Across the globe there is a massive effort underway to transfer land use control away from the local people and hand it over to a different community. When the word community is used in a local land use plan, you can be sure it doesn't mean the local people. There are opposing meanings for the word community.
Most common born locals naturally assume community means all the residents in their neighborhood. But to a communitarian change agent, community means only the spiritually advanced converts seeking to control the neighborhood.
This is why development plans following Local Agenda 21 (LA21) suggestions always claim the community wants the plan. It doesn't matter if 95% of the local population have no idea there is a new plan. It doesn't matter if 90% of the local residents would reject the new plan if they knew anything about it.
LA21 plans rarely claim a majority of registered voters approved the plan. * The planner can honestly say the "community agreed" this is the plan they want, because their definition of community is: we the people who write the plans.
Profits from the transfer of control over the local economy to the community are incalculable. For 20 years LA21 planners bragged how much effort they put into enticing locals to be in their planning process. Where they advertised is key to their success, and some locals were happy to become partners in the global scam.
Trained to follow TV news and kowtow to academic titles of nobility, working class people don't choose to spend their precious few leisure hours talking about how to build a stronger community. Whatever that is, it sounds way too boring. Commoners don't do things they don't enjoy unless they're forced to. If it's not reported on TV or in local papers, it can't be very important, right?
LA21 legislation, usually in the Whereas portion, lists the hilarious ways locals were informed of the planning meetings. If 500 out of 300,000 residents show up and participate, that is considered a very, very good turnout. The City may even get a special award for Community Participation if less than one percent of the population participates in writing the final draft. Even if there is public opposition to it, in most cases it passes the local legislature without one dissenting vote. Elected officials adopt most everything the community asks for.
According to the communitarians who promote the "need" for the new plans, and then lead the planning process from start to finish, uneducated common people cannot understand the lofty purpose for the plans. Only a small group of trained experts are capable of determining the future use of local land and resources. It's a huge sacrifice they've made helping the rest of the world with their superior intelligence. To doubt their motives is akin to doubting God. Pope Benedict declared, "Communitarian development is God's plan" on January 1, 2013. LA 21 plans are long and filled with complicated new regulations. It takes the Bible, the Talmud/Cabala, the Koran and exegesis to comprehend God's secrets. Average people are confused (and bored) by the planning meetings as well as the plans, therefore their exclusion is justifiable.
Few unenlightened souls are found in community oriented groups. It's not hard to keep them out. The community isn't exactly friendly to non-grant funded working class people. This isn't local carpenters, farmers, housewives, bartenders or factory workers planning the future. Even if they have the intuition and courage to speak up, commoners haven't an inkling of the grandiose community purpose, so they never address the bottom line. Auto mechanics can't see any good reason why they should go sit through 100 meetings about bike paths. The ads inviting locals to attend the meetings say many different things, but the ads never even hint at the power the plan with have over the local economy. So, not only do our neighbors not go, they could care less what happens at endless meetings. Why should they care about livability and quality of life (whatever that is)?
The only people who join the LA21 community planning process are people who were pre-trained and are often paid to join it. The committed people controlling both sides, including the fake opposition, either have degrees in the fields created by the communitarians, like urban planning, environmental law/activism, sustainable development and socio-economics, or they are financed by rich communitarians, or they have a business that stands to profit from the plans, like green building/products, eco-tourism, earth stewardship training, climate change research, etc.
Many LA21 planners who "volunteer" for the new community are government or ex-government employees. In the cities, they work for recently added agencies and departments created by the communitarians. Just a few of them are Department of Neighborhoods, City Manager, Community Police, Community Development and Homeland Security. In the rural areas the community is full of BLM, Department of Forestry/Agriculture, Tribal governments, public school teachers, Dept of Transportation, and Community Mental Health Services.
Every member of the LA21 planning community has made a commitment to making a profit on sustainable community development principles. Every business member helping LA21 planners write the plans made the same commitment. Anyone who tries to participate without dedicating themselves to the development community will find their participation severely marginalized.
After the plans are adopted into law, and the laws go into effect, it's a done deal. Any local resident who openly objects to the law is criminally disruptive. Concerned about a plan that drastically reduces your ability to thrive? We're oh so sorry, but this is what the community said it wants. Case closed.
Anyone questioning the new junk science that justifies LA21 law is labeled, ridiculed, attacked and discounted. Legitimate questions about the plan are deflected by the Communitarian Left with tirades against the Communitarian Right. Cons on both sides of the political spectrum allow for no scrutiny of the community system. The less we all know about it, the easier it is for the community. Even the authentic local environmentalists who attend LA21 meetings in good faith quickly see that the LA21 planners will not include their suggestions in the final plan, unless it helps to achieve the desired LA21 outcome.
The desired outcome for every land management plan in the world is the same. Creating a global standard of law regulating all human activity on the planet is the communitarian's phase one goal. No matter what the locals living in the local community want, no matter how sustainable they already are, no matter how responsibly they already manage their local resources, the community will still insist they adopt laws that comply with communitarian legal standards.
Locals aren't told LA21 plans justify the community government's new powers to invade and take private property. Locals are never told LA21 plans establish the framework for community governance. Locals are never told Communitarian Supremacy of Law grants the community limitless regulatory control over all local business, resources, and people. Locals are never told anything about Community Law. They don't even hear about it when they are fined and jailed for violating it. Millions have lost businesses, property and freedom to the community, without having a clue as to why or how the transfer took place.
Community Developers write Community Laws that are adopted by Community Councils and enforced by Community Police. In order to stop the LA21 plan, commoners around the globe have got to take back their local communities. Locals could follow the communitarians' advice for Mapping and Mobilizing Community Capacity. ** Commoners can also go house to house, block by block, town to town doing knock-and-talks and survey for assets. Anyone can assess and mobilize local citizens for capacity to resist the communitarian con.
* The 2009 Bolivian Constitution is one rare exception. The French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Constitution in 2005 because of its Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause (it became official under the Lisbon Treaty). The EU Court is the home of the acquis communitaire.
** See Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. This is where the Obamas trained to be community activists.
Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich founded the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) in 2001, changed it to ACL Books in 2006. The ACL is not affiliated with any political, religious or fraternal organization. The ACL has published over a thousand free online articles on LA21 & Communitarianism, many cited in academic papers. ACL research was used in several lawsuits, including Dawson v Seattle (2002). Both women have appeared on numerous radio shows and occasionally do public speaking engagements. They co-wrote two books, "The Anti Communitarian Manifesto" and "2020: Our Common Destiny". Combined and updated in 2012, they are available only at the ACL Books website, nord.twu.net/acl.
2020: Our Common Destiny & The Anti Communitarian Manifesto
NEW CURRENT EVENTS BOOK ON THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY Take a close look at the raw power of Community Economic Development
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA (March 13, 2012) 2020: Our Common Destiny & The Anti Communitarian Manifesto (ISBN-13: 978-0-9814519-2-3) explores the history, philosophy, and modern-day implementation of Sustainable Development, Communitarian Law, and Community Policing.
Part-autobiography, part-thesis, and part-guidebook to International Law, this 327-page book introduces Community Law with a mix of personal experiences, field research, and direct quotes from American presidents and international heads of state, domestic and foreign courts, officials, ecclesiastics, gurus, agencies, think tanks, universities and law schools, foundations, conferences, scientific reports, newspapers, and academic journals.
The Roosevelt Neighborhood Plan (Washington) and The Anchorage 2020/Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan (Alaska) are highlighted to show how Local Agenda 21 plans balance individuals, laws, and economic growth. Readers are challenged to consider some of the little-known aspects of Community Economic Development, like mapping and mobilizing human assets, data-mining, innovative militarized policing, mandates for service, global citizenship, the Hegelian Dialectic, and the ancient spiritual foundation for a worldwide, corporate, quasi-religious legal framework.
Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich began publishing in 2000, after they were used as uninformed Human Subjects Research in Seattle, Washington. Their original analysis of Communitarianism reaches an international audience; their work has been referenced and reproduced in books, websites, articles, curriculums and academic papers, including the National Association of Scholars Bibliography of the Communitarian Residence Life Movement.
- 30 -
For more information please contact Nordica Friedrich email: nfriedrich@gmail.com
Last night I looked at how compelling the forces working within the dialectical games are. I see steady pushing in the right v left arena. I see the conflict written out in plain English everywhere I go. And, what's really interesting is to see how the synthesis is being more often lumped back in with the sides against capitalism. It's apparent to me now that no matter how much right or left patriot Americans learn about the communitarian synthesis, they usually revert right back to the communist versus capitalist arguments, which do nothing but help push the solution!
In my humble opinion, we would all be much better off in opposing the horrible solution, the political, social and legal framework for regional and international Communitarian Integration. The new planning law, this new spiritual law that in some nations is now part of their revised constitutions, is not called communism or capitalism. If it's called socialism at all, it's called Communitarian Socialism, or in less official documents, Market Socialism.
Americans could so easily find the premise for many new laws in the United States if they stopped using the outdated words communism and socialism AND capitalism. We'd be much better off focusing serious attention on the growing body of regulations that balance individual liberty against the common good. Our people should be looking for the words Communitarian or Community when studying recent, drastic regulatory changes to local, state and national standards and norms. Citizens could find their newly formed agencies enforcing the new communitarian laws, if only they knew the legal term Community is different from the word.
Communitarian Law and Community Law are exactly the same terms and are used interchangeably in the international legal arena. All UN, EU and WTO and Regional Unions are based in the Supremacy of Communitarian Law clause. The real and verifiable name of the emerging global governance bureaucracy is called Communitarianism. The documentation to support this is all over the world now, and new publications such as this one appear online daily:
The European cooperation for development policies: between national interests and communitarian norms
Drd. Victor NEGRESCU1 is currently a PhD candidate at the National School of Political Science and Administration (SNSPA), with an MA in International and European Studies at IEP Grenoble and Pierre Mendes France University, and a member of the teaching staff of the Faculty of Political Science of the Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University. He is a member of FOND – National Federation of the NGOs for Development in Romania and member of several research working groups on development policies.
Abstract: In the context of the growing importance of the cooperation for development in the European Union and the appearance of a common growing public opinion agreement supporting this kind of initiatives, it is necessary to understand if we can talk today about a true common European policy. Still covered on intergovernmental level and considered to be a part of the national foreign policies, EU development aid is still far from reaching the maximum of its efficiency.
In this paper we try to introduce a new evaluation method of the cooperation for development policies and interpretation of the degree of communitarisation of the national policies that will enable us to appreciate the stages that have to be completed by the member countries but also by the EU to realize a completely uniform European assistance strategy and of the activities, so necessary for raising the efficiency of the funds allocated by the EU, but also in the perspective of achieving the Millennium Development Goals
Keywords: Developing countries, world economy, communitarisation, Europeanization, public opinion, international society.
There are stages that have to be achieved before the next level of social evolution can be reached. Everyone who studies Marxism learns the basic formula for helping reluctant, unenlightened people to change like butterflies into the next stage.
The revolutionary process called dialectical materialism is the core foundation for Marxist thinking. Marx modified the Hegelian theory of dialectical idealism. Unlike Hegel's theory of ideals driving history, dialectical materialism is the idea that material conditions drive ideals, and more importantly, can influence human history. Marx proposed mankind embarks on an evolutionary series of MATERIAL conflicts between the classes, and the bloodier the battles, the better. Hegel provided the Big Idea that mankind achieves perfection when the state becomes God, and that the highest form of freedom is only achieved through complete submission to the state as God. Marx and Engels took the conflict further and made it a physical struggle as well.
Dialectical Idealism and Dialectical Materialism are the two main forces driving every 20th century and onward revolution on the planet. The part most conservatives refuse to accept as a possibility, is that without their support for the opposite theory of capitalism, communism could not exist as the force that it became. These theories of economic systems were designed to feed off each other's never ending natural breeding grounds for animosity, and it has the most potential to turn vague senses of wrongdoing into seething anger into violence. Both Hegel and Marx agreed violence is the best scenario for moving humanity toward its destiny.
Capitalism versus Communism is designed to be most effective when there are only two classes left, the poor and the rich. Naturally the American middle class has much to lose in this "final" battle between the top and bottom class. Recent history of Marxist inspired revolutionaries extends beyond Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, it includes capitalist funded imperialist puppets, like the Somoza family in pre-Sandinista Nicaragua. Neither "side" of the Capitalist versus Communist debate can claim perfection over the other. Both economic theories have contributed their share to global poverty and deaths in the millions. The Capitalist versus Communist conflicts are also a bit inconsistent. The United States sided with Stalin and still sides with Israel, a nation founded on an kabbalistic communitarian system called the kibbutz.
Our thesis is global communitarianism is the final stage that balances all of the conflicts. We pose that this is the final, unnamed system planned to unnaturally occur at the end of the dialectical conflicts of opposites game. Some schools still teach that both Marx and Engels were vague about what that final perfect middle between all opposite ideologies would be called, but in the U.S. patriot news communism is usually taught as the ultimate goal of Marxist revolutions.
