Search results

The election of populist far-right party Law and Justice in 2015 marked a shocking break in Polish politics. A period of stability was brutally interrupted as Jaroslaw Kaczynski and his allies took over public media and launched a controversial 'reform' of the judiciary.How was this illiberal turn possible after years of democratic development? Jaroslaw Kuisz, one of Poland's leading liberal thinkers, digs deep into Polish history to propose an original analysis of the crisis. He reveals how centuries of statelessness have left Poles with a 'post-traumatic' attitude to sovereignty, making them wary of powerful foreign blocks, be it the EU, the Soviet Union or present-day Russia. This is a phenomenon populists have proved adept at exploiting. Providing a brilliant account of Europe's largest illiberal democracy, The new politics of Poland shines a light on the broader situation in East and Central Europe, offering valuable lessons for other countries experiencing the rise of populist right-wing movements

Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky had an unusually packed travel schedule this week, with stops in Argentina, the United States, and Norway. His message was clear: If Ukraine has any chance of pushing Russia out of all of its territory, it will only come from sustained Western support.
But Zelensky's requests for aid earned a much different response than they did at Christmas time last year, when confidence in Kyiv's military was at a historic high. This time around, the Ukrainian leader found himself shadow-boxing with right-wing skeptics of Ukraine aid at every turn.
In Buenos Aires, where Zelensky attended the Sunday inauguration of President Javier Milei, news cameras caught the frustrated leader in "an intense-looking conversation" with Viktor Orban, Hungary's prime minister and the primary obstacle for Kyiv's bid to join the European Union.
Back in Washington on Tuesday, Zelensky faced down Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), the primary obstacle for any future U.S. aid to Ukraine. Johnson ripped into President Joe Biden's approach to the war after meeting with Zelensky.
"What the Biden administration seems to be asking for is billions of additional dollars with no appropriate oversight, no clear strategy to win and with none of the answers that I think the American people are owed," Johnson argued.
Johnson and his GOP allies have now made clear that President Joe Biden will have to make significant compromises in order to secure new funding. Their primary ask is a series of new border control measures that most Democrats view as over the line, leaving little room for compromise.
Even Biden — who has long promised to support Ukraine "as long as it takes" — could only muster a pledge to arm Kyiv "as long as we can."
In Oslo, Zelensky got a friendlier reception on Wednesday from Nordic leaders, who promised new bilateral aid packages. Later that day, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez — who currently chairs the EU Council — said Kyiv could enter into official negotiations to join the EU as soon as this year.
But this upbeat moment proved fleeting. In a speech at an EU summit, Orban made clear that, whatever argument he may have gotten from Zelensky in Buenos Aires, there is little chance that he will change his mind on Ukraine's accession bid.
The idea that the EU should start membership talks with Kyiv is "absurd, ridiculous, and not serious," he argued. "Our stance is clear. We do not support Ukraine's quick EU entry," Orban later wrote on Facebook.
On a more promising note for Ukraine, Orban has been more open to horse trading when it comes to aid. After days of back-and-forth, the EU agreed Wednesday that it would release funding for Hungary that had previously been withheld due to alleged democratic backsliding.
An Orban aide said Hungary would be open to relenting on Ukraine aid if that money comes through. If Budapest holds to the deal, the EU could announce a roughly $55 billion aid package for Kyiv as soon as Friday.
The timing could scarcely be more important for Ukraine. As its forces struggle against Russian soldiers at home, recent Dutch elections have created the possibility that far-right firebrand Geert Wilders could be the next prime minister of the Netherlands.
Wilders, whose party opposes aid to Ukraine and wants to hold a referendum to leave the EU, has so far failed to form a coalition but is considered to be in the strongest position to lead the country's next government. If Wilders wins out in the end, Kyiv would likely be among the biggest losers.
Even if Wilders loses, all signs now point to a delay in U.S. funding until at least early January, setting Kyiv up for a difficult winter. Conscious of the diplomatic headwinds, Zelensky struck a defiant tone in a Thursday address to the EU, which he delivered via video link from Kyiv.
"This day will go down in our history. Whether it's good or bad for us, history will capture everything," he said. "It's very important that Europe doesn't fall back into indecision today."
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— The U.S. declassified an intelligence report claiming that Russia has suffered over 300,000 casualties in Ukraine, though the report does not distinguish between deaths and injuries, according to the New York Times. The report, which argues that Russian President Vladimir Putin's short-term goal is to reduce Western support for Ukraine, highlights the destructive impact that the conflict has had on Russia's army. The decision to release the report suggests a shift in the Biden administration's PR strategy, which has deemphasized the argument that the war is a "low cost" way to deliver Moscow a strategic loss — a line that some see as confirmation that the U.S. is pursuing a proxy war with Russia and has perverse incentives to extend it.
