Politics, Economics and other Stuff

The German Constitutional Court in the European Polity

via Legal Theory Blog, I see that Daniel Halberstam and Christoph Möllers have some harsh/shrill criticism of the German Constitutional Court.  I sort of follow this as a topic, but mostly because I don't know how it will come out. 

Daniel Halberstam and Christoph Möllers (University of Michigan Law School and University of Goettingen) have posted The German Constitutional Court Says 'Ja Zu Deutschland!' (German Law Journal, Vol. 10, No. 8, 2009) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In announcing the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (“Federal Constitutional Court” or “FCC”) on the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty, the Presiding Justice of the Second Senate summed up the judgment by proclaiming: “The German Basic Law says “yes” to the Treaty of Lisbon.” The decision has since received much praise from commentators for having struck down only the existing version of an accompanying federal law while preserving Germany’s ratification of the Treaty more broadly. The decision is thus likened to another act of judicial cooperation, the FCC’s 1992 decision on the Maastricht Treaty.

This short comment explains what is old and what is new about the FCC’s current decision about Europe. The comment exposes the FCC’s highly deceptive invocation of having taken a “Europe-friendly” stance in interpreting the German Basic Law. The discussion exposes the myriad contradictions within the opinion and the decision’s strange consequences both in terms of the concrete workings of the European Union and in terms of its grand theory of democracy. The comment highlights the FCC’s mistaken understanding of the European Parliament, the profound failure of the Court’s reflexive idea of state sovereignty, and the way in which the opinion condemns Europe to a perpetual state of deficiency. In all this, the Federal Constitutional Court installs itself as the sole arbiter of Germany’s constitutional destiny - even above the people themselves.

A subversive opinion with more twists and turns than even the FCC itself comprehends, the decision ultimately stands as a crude speech act asserting little more than the power of the Court itself.

To quote: ...well, I was going to quote, but the pdf is causing problems with formatting if I cut and paste. 

The decision doesn't seem that bad to me, it mostly seems to require that the German people voice their desire to transfer aspects of sovereignty to the EU more explicitly, not clearly a bad thing and maybe something you'd expect constitutional courts to require. If the court tries to gum up that process to much there might be a problem, but I don't see that yet.  This isn't the US supreme court.

Empire

A reader emails Sullivan:

I disagree with both Noah Millman and Fouad Ajami. We did not go into Iraq after 9/11 because we had to make a huge military demonstration somewhere, no matter how implausible the aims (Millman); nor did we want to teach "the Arabs" a lesson (Ajami). Cheney, Bush and company had long had Baghdad in their gunsights -- 9/11 was merely an opportunity, just as WMD was merely a cover. And as far as a general antipathy towards "the Arabs", I never saw that in the Cheney/Bush policies, and I certainly never saw that in Bush personally -- in fact he seemed rather close to the Saudi royals.   
 

No, we went into Iraq to fulfill a longer range strategic vision: Surround Iran. Defend Israel. Secure the oil.

And why should we be aghast at that?

That's what empires do: Surround their enemies. Defend their Holy Land. Secure their vital resources. Hardly surprising that the American Empire would do any different.

What is surprising is the sheer incompetence with which it was done.

Which seems about right.  I have a lot of sympathy for getting in position to fight for access to oil and holding down nuclear armament by non-nuclear powers, but you need to do so in a manner that doesn't cut again your ability to get the job done.  Why, as the reader above points out, Obama is a good thing.  Which for some reason people like our CT neighbor don't get...

A Biden Gaffe?

Who would have thought.  Or maybe not, who knows?  via Larison.  Here is the start of the WSJ reporting on its interview with Biden:

Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview that Russia's economy is "withering," and suggested the trend will force the country to make accommodations to the West on a wide range of national-security issues, including loosening its grip on former Soviet republics and shrinking its vast nuclear arsenal.

Mr. Biden said he believes Russia's economic problems are part of a series of developments that have contributed to a significant rethinking by Moscow of its international self-interest. The geographical proximity of the emerging nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea is also likely to make Russia more cooperative with the U.S. in blocking their growth, he said.

But in the interview, at the end of a four-day trip to Ukraine and Georgia, Mr. Biden said domestic troubles are the most important factor driving Russia's new global outlook. "I think we vastly underestimate the hand that we hold," he said.

"Russia has to make some very difficult, calculated decisions," Mr. Biden said. "They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable."  ...

Despite Russia's economic and geopolitical difficulties, Mr. Biden said, Moscow could become more belligerent in the short term unless the U.S. continues to treat Russia as a major player on the international stage. He said Russian leaders are gradually beginning to grasp their diminished global role, but that the U.S. should be cautious not to overplay its advantage.

"It won't work if we go in and say: 'Hey, you need us, man; belly up to the bar and pay your dues,' " he said. "It is never smart to embarrass an individual or a country when they're dealing with significant loss of face. My dad used to put it another way: Never put another man in a corner where the only way out is over you."

Update #1: the NYT reports Biden Criticizes Russia in Move Called ‘Perplexing’.

As I wrote back on the day Biden was nominated for VP: 

Well, if it is Biden I'm not thrilled. 

Biden is deeply problematic, not in the same league as Palin, but not somebody I want as VP. 

Obama polls well

Obama polls well and much better than Bush.  via many blogs, Pew polls public opinion around the world.  Best results in Western Europe, worst in Middle East and Russia. 

Oil Reserves

From the 2004 BP energy data handbook.  (link)

The G20 Countries

As a list of important countries goes, the G20 list is actually pretty good -- I cannot think of any country that ought to be included but isn't.  Saudi Arabia was the only surprise to me and it is nice to see Indonesia getting recognized.  A new world and not your important summit from even ten years ago (even if the first G20 summit occurred in 1999). 

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico,  Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.  The EU fills out as the 20th member.  

Ah, it seems that Spain, the Netherlands and Thailand are also in attendance by special invitation.  I can see why Spain and Thailand are there, but the Netherlands?  Why not Ireland or Poland? 

Structural Informational Advantage and Political Manipulation/Institution Building

MY writes on the American disadvantage in dealing with foreign political elites who know much more about US politics than American policy makers know about the politics of most foreign countries, in this particular case Pakistan. 

[D]uring the FDR and Truman years, American elites were generally more familiar with Europe than European elites were with the United States. I think that’s an important element in understanding why the institution-building of that era largely worked.

Anything to this notion? 

Effects of Economic Sanctions

via Sullivan:

"Criminalizing Consequences of Sanctions," Peter Andreas, International Studies Quarterly 49 (June 2005): pp. 335-60.
Read

One of the biggest flaws of the sanctions literature has been the failure to discuss unintended consequences. Humanitarian costs have been raised above, but what about other side effects? Peter Andreas looks at the consequences of the multilateral sanctions directed at the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s and finds a disturbing legacy. Economic sanctions, it turns out, can unintentionally contribute to the criminalization of the state, economy, and civil society of both the targeted country and its immediate neighbors. By trying to evade the sanctions, private entrepreneurs and public officials are encouraged to disregard the rule of law. This fosters an unhealthy symbiosis among political leaders, organized crime, and transnational smuggling networks. These criminal networks can persist even after sanctions are lifted, contributing to public corruption and undermining governance.

Andreas appears to have a whole slew of publications on this and related topics.