If you follow the line of Marxist logic, communism cannot be the final synthesis of Ideas. The final perfect solution has to be a combination of the conflict between two previously posed ideas. It cannot be one or the other, because the final solution is totally Balanced and new. Even the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was only a phase toward ultimate harmonization of all people under one set of values and norms which requires no enforcement. Since there is a direct, ongoing dialectical conflict between capitalism and communism/socialism, then none of those ideologies can be the synthesis. Any one of the familiar theories that has existing opposition cannot be the final, perfect solution, according to the forumla for human social evolution.
Each new synthesis has to be identified as something that merged the thesis and the antithesis into a new Idea. Political synthesis can only be something that brings people from both sides to a middle compromise. Up until Communitarianism was introduced, the middle compromise has continued to become a new thesis with an established opposition camp. According to the theorists, the way we would know when we had reached the final stage of human social evolution was when there arose no opposition to the synthesis. Perfection is reached when nobody alive claims the most recent synthesis is imperfect. Communitarianism is the most recent synthesis, and so far, the only organized opposition is us. We are nobody lowborn commoners without titles of nobility or degrees. That basically means there's no opposition.
Our anticommunitarian argument is based on a few basic ideas:
1. Capitalism versus Communism, in a Hegelian/Marxist equation, equals Communitarianism. (Or Individualism versus Collectivism, Right versus Left, Republican versus Democrat, etc.)
Evidence for Communitarianism being the final Marxist/Capitalist solution between the two supposedly opposing "sides" exists in abundance. Our argument has, so far, proved incontrovertible. Our argument, our reasoning, and our version of the evolutionary history of Communitarianism have never once been disputed, nor have any of the documents we cite been proven to be fraudulent. We have, since 2003, openly solicited responses from Dr. Amitai Etzioni and his Network. We have also had our thesis introduced in graduate level classes where we offered to print anything the students wanted to write about it. We have never received any papers disputing us. Our ACL research website has had over a million visits, and over half of them have been to our thesis. If our poll and stats data can be trusted, we've had more than one school review board visit our Hegel page. I still feel this should qualify us for a nice fat grant and admission to a formal anticommunitarian studies program, but that offer is still forthcoming. :)
Back to the argument:
2. Communitarianism, a recent modification of the U.S. legal system, did not arise naturally from the people of the United States, it was never approved or adopted by the U.S. House (of directly elected) Representatives, or any directly elected state legislatures.
3. Anything that changes or modifies the constitutions of any states or the federal constitution, without full disclosure and full consent of the people who legally govern in this nation, is sedition against the authority of the legitimate rulers here, who are the American people. Sedition and treason are criminal offenses under US Code.
International environmental and trade associations, councils, and courts, established under WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, UN Local Agenda 21, and the Earth Charter, have never been officially explained to Amercians, nor have the provisions inserted into the above documents. New terms in American law that adopt the supremacy clause have never been approved by 3/4 majority of the state legislative bodies, as is required to revise the Constitution of the United States. (People call for a new Constitution all the time now, but it was already quietly invalidated by Communitarian supremacy under international agreements over 20 years ago!)
All dissent against the insane expansion of government power over private lives and national economies is funnelled into groups that play a role in the conflict or the pre-prepared solution. I have found more and more people from every side of the political and religious spectrum clamoring for a communitarian solution to the global economic crisis. From the Occupy movement to the Pope, to the leaders of many nations and major NGOs, they all repeat the same three things: Elimination of 1.Degradation of the environment, 2. Poverty, and 3. Social Equity.
Many agreements to reach these goals by specific dates already exist. Agenda 21 and sustainable development are just the tip of the iceberg. Related agreements like The Millennium Goals, and their significance to the radical legal and structural changes now happening to existing national systems, cannot be overemphasized. Remember what Victor said about the Millenium goals in his paper about Communitarian norms? Didn't he say, "In this paper we try to introduce a new evaluation method of the cooperation for development policies and interpretation of the degree of communitarisation of the national policies that will enable us to appreciate the stages that have to be completed by the member countries but also by the EU to realize a completely uniform European assistance strategy and of the activities, so necessary for raising the efficiency of the funds allocated by the EU, but also in the perspective of achieving the Millennium Development Goals"? We're so lucky, because Victor told us the method.He provided the link between sustainable development, human development, and communitarian norms. Notice Victor didn't write a paper about communist or socialist norms that would help in the perspective of acheiving the Millennium Goals.
What's Going On?
Environmental problems threaten human development progress, UN report says The annual UNDP Human Development Report was released on 2 November. In the lead-up to Rio+20, the upcoming UN conference on sustainable development, this year’s edition entitled Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All focuses on the link between human development and environmental sustainability. The report calls for urgent action to slow climate change, prevent further degradation and reduce inequalities as environmental deterioration threatens to reverse recent progress in human development for the world’s poorest.
The emerging supranational system of global governance, or the New World Order (NWO) as many of our esteemed leaders prefer to call it, is based on a philosophy of law called communitarianism. It's basic, most simple concept is explained as the "balance" between too much liberty and too much servitude. It's a balance between unfettered anarcho capitalism with limited government intrusion, and state controlled collectivism with total government intrusion. It's the perfect middle, and it is being presented as the most reasonable compromise between all the forces gathering to fight the dialectical battles in the streets of America.
The global system has already been built that will replace all national governments. In Russia, China, Cuba, Indonesia, Africa, Israel and the EU, the ideology for the new system is well understood by officials. In South America and portions of Africa and the Middle East it's been used to rally the Indigenous people's support for global enforcement of protections of Human Rights and the Environment. Sustainable Development, one of the programs under Communitarianism, has been adopted not only by global to local governments but by most businesses as well.
Bolivia, leading the call for full Human rights for Mother Earth, modified their national constitution to openly embrace a new form of socialism called Communitarianism. The social evolution of humanity as planned is well into the advanced stages.
Many Americans say they are ready to fight, but armed struggle is a two edged sword for Americans. An armed rebellion or conflict within our national boundaries would be disastrous for anyone clinging to any sense of freedom. There are many new law enforcement agencies dedicated to preserving global communitarianism, and not only have our forces become militarized peacekeepers, the datagathering capabilities and interdepartmental sharing between Community Police around the globe continues to grow.
I still say we all need to ask for our COPS' "file."
We, as a nation, remain totally out of the loop when it comes to Communitarian integration of standards and norms, even as our nation adopts the laws that solidify our collective status in the international courts. So, why do so many people steer concerned citizens away from knowing what system the UN will activate after they "save the day?" All evidence suggest the UN expects us to beg for them to help change the world we live in. I didn't think we would. I was wrong.
Twelve years ago when I started my rants against communitarianism, nobody had heard of the term. Today more than some of our people are saying communitarianism is a much better way to live. The "masses" still believe in the dialectical lies, much the same way 20th century Russians and Germans did,. My studies have shown that historically, as well as today, the masses aren't always the 99%, until membership in the ruling party becomes mandatory.
Every former nation in the world has been subdued and forced to committing to the same efforts. The invasion of Afghanistan wasn't just about oil pipelines or poppies, it can't only be that, not when the primary result is their adoption of the global system for a sustainable planet.
21 November 2011 – The General Assembly called today on countries to reiterate and scale up their support for Afghanistan during its transition period, and outlined six major areas the country should focus on to ensure its long-term stability and progress.
In a resolution adopted unanimously this morning, the Assembly called for increased efforts in the areas of security, justice and governance, social and economic development, reconciliation and integration, regional cooperation and strategic partnerships. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40472&Cr=afghanistan&Cr1=
The only thing that leads us to finding Communitarian Law is a familiarity with the term communitarianism. There exists no confirmable source for "communist law" or "socialist law" in any of the important global governance documents (although it does exist in some national documents that cede communitarian law is supreme). The name of the law of integration, and of the principles for which it stands, is Communitarian Law, also known as Community Law.
The principles for supremacy are defined as Communitarian. Capitalism, communism, socialism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, anarchism, fascism etc are not nor have they ever been globally supreme. They were all only stages in the dialectic. Much like the movie Alien with Sigorney Weaver, our familiar political and economic systems are all brothers and sisters working to protect and eventually crown their Big Mother Sucker, Communitarianism.
If we can't see the most powerful enemy to ever invade our lands and our homes, how can we possibly come up with ways to kill (or at least table) it? We don't even know what we're up against. It's so confusing, we need lawyers to study the laws from a constitutional perspective. We need local politicans who are aware and on the lookout for the terms inserted into proposed legislation. But the term Community isn't being taught alongside Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 by the leaders of the pro freedom opposition. Locals aren't being taught the one thing that could be the basis for the biggest class action lawsuit in the history of American civil courts.
Many of the communitarians operate in our neighborhoods as both concerned citizens and government paid agents. This is a glitch in the system, according to my unlawyerly observations, and even though we failed miserably in our Dawson lawsuit, I still think it's an avenue worth pursuing if you go after the actual terms inserted in legal documents. I was once told by a Washington State Supreme Court Justice that he could not rule on anything that didn't come before his court. Dawson never made it to the State Appelate Court, it was bumped up to federal because we cited federal statutes, and a Clinton appointee ruled in favor of the federal community police. Maybe if we'd only cite state laws in our filings we could keep the cases at the level where we have the most power to pack the courtrooms with our neighbors and our local media, and in some states, take our cases before justices who are directly elected by us.
Citizens across America have been subjected to communitarian laws, penalized for violating communitarian laws, and lost their property under communitarian takings. The basis for all these new laws that "balance individual rights against the rights of the community," or the collective, the Common Good or Mother Earth, is the Communitarian philosophy of law. And yes, the neo global ideology has a soft side and a more muscular side.
As our most revered Communitarian guru wrote on his blog in on January 08, 2010:
Now: Muscular Communitarianism
The time for muscular communitarianism has come. In his second year, President Obama best reveal that his communitarianism is not powerless, but indeed has muscles of its own, although these have so far been rarely exercised.
The president has gone the extra mile to show that he is willing to talk, consult, and collaborate with allies and foes alike -- foreign and domestic. Nor has this form of kumbaya communitarianism been without results. Russia and China are supporting sanctions against Iran. The fever of anti-Americanism overseas has subsided some.
But, all said and done, Obama's soft communitarianism has yielded relatively little. Iran continues to thumb its nose at his solicitations; the GOP is mocking it; and the business elites are paying out their bonuses using taxpayer dollars, as if Obama never railed against them. Obama can maintain his positive posture, continue to refuse to hector nations whose regimes are different from ours, and even keep extending an olive branch to the business elites. But he would be much more effective if he would show that communities whose norms and leaders are ignored can twist the arms of, even give a kick in the pants to, those who refuse to collaborate. http://blog.amitaietzioni.org/2010/01/now-muscular-communitarianism.html
One more time, because it's well worth repeatng:
.. he [Obama] would be much more effective if he would show that communities whose norms and leaders are ignored can twist the arms of, even give a kick in the pants to, those who refuse to collaborate.
To a communitarian thinker, especially an Israeli commando who fought as a terorist for Israeli independence, nuking Iranian civilians may be little more than a swift kick in the pants. To the rest of the thinking world, it's more like an explosion that blows uncollaborating pants into tiny pieces. Remember, in Orwellian doublespeak, war means peace. And nobody speaks doublespeak better than Amitai Etzioni, the Tree of Knowledge from Zion.
A well known intellectual on social policy who first rose to prominence in the 1970s, Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at George Washington University and founding director of the Institute for Communitarian Studies.[1]
Although best known for his work and theories on sociology and domestic policy, Etzioni has, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, become an increasingly strident—if often idiosyncratic—proponent of military solutions to U.S. foreign policy problems, in particular those dealing with Israeli security. (For more on Etzioni’s history and ideas, see Marsha B. Cohen, “Muscular Nonrationality: Amitai Etzioni and War with Iran,” Right Web, July 21, 2010.)
An illustrative example of Etzioni’s militarist views is his May 2010 article for the U.S. Army’s Military Review titled “Can a Nuclear-Armed Iran Be Deterred?” In the article, Etzioni claims that once armed with nuclear weapons Iran will be impervious to nuclear deterrence and thus, the United States should bomb the country to derail its nuclear program. He contends that a concerted bombing campaign targeting civilian infrastructure—including “bridges, railroad stations, and other such assets, just the way the U.S. did in Germany and Japan in World War II”—is the only way to dissuade Iran from attempting to develop nuclear weapons.[2]
Because the objective of such attacks on non-nuclear targets would be causing pain to the entire Iranian population, “it matters not if one misses some,” Etzioni said. He even proposes that the strikes be carried out at night, and with “proper warning,” in order to minimize civilian casualties.[3]
Etzioni didn't found the Communist Network. He didn't found the Socialist Network. Etzioni founded the Communitarian Network, an advisory organization that came to the United States to "shore up the moral, social and political environment." Our laws against premeditated murder of civillians is considered an immoral barrier to global communitarian wars. Our laws may be the only thing left on the planet that can stop the final horror in its tracks. We'll never know for sure unless we try. There just have to be other ideas that haven't been thought of yet.