— Lawmakers from across Europe called on the U.S. Congress to pass aid for Ukraine, arguing that American support is "critical and urgent," according to Reuters. "A Putin victory would embolden our enemies around the world: they are watching and hoping we grow tired," wrote the group, led by French MP and former foreign policy analyst Benjamin Haddad. "Ukrainians are fighting so we don't have to."
— Putin held a major news conference on Thursday where he reiterated his goals for the war — "denazification, demilitarization and [Ukraine's] neutral status" — and revealed that Russia has 617,000 soldiers in Ukraine, according to the BBC. The Russian leader played down his military's middling performance and alleged that Western "freebies" for Ukraine "are gradually running out." Notably, he suggested that there has been some progress in talks for a U.S.-Russia prisoner exchange that could bring home ex-Marine Paul Whelan and Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich. "On the whole we're speaking in a language which we both understand," Putin said. "I hope we find a solution."
U.S. State Department news:In a Monday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the U.S. is "deeply concerned" for the well-being of Alexei Navalny, a prominent Russian dissident who recently disappeared from a Russian penal colony, according to his lawyers. "We have communicated to the Russian Government that they are responsible for what happens to Mr. Navalny while he is in their custody, and they will be held accountable by the international community," Miller said.

International audience ; The construction of the figure of the alien is one contributory element in the genesis of a European geopolitical territory. The article develops this hypothesis through three topics of reflection: (1) the Schengen Area and the impact of the refugee crisis, especially in the case of Hungary; (2) the representation of citizenship in the United Kingdom, which, at least for the moment, is within the EU but outside the Schengen Area; and (3) the internal debates in Switzerland on the country's membership of the Schengen Area. These examples put into perspective what might otherwise be seen as a straightforward tendency toward the emergence of a "European people," since they show that the notion of the European citizen is still quite vague. The article also examines the EU's external border, which is a more complex matter than that outlined by security fences and shipwreck sites. Bilateral border management agreements with countries beyond the European Union, such as the Eastern Partnership and agreements with African states, suggest that the border is both an ideological operation and a frontline.Outline The Schengen Area: A geopolitical entity? Establishing the legitimacy and effectiveness of the European frontier The improvisation of summer 2015 On the geopolitical uses of a crisis: Viktor Orbán on the campaign trail European gods Different geopolitical representations of citizenship Between Europe and sovereignty: The great divide of the Swiss Fortress Europe? The external border of the European Union Conclusion: What prospects for a geopolitical entity under construction? ; La construction de la figure de l'étranger est un élément de la genèse d'un territoire géopolitique européen. L'article aborde cette hypothèse à travers trois sujets de réflexion : (1) la limite Schengen et l'impact de la crise des réfugiés, notamment dans le cas hongrois ; (2) la représentation de la citoyenneté au Royaume-Uni qui est, à ce jour, dans l'Union européenne (UE) et hors Schengen ; et (3) les débats internes à la Suisse sur l'appartenance du pays à l'espace Schengen. Ces exemples relativisent ce qui pourrait être décrit comme une évolution linéaire vers l'apparition d'un peuple européen car la notion de citoyen européen est encore bien floue. L'article étudie également la frontière externe de l'UE qui est un objet plus complexe que celui que dessinent les grillages et les lieux de naufrages. Les accords bilatéraux de gestion de la frontière avec des pays situés au-delà de l'Union européenne, Partenariat oriental et accords avec les États africains, suggèrent l'idée que celle-ci est une marche idéologique autant qu'une ligne de front.

Many political changes that have taken place across the world in the last decade have been connected with the spill-over of a new narrative in the public dimension. Among other things, this narrative has emphasized returning control over the public space to the people once again, revitalization of the democratic community, restraint on an expansion of judicial power over representational politics, and in many instances, a specific national approach to the questions of governance. These trends have gained the name "illiberal democracy", a description which Viktor Orban introduced into the language of political practice a few years later. Indeed, in many countries worldwide, from the United States of America (USA) during the presidency of Donald Trump, Central and Eastern Europe, to Turkey and Venezuela, it has been possible to observe changes which had the principal leitmotif to negate liberal democracy as the only possibility of organizing public space within the state. These trends are continuing, and there are no signs of them disappearing in the near future. The new dispensation in the USA under President Biden also does not guarantee an immediate return to the liberal internationalism of the 1990s. Political changes directed toward the constitutional space of the State have inspired researchers to consider the issues of new constitutionalism, new forms of democracy, and the rule of law beyond liberalism. This article is an attempt to transfer these considerations to the international level. The text aims to consider whether withdrawal from the liberal doctrine could also be observed on an international level and what these facts could mean for the intellectual project of constitutionalization of international law. Building upon reflections on constitutionalism and constitutionalization of international law, this text presents what has up until now been the mainstream understanding of international law as a liberal construct. This showcases the illiberal turn observed among certain countries as exemplified by the anti-liberal and realist language of their constitutional representatives. In this respect, this analysis is a modest contribution to the so far nascent field of sociology of international law. However, the main endeavor of this article is to unchain the notions of international liberalism and constitutionalization of international law as being popularly understood as two sides of the same coin. Consequently, the idea of political constitutionalism of international law is introduced. Seeing things from this perspective, this text focuses on the material rather than formal aspects of international law's constitutionalization. Within the stream of so called thick constitutionalism, there are a few elements listed with which the discussion about international law may continue to engage, if this law is to be considered as legitimate not only formally, but also substantially.

