Suchergebnisse

Abstract
This article critically evaluates the right to petition the European Parliament, a right which has not managed, to date, to constitute a credible alternative for citizens' participation in the EU. It argues that there are two main reasons for the shortcomings of this right. First, before Maastricht, the Petitions' Committee suffered the consequences of a broader decline of parliamentary petitions within and beyond Europe. Second, after Maastricht and Lisbon, the petition right was affected by the (partly complementary and partly divergent) rights to complain to the European Ombudsman and to sign or support a European citizens' initiative. In addition, and possibly as a consequence of the above reasons, throughout its life, the petition right and the Committee on Petitions more generally have not benefited from significant resources, while their visibility has been very limited. A comparative examination of the three rights (petitions, European Ombudsman, citizens' initiative) in terms of access, scope, user-friendliness and outcome is undertaken. Looking at the future of the petition right, in an era marked by the resurgence of online petitions, the article argues that the Petitions' Committee should strategically focus on areas which are not covered by the two aforementioned rights, namely the national level and broader policy choices in the EU, in order to maximize its input and relevancy within the EU's decision-making world.

AbstractThe essay examines the right to petition from the revolutions of the 17th century to the start of the age of reform. It shows that, by legislating for a right to petition the monarch, the revolution of 1688 appeared to resolve some of the uncertainty about the right to petition that had been apparent since the 1640s, but failed to confirm a right to petition parliament and left considerable ambiguities about the legitimacy of popular pressure exerted in this way. Throughout the 18th century, the right to petition parliament, and hence to exert popular pressure on it, thus remained contested. Indeed, a history of the points of conflict in Georgian Britain could be written through a study of petitioning controversies. Government supporters asserted the supremacy of formal parliamentary representation over informal representation of the popular voice through petitions and frequently sought to curtail, limit and emasculate any right to petition, and even, in 1795, to ban public petitioning altogether. Such attacks, nevertheless, provoked strong responses: claims to popular sovereignty over parliament, to natural rights, and to the notion that the right to petition was part of a set of interlinking rights of free speech and assembly. The 18th‐century arguments were also played out with explicit reference to 17th‐century ones, with the 1689 settlement in particular, providing a key reference point.

In October 1997, a little-noticed event took place at the United Nations that may roll back the international legal protection of human rights. Jamaica became the first country to denounce the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and thus withdrew the right of individual petition to the UN Human Rights Committee (Committee). Although it is provided for under the Protocol's Article 12, no state has previously made such a denunciation.

Since the 2004 presidential campaign, when the Bush presidential advance team prevented anyone who seemed unsympathetic to their candidate from attending his ostensibly public appearances, it has become commonplace for law enforcement officers and political event sponsors to classify ordinary expressions of dissent as security threats and to try to keep officeholders as far removed from possible protest as they can. Thus without formally limiting free speech the government places arbitrary restrictions on how, when, and where such speech may occur. 

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Foreword -- Introduction -- Chapter 1: The Historical Development of the Right of Assembly and Petition -- 1. The Origins of the Right to Petition -- 2. The Role of Associations in Early America -- Chapter 2: The Supreme Court Defines the Rights of Assembly and Association -- 1. The Right of Assembly Is Fundamental -- 2. Unions Have the Right to Picket -- 3. Government Can Limit the Freedom of Assembly -- 4. States May Not Interfere with the Freedom of Association -- 5. The Boy Scouts Have the Right to Reject Gay Members -- Chapter 3: The Role of Assembly and Petition in Social Movements -- 1. Abolitionists and the Right to Petition -- 2. The Women's Movement and the Right to Assemble -- 3. Freedom of Assembly Was Crucial to the Civil Rights Movement -- Appendix -- For Further Research -- Index -- Back Cover

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- CONTENTS -- Introduction -- Rights and Grievances -- History of Petitions in America -- Petitions That Changed America -- How Petitions Are Used Today -- Student Petitioners -- CHAPTER NOTES -- GLOSSARY -- FURTHER READING -- INDEX -- Back Cover