But first we'd have to stop fighting each other and turn our wrath toward our common enemy. We'd have to stop furthering the phony dialectical conflict between rich and poor and not allow ourselves to be swayed anymore into helping to hasten our own defeat. We'd have to put all America first to find a way to come together to ward off the creeping invasion. We'd have to find a way to respect our many differences, because it's that lack of honor among men that's costing us our freedom, our lives and the lives of countless innocents around the globe. The more hate we promote toward our countrymen and other nations and religions, the more we fuel the communitarian bonfire. Our nation is one big spark ready to blow. I'm gonna pray for rain.
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy will now be able to address the United Nations no differently from US President Barack Obama, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Russia's Dimitri Medvedev.
In order to win the vote, the EU had to agree to changes to the global organisation that transforms the UN from an assembly of nation states into a body that also offers representation rights to regional blocs as well, including potentially the African Union, the Arab League and the South American Union.
The EU on Tuesday was given almost all the rights in the global chamber that fully-fledged states enjoy after the General Assembly backed 180 to two a resolution giving the bloc, which until this week only maintained observer status at the UN, the union the right to speak, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right of reply, the right to raise points of order and the right to circulate documents.
There will also be additional seats put in the chamber for the EU's foreign policy chief, High Representative Catherine Ashton and her officials.
Ashton and her team have lobbied heavily over the last six months, according to her representatives, with a major offensive in the last 48 hours by the high representative herself in New York, to push through the changes after the EU was dealt a surprise defeat last September when other regional blocs voted against a similar resolution.
She declared herself "delighted" at the win, which, she said: "will in future enable EU representatives to present and promote the EU's positions in the UN."
Last year, two groups in the chamber resisted the move. The first, some of Brussels' closest allies in the world, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, consulted with each other and agreed to abstain on the original motion, according to one Commonwealth diplomat, as they were annoyed by the "presumption" of the EU, who had delivered the resolution for consideration the night before the vote.
After half a year of consultations, the Commonwealth allies appear to have had their procedural concerns dealt with.
But the second group, led by Caricom, the Carribean's regional integration bloc inspired by the EU, felt that it was unfair that Brussels should win additional rights but not themselves or other similar bodies, from the Gulf Co-operation Council to the Pacific Islands Forum.
In order to win over these refuseniks, the EU had to back an amendment to the resolution, put forward by Hungary - currently at the helm of the bloc's six-month rotating presidency - that gives these other blocs the same rights Brussels has won, should they ask for them.
"Following the request on behalf of a regional organisation which has observer status in the general assembly and whose member states have agreed arrangements that allow that organisation's representatives to speak on behalf of the organisation and its member states, then the general assembly may adopt modalities for the participation of that regional organisation's representatives," read the amendment.
Here's the old ACL topic page I'm revising and updating first. Obviously, I've got my work cut out for me. Good thing I don't have anything else more pressing or more important to do in my life, since this page was the only free communitarian law research available online. We were the only place in the world that was following and listing references to the communitarian legal system, including the schools, training, case law, legislation, regulations, treaties and "solutions" implemented across the globe, and one that did not focus only on how it affects the USA.
As an American, I warned the American people in my CAFTA EU Communitarian Law article that many countries, including our own, were training lawyers to implement communitarian changes to internal legal structures. I listed law schools and gave the names of people involved in the training programs. It made the rounds and died out, just as anything that explains communitarianism does. It's crazy that I'm still having to defend my work from accusations that I made it all up or it's my "personal pet peeve." Regardless of how easily and deftly leading right American "patriots" and their brothers and sisters on the "left" sweep it under the rug, it remains the most important topic the world has ever faced. Oh right, I'm sorry, I do understand what's important... so what kind of shoes does Scarlett Johansen wear when she goes jogging?
Communitarian Law and European Community Law : Individual & National Sovereignty versus the Collective Good
by Niki Raapana, April 2003. Revised March 21, 2006.
Updated January 6, 2008
There is an emerging social justice system based in communitarian philosophy, called communitarian law. Communitarian law is enforced at the local, regional, and international levels. Recorded case law for communitarian jurisprudence rests with the European Communitarian Court of Justice. The substitution of communitarian law in the U.S. rests with national and locally elected lawmakers.
Every new law in the U.S. that balances individual rights against "Community" rights is a communitarian law. This definition includes environmental laws that infringe on property rights and the creation of victimless "crimes" (like DUIs and mandatory safety laws, helmets, seat belts, etc).
A field of study mostly ignored by Americans and their attorneys, it is however well-covered within the global academic community and elite groups. Chances are good you're not a part of them.
Our evidence suggests most average Americans in this new society of equals have never heard the term communitarian law. Our lawmakers count on the way many people discount it as a "conspiracy theory." The purpose of this page is to bring communitarian law under American public scrutiny.
Our standards for citations and links are mainly to primary sources including peer-reviewed scholars and law journals, law school coursework, universities, dissertations, government and NGO plans, etc. On other pages we occassionally link to personal opposition views even more radical than our own, but almost everything published about communitarian law exists at the highest levels of academic and elite discourse. So, very few links on this page are to familiar U.S. news sources; they are almost all to foreign plans and government and law school documents.
"In emphasizing the effect a broad per se rule could have on governmental efforts to implement comprehensive planning goals through diverse land use regulations, Justice Stevens endorsed the communitarian principles that land is a natural resource to be used and enjoyed by present and future generations, and that individual property rights are naturally limited by the fact that human beings are social persons who belong to communities. Decisions regarding the use of privately owned land are subject to reasonable regulations imposed by the government on behalf of the community." The Supreme Court Upholds Moratoria Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, No. 00-1167, 535 U. S. ___, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002), by Peter W. Salsich, Jr., Saint Louis University School of Law, Co-author, Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and Materials.
"There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes," he said, notably "an extension of communitarian law by the European court." From Austria, 'new thoughts' for EU By James Kanter International Herald Tribune January 1, 2006.
"The court's decision is a benign communitarian decision. It's endorsing people acting through their representative government. So people should fight like hell in that political arena for one's individual values ... In this case, there's genuine people involved. But in many cases, these are opportunists waiting to hold out. The court said we aren't going to be the engine for that anti-communitarian process." Steven Sloan, in the Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2005, quoting Berkeley land-law professor Antonio Rossmann speaking about the landmark U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Eminent-Domain-Supreme24jun05.htm
"En instituant les Communaut?s, les ?tats membres ont limit? leurs pouvoirs l?gislatifs souverains et ont cr?? un ensemble juridique autonome qui les lie, tout comme leurs ressortissants, et qui doit ?tre appliqu? par leurs tribunaux."
Roughly translates to: "By establishing the Communities, the Member States limited their sovereign legislative powers and created an autonomous legal unit which binds them, just like their nationals, and who must be applied by their courts." Eur-Lex-L?Autonomie de l'Ordre Juridique Communautaire (The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order)
"In 2001, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. It is based on Articles 174 and 175,ECt , under which a high level of protection of the environment must be guaranteed. The European Commission points out that there is a considerable body of communitarian environmental law, and that Member States are obliged to provide for effective, dissuasive and proportionate sanctions." Harmonization and harmonizing measures in criminal law, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
"Acknowledgement of basic principles, such as the direct applicability of Community law (judgment of 5 February 1963 in the Van Gend en Loos case, 26/62) and the primacy of Community law over national law (judgment of 15 July 1964 in the Costa/ENEL case, 6/64), has constituted its most significant contribution to European integration. On the basis of these principles, individuals may invoke Community law before national courts and seek the non-application of any national law which is contrary to Community law." La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice comme instrument de l'int?gration communautaire bt Josse Mertens de Wilmars.
"Nowadays, a great number of norms exist, equally at an international (Number 108 1981 Council of Europe personal data Convention) and communitarian level (1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; 2000 European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights; European Union Directives (Personal Data Protection Directive Telecommunications Sector Directive and Electronic communications Sector Directive), in order to assure data protection." Data protection and communitarian law by Maria Angeles Chacon Sanchez Abogado in Sevilla.
NOTE: The following article, written by Dave Hodges of the Arizona Constitution Party, includes plagiarized ACL research and writing. Author Dennis Cuddy, PhD, also freely lifted ACL legal research in an article he wrote for newswithviews.com in April 2006. Why would these men of considerable resources need to steal my work and claim it as their own?
"The development of Communitarian law of the European Community (i.e., the EU) has been largely molded by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In the landmark case of Van Gend en Loos in 1963, the ECJ ruled that the European Community is bound by Communitarian, not national law, as the court stated, "This constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights albeit within limited fields." Essentially, this decision gave international treaty precedence when treaty principles conflict with national law." Preserving Constitutional Liberties Part II - The Loss of the American Constitution: Constitutional Law vs. Communitarian Law (Part Two) by Dave Hodges, November 12, 2006.
"For communitarians, concerned with the nature of our public discourse, the importance of a reasoned conversation about this issue is paramount." from Section Law and Communitarian Studies, a section of The Association for American Law Schools: Chair: Catherine J. Ross, The George Washington University Law School, Ph: (202) 994-9456, Email: cross@law.gwu.edu; Chair-Elect: Robert M. Ackerman, The Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law, Ph: (717) 241-3535, Email: bxa9@psu.edu; Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Pepperdine University School of Law, Ph: (310) 506-4684, Email: robert.cochran@pepperdine.edu; Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School, Ph: (617) 495-4769, Thomas D. Morgan, The George Washington University Law School, Ph: (202) 994-9020, Email: tmorgan@law.gwu.edu; Milton C. Regan, Jr., Georgetown University Law Center, Ph: (202) 662-9414. Email: regan@law.georgetown.edu -- "A Conversation About Abortion" -- [ click to download mp3 ]
Communitarian Law is the new legal system used by regional and local governments affiliated with the emerging global government. This new law circumvents national law via a program of "balancing," often implemented by a small group of self-appointed elites who achieve consensus (not voting). For Americans, the adoption of these evolving principles transports us from a constitutional system where we expect clearly defined basic rights (like due process and legal searches) to a more moral way of enforcing "social justice" that only a few upper level academics can define.
Communitarian law is the precedent that requires the courts to rule in favor of the self-defined "community" against individuals protected by constitutional law. It limits the property rights of individuals in all member nations. The most obvious current communitarian decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court is Kelo v. The City of New London, a land rights case that balanced property rights against comunitarian development goals. The least obvious communitarian decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court is Hiibel v. The State of Nevada, a privacy rights case that balanced private individual's right to anonymity. In all U.S. communitarian legislation and criminal code, the stated purpose is to balance individual rights against community responsibilities. It's called Reinventing Government. Based on the consensus reached by globalist do-gooders, all nations are now required to adjust their national systems. The world is in an ongoing process of internal re-inventions of national political and legal infrastructures.
Iraq is the "model" for rebuilding the Middle East into a communitarian trade region and plans are underway to establish a communitarian code of law and court of justice for that emerging region. Iraqi resistance or any other national resistance to communitarian law is illegal under communitarian law. All current trade agreements between the U.S. and Mexico, Canada, and Central and South America are modeled after established European communitarian law.
The North American Free Trade Agreement balances the rights of the individual citizens in each nation against the rights of developers rebuilding sustainable communities, protected areas and trade corridors. Communitarian law always rules in favor of private corporations and NGO's who partner with local Community and Regional Councils (not to be confused with municipal, county or state governments). Communitarian law requires new courts of justice and legislative bodies, as is evident with the proposed Andean Parliment intended to replace the WTO as the regulatory governing body. The unelected (and for the most part unknown) Andean Parliment will have the granted authority to write legislation for all member nations involved in NAFTA and CAFTA. There are no plans for an appellate court.
Communitarian law is more often called Community Law. There are also several other terms for the communitarian code of legal principles, including: Community Aquis, Code de redaction interinstitutionnel, and Le Systeme Judiciaire Communautaire.
Under Aquis Communitaire is where you'll find the most accessible defintion for communitarian law. A long and inclusive list of all the different areas communitarian law encompasses is provided at Wikipedia, the free online encylopedia. The new law is based in the lofty Fabian principles of Human Rights and social equity, which both place the needs of the community over the individuals who make up the community.
The most high-profile cases are against brutal dictators who turned against their former U.S. "handlers." Strong proponents around the world suggest bringing the Bush administration before the International Court and charging them with "crimes against humanity." The goal is global "peace and justice." Eradicating mass murder and genocide was the first global justification for an international court suggested by the London Fabians in the late 19th century, but the actual laws just as easily justify "sacrificing" individuals for the "common good."
Communitarian law is taught and studied at universities in the States. It's a master's program at many law schools internationally, and there exist many professors of communitarian law around the world. Yet online law dictionaries do not include a definition for communitarian law. (See: Law.com, Duhaime.org, Nolo.com, Findlaw.com, LectricLaw.com, thefreedictionary.com) This makes no sense unless it's understood that communitarian economics dissolves all nation states in favor of regional and international legal authority over individuals, their property, and their nations.