The goal of paper is to put into focus and explain essential features of the political development in Lithuania during second post-communist decade by means of its comparison with the analoguos processes in other Baltic States (Latvia and Estonia) and in those Central European countries with political systems which resemble most closely Lithuanian case (Poland and Hungary). In all these countries, second post-communist decade witnessed the rise of the new successful populist parties. The author argues that this populist rise is the proper context for the understanding of Rolandas Paksas' impeachment in Lithuania in 2003–2004. His Order and Justice party has to be classified together with the brothers Kaczynski's Law and Justice party and its even more radical allies in Poland, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and Gábor Vona's Jobbik in Hungary, Juhan Part's Res Publica in Estonia and Einars Repše's New Era in Latvia. They were all right-wing populist parties, proclaiming in their anti-establishment rhetoric the war on corruption of the (ex-communist) elite and the coming of "new politics". While the rise of right-wing populism did not change the political system in the former bureaucratic authoritarian countries Estonia and Latvia, in Hungary and Poland the outcome was the breakup of the implicit ex-communist and anti-communist elite pact which was the foundation of the political stability in these former countries of national communism. The Kaczynski twins founded Rzecz Pospolita IV (4th Republic of Poland), grounded in the thorough and comprehensive lustration of the ex-communist cadres. Fidesz leader Victor Orban used the two thirds majority in the Hungarian parliament to promulgate a new constitution. Lithuania is unique in that the ex-communist and anti-communist elite pact was not abolished, but preserved and consolidated due to the collaboration of all, by this time, "established" and Left-of-centre populist parties during the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment of Paksas can be considered as the stress test of the young Lithuanian liberal democracy, just on the eve of the accession of Lithuania to the EU and NATO. An unhappy peculiarity of the stress tests is that they sometimes break or damage the items tested. As far as the success in impeaching R.Paksas prevented the transformation of liberal post-communism into populist post-communism in Lithuania, the test was a success. However, against the expectation of many observers of impeachment events, it did not enhance the quality of democracy of Lithuania. The legacy of impeachment are disequilibrium of the balance of power between government branches in favour of the Constitutional Court, strengthening of the Left-of-Centre populist political forces and the interference of secret services into Lithuanian politics with the self-assumed mission to safeguard Lithuanian democracy from the perils of populism.

AbstractThe goal of this paper is to put into focus and explain distinctive features of the political developments in Lithuania during second post-communist decade, comparing them with other Baltic States (Latvia and Estonia) and those Central European countries with political systems which resembled most closely Lithuania (Poland and Hungary) by the end of the first post-communist decade. In all these countries, second post-communist decade witnessed the rise of the new successful populist parties. The author argues that this populist rise is the proper context for understanding of Rolandas Paksas' impeachment in Lithuania in 2003–2004. His Order and Justice Party has to be classified together with the Kaczynski twins Law and Justice Party and its even more radical allies in Poland, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and Gábor Vona's Jobbik in Hungary, Juhan Part's Res Publica in Estonia and Einars Repše's New Era in Latvia. They all were right-wing populist parties, proclaiming in their anti-establishment rhetoric the war on corruption of the (ex-communist) elite and the coming of new politics. While the rise of right-wing populism did not change the political system in Estonia and Latvia, its outcome in Hungary and Poland was the breakup of the ex-communist and anti-communist elites pact which was the foundation of the political stability during first post-communist decade. The Kaczynski twins founded Rzecz Pospolita IV (4th Republic of Poland), grounded in the thorough and comprehensive lustration of the ex-communist cadres. Fidesz leader Orban used the two-thirds majority in the Hungarian parliament to promulgate a new constitution. Lithuania is unique in that the ex-communist and anti-communist elites pact was not abolished, but preserved and consolidated thanks to the collaboration of all, by this time, established and left-of-center populist parties during the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment of Paksas can be considered as the stress test of the young Lithuanian liberal democracy just on the eve of the accession of Lithuania to the European Union and NATO. An unhappy peculiarity of the stress tests is that they sometimes break or damage the items tested. Preventing the transformation of liberal post-communism into populist post-communism in Lithuania, the impeachment as stress test was a success. However, against the expectation of many observers, it did not enhance the quality of democracy of Lithuania. The legacy of impeachment are disequilibrium of the balance of power between government branches in favor of the Constitutional Court, strengthening of the left-of-centre populist political forces and the interference of secret services into Lithuanian politics with the self-assumed mission to safeguard Lithuanian democracy from the perils of populism.

