht (The German Federal tal rights or a principle of favorability with Constitutional Court), the treaty allows the Why so long-winded? Is this legally possible? respect to these rights. Those who claim this reintroduction of the death penalty and the Well, just to conceal this fact. The parliamen- Legally this is more than questionable, but it prove their ignorance of the Union legisla- killing of humanes. This sounds outrageous. tarians only get the text of the treaty which is being done. tion. What is the base of your argument? is difficult enough to understand and much Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider: too long. According to the explanation, death penalty How is this possible? The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the can be introduced in case of war or danger of They argue with article 53 of the Charter of European Union, in its “explanations” and But is it now unambiguous that the killing of war. This is a very theoretical case. Fundamental Rights. But this article contains “negative definitions” accompanying the fun- people is allowed if the Treaty takes effect? Really? Are not we at war in Afghanistan? no such provision. It says: “Nothing in this damental rights, allows a reintroduction of Yes, the Charter of Fundamental Rights was Who is defining war? What is danger of war? Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or the death penalty in case of war or imminent declared in Nice in 2000. But since it was not What about the Yugoslavia war? adversely affecting human rights and funda- war, but also the killing of humans to sup- ratified by all countries, it was not binding mental freedoms as recognized, in their re- press insurgency or riot. This is in contradic- under international law. If the Treaty takes But is not it normal that deserters are execut- spective fields of application, by Union law tion to the abolishment of the death penalty effect, the Charter will become binding as ed in war or in times of war? and international law and by international in Germany (Article 102 of the German Con- well. Yes, in dictatorships. agreements to which the Union, the Commu- stitution), in Austria and elsewhere which re- nity or all the Member States are party, in- sults from the principle of dignity. But this clause is only part of the explana- It is even more frightening that in case of in- cluding the European Convention for the Pro- tions… surgency or riot, killings are possible with- tection of Human Rights and Fundamental But does not the Charter prohibit capital They are binding under article 52 clause 3 out law and without any approval by a judge. Freedoms, and by the Member States’ con- punishment? and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Who is defining this? stitutions.” The crucial part is the clause “in The relevant text for this is not article 2, You can read the corresponding explanation Exactly. I think that Monday demonstrations their respective fields of application”. It means clause 2 of the Charter which prohibits con- of the comment in the Official Journal of the in Leipzig [which led to the overthrow of the that the EU fundamental rights are decisive if demning people to death or executing them, European Union. There is no room for diver- communist Regime in East Germany in 1989] the Union’s law is applicable and the nation- but the explanation of this article which was gent interpretations. And: why should it be can be defined as riot, like virtually any non- al fundamental rights are decisive if national incorporated into the treaty, originating from written there if it is not meant to be there? authorized demonstration. Or take the tur- law is applicable. There is no case when both the European Convention Human Rights of moil in Greece or the demonstrations recent- fundamental rights texts are decisive. 1950. But has not the German Constitutional Court ly in Cologne and Hamburg. All you need is a According to article 6, clause 3 of the rejected your interpretation by acknowledg- few punks [“Autonome”] throwing stones. But could not the European Court of Justice EU Treaty in the Lisbon Version, the rights, ing the Lisbon Treaty? declare that national law has precedence in freedoms and principles of the charter are Not at all. It has not commented on this ques- There are politicians and jurists who argue this case? interpreted according to the general provi- tion. that the fundamental rights of a country can sions of chapter VII of the Charter which de- only be improved by the EU treaty, but not fines the interpretation and application of this Is that the usual procedure? reduced. continued on page 2 The EU’s Satanic Plans: The Return of Death Penalty The European Union has decided to re- mentary on the EU Charter of Fundamen- Democrats, Social Democratis, the Liberal introduce the death penalty for insur- tal Rights, which would come into force and Green parties, for relinquishing Ger- gents. Does this seem unbelievable to with the Lisbon Treaty. It seems that no man sovereignty in favour of the EU and you? Have you heard nothing of it in the one has taken notice of this particular the Lisbon Treaty and its provisions for re- press? Then you better sit down first and passage, since Article 2 of the new Fun- introducing the death sentence for insur- take a deep breath. damental Rights Charter also states: gents. During the debate, Chancellor An- All of the members states of the Eu- “No one shall be condemned to the gela Merkel (CDU) praised the EU reform ropean Union have abolished the death death penalty, or executed.” That seemed treaty as a “great project”. penalty. The worst punishment that the explicit – only the small print includes Once the Lisbon Treaty comes into head of an insurgent has to face at this these exceptions. force, the EU government will become time is a jail sentence. However, the Lis- The small print to the Treaty of Lisbon transformed into a powerful central gov- bon Treaty now allows the death penalty reads as follows: ernment – like the former Soviet Union. as punishment for insurgents. Against the “(2) Deprivation of life shall not be re- Individual republics will then become background of the financial crisis the Eu- garded as inflicted in contravention of meaningless and be forced to serve the ropean Union is expecting major revolts this article when it results from the use well-being of the EU empire instead of its in many of the member countries – and is of force which is no more than absolute- own interests. The Irish, who in contrast therefore pushing for the Lisbon Treaty ly necessary: to Germany were able to vote in a ref- to come into force as soon as possible. (a) in defence of any person from unlaw- erendum on the EU reform and on Ire- As a result of the Irish vote against the ful violence; land’s sovereignty, rejected the Treaty in Lisbon Treaty in June of 2008 its enforce- (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or June 2008, particularly also because of its ment was initially blocked. The Treaty to prevent excape of a person lawful- implications of reintroducing the death seeks to extensively broaden the powers ly detained; penalty. In the autumn of 2009 Ireland sels to buy votes: Bishops preaching in held by the 27 EU commissioners, to es- (c) in action lawfully taken for the pur- will have to vote on the Treaty a second favour of relinquishing Irish sovereingty tablish the office of a powerful EU presi- pose of quelling a riot or insurrection. time. to the Treaty of Lisbon in their churches dent – which would practically transform The above was quoted in the official Eu- In order for everything to function should receive money from EU sources. At the national laws of member states into ropean Union’s newsletter of 14 Decem- smoothly, on 18 March the 27 EU com- the fore of all of this stood the EU parlia- historical relicts – and in some cases allow ber 2007. In effect, the abolishment of missioners in Brussels secretely agreed ment which even proclaimed that it want- for capital punishment. In this context, the death penalty is immediately relativ- to carry out a coup. This entailed break- ed to see the Irish ‘No’ corrected as soon once the EU reform treaty comes into ised and annuled by the small print in the ing Irish law on several points.

Load more