The United States is being integrated into an international community that adheres to Community Law. Students and lawyers across Europe and Latin America are studying Community Law and revising their national law to submit to the supremacy of Community Law. Two important questions for Americans who choose to retain their individual, inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness might be: 1. When are our people going to be informed of the new system? and 2. Do we have educated attorneys who understand the difference between international community based "human rights" and U.S. constitutional "individual rights?"
Communitarian Law is the international system of Hegelian legal theories used throughout the world to eliminate individual and national sovereignty. In the E.U., Africa, South America, Asia and across the globe, many international documents and resolutions and organizations (U.N., E.U., WTO, NAFTA, etc.) use the actual term "communitarian law" to define the legal precedent for the new global order. All nations entering into trade agreement must agree to modify their national constitutions and integrate their politicial system under supreme communitarian laws. Every individual in every member nation must bow before their new "supra-national" authority (which is often part of a Royal court system, as at the Peace Palace at the Hauge, Netherlands, with the presiding monarch being HRH Queen Beatrix.
Many constitutional scholars now claim the U.S. Bill of Rights was written as a communitarian, collective document. Etzioni insists the 2nd Amendment was written with a "communitarian clause." They're very good at confusing the issue. For example:
"Akhil Reed Amar, a leading scholar of constitutional law and author of The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction, explains that the word people is used in a collective sense in the US Constitution. "But the libertarian reading must contend with textual embarrassments of its own. The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.'....The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'--in essence, voters--to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically. The Fourth Amendment is trickier: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Here, the collective 'people' wording is paired with more individualistic language of 'persons.'"guninformation.org
This Hegelian legal philosophy-theory has been handed down from the globalists at the United Nations to all its member countries inside sustainable re-development plans. It is also the basis for revised crime acts, community policing, Growth Management Acts, domestic violence acts, enviromental laws (the body of environmental case law in the EU is called communitarian environmental law), faith-based initiatives, and all pre and post 9/11 crime and terror prevention programs. Community law is cited in all United States (and worldwide) Local Agenda 21 Plans. New local communitarian laws include: Revised Noise Ordinances, Weed & Seed, landlord training acts, transit related development takings (eminent domain for public-private partnerships), mandatory private home health and saftey inspections, hoarding syndrome interventions, and other efforts to "create safe and livable communities."
We at the ACL also think that mandatory volunteer service law is entirely based in communitarianism. The recently exposed Pentagon database of high school students is a communitarian program, as are the numerous domestic spy progams used at every level of government. The way to recognise a communitarian program is one that eliminates individual property, privacy or independence because these outdated guarantees against government intrusions have become identified barriers to public health, safety, or livability.
In the United States, communitarian law is illegal and treasonous under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Criminal Code.
Every Congressman who voted to approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in July of 2005 approved the integration of our national political system under a supreme code of communitarian law.
This topic is rarely covered by the American press (or included in law dictionaries) for obvious reasons. Eric Jacobstein, manager for Legislative Affirs at the Inter-American Dialogue published a paper for the V. International Symposium on Comparative Regionalism and the EU in November 2005 describing Trends in the CAFTA Process. He suggested the Andean trade agreement "is unlikely to face a vote in the U.S. Congress anytime soon" because of the elections in 2006. We think this could be because the Andean trade agreement is not a topic the globalists want to see included in U.S. congressional publically televised election debates. The agreement will return as a topic after the 2006 elections are over.
Aimee Kanner, with her B.A. in International Relations from GWU (home to the Communitarian Law Network) prepared a paper for the above Conference on the elitist foundation for communitarian law, "Although most regional integration processes were started as elite projects, their development and increased involvement in policy-making and decision-making processes has raised concerns regarding public representation and accountability." The conference addresses the solution, which appears to be the creation of an actual court where lawsuits can be tried. The way it works now is all cases are tried at the WTO. This NAFTA-EU Conference in Miami last fall was a high ranking event, as evidenced when Emil Kirchner, who received the Cross of the Order of Merit from the German Government in 2002, showed up to discuss "integration efforts of Muslim countries."
Understanding communitarian legal principles is the key to full comprehension of the emerging global communitarian synthesis.
The Jewish Encylopedia explains the areas of Talmudic Law that influenced the development of communitarian behavior controls (of every day life), and evolving regulatory practices that use dialectical conflicts to achieve synthesis. The process is often called a new paradigm. Communitarian law and Talmudic law are constantly changed and modified on a whim. The U.S. Constitution has been balanced by the Talmud and communitarian ideology.
Communitarian law is supreme. National law is subservient to Communitarian law. It is the international justice system which enforces peace, equality, social equity, human rights, sustainable development, open borders and free trade. It is neither too far right or too far left. It is neither too far Christian or too far Muslim. Communitarian law "balances" conflicting laws in favor of the greatest common good. It is the radical middle ground between all conflicting ideas. It integrates extreme communism with extreme capitalism. It defends the rights of the global "collective" against the rights of the greedy, selfish individuals clinging to their "outdated notion" of independent nations.
Throughout the last century there was a great "debate" in upper academia between individual rights and community rights. The individual was not represented, and community rights won. The definition of "community" includes everything from a small villiage to the entire world.
The Top-Down Communitarian System:
1. International Communitarian Law, enforced by international courts of justice.
2. Regional Communitarian Law, enforced by regional parliaments?
3. Local Communitarian Law, Community Development, Public-Private Partnerships, and Local Agenda 21 Plans.
The communitarian philosophy-ideology is what supports the emerging supranational government body. The system integrates all nations of the world into sub-regions. Each region has it's own code of communitarian law in addition to mandatory inclusion of higher, global laws. Each nation has their own proposed process for national subordination to the regional and international supreme authoritative bodies. In Europe and Latin America the national modification and subordination process is published in all documents relating to communiitarian integration. In Europe they have a collection of communitarian environmental case law (with European Law being one of the first global scale tests of the new law). In the United States it can never be disclosed to the average voter; for officials to speak openly of treason is a criminal offense.
"The correct application of the Communitarian Law produced by an International Integration Organization
implies that States Members have to make political and legal internal reforms." pdf-NAFTA and the EU
I've been studying the above quoted document. I'd like to write an article about it. To anyone who has access to the propsed Andean Parliment papers, models for integration, copies of the complaints of elitist origins, a list of all the U.S. Congressmen who voted for CAFTA up for re-election in Nov 2006, anti-communitarian papers or poltical parties that convinced a majority of Dutch and French voters to reject the European Constition in 2005, or any other relevant study materials: please help further our education in this topic. Click the contact link above and email me for where to snail mail hard copies.
"Finding the Law: the Micro-States and Small Jurisdictions of Europe: Andorra, Cyprus, Northern Cyprus, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, Vatican State; UK European dependencies: Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Isle of Man; Faroe Islands and Greenland" by Andrew Grossman, Hauser Global Law School Program, Published February 2005. This paper includes "General Sources, Common to More than One of the Jurisdictions under Study."
On the immediate applicability of the communitarian law
The primary rule is, that the national courts of member states are obliged to apply directly those communitarian standards which fulfil the communitarian conditions of the immediate applicability.
The immediate positive application of the communitarian rule means the direct application of this rule instead of an incompatible national regulation, or application solving the legal situation not defined by any national regulation.
Under the immediate negative application of the communitarian rule is to be understood the application in order to achieve the state in which the incompatible national regulation will not be used. This usually leads to quashing decisions issued on the basis of this national regulation without need of positive application of the communitarian rule. It follows from above also that it concerns the application of the communitarian rule for the purpose of reviewing the legality or lawfulness of a national regulation or act (decision) issued on its basis.
The national courts of the member state are obliged, ex offo, to use immediately applicable communitarian rules. It always applies, if the national procedural norms stipulate, ex offo, to apply the national law. Furthermore, the national courts have to apply, ex offo, the communitarian rules also in that case if this application is necessary for guaranteeing the protection of rights resulting for a person from the specific communitarian rules.
On the preferential application of the communitarian law
The preferential application of the communitarian law is solved in the above-mentioned Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Constitution.
The duty of the national courts (and also of other public authorities) to apply preferentially the applicable communitarian rules prior to the incompatible national rules means that the national courts in case of such a conflict always have to apply the communitarian rules and at the same time they have not to apply or not to take into consideration the national regulation which is incompatible with these rules.
It is necessary to emphasize that the national courts have to proceed in such way and to solve this conflict through the preference and application of the communitarian rule in the scope of their own power, ex offo, developing their own initiative.
Under ? 109 sect. 1 (c) of the Rule of Civil Procedure the proceedings shall be suspended if the court has arrived to a conclusion that there is a question on preliminary reference which must be decided by the European Court of Justice. After suspension of the case, the court sends a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice and awaits its decision.
On the proceedings on the preliminary question
The law of the European Communities is superior to the law of the member states (lets leave aside the delicate issue of the superiority of the communitarian law to national constitutional law). The priority of the communitarian law requires unified application of this law in all member states. The application process of the communitarian law consists of two fundamental issues:
1. Unified interpretation of the communitarian law, while the unified interpretation must precede the unified application of this law in member states
2. The communitarian legal acts are considered valid in national environment and for that reason the national courts cannot reject the application of the communitarian legal acts only on the basis that they have arrived to the conclusion on invalidity or ineffectivity of the said communitarian legal acts.
These problems are solved in proceedings on preliminary question under Article 234 of the EC Treaty the purpose of which lies especially in the interpretation of the primary and secondary law and the review of the validity of the secondary legal acts. For that reason the proceedings on preliminary question are procedural enforcement of the priority of the communitarian law on the national level.
The obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question relates only to the national court which proceeds in the case in the last instance in accordance with the judicial organisation and powers and competences under the Constitution and laws regulating these issues. In Slovakia there are two such courts. Both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court sometimes could also be a competent regional court.
The question is whether the Constitutional Court belongs to courts which should make a preliminary reference. It depends, but most of the opinions on this issue have agreed to involve Constitutional Courts to the scope of Art. 234 of the Treaty on European Communities.
The possible effects of the violation of the national court?s obligation to submit the case to the Court of Justice under Art. 234 of the Treaty
Relaying on the obligation and possibility of a national court to submit the case to the Court of Justice for decision on the preliminary question, it is necessary to underline that if a national court was a last instance court and in spite of this fact it did not submit the case to the Court of Justice, the communitarian law would be violated. Such a qualification of a national court negligence follows from the fact that the national court has to respect the Art. 234 of the Treaty if it is a last instance court. The violation of this obligation may result in commencement of proceedings before the Court of Justice in special type of proceedings on violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty. The member state whose court has not fulfilled its obligation under the quoted Art. 234 of the Treaty will be charged. The charge against the member state is justified for a simple reason. In spite of the independence being a functional principle of a national judicial system, a member-state court remains a public power authority of the concerned state, and the violation of the obligation following from the EC Treaty de jure is assigned to the member state.
On application of the domestic procedural code
In proceedings on communitarian claims and rights the national courts hear and decide these cases usually under the domestic procedural rules.
The work of the national courts on application of the domestic procedural regulations in proceedings in which cases following from communitarian standards are heard and decided, abide by the requirements of equivalence and efficiency.
The issue of competency of the national courts in relation to cases following from the communitarian law
Under fixed case-law of the Court of Justice it is a matter of each member state to define which court shall be competent locally and concerning the subject matter of the lawsuit when the subject of the proceedings is an individual right based on the communitarian law. The member states shall be liable for the effective protection of this right in every single case and it is not the task of the Court of Justice to solve whose jurisdiction shall the individual case fall under.
Concluding remarks
The Slovak judiciary is expecting its transformation into an effective part of the European judicial system. The right attitude might be a cautious optimism in spite of some expected difficulties. We are entering into a stabilised system and it has acted relatively long time in the fixed legal environment. We have at our disposal some experiences, case-law, developed doctrine and the willingness of the colleagues from the member states to share their experiences gained on their way from national judge to the European one. The rest, I think, will be our task. The first step is to get general knowledge then to learn special know-how and finally the improvement of skills in the application of the communitarian law.
NAFTA and the EU's paper tells us Tremolada, Eric (Universidad Externado de Colombia) is the principle lecturer of the Jean Monnet Class on European Communitarian Law (designated by the European Commission of the European Union in 2005).
Simona Zah, 21, a former law student at the University of Bucharest was the best graduate student in a special course on "International, comparative and communitarian law" at the University of Strasbourg, in 2001.
Sari Kouvo, born 1971, is a researcher and lecturer in international law with a focus on human rights and in gender and law at the Department of Law. She attended "What are They Doing? Gender Mainstreaming in International Human Rights?, Gender and Communitarian Law Workshop, Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law, Spain (2000).
"For the aim of European law study on Master level, the curriculum and share of lessons has been added and made deeper - it is not only specialization for the area of justice and internal affairs but also the basis of wider general theory mainly of the European communitarian law, history questions and EU genesis, new EU legal institutes as joint investigation teams, Eurojust, or European warrant of arrest, etc." EDUCATION IN EUROPEAN LAW AT THE POLICE ACADEMY OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC.