JUSTICE Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s "marketplace of ideas" analogy continues to deeply influence First Amendment doctrine. It provides a rational substratum upon which the political or self-realization characterizations of free speech are built. However, typically overlooked is the Social Darwinistic root of the Justice's thought. He championed the spread of ideas and the political sway of majority opinions. That analytical insight is key to many of the Supreme Court's free speech precedents. On the one hand, the concept is invaluable for defending free discussions about philosophy, political science, the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and social sciences. In these areas, the marketplace of thoughtful expression will give rise to searching wisdom, understanding, culture, taste, achievement, scientific truth, political action, and creativity. On the other hand, market political leverage can drown out minority voices. According to a Holmesian relativist understanding, populist versions of truth can and should dominate law and its formation. To his mind, the judiciary lacks any power to check "proletarian dictatorship" from forming in the country. Left unqualified, his political perspective on truth allows for abuses of representative governance. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, democratic institutions are being exploited by populist autocrats like Hungary's Viktor Orban or Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Populism in the United States, on the right and on the left of the political spectrum, is alarmingly flirting with xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism. That political reality should give us some pause about expecting libertarianism to yield a just truth. Justice Holmes's Social Darwinistic approach to the marketplace of ideas is fraught with callous notions of preference for powerful speakers. It stands in opposition to a more equalitarian understanding of markets, which recognizes the policy balance governments sometimes undertake to advance important interests that protect open dialogue, while empowering indigent and powerless individuals to join the conversation. Truth and falsity are manipulable concepts, not generally something courts want to resolve. Falsehood is inevitable in conversation. At a minimum, mistakes are rampant in discourse, therefore as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan championed a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. People living in a deliberative democracy must be given space to joke, speak figuratively, and hyperbolically criticize government without risk of censorship or punishment. Government lacks the authority to require parties to adopt its version of truth. This essay first provides a brief doctrinal trajectory of how the Court developed its marketplace of ideas doctrine. It then critiques the construct's amenability to authoritarian doctrines. At its core, this essay argues against the libertarian view of free speech and for the adoption of a limited balancing test that, along with precedents, requires judges to weigh speech, public policy, a means/ends analysis, and the availability of less intrusive ways of achieving the narrowly tailored government aims.

Two interviews with national security adviser Jake Sullivan this week revealed the Biden administration's continued hesitance to pressure Ukraine to open peace talks with Russia, while maintaining that it expects the war will eventually end at the negotiating table and acknowledging that Washington's ability to support Kyiv's war effort is being hamstrung by Congress's inability to approve a new tranche of aid.
During an interview with Julia Ioffe of Puck News, Sullivan quickly dismissed last week's NBC News report that asserted "U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war," citing one current and one former senior U.S. official.
When asked about the assessment — including from a top Ukrainian commander —that the war has reached a stalemate, Sullivan elaborated:
"There's been a robust debate in Ukraine based on the general's interview. I don't want to get into the middle of all that. I'll just give you our perspective, which is that we believe the battlefield remains dynamic, and we are going to continue to support Ukraine with the tools and resources and capabilities that it needs to continue to try to make progress on the battlefield. We do believe that, ultimately, when Ukraine determines it—because we feel passionately about the article of faith, 'Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine'—there will be a diplomatic phase to this. And our job is to put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield so it's in the best possible position at the negotiating table."
But separate remarks from Sullivan earlier in the week suggest that Washington is struggling to fulfill what the national security adviser considers its responsibility in this war.
"Each week that passes, our ability to fully fund what we feel is necessary to give Ukraine the tools and capacities it needs to both defend its territory and continue to make advances, that gets harder and harder," Sullivan said during a press briefing on Monday. "So, for us, the window is closing."
President Joe Biden has requested that Congress approve a $104 billion emergency defense supplemental which purports to tackle a number of policy priorities, including $60 billion in aid for Ukraine. But the proposal so far remains in limbo in the Republican led-House, with new leadership instead opting to pass a short-term government funding measure that did not include any money for Ukraine.
Supporters of Ukraine aid still hope that another package will make its way through Congress eventually, but that will not happen until lawmakers return from their Thanksgiving recess, at the earliest.
The lack of funding "is already having an effect on our ability to give Ukraine everything that it needs," according to Sullivan, "and that effect will only compound over time."
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba dismissed those calling for talks with Moscow, pointing to 30 years of "negotiations with Russia that it never respected," including the Black Sea Grain Initiative from which Russia unilaterally withdrew earlier this year. "There are no conclusions to be drawn here, except that no one can seriously use the words 'Russia' and 'negotiations' in the same phrase," Kuleba wrote on the social media platform X. "Russia's tactic has remained consistent in its many wars over the last three decades: kill, grab, lie, and deny."
— Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that the European Union should not move forward on Ukraine membership talks. "Ukraine is in no way ready to negotiate on its ambitions to join the European Union," Orban said on Monday. "The clear Hungarian position is that the negotiations must not begin." EU leaders are preparing to vote next month on whether Kyiv should be invited, and all 27 member nations must agree in order to admit a new country. Slovakia, whose new government recently rejected an aid package for Kyiv, is also expected to be a potential obstacle to Ukraine's admittance.
— President Joe Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday in San Francisco, on the sidelines of the APEC summit. While the discussion mostly focused on other aspects of the bilateral relationship, reports say that Biden reaffirmed U.S. support for Kyiv and "also pressed Xi to continue to withhold military support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine," according to the Associated Press. A CNN report from before the meeting said that "US officials believe there might be a limited role Beijing can play in the Ukraine war, notwithstanding China's deep economic alliance with Russia."
U.S. State Department news:
During a Tuesday press briefing, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller expressed concern over Congress's inability to move forward with the White House's supplemental request.
"So we are at a critical point with respect to aid to Ukraine. The Pentagon has said publicly that they have exhausted somewhere around 95 percent of their funds to provide security assistance to Ukraine – security assistance that's very important," Miller said.

Mit dem Titel "Profiteurin des Krieges" hat Annika Joeres vor wenigen Tagen in der ZEIT eine Analyse vorgelegt mit folgendem Teaser: "Die Partei von Marine Le Pen startete einst als antisemitische Truppe. Nun stellt sie sich in Frankreich als größte Verteidigerin Israels dar – mit überraschendem Erfolg" (https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-11/marine-le-pen-israel-antisemitismus-frankreich. Joeres beleuchtet darin folgende Gesichtspunkte:Trennung von Jean-Marie Le Pen und frühere Verbindungen der RN zu antisemitischen GruppenMarine Le Pen und RN als Verteidiger von Israel und der jüdischen GemeinschaftMarine Le Pens Haltung zu Antisemitismus und das Bemühen der RN, das öffentliche Auftreten zu verbessernWandel innerhalb der RN aufgrund des Hamas-Terrorangriffsbevorstehende und vergangene WahlkämpfeIslam und muslimische Flüchtlinge als FeindbildWidersprüche in GrundsatzfragenKonzentration auf die Bekämpfung von Islamismus als neue politische AgendaRN unterstützt jüdische Bürger und Bürgerinnen nur gegenüber islamistischen TatenStillschweigen bei rechtsextremen Übergriffensteigende Popularität der RN trotz rassistischer und antisemitischer GeschichteIn diesem Artikel wird die Wandlung von Marine Le Pen und ihrer rechtsextremen Partei Rassemblement National (RN) analysiert. Hauptthemen sind ihre Haltung gegenüber Israel, den aktuellen Konflikten und dem Judentum.Früher war die RN eng mit antisemitischem Gedankengut verflechtet. Beispielweise verharmloste Jean-Marie Le Pen den Holocaust und die Verankerungen mit antisemitischen Vereinen und Burschenschaften. Marine Le Pen schloss ihn 2015 aus der Partei aus, möglicherweise aus Angst, dass seine Aussagen zum Holocaust der Partei schaden könnten. Der Parteiname wurde von "Front National" in "Rassemblement National" umgewandelt, um dadurch das öffentliche Auftreten der Partei zu verbessern.Laut einer aktuellen Umfrage der Pariser Ifop-Institus sollen Marine Le Pen und die RN im Hinblick auf die Präsidentschaftswahl im ersten Wahlgang mehr als 30 Prozent der Stimmen erhalten. Das wäre das erste Mal in der Geschichte der RN, dass ihre Parteichefin bei einer Präsidentschaftswahl im ersten Wahlgang so erfolgreich wäre. Sie würde die derzeit aussichtsreichsten Mitbewerbenden deutlich übertreffen. Diese Umfrageergebnisse zeigen, dass Le Pen und ihre Partei derzeit erhebliche politische Unterstützung in Frankreich genießen.Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass es noch vier Jahre bis zur Präsidentschaftswahl in Frankreich sind, aber Le Pen und ihre Partei bereits politisch von dem Terrorangriff der Hamas auf Israel profitiert haben. Sie bezeichnete diesen Angriff als "Pogrom" und sprach sich für eine harte Reaktion Israels gegen die Hamas aus. Dieser Ansatz scheint bei der französischen Wählerschaft Anklang zu finden.Joeres betont, dass Le Pen Israel als Verbündeten ansieht und die Hamas als Feind betrachtet. Des Weiteren soll Le Pen immer noch politische Verbündete haben, die in der Vergangenheit für antisemitische Äußerungen kritisiert wurden. Hier wird der ungarische Präsident Viktor Orbán genannt.Seit ihrer Parteiübernahme 2011 versucht Le Pen, sie zu "entteufeln". Das Ziel ist es, die RN für die französische Wählerschaft wählbar zu machen. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass Le Pen jetzt verstärkt gegen islamistische Organisationen agiert und sie oft fälschlicherweise mit allen muslimischen Personen und Flüchtlingen aus muslimisch geprägten Ländern gleichsetzt. Die Partei wird von Olivier Véran kritisiert, sich nur dann für jüdische Bürger und Bürgerinnen einzusetzen, wenn sie von islamistischen Überfällen bedroht werden, während sie bei rechtsextremen schweigt, obwohl diese die Mehrheit der rassistischen und antisemitischen Übergriffe in Frankreich ausmachen. Der Islam wird oft als Feindbild dargestellt.Es gibt auch Widersprüche in Le Pens Haltung zur finanziellen Unterstützung für Palästina nach dem Hamas-Terrorangriff. Einige Stimmen der RN sagen, dass die Hilfe aufrechterhalten werden sollte, während andere dafür plädieren, sie sofort zu stoppen. Es gibt auch widersprüchliche Aussagen zur Beziehung zu Ländern wie Katar und Ägypten.Schließlich wird darauf hingewiesen, dass Le Pen offensichtlich versucht, sich von einigen früheren Strategien zu distanzieren, wie der Nähe zu Russland. Es wird erwartet, dass die Partei bei den kommenden Europawahlen eine beträchtliche finanzielle Unterstützung erhalten wird.Insgesamt zeigt der Artikel die Komplexität von Le Pens politischer Entwicklung und die Herausforderungen in Bezug auf Israel und den Nahostkonflikt. Es wird auch darauf hingewiesen, dass es weiterhin Widersprüche und Kontroversen innerhalb der Partei gibt. Darüber hinaus spricht Joeres an, wie sich Marine Le Pen und die RN in der politischen Landschaft Frankreichs positionieren, indem sie Israel und die Bekämpfung des Antisemitismus in den Mittelpunkt ihrer Agenda stellen, um politische Unterstützung zu gewinnen. Dieser Schwenk in der politischen Ausrichtung hat dazu geführt, dass die Partei bei der Wählerschaft erfolgreicher ist, was in den Umfrageergebnissen zur Präsidentschaftswahl deutlich wird.Der ausgewählte Titel der Autorin kann als äußerst provokant angesehen werden. Es kann durchaus diskutiert werden, ob Le Pen als Profiteurin des Krieges gesehen werden kann. Einerseits ist es umstritten, ob Marine Le Pen und die RN tatsächlich als Profiteure des Krieges betrachtet werden können, da es viele Nuancen und Widersprüche in ihrer politischen Ausrichtung gibt und ihre Motive und Absichten möglicherweise von verschiedenen Interessen getrieben werden. Andererseits kann Marine Le Pen als Profiteurin des Krieges gesehen werden, da sie und die RN politisch von einem spezifischen Ereignis, dem Hamas-Terrorangriff auf Israel, profitiert haben.Dieser Angriff führte zu einem Wandel in Le Pens politischer Agenda und ermöglichte es ihr, sich als Verteidigerin Israels und der jüdischen Gemeinschaft in Frankreich zu präsentieren. Diese neue Positionierung zog Unterstützung der Wählerschaft an, wie in Umfragen gezeigt wurde. Indem sie den Hamas-Terrorangriff als "Pogrom" bezeichnete und sich für eine harte Reaktion Israels gegen die Hamas aussprach, konnte Le Pen politisch von den Spannungen im Nahen Osten profitieren. Dies führte zu einem Anstieg ihrer Popularität und stärkte ihre Position in der politischen Landschaft Frankreichs. Insofern kann sie als Profiteurin des Krieges betrachtet werden, da sie die politischen Auswirkungen des Konflikts zwischen Israel und der Hamas zu ihrem Vorteil nutzt.