Regionalism and Constitutionalism in an Enlarged EU, A pan-European project by WiRE in collaboration with academic partners throughout Europe to investigate the situation of the regions in the context of the emerging EU constitution list of participants includes Prof. Daria de Pretis. "Daria de Pretis is a Professor of Administrative Law at the Universit? di Trento in Italy. Her main areas of interest include communitarian law; administrative action; the legal principle of discretionary powers and administrative justice in Italy and Europe. In 2004 she published La Tutela Giurisdizionale Amministrativa in Europa fra Integrazione e Diversit? on the subject of advimistrative law in a Europe of integration and diversity."
Michael Coester
(Professor, Munich University):
"The Law on Terms of Contract in Conflicting Relationship between German and European Communitarian Law"
("Das Recht der Allgemeinen Geschaftsbedingungen im Spannungsfeld zwischen deutschem Recht und europaischem Gemeinschaftsrecht")
Discussant: Hiroshi Kochi (Professor, Kyushu University) Kyushu University Faculty of Law and Ludwig-Maximilian
University (Munich) Law Faculty's Joint Research Program s
MO??O AO PJ -ENGLISH VERSION, a Portugese blogger explains the need for European integration and
The European Youth Parliament, which "Emphasizes the network cooperation agreements, the policy of aid to the development and the pratice of strong positions in the various international organizations (UN, NATO, WTO). 2. Reaffirms the EU personality through the supremacy of the communitarian law above the national law. 3. Endows the EU of the means to proceed, through evolution and commitment towards an improved economic and social cohesion. 4. Requests the reinforcement of the communitarian budget as to allow the sustainable development of the weaker economies."
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Achievements in the field of human rights ten years after Dayton, Sarajevo, 10 and 11 May 2005. "By implementing the Agreement, BiH {Bosnia and Herzegovina} will be able to apply for full membership of the EU. The negotiations for membership will be the most complex task and the greatest challenge, which will lead to the most profound reforms. Institutional capacities, which are necessary for successful negotiations on full membership, adoption and application of the whole European legislation, will finally result in the number of around 15 state ministries and around a hundred agencies, offices with the purpose of strengthening democracy, strengthening of export capacities, oversight of the market, environment protection, etc. The number of entity or cantonal competences will be reduced significantly. All these formal steps will be followed by considerable reforms in the judiciary, internal affairs, defence, economy, etc. Finally, BiH will transfer a share of its sovereignty to the European Community for supremacy of communitarian law and its application in all EU member states. ESI analysts think that it is impossible for BiH to start negotiations for full membership before 2007.
Inicio UCH-CEU Fundaci?n USP-CEU Univerisidad Cardenal Herrera-English version. Seminars include a course on "The General Principles of the Law in the European Communitarian Law."
Italian s-tiles explains: "The Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control was implemented in Italy under Government Bill D.Lgs n. 372 of 4 August 1999. Currently, it is applied specifically to existing plants, as defined under Annex I, Article 41 of Communitarian Law* 2001 (1 March 2002, No. 39), but with the provision for the Government to extend the IPPC to new and modified plants, as well, within a period of 1 year. *A law ratified by the Government yearly on 31 January, which includes the norms for adopting EU law within the Italian legal system."
Aquamedia's International Relations in Water Management claims, "By adopting the WFD, the communitarian law in the European Union reached its top in the area of waters, the former solution of individual problems regulated by the relevant directives has changed into to complex approach in protection and exploitation of waters."
Araceli Mangas Mart?n Professor of International Public Law and International Relations, Universidad de Salamanca since 1986 was also Professor ?Jean Monnet? of Communitarian Law by the European Communities Commission in 1991. She wrote - ?European Communitarian Law and Spanish Law?, Madrid, Ed. Tecnos, 2nd ed, 1987
The Jean Monnet Program at the New York University School of Law has nothing describing what a Professor 'Jean Monnet' of Communitarian Law teaches. Wikpedia-Jean Monnet explains Monnet is credited as the "architect of European Unity." (This is very interesting since so little information is circulated about communitarian law and the primary source for communitarian law is the EU.)
Jose Antonio Sanchez Quintanilla is the Secretary General of the IDAE. He is Bachelor in Law (specialty in Public Law) by the University of Seville having a diploma in European Communitarian Law by the same University. He is civil employee of the Upper Corporation of Civilian Administrations of the State, from 1989. Among other functions, he has been Adviser and later on Director of the Secretary of State of Scientific and Technological Policy Office in the Ministry of Science and Technology, being this its last position carried out until its incorporation to the IDAE. Jose Antonio Sanchez Quintanilla has wide experience within the Public Administration in Organization and administrative procedures, Administrative hiring, Management of human resources and elaboration of dispositions of legal and obligatory rank.
"Marco Polo System geie is a structure of Communitarian law instituted by the Municipality of Venice together with the Union of the Municipalities and the Communities of Greece (K.E.D.K.E.)." MARCO POLO SYSTEM GEIE
AALS: 2005 Annual Meeting Wednesday, January 5, 2005, 2:00 - 3:45 p.m. Hilton San Francisco, Yosemite B, Ballroom Level. Section on Law and Communitarian Studies Moderator(s): Thomas D. Morgan, The George Washington University
Law School. Speaker(s): Amitai Etzioni, The George Washington University Inst. for Communitarian Policy Studies; Karen Musalo, University of California, Hastings, College of the Law.
"Legal theory is directed at the correct understanding of law. The aim is to understand law in its integrity for which legal theory has developed a set of broad-based means. Understanding of the national legal system should rely on the uniformity of the legal system and the Constitution.
The author introduces the reader to the main principles of communitarianism as one of the possible means allowing to understand the Constitution. The author outlines the characteristic features of conservative, liberal and egalitarian theories of communitarianism, and provides an in-depth analysis of the communitarianist constitutional theory based on the principles of liberal communitarianism."
Plan to study communitarian law? Join 1,965 subscribers on the list for communitarian law : commlaw@hermes.gwu.edu:
"As a scholar who dedicated the last 15 years to communitarian public philosophy, I have frequently argued that individual rights have been unduly expanded, often at the cost of the common good. I joined Harvard law professor Mary Glendon to point critically at the explosive growth of entitlements and the trivialization of rights. For example, some feminists claimed that they had a right to use the men's room even if there was no line at the women's room. And an employee of Macy's claimed that he has a right to play Santa Claus. I could not find such rights in the Constitution, or for that matter, any other place. In addition, I devoted a whole book to the limits of privacy, and I am among those who hold that Sept. 11, 2001, changed what constitutes a "reasonable" search.
However, when we move to reset the balance between individual rights and the common good, we inevitably step on the slippery slope that we face whenever we reset legal doctrines, religious Do's and Don'ts and moral taboos. We hence need to be careful that we not open the floodgates to gross violations of individual rights-that we not end up on our backside on the lowest end of the slope. Some civil libertarians are so concerned about this danger that they would rather not set foot on the slope at all, and prefer to remain frozen in whatever position they find themselves. However, adjustments are often needed. The secret is to set clear markers for the new place on the slope beyond which we will not slide, a new definition of what is reasonable, a specific new point of balance between rights and the common good." [emphasis added] Amitai Etzioni, Communitarian Newsletter #4, received on the COMMLAW@hermes.gwu.edu elist, October 17, 2005. (also in The National Law Journal Online on September 19, 2005.)
It is difficult for a country that has always looked at the European Union from outside to judge whether and which particular deficiencies warrant a change. For historical reasons, Lithuanians have always fought for and cherished sovereignty. Consistent application of the principle of subsidiarity is, therefore, a natural interest of Lithuania who, as any other nation, has a strong feeling of responsibility for its own faith.
On the other hand, for geopolitical reasons and, more specifically, because of our size, we realise that, in many instances, we can further our interests through common actions together with other nations better than alone. In such cases we are learning to entrust our interest to international and supranational establishments composed of members who are likeminded and whom we can trust. European Union is about trust. We have bred an understanding that European Union cannot be interested in undermining our interests. I think we are learning this "win-win" game.
From a different angle, a delimitation of powers also calls for a determination on which European institutions do what. In fact, it is this aspect that gives the strongest political taste to the future debate. In the most simplified version, the discussion has shifted forth and back along a line between two extremes or options - inter-governmental and communitarian.
Lithuanian thinking rests on simple but tested experiences. It is first of all the communitarian method that has made the EU what it is today: a Union that accommodates the big and protects the small. Arguing for strengthening of the inter-governmentalism at the expense of communitarianism is, to a large extent, an attempt in a way to turn the integration clock backwards. Thus the community method must be preserved, strengthened and extended as the EU enlarges.
20 October, 2003 - The significance of the transatlantic bonds in the time of the entry of the Czech Republic into EU Print Mail by Mirek Topolanek. Quote: "Recently, the Intergovernmental Conference has started with a summit in Rome, with the number one task: adopting of a European Union Constitution ? a document that can significantly influence the nature of the ?old continent? and consequently also its relations with the US. It can result in a huge European ?super-state?, where most of the power is given to the bureaucrats in Brussels, or we will manage to keep the EU as a partnership of independent states that cooperate in areas where it?s advantageous. Unfortunately the submitted draft of the constitution was not created by any ?Founding Fathers? but by the European Convent with a majority vote of socialist and euro-federalist parties. It moves us towards the European ?super-state? founded on quite doubtful basis./ As a result of post-war development, expensive redistribution and bureaucratic processes became typical for European countries, along with the burden of the so-called social state and collective demands for what were called group rights. All of these are taken as specific European values. But in present global economic competition these phenomena decrease the competitiveness and restrain the economic growth. The common market is bound with thousands of pages of regulations of rapidly growing communitarian law, which are for the most part products of various lobby and corporate bodies. They are not so much about the reaching declared high standards, but more as a protectionist weapon against the foreign competition of European market. By doing so, Europe is really closing itself from global market than the opposite." From the American Enterprise Institute.
The Training Strategy for Civil Servants on EU Affaires from the Serbia and Montengro European Integration Office trains: " ?Harmonizators?- law experts that will have to be well acquainted with the structure of communitarian law, type and nature of the EU decisions and models of their implementation into the national legislature." (The page with this original text disappeared, now it doesn't say the term communitarian law it says: "The lecturer was a Slovenian expert in the harmonisation of national legislation with the acquis communautaire.")
Achievements in the field of human rights ten years after Dayton Sarajevo, 10 and 11 May 2005: "Finally, BiH will transfer a share of its sovereignty to the European Community for supremacy of communitarian law and its application in all EU member states. ESI analysts think that it is impossible for BiH to start negotiations for full membership before 2007."
www.worldvideobusiness.com. In this area I.M.P.R.E.S.A. S.p.A. intends to offer on line consulting services in the field of Labour Communitarian Law.
Fellowship Training Programme in International Law for French-Speaking African Countries (in French) Institut des Relations Internationales du Cameroun (IRIC) Yaound?, Cameroon, 7 ? 18 January 2002: "In cooperation with the camerooninan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Centre of Studies and Research of International and Communitarian Law (CEDIC), Yaound?, and the University of Yaound? II, the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs and UNITAR jointly organized a two-week training for 22 participants from different French-Speaking African countries (16 fellowship recipients and 6 trainees from the host country), including junior and mid-level government officials as well as representatives from law faculties of universities."
College of Europe, Professor Sylvie GOULARD: Sylvie Goulard is at the moment launching a new think tank "Europhilia" based in Sciences Po (Paris) where she will be active as a codirector with Olivier Duhamel (former French MEP). From 2001 to the summer 2004, she was a member of the group of political counsellors at the Commission where she integrated the team responsible for the follow-up of the Convention. She started her career as Foreign Affairs counsellor first at the legal department of the "Quai d'Orsay" (communitarian law and negotiations concerning the unification of Germany) and was then detached to the "Conseil d'Etat" in Paris. Furthermore, she has been in charge of the multilateral questions and the French-German projects in the "centre de prospective" of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sylvie Goulard remains an associated researcher at the CERI of Sciences Po. She has also taught European integration at Sciences Po (Paris). She is part of the national board of the French Mouvement Europ?en, member of the scientific directory of the Institut f?r Europ?ische Politik (Berlin), of the conseil d'administration d'Europartenaires (Paris) and of the Beirat of the BBI in Genshagen (Germany).
V. The Politics of International Law. The European Journal Of International Law explains the Hegelian dilemma between Sovereign Law and communitarian law.
The European Union and the General International Law explains how the Communitarian Juridical Order "divides" sovereignity. It uses Hegel as an example of the abstract, traditional, almost metaphyiscal concept of national sovereignity, and it gives us an example of communitarian case law precedents:
The communitarian juridical system has the quality of representing a juridical order, that is an organized and structured set of juridical norms with its own sources, organs and procedures capable of elaborating and interpreting them, but also of ascertaining and punishing the transgression of these norms, when necessary[9].