In diesem Beitrag stellt Amelie Brühl folgenden Aufsatz vor: Kovács, Kriszta / Scheppele, Kim Lane (2021): Rechtsstaat unter Druck. Ungarn, Polen und die Rolle der EU; in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 37/2021, S. 32-39, online unter https://www.bpb.de/apuz/herrschaft-des-rechts-2021/340009/rechtsstaat-unter-druck-ungarn-polen-und-die-rolle-der-eu. Der Artikel von Kriszta Kovács und Kim Lane Scheppele beschäftigt sich mit der Justiz in Ungarn und Polen. Es wird erklärt, wie es in den beiden Ländern dazu kommen konnte, dass die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz ins Schwanken geriet. Im Anschluss daran befasst sich der Text mit den Maßnahmen, die die EU in diesem Kontext ergriffen hat, und den Hintergründen für das Handeln der EU.Die beiden Autorinnen beginnen mit einer Zusammenfassung der Ereignisse in Ungarn. Dort gewann die Fidesz-Partei 2010 die Parlamentswahlen und erhielt zwei Drittel der Parlamentssitze. Eine Zweidrittelmehrheit im Parlament war für die Partei von Viktor Orbán ausreichend, um grundlegende Änderungen an der Verfassung Ungarns vorzunehmen. Unter anderem wurde das Verfassungsgericht geschwächt, indem neue Richterinnen und Richter sowie neue Präsidenten des Verfassungsgerichts alleinig von der Regierungspartei bestimmt werden konnten (vgl. S. 33).Als Richter durch ein Herabsetzen des Rentenalters dazu verpflichtet wurden, aufgrund ihres Alters in den Ruhestand zu wechseln, mischte sich die Europäische Kommission in den Vorgang ein. Sie brachte den Fall vor den Gerichtshof der EU, der entschied, dass das Gesetz gegen den ,,Schutz vor Altersdiskriminierung'' (S. 33) verstoße. Das Urteil hatte für Ungarn nur eine Entschädigungsleistung zur Folge, die Richter durften nicht zurück in ihre ehemalige Position kommen.Ein weiterer Angriff auf die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz in Ungarn stellte das ,,Nationale Justizteam'' dar, das unter anderem die Macht darüber innehat, Richter und Richterinnen zu entlassen. Das Justizteam wird von einer Zweidrittelmehrheit des Parlaments gewählt, wieder reichten also die Stimmen der Fidesz-Partei aus (vgl. S. 34).Aufgrund einer Änderung des Namens für den Obersten Gerichtshof, woraufhin sich die Richter neu um ihr Amt bewerben mussten, konnte der damalige Präsident des Gerichtshofs abgesetzt werden. Diesmal wurde vom Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte entschieden, dass dieser Vorgang nicht rechtmäßig war. Ungarn kam aber wieder mit einer Entschädigungszahlung davon (vgl. S. 34).Im Anschluss an die Zusammenfassung der Geschehnisse in Ungarn geht der Artikel auf die Justiz in Polen ein. Auch dort wurde die Unabhängigkeit des Verfassungsgerichts stark angegriffen. Die Regierungspartei konnte hier durch eine Reihe von Vorgängen, die im Artikel näher beschrieben werden, dafür sorgen, dass im Verfassungsgericht eine Mehrheit der Richter der Regierungspartei PiS nahestehen (vgl. S. 36).Durch ein Gesetz durfte der Justizminister Gerichtspräsidenten entlassen und andere Personen in diese Positionen einsetzen. Außerdem wurde auch in Polen das ,,Rentenalter für alle Richterinnen und Richter unterhalb des Obersten Gerichtshofs'' (S. 36) gesenkt. Im Laufe der Zeit konnte die polnische Regierung den Nationalen Justizrat, das Verfassungsgericht und den Obersten Gerichtshof kontrollieren und in die Hände der eigenen Partei geben. Mit dem sogenannten ,,Maulkorbgesetz'' können Richter für das Übergeben von Fällen an den EuGH sogar bestraft werden (vgl. S. 36).Auf die Zusammenfassung der Vorgänge in den beiden Staaten folgt das Beleuchten der Eingriffe der EU in das Vorgehen der Regierungen. Außerdem gehen Scheppele und Kovács im letzten Teil des Artikels auf die Frage ein, weshalb sich die EU nicht stärker für die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz in Ungarn und Polen eingesetzt hat.Als Unternehmungen der Kommission führt der Artikel auf, dass diese 2014 den ,,Rahmen zur Stärkung des Rechtsstaatsprinzips'' (S. 34) verabschiedete, der von der nächsten Kommission jedoch nicht weitergeführt wurde. Es kam daher nicht zu einer Verwarnung Ungarns. Das Europäische Parlament leitete gegen Ungarn das Verfahren nach Artikel 7 EUV ein, welches eine Verwarnung an Ungarn nach sich ziehen würde. Die nötige Mehrheit für diesen Schritt konnte im Rat jedoch nicht erreicht werden. (vgl. S. 34f.)In Polen wurde die Kommission recht schnell aktiv und nutzte den ,,Rechtsstaatlichkeitsrahmen'', um ,,Warnungen und Empfehlungen" (S. 37) an Polen aussprechen zu können. Ein entscheidendes Urteil hat dann der EuGH gefällt. In diesem Urteil ging es darum, dass die Mitgliedsstaaten die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz schützen müssen. Daraufhin wurde von der Kommission ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen Polen eingeleitet. Ein Nichteinhalten des Urteils kann hohe Geldstrafen nach sich ziehen, dies muss jedoch von der Kommission herbeigeführt werden (vgl. S. 39).Als einen der wichtigsten Gründe dafür, dass die EU nicht besonders stark in die Geschehnisse eingreifen konnte, nennen die Autorinnen die Abhängigkeit der EU von den Mitgliedsstaaten. Einerseits wollten sich die Mitgliedsstaaten nicht gegenseitig verurteilen, aus Angst selbst verurteilt zu werden. Die Verfahren nach Artikel 7 EUV, die eine Verwarnung an den jeweiligen Mitgliedsstaat nach sich ziehen, benötigten außerdem den einstimmigen Beschluss des Rates. Eine solche einstimmige Entscheidung habe jedoch nicht erreicht werden können (vgl. S. 39).Außerdem erklären die Autorinnen, dass die EU nur beschränkte Zuständigkeitsbereiche innehat, sodass es ihr in einigen Bereichen unmöglich ist, in die nationale Politik der Mitgliedsstaaten einzugreifen. 2020 wurde eine Verordnung verabschiedet, die es zulässt, EU-Mittel zu verringern, falls diese im Land der Empfänger ,,falsch'' (S. 39) ausgegeben würden. Diese Verordnung lässt die beiden Autorinnen auf eine Besserung der Situation hoffen. Kovács und Scheppele schließen mit der Erkenntnis, dass die ,,nationalen Regierungen immer einen Vorteil gegenüber den EU-Institutionen'' (S. 39) hätten, wenn sie sich nicht an die vorgegebenen Regeln hielten. Indem die EU zu wenig für die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz in Polen und Ungarn unternommen habe, habe sie ,,versäumt […]'' (S. 39), für europäische und demokratische Werte einzustehen und diese durchzusetzen.