The priority of the communitarian juridical order is strictly related to the direct effect, because when the principle according to which the dispositions of the communitarian law can directly create rights and obligations comes into force, there can be, inevitably, certain conflicts between the two systems. The principle of the communitarian law's priority doesn't appear in the concluded treaties, but it was recognized by the European Court of Justice in two famous cases. The first one is the Van Gend en Loos decision from February 5th 1963 and the Costa vs. Enel one form July 15th 1964[10]. This decision stipulates that "an internal law disposition cannot oppose to the law created through communitarian agreements, by its very autonomous nature"[11] because, unlike the regular international treaties, the founding treaty of the European Community has given birth to its own juridical order, integrated in the member states juridical systems. The same decision stipulates that, by creating a Community for an unlimited period of time, with its own institutions, juridical personality and capacity, international representation right and especially with authentic powers as a result of the limitation of the states' competences or of their transfer towards the Community, the states have limited their sovereign rights in some specific fields and thus have created a law corpus applying to their followers and to themselves[12].
This approach on sovereignty is no longer the traditional abstract one, conceived almost as a metaphysical, indivisible and inalienable quality like in the classic doctrine elaborated by Bodin and Hegel and developed by many others, which seemed to be an inherent element of the state[13]. This is a new conception of sovereignty which corresponds to the idea of the sovereignty's division, which doesn't mean its binding to a certain area of the state's territory, but to some of its competences[14]. Pierre Pescatore[15] was the first one to develop the idea of the division of sovereignty, surpassing the concept of sovereignty expressed by the International Court of Justice in the famous Wimbledon Case, when the Court decided that the conclusion of any treaty didn't mean the abandon of sovereignty, because the very right to conclude treaties was an attribute of sovereignty.
This new approach regarding sovereignty allows us to speak about the "divided" sovereignty or the one "exercised together" by states and organizations such as the European Community, because the state doesn't have the exclusive competence to exercise the attributes of sovereignty on its territory. Such an approach can lead directly to an analogy with the model represented by the federal states. This analogy would be forced and exaggerated, given the fact that in the federal system the states give up certain fields of actions in favour of the federation (defense, foreign affairs etc.) and, on the other hand, the relationship with the European Communities doesn't mean the delegation of competences, but of the exercise of certain competences that doesn't allow the states to intervene by actions which are incompatible with the communitarian rules[16]. Such an example is the common commercial policy regulated by the 113 article of the EEC Treaty and which is of the unique competence of the Community, including when it comes to concluding commercial agreements with third states[17]. [emphasis added]
"The concept of absolute, unlimited sovereignty did not last long after its adoption, either domestically or internationally. The growth of the democratic form of government imposed important limitations upon the power of the sovereign and of the ruling classes. The increase in the interdependence of states restricted the principle that might is right in international?"
The following papers all relate to Pierre Pescatore (the first one to develop the idea of the division of sovereignty, surpassing the concept of sovereignty expressed by the International Court of Justice in the famous Wimbledon Case):
A Research Guide to International Investment Law Prepared by Wei Luo, Director of Technical Services and Lecturer in Law,
Washington University School of Law Library, e-mail: luo@law.wustl.edu,; office phone: 935-8045.(For Professor Mutharika's International Investment Law Seminar)Last Updated in April 2005.
1 : a sufficiency of means for the necessities and conveniences of life
2 : the quality or state of being competent : as a : the properties of an embryonic field that enable it to respond in a characteristic manner to an organizer b : readiness of bacteria to undergo genetic transformation
3 : the knowledge that enables a person to speak and understand a language -- compare PERFORMANCE
The following papers all use the term "competences."
1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
Competences defined at the DSM Sustainablity glossary:
"Behavioral Competences are intended as a worldwide common language to sharpen the discussion about performance and development. Competences are a way to talk about how one gets results, the behavior and qualities one employs. Competences are the capabilities and behavioral skills you use to interact with the work-environment and within one's business function or personal tasks."
In April 2003 the European Union was working on its draft constitution. Their site has a glossary that defines ALL the modern terminology that has "evolved" over the past 30 years. This is the first dictionary of the legal meanings of the new terms we've seen.
Here is the global definition of "community law:"Community Acquis.
For those who don't take the link, Community acquis is:
"The Community acquis or Community patrimony is the body of common rights and obligations which bind all the Member States together within the European Union. It is constantly evolving and comprises:
? the content, principles and political objectives of the treaties;
? Community legislation and the case law of the Court of Justice;
? the declarations and resolutions adopted by the Union;
? measures relating to the common foreign and security policy;
? measures relating to justice and home affairs;
? international agreements concluded by the Community and those concluded by the Member States between themselves in the field of the Union's activities.When further countries join the European Union, full compliance with the Community acquis is one of the requisites for accession.
Community legal instruments are defined as:
"The term "Community legal instruments" refers to the instruments available to the Community institutions to carry out their tasks. The principal instruments are:
? regulations: these are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States;
? directives: these bind the Member States as to the results to be achieved; they have to be transposed into the national legal framework and thus leave a margin for manoeuvre as to the form and means of implementation;
? decisions: these are fully binding on those to whom they are addressed;
? recommendations and opinions: these are non-binding.
New Arrivals in the Law Library...
June 2004 at Indiana University School of Law. The founder of American communitarianism, Amitai Etzioni's, recently published From Empire to Community is on this list.
BANDED CONTRACTS, MEDIATING INSTITUTIONS, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: A NATURALIST ANALYSIS OF CONTRACTUAL THEORIES OF THE FIRM by TIMOTHY L. FORT* AND JAMES J. NOONE, Cited: 62 Law & Contemp. Probs. 163 (Summer 1999)
[*pg 163] Duke Law Journal. "Part IV addresses the social contractarian approach. Combined with Part II's understanding of evolution and nature, a constructive model emerges that takes the best features of social contracting and agency contracting and blends them with a naturalist-based communitarianism."
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) 16-18 November, 2005 "In the second phase of WSIS efforts are being made to put the Plan of Action into motion and working groups have been set up to find solutions and reach agreements in the fields of Internet governance and financing mechanisms."
The Politics of International Law by the Academy of European Law online."The law aims to fulfil its double task by becoming formal: by endorsing neither particular communitarian ideals nor particular sovereign policies."
Accredited American law schools that teach communitarian law in their classes, publish Communitarian Legal Readers, or host communitarian law seminars at their colleges refuse to respond or discuss communitarian law with peons like us. We've tried for years to find one American lawyer to admit communitarian law exists. We found one that ceased operations, The Wallace Institute. I worked with attorneys Margaret Boyle and Jose Vera for two years on the Dawson case and we never once discussed it, even though the Dawson lawsuit was a 4th Amendment complaint against a DOJ pilot test of communitarian law enforcement proceedures. The Dawson clients were also a human subjects research project in 1999, for the 2002 Homeland Security Agency and for the National ID database, all highly recommended in the 2004 9-11 Commission Report. Understanding communitarian law is obviously confined to elite groups who work to "Rebuild the World" under communitarian values. The people most affected by it, the ones who suffer under it, are never taught what it is. American lawyers just plain ignore it.
There is not one single American alternative "law teacher" who will discuss communitarian law. We don't appear to have anyone besides Dr. Kelly Ross, Ph.d., Jeri Lynn Ball, Joan Veon, Devvy Kidd, Charlotte Iserbyt, Chris Gerner, Detective Philip Worts, Berit Kjos and the occasional unknown writers like us who are willing to mention it. American law schools ignore ACL requests for a rebuttal to our manifesto against communitarian law (although some do offer us "good luck" with our "project.") No one will dispute our philosopical or historical objections either, and political sites refuse to add the Third Way communitarian agenda to their news topic lists. It's the most important and least discussed topic in the entire world. Far too many Americans think it's a conspiracy theory.
Liudvikas Bukys
Weblog regarding topics of interest to me: system architecture, high performance computing, policy and law, security, software development, web applications. Bukys' weblog is like a historical overview of cybercrime developments.
The most incredible thing is, thousands of Americans are charged and sentenced to jail and prisons for violations of community law every day. All new intervention and prevention programs required under Congressional Acts (such as the Violent Crime Act, Domestic Violence Act, Patriot Act, National Intelligence Reform Act, Homeland Security Act, etc. are based in communitarian legal philosophy. Communitarian "values" justify all wars on inanimate objects too, such as the War on Terror and The Wars on Drugs, Poverty, Crime, Obesity, and any other "idea" we can be convinced to support.
The reason so many more Americans lose and go to jail now is because they are defending themselves against communitarian law with U.S. Constitutional law. Powerful communitarian laws over-rule (balance) constitutional law in every nation. The Sovereignty movement (which studies ways to return American liberty principles via offshore and foreign banking protections) faces the same predicament. No property in the world is protected from communitarian equitable distribution programs. Communitarian law is global law. Community law enforces equitable distribution of wealth (property). It will be fully implemented by 2020, and it's also called Region 2020. HUD's mapping database was called Community 2020.
So called communitarian law is openly taught and passed in the European Union. In the U.S. it is quietly taught in elite seminars, and widely adopted inside land management plans. The ACL library would really appreciate hardcopy donations of communitarian law books, and we have given up seeking a constitutional law firm with attorneys who have courtroom experience in defending individuals against communitarian law. Not even the so-called American Freedom Movement has a clue what it is. In fact, much of the American "alternative" research is totally duped by communitarian policies and rhetoric. Even more sad, many American "patriots" actually support communitarian programs that undermine the constitutional laws they claim to defend.
Communitarian law is the most succesful con job in the history of the modern world. The ACL may have "won" the debate against the bogus communitarian ideology, but the American people have definately lost their constitution anyway, because they missed the most important debate in the history of the United States. That's mainly because it was held quietly, in small gatherings of like-minded individuals. The citizens never write these news laws by themselves. Community police and sustainable developers teach the new law. Community change agents gather the data necessary to enforce the new law. COMPASS and Community Policing assist communitarian visionaries to implement the Community Imperial Laws.
a. Communitarianism Defined. The contractarian ideology has clearly dominated the discourse in the worlds of law, economics, and management during the past fifteen or twenty years. Indeed, after observing this phenomenon, Chancellor Allen of the Delaware Chancery Court observed that "[o]ne of the marks of a truly dominant intellectual paradigm is the difficulty people have in even imagining any alternative view."181 That said, an alternative view does exist. Recognized by the press,182 often associated with the work of Amitai Etzioni,183 and increasingly represented in both the law and economics literature184 and the management literature,185 the communitarian paradigm has emerged as the alternative to contractarian thinking. Its origins lie in the worlds of both theory and practice.
Communitarianism finds its origins in a long-standing controversy about human nature. For centuries, sociologists and philosophers have debated the primacy of individuals or collectivities in the understanding of social life.186 Some believe that self-interested individual decisionmaking lies at the center of social, political, and economic life.187 Others believe that personal preferences and decisions are shaped by, and largely explained by, the social structure and context within which people live.188 Contractarianism is rooted in assumptions [*pg 42] of utilitarian and methodological individualism, while communitarianism finds its roots in humanism and methodological holism.189 The current primacy of contractarian thinking should not be misread as evidence that no other theoretical world view exists.
Turning to business practice, those who view the firm not as an economic aggregation of individuals but rather as an entity, connected in some organic fashion with our social, historical, and political world, ask how economic activity serves society. Indeed, by providing limited liability and various constitutional protections to the corporation, society accords the corporation entity status in the eyes of the law. In this light, Thomas Lee Hazen raises a key question: "What is the quid pro quo that society exacts for granting this special privilege to corporations?"190 In a famous paper, E. Merrick Dodd answered this question years ago: "[A] sense of social responsibility toward employees, consumers, and the general public may thus come to be regarded as the appropriate attitude to be adopted by those who are engaged in business."191 However, communitarians look for evidence in support of Dodd's assertion and come away disappointed. Discussions of externalities and contract failure may explain -- but not explain away -- the fact that corporations often harm or exploit many in society who have a stake in their activities.192 A point of departure for communitarian thinking then is a desire to redress and prevent the harms that firms may inflict upon society.193
The conceptual battle lines are stark. Where contractarianism finds its legitimacy in the values of liberty and competition, communitarians emphasize justice and cooperation. Where contractarians look to Adam Smith's invisible hand for a social welfare logic to justify the distribution of gains from corporate activity, communitarians yearn for an authentic community where the fulfillment of the true needs of society's members justifies corporate activity.194 Focusing on the managerial means to achieve corporate ends, contractarians invoke norms of freedom, while communitarians emphasize responsibility.[*pg 43]
Finally, both camps conjure up an image of a sinister world if their paradigm is not embraced. The contractarians warn of slavery and oppression if communitarians have their way, while communitarians fear exploitation and alienation if contractarianism is unchecked. Table 3 captures the fundamental distinctions between these two corporate worldviews. [*pg 44]
The Univeristy of Virginia hosts a Universitas 21 Global Graduate Programs for Global Leaders.
Judge Calabresi Awarded Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Medal in Law, University of Virginia Law School. "In addition to addressing first year students of property and engaging in numerous informal encounters with faculty and students, Judge Calabresi delivered a public lecture on "Liberte, egalite, fraternite." Calabresi's lecture explored a fundamental problem of constitutional law, how to prevent majoritarian legislatures from interfering with individual liberties in the name of communitarian values ("fraternite")."
Law and Community: the Case of Torts. "Cochran (Pepperdine University School of Law) and Ackerman (Pennsylvania State University's Dickinson School of Law) consider the possibilities of a communitarian tort system. In so doing they discuss communitarian principles, offer an intermediate communitarian perspective of tort law, and discuss the roles of families, religious communities, and the larger community. Annotation ?2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)."
II. Constitutional Law and Transnational Exercise of Individual Rights: Freedom of Transnational Trade as an Individual Right?
A. Constitutional Recognition of Supremacy of Individual Rights?
The concept of a limiting constitution grew up in England in response to the abuses of monarchical absolutism, and English constitutional traditions continue to have a bearing on constitutional laws in many countries (in particular those of the Commonwealth). But it is the US Constitution of 1789 which seems to have had the strongest influence on many liberal constitutions adopted by European, Latin American and Asian countries during the 19th century (e.g. the Swiss Constitution of 1874) and the 20th century (e.g. the German Basic Law of 1949). Unlike the English concept of `parliamentary sovereignty', the US Constitution aimed at `a government of laws, not of men' (as described in the Bill of Rights preceding the Constitution of Massachusetts of 1780) by subjecting all government powers to permanent constitutional rules with a higher legal ranking than ordinary legislation and government regulation. The chief constitutional principles - such as limited government under the rule of law, separation and only limited delegation of powers, due process and judicial protection of individual rights - were meant to limit also the powers of Congress, and many framers of the US Constitution viewed the legislature as the potentially most dangerous branch of government. Long-term constitutional limitations were designed to protect the general interests of the citizens against the short term interests of organized groups, which have a strong influence on the daily policy process. Such limitations were expected to protect the equal rights of the citizens more effectively and to give the people more control (`sovereignty') over the political order than if decisions were taken successively by constitutionally unconstrained parliaments or by governments dependent upon majority support.
Perhaps the most distinctive contribution of American constitutional law was the emphasis on the supremacy of individual rights over government powers. The fundamental rights of the people were recognized as existing prior to government, whose main task - as emphasized already in the Declaration of Independence - was to promote individual rights and provide those `public goods' that people cannot or do not provide privately. In accordance with the constitutional principles of limited government, enumerated powers, and protection of individual freedoms against government interferences, the US Bill of Rights explicitly reserves certain powers to the states and to the people.6 [emphasis added]
A rights-based approach is also characteristic of European Community law and is one of the main reasons for the success of European integration. As the European Court of Justice recognized early in its history, `Community law ... not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage',7 and thus the EEC Treaty's prohibitions on national tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers can be judicially enforced by the Community citizens themselves, often against resistance by their own governments. In addition to the individual rights derived from primary and secondary Community law, more basic human rights are also recognized as part of the Community legal order and act as legal limitations on the powers of the Community. Individual Community rights, by limiting abuses of regulatory powers through decentralized (`democratic') control and enforcement of Community law, could operate as powerful tools of integration also in the field of the foreign trade law of the EEC. But they are confronted with particular `constitutional problems'. These are, in part, due to the fact that the EEC Treaty - in view of the EC Member States' GATT membership and the comprehensive and detailed obligations which this imposes on them - regulated the foreign trade law of the EEC in only a very scanty manner (e.g. in Articles 110-116, 40, 43). Even the more precise customs union rules of the EEC Treaty (Articles 9-37) are often construed without regard to the underlying GATT obligations of the EEC.8
"analyzes the way in which the Court of Justice has controlled the principle of the supremacy of communitarian law over domestic laws, as well as over the principle of uniformity in its application, on the basis of international intruments, common constitutional traditions and general principles of communitarian law. In addition, the author explains the role of national courts in the determination of constitutional limits to the process of integration, mainly in what concerns issues such as fundamental rights and the power to determine the jurisdiction limits of communitarian institutions. Lastly, the author stresses the need to establish a structure of the constitutional kind as a useful tool for the efficacy of the process of integration."
"Presentations on Community Associations and Related Topics," by Jimmy Winokur, includes "Servitude Regimes in Communitarian Perspective: Community Associations as Settings for Postmodern Community," to Washington State Community Associations Institute, Seattle, WA, June 9, 1992, and "Communities of Interest: Private Land Use Controls & Private Communities -- A Communitarian Perspective," to Association of American Law Schools, Property Section Teaching Conference, Spokane WA, June 6, 1992.
LAW 697O. NEW COURSE: The Corporation in Thought and Practice CORP IN THOUGHT+PRACTICE (2-3) II The seminar will place the development of corporate law and theory during the 20th century in a broad intellectual milieu. Particularly, we will attempt to discern the relationship between the development of different visions of the corporation and a variety of economic, social and political concerns. After a brief review of corporate law in the 19th century, the first part of the term will be devoted to the rise of modern corporation and the transformation of democratic theory during the turn of the 20th century (1880s-1930s). During the later part of the course, focus will be made on developments in corporate law since the 1960s. Exploring the ways in which contemporary approaches to corporate law (law and economics, critical legal studies or communitarian visions) draw on earlier paradigms. Workshop - 3. 001 (CB 19:06)
Here's a portion of the legal status under the Cartegena Agreement between Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Per? y Venezuela:
Andean Court of Justice, process 10-IP-94: "How that interrelation or complementarity between national and communitarian law must be given, is an issue that this Court wishes to deal as follows. The provision on article 144 of Decision 344, establishes what some legal writers denominate "rule of closing" (Mat?as Alem?n), according to which, it is left to the legislation of the member countries, the legislative solution to situations not contemplated by the communitarian law, due to the fact that, it is possible that all the cases susceptible of juridical regulation have not been foreseen by it. It is necessary to point out that, in the application of this figure, the intern legislations of each country may not establish requirements, additional requisites or dictate regulations that might, in one way or another, conflict with the communitarian law or restrict essential aspects regulated by it in such a way that represent, for example, a lesser protection for the rights contemplated by the communitarian ruling. (...)"
In this course, we will ask what makes a "just society"? Central to this question is the problem of freedom and order-how do we reconcile our twin desires to promote both individual freedom and common good. Does too much freedom lead to social chaos? Does too much order lead to repression and conformity? What is the right balance? In this course, we will examine the role of law in balancing freedom and order. We will explore the intersection of law, justice, and good citizenship.
By the end of the course, we hope you can provide informed answers to these questions: Should individuals sacrifice their own interest in service of the collective good? Should they be required by law to do so? To what extent does our contemporary liberal democracy depend on the socially responsible action of its members? What does it mean to do community service and to engage in service-learning? What does citizenship mean? Is it a right-wing term referring to the sacrifice of the self to God and Country? Or is it a left-wing term reflecting a call for citizens to pay attention to the needs of the poor and disadvantaged? Neither? Both?
Some of the course readings articulate relevant social theories drawn from sociology, psychology, political science, and legal theory, while others provide direct accounts of those engaged in community service. The hidden agenda, of course, in the grand tradition of liberal studies, is to challenge you to develop your own philosophy of law, citizenship, and justice. To make the readings and class discussions concrete, students will participate in one of two service-learning projects and use these opportunities to reflect on their role in the larger society. In one project, you will assist a defense attorney and Skidmore alumnus in a death penalty appeal. In a second project, you will participate in Skidmore's Integrity Board and evaluates its effectiveness as a campus judicial system.[emphasis added]
Towards A World Domestic Policy by Erik Oddvar Eriksen ; To be published in E.O. Eriksen and J. Weig?rd: A Critical Introdution to J?rgen Habermas. Continuum Press (London, New York).
Petitioners rather vaguely assert (Br. 30) that forcing "the
volunteer worker" to accept "wages in prescribed amounts" is "contrary
to his religious convictions." Without explaining the significance of
the comments, petitioners quote (Br. 31) two representative
associates, Ann Elmore and Bill Levy, to the effect that the thought
of compensation is "vexing to my soul" (J.A. 79) and that to be forced
to take a wage "offends my right to worship God as I choose" (J.A.
63). /17/ Neither of these statements, however, is especially
illuminating. There is nothing peculiarly religious about Elmore's
sentiment. Persons may be vexed for entirely non-religious reasons by
what they feel to be the anti-communitarian quality of making explicit
the nexus between what they do and what they get. And Levy's
statement, while making clear that the source of his objection is
religious, leaves the courts entirely in the dark regarding what it is
about the minimum wage laws that he finds objectionable. For
amplification, it is necessary to examine these associates' other
comments and actual behavior.
TERRORISM, LIBERTY, AND COMMUNITY: Why We Need a Stronger Focus On the Common Good By SCOTT IDLEMAN, Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2001 at findlaw.com. "Americans are fond of liberty, particularly the liberty of the individual. We have numerous words to describe it: liberty, freedom, autonomy, privacy, and rights, among others. Until very recently, however, we have not placed as much emphasis on the common good or the public welfare. If the horrific events of September 11 are any indication, this may ? and arguably must ? change.Community and the Constitution: Our relative lack of focus on the common good is actually quite surprising, given that the preamble to our national Constitution is mostly communitarian, rather than individualistic, in orientation."
(How is it possible that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 as a communitarian document when the communitarian philosophy evolved in the 1990s? ~ed.)
Accounting and Administration degree requirements include Communitarian Law in the 4th year. The INTERNATIONAL OFFICE stimulates and supports the development of internationalisation in all aspects of ISCAPs activities, namely concerning ERASMUS programme, together with the International Programmes Office (GPI) of Polytechnical Institute of Porto.
The following quote comes from LD Debate.org and shows how far the term can be stretched by American students (and I have no idea where this student found his information: "My first contention is that the United States is morally obligated to promote democratic ideals in other nations because of communitarian law. Communitarian law states that if you have the power to do something for the better, you are morally obligated to. Promoting inalienable rights, freedoms, equality (democratic ideals) would be aimed towards the betterment of the world. The United States clearly has the power to promote ideals of democracy in other nations, due to their becoming the world?s super-power after the fall of the Soviet Union. Therefore since the United States can promote these ideals, it is morally obligated to. The United States under President Clinton in the 1990?s accepted this and promoted democratic ideals abroad, and gained great fame for it. Many people would line up for hours just to see the president, because they honestly felt they were being helped by the most powerful nation. In other words, it relates to the idea of watching a man drown right next to the dock, with another man standing on the dock. The person can easily help them, but decides to walk away. This is exactly what occurs when the United States chooses not to promote democratic ideals in other nations. This ties in with my value of protecting natural rights because by expressing its obligation to promote democratic ideals through communitarian law, it is achieving guaranteeing natural rights."
Communitarian law has been successfully taught in law schools across the U.S., and the new communitarian morality has the support of everyone from Harvard to the European Union. Starting out attacking relatively unsupportable behaviors like child pornography, Harvard Law hosts hot events like Harvard's symposium on communitarian law where they invited Zionist communitarian Professor Amitai Etzioni to initiate attacks on the inherent legal flaws in the outdated nationalist U.S. Constitution.
For 200 years the U.S. Constitution was considered to be the most powerful people's contract with their government in the history of the modern world, and many nations copied from it when designing their own constitutional governments. Today, even as new republics (like the anti-communitarian Czech Republic) continue to emulate the American nationalist quest for freedom, the American internationalist communitarians look to the United Nations as the more moral bastion of individual freedoms.
Here are but a few of the many places to go for more information about communitarian law, to see for yourself the hope it's already brought to an unstable world:
The Honorable Patricia Wald, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit, which in 1998 was a most thorough examination of 30 years of advancing communitarian goals.
Criminal Justice Today:Title XXVI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 mandated establishment of a 28-member National Commission on Crime Control and Prevention. The commission, which is bipartisan and includes congressional as well as presidential appointees, is composed of law enforcement professionals, judges, mayors, prosecutors, professors, and former state attorneys general. Selected to chair the commission is Lee Fisher, a former Ohio state legislator and state Attorney General with a long anti-gun track record. Fisher is a member of the Board of Directors of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. The Commission is expected to release its final report in late 1999. Like the findings of its predecessors, the 1967 President?s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, and the 1973 National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, the report of the National Commission is expected to substantially impact criminal justice activities and crime control initiatives during the first few decades of the twenty-first century. Among the Commission?s mandates are:
(1) To develop a comprehensive proposal for preventing and controlling crime and violence in the United States.
POLICE POWER AND THE PUBLIC TRUST: PRESCRIPTIVE ZONING THROUGH THE CONFLATION OF TWO ANCIENT DOCTRINES, by Donna Jalbert Patalans details the legal basis for community policing strategies. Her abstract explains: "The close historical affinity between the Public Trust doctrine and police power supports a more expansive view of zoning. The doctrines? kindred public interest spirit can empower localities to adopt dynamic, proactive, prescriptive zoning ordinances that promote community character. To do so, municipalities must self-define their unique community assets and ambiance through an openly developed comprehensive plan that honestly memorializes development patterns and sets forth community goals."