In nearly three years in office, President Donald J. Trump's war against immigrants and the foreign-born seems only to have intensified. Through a series of Executive Branch actions and policies rather than legislation, the Trump Administration has targeted immigrants and visitors from Muslim-majority countries, imposed quotas on and drastically reduced the independence of Immigration Court Judges, cut the number of refugees admitted by more than 80%, cancelled DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), and stationed Immigration Customs and Enforcement ("ICE") agents at state courtrooms to arrest unauthorized immigrants, intimidating them from participating as witnesses and litigants. Although initially saying that only unauthorized immigrants convicted of serious crimes would be prioritized for deportation, the Trump Administration has implicitly given ICE officers carte blanche to arrest unauthorized immigrants anytime, anywhere, creating a climate of fear in immigrant communities. Particularly disturbing is the targeting of asylum-seekers, employing the criminal justice system and the illegal entry statute in the "zero tolerance policy." Under this policy, children, including toddlers, are seized and languish for months and years separate from their families, many of whom are seeking asylum. Directly contrary to federal statute and international law, another policy makes anyone who enters the country without inspection ineligible for asylum. Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump's second Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), ordered asylum applicants to await the lengthy processing of their claims in cartel-ruled border areas of Mexico, with no realistic safe shelter and deprived of all meaningful opportunity to exercise their statutorily-guaranteed right to access to counsel—a necessity, given today's convoluted asylum law. Trump's first Attorney General, Jefferson Sessions, largely disqualified as grounds for asylum even the most brutal and terroristic persecution of women and violence perpetrated by inescapable quasi-state gang actors. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") officers mislead asylum-seekers at the southern border, telling them they don't have the right to apply for asylum or saying yes, they may apply, but admitting only a minute fraction of those who present themselves for processing at ports of entry. President Trump's Administration refuses to grant parole or reasonable bond even to those asylum-seekers who establish a credible fear of persecution, frequently resulting in long-term detention, and forcing on detained asylum-seekers the Hobson's choice of lengthy incarceration in terrible conditions in the United States or the risks of persecution and death in their countries of origin. International law prohibits using the criminal justice system or prolonged administrative detention to deter and discourage bona fide asylum-seekers from asserting and proving their claims. We suggest two remedies: Federal courts should enforce article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (1) by prohibiting criminal charges of unlawful entry against bona fide asylum-seekers until they complete the asylum application process and are denied asylum; and (2) by requiring parole or reasonable bond for asylum-seekers who pass fair credible fear interviews. The article argues that bona fide asylum-seekers should be kept in detention only for a short period, if at all, to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, made binding on the United States through our accession to the 1967 Refugee Protocol, generally prohibits "impos[ing] penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees . . . where their life or freedom was threatened." "Penalties" clearly must include not only criminal prosecution and prison, but also prolonged immigration detention and the seizure of children from parents without good cause, for "deterrence" purposes. We argue also that customary international law and human rights treaties support the recommended remedies and stand squarely against the Trump Administration's policies. Federal courts may utilize customary international law directly or through the Charming Betsy canon. Not only do the Trump Administration's harsh immigration policies and practices violate international law and American values, but also foretell a government tending toward exclusion, racism, nationalism, parochialism, authoritarianism, and disregard of the rule of law. The parallels between the Trump Administration and Hungary's autocratic, essentially one-party, state, are chilling. See Patrick Kingsley, He Used to Call Victor Orban an Ally. Now He Calls Him a Symbol of Fascism, N.Y. Times (Mar. 15, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/europe/viktor-orban-hungary-ivanyi.html (on file with the Columbia Human Rights Law Review). Federal courts, however, have both the authority and the responsibility to enforce the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol as well as international human rights norms to protect asylum-seekers from criminal prosecution and from prolonged detention. The Framers of the United States Constitution and its key amendments envisioned that federal courts would apply treaties as the rule of decision to protect foreigners and would serve as a check upon an Executive that tramples on individual rights, particularly the rights of a vulnerable minority. Given the outlandish behavior of this Administration, federal courts must live up to that vision.