Chinese communitarian case law published in Law & Society
Volume 37 Issue 3 Page 549 - September 2003
doi:10.1111/1540-5893.3703003, can be accessed from Blackwell Synergy. This "Confessions and Criminal Case Disposition in China"
Hong Lu, Terance D. Miethe. "... examines confessions and criminal case disposition in China. It describes how wider economic reforms in China and subsequent changes in its legal system may have affected the nature and consequence of criminal confessions. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of a sample of 1,009 criminal court cases reveal that the majority of offenders confessed to their crime and that confession is associated with less severe punishments (e.g., lower risks for imprisonment, shorter sentences). Changes in the nature of confession and its impact on criminal court practices are also examined before and after legal reforms in the mid-1990s. These context-specific findings are then discussed in terms of their implications for understanding the interrelationships between legal structure, legal culture, and case disposition in communitarian-based societies."
"I have many good reasons to associate the international usage of communitarian law to Etzioni and his George Washington University's Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies. I've read much of what Etzioni has "written," even though his assistant Erin Riska admitted he wrote hardly any of it (and she later retracted that to mean it only had to be heavily edited). The good doctor has been writing about the "need" for a new communitarian legal order since 1957. His brand is the entire basis for legal programs tested by Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS http://nord.twu.net/acl/commpolicing.html) established by Clinton in 1994. Communitarian laws were inserted inside Seattle's 38 Local Agenda 21 Plans in 1999. Balancing community rights is based in communitarian legal principles. In the EU the new system IS the "community" and the national laws of every member country are subserviant to the "Code de r?daction interinstitutionnel." Etzioni advises both US state and federal government agencies to make legal changes to constitutional systems and procedures. He is a strong advocate for limiting U.S. privacy rights and he is a primary player in the unfolding unauthorized national ID database system. (COPS tested the data-gathering operations in Seattle in 2000, it's called COMPASS, Community Mapping, Planning and Analysis for Safety Strategies http://nord.twu.net/compass.html). Here's another one of my reasons: the Communitarian Law newsletter/subscriber list at GWU: http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=COMMLAW&H=HERMES.GWU.EDU (it has 1,965 members).[[Niki Raapana ~~~~]]"
First reponse from Tony Rossman on August 11, 2005:
Just got your email , having been away and out of email for a while. Let
me look your material over as I catch up after few weeks away. In a
nutshell I was equating communitarianism with representative democracy
(which may now seem a faux pas in this age of terminology) and meaning to
say the Court would not allow a single spoiler to thwart community will to
redevelop what the community as a whole considers blight. That does not
mean that democracies cannot prove oppressive or unenlightened; as I
indicated in my remarks, the Court would not categorically rule out the use
of eminent domain, but left it to the States to fix the abuses. The
subsequent reaction to Kelo seems to bear out that the Court's intent is
being carried out; the proposals to reign in unfortunate uses of eminent
domain appears even to have reached the Governor of Connecticut, source of
the problem in the first instance.
So let me check out your site and understand your views and see what
dialogue may be profitable.
Thanks for writing, and again regrets at my delay.
Tony Rossmann
On 7/27/05 1:21 PM, "Niki Raapana" wrote:
> Dear Professor Antonio Rossmann,
>
> In a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal you explained that the Kelo
> decision was a "benign communitarian decision." You also claimed that "The
> court said we aren't going to be the engine for that anti-communitarian
> process."
>
> We are very interested in what you meant by identifying communitarianism as
> "benign," and how you interpreted the high court's decision to say they
> "weren't going to be the engine for that anti-communitrian process."
>
> Communitarians create self-appointed, unelected councils that are mostly
> unknown to the local voting populace (which are quite often unknown to local
> elected representatives). How does a benign communitarian decision endorse
> people acting through their representative government?
>
> It appears you and I have both publically identified the communitarian
> purpose for Kelo. Our website is devoted to exposing communitarianism as a
> fraud. Are you interested in an online debate against us, at our website,
> over the constitutionality of communitarian decisions in the United States?
Will every former nation need to establish a Justice Communitarian Administration to hear the cases? What administration level will direct the Communitarian Police regarding whom to investigate, for what "crime," and when to make the arrests? Will requirements for warrants disappear?
Romania's National Anti-Drug Agency posts a list of Bogdan Iasnic,
Head of the Evaluation Coordination Directorate's published articles and works, which includes:
Communitarian Police - NATIONAL Publishing House, 2002, Bucharest. Mr. Iasnic was also a consultant for: Justice Communitarian Administration - 2nd Edition - EXPERT Publishing House, 2001, Bucharest.
Section on National Security Law
Outsourcing the War on Terrorism: Extraordinary Rendition, Shadow Warriors, Dirty Assets, and Battlefield Contractors
(Program to be published in the Journal of National Security Law & Policy)
Moderator: Peter Raven-Hansen, The George Washington University Law School
Speakers: Jeffrey F. Addicott, St. Mary?s University of San Antonio School of Law
Joseph Margulies, The University of Chicago, The Law School
Steven L. Schooner, The George Washington University Law School
A perpetual war on terror on a global battlefield stretches our military, intelligence and law enforcement resources to the breaking point. ?Outsourcing? missions to third parties, foreign police and intelligence officers, mercenaries and other ?shadow warriors,? and private contractors can extend our resources. We outsource interrogation and detention by extraordinary rendition to cooperative foreign states. We outsource covert operations by employing ?privatized? special operations forces, mercenaries, or local ?dirty assets? who violate their own states? laws. We outsource interrogation, personal security, or other battlefield missions by contracting with private corporations.
Each of these methods of outsourcing lets us, in effect, wage the war ?off the books.? But does it also take the outsourced missions off the law books? Whatever the method, outsourcing poses some or all of these questions: What is the legal authority for it? Do the laws that control the ?principal? in an outsourcing relationship apply to the ?agent?? If not, what laws apply instead? How are they enforced? Who oversees the relationship? To what extent, if any, is the principal accountable for the acts of the agent?
The panel will address such questions by examining a range of methods by which missions in the war on terrorism have been outsourced. Lecturer Margulies, counsel in Rasul v. Bush and for Mamdouh Habib (who was rendered to Egypt where he was allegedly tortured), will discuss extraordinary rendition. Professor Bradford, author of The Laws of Armed Conflict and Transnational Security in the Age of Terror (2005), will discuss outsourcing covert operations to private ?shadow warriors.? Professor Addicott, author of Winning the War on Terrorism (2003), will discuss contractors on the battlefield.
Professor Raven-Hansen, co-author of the casebook National Security Law (4th ed. forthcom 2006) will moderate.
Section on International Human Rights Law
Out of Bounds? Considering the Reach of International Human Rights Law
Moderator: Deena R. Hurwitz, University of Virginia School of Law
Topics and Speakers:
The Approach of the Inter-American System:
Christina Cerna, Senior Human Rights Specialist, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington, District of Columbia
Comparative Models:
John Peter Cerone, New England School of Law
U.S. Exceptionalism:
Michael Ratner, President, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, New York
Scope of Application of the ICCPR and other Human Rights Treaties:
Andre M. Surena, Office of the Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of State (ret.), Washington, DC
The Approach of the European System
Nina Vajic, Judge, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France
In the decades following the adoption and entry into force of the major human rights treaties, the capacity of states to project their power beyond their borders has dramatically increased. A crucial consequence of the projection of this power is the increasing breadth of the state?s impact on the enjoyment of human rights in territories far beyond its physical frontiers.
In addition to traditional situations of armed conflict and cross-border law enforcement operations, individuals today may find themselves in the power of states in fairly complex configurations. States are increasingly operating through multilateral frameworks, e.g. through the United Nations or regional peacekeeping operations with increasingly expansive mandates. In addition, states are now purporting to create zones beyond the reach of their human rights obligations. The United States detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, on U.S. ships, and in secret locations, as well as Australia?s use of Pacific island territories for asylum seekers raise controversial questions as to the nature and purpose of human rights norms.
Whether such extraterritorial conduct is beyond the reach of the relevant states? obligations under international human rights law is a question very much alive before international courts and human rights mechanisms. Increasing numbers of cases involving alleged human rights violations committed outside the physical territory of the state are being adjudicated in various international fora. These institutions have already developed a varied jurisprudence, accepting extraterritorial application of norms to the different scenarios to differing degrees. While there has recently been some normative convergence, the enthusiastic approach of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights remains in sharp contrast to the cautious methodology of the European Court of Human Rights. And while the International Court of Justice in its recent Advisory Opinion on the Israeli wall found both International Covenants to apply extraterritorially, the brevity of its analysis leaves many unanswered questions.
The broad range of cases encompasses a similarly broad range of issues. Should states be bound by human rights treaties with respect to their extraterritorial conduct? If so, in what circumstances and under what theory? Will different standards be required for acts or omissions? for failing to respect or failing to ensure? for civil and political rights or economic and social rights? for the acts of officials and the acts of private agents? What weight should be given to the intent of the drafters in such cases? And how do the standards differ between treaty and customary law? What about treaties developed within and for a particular geographic region? Do such treaties apply only within the legal space of those regions? Should they?
This panel will bring together scholars, practitioners, and international judges in an attempt to answer these questions. The panel will have five speakers and a moderator.
Business Meeting at Program Conclusion
Section on Law and Communitarian Studies
A Conversation About Abortion
Moderator: Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Pepperdine University School of Law
Speakers: Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School
Teresa S. Collett, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Elizabeth B. Mensch, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law
Given the lack of thoughtful public debate about abortion in recent decades, it would appear that the answer to the question raised by Professor Mensch and Alan Freeman in the title of their thoughtful book, The Politics of Virtue: Is Abortion Debatable? (Duke, 1993) is ?no.? But it may be that the time is right to re-open discussion on this difficult issue. It may be that pro-life losses at the courthouse and recent pro-choice losses at the ballot box may have opened up the opportunity for discourse. Some of the ?judicial opinions? in Professor Balkin?s newly published What Roe Should Have Said (Yale, 2005) suggest the possibility of a conversation (the opinions of others suggest not). For communitarians, concerned with the nature of our public discourse, the importance of a reasoned conversation about this issue is paramount. One wonders whether any Supreme Court nominee of any position or non-position on this issue will be able to get a vote from any foreseeable United States Senate. The abortion issue brings to mind several communitarian themes. Should the unborn child be a part of the community? No other issue is so dominated by (in Mary Ann Glendon?s phrase) ?rights talk.? Is this an area where ?rights talk? of unborn children, of pregnant women is appropriate? Or has ?rights talk? made thoughtful discussion of this issue impossible? Communitarians prefer to resolve issues through intermediate communities and persuasion, rather than law. Is this issue appropriately left to persuasion, rather than law? The abortion debate has been framed in Enlightenment liberal terms rights, privacy, due process. Is there communitarian language with which we might better address this issue? Hear contributors to the above-mentioned books address this important issue.
Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy, NYU holds a Seminar on "Community Development Law," including "Property Theory: This seminar, taught by Professor Wyman, examines contemporary debates about property using a range of legal, historical, and philosophical materials. The seminar begins by considering four theoretical approaches to property law: the classic utilitarian justification for private property; the Lockean case for property; contemporary rights-based theories of property; and communitarian perspectives. The seminar applies these approaches to live controversies in areas such as environmental and intellectual property law. Drawing on the four theoretical perspectives, the seminar then addresses a range of topics, including property and economic development, the tragedy of the commons, the limits of property rights and markets, social norms, takings, and reparations." [emphasis added]
ContractsProf Blog A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network is advertising: "Samuel Johnson once wrote that no one but a fool writes for any reason except money. The Communitarian Network-a group of academics and others dedicated to pursuing communitarian ideas in law-is taking that lesson to heart with a very market-oriented approach for stimulating thinking on the subject: cash prizes.// The group is offering three prizes of $10,000, $5,000, and $2,500 on "philosophical, sociological, or other elements of communitarian thinking. Deadline is December 31, 2005; selections will be made by a Daniel Bell, Hans Joas, and Amitai Etzioni." [emphasis added] (We've received email confirmation, our December 31, 2005 before the last hour email submission was accepted. We're very excited to have our essay included in a contest for cash!)
Talk:Communitarianism at Wikipedia.org. ACL founder tries to get Wiki to include a section on communitarian law. Update December 8, 2005: Wikipedia editors agree communitarian law exists. Update: January 12, 2005: Communitarian Law is added as one of the now 3 main topic areas. We won another debate on the talk communitarian page. (The first was to include a link to opposition websites. I should add a link under ours to American Freedom Press. They call our wins "reaching consensus," but ACL studies have been a long upward climb with very little feedback, so we prefer the term "winner!" I could probably win a debate on Wiki about consensus too.)
I'm Niki Raapana, an independent researcher, co-founder of the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) with Nordica Friedrich, co- author of 2020: Our Common Destiny and co-author of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto.
The annual 
