On August 10

On this day in ...
... 1920 (90 years ago today), in a community outside Paris, the Treaty of Sèvres was signed by representatives of the Allied Powers who'd won World War I and of the Ottoman Empire they'd defeated. By the treaty's terms the Ottoman Empire was abolished. Turkey was to give up rights to Arab Asia and North Africa, while Armenia was to become independent and Kurdistan autonomous, and Greece was to control specified regions. (credit for photo of Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos signing the treaty) "Rejected by the new Turkish nationalist regime, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne," Switzerland, the 1923 pact discussed in this post.

(Prior August 10 posts are here, here, and here.)

On August 23

On this day in ...
... 1924 (85 years ago today), Madeleine Riffaud (left) was born in Paris, France. When the Nazis occupied her city, the teenager adopted a codename and "joined the 20,000 strong Résistance in the French capital and became one of the 100,000 or so members nationwide." Decades later she told a Deutsche Welle reporter:

'I took the name of a German, out of respect for the author Rainer Maria Rilke, whose poems I loved. We were at war with the Nazis, not at war against the German people. So I became "Rainer" and remained so to the end of the occupation.'

In retaliation for an SS massacre of 600 in central France, Riffaud shot a German soldier to death -- an exploit she recalled in her poem Femmes avec fusils (p. 5) -- and was arrested. She would be released when Allies liberated the city. After World War II she became a journalist, poet, and war correspondent, covering wars in Algeria and Vietnam. (image credit)
... 1990, Armenia declared itself sovereign. It would become independent from the Soviet Union a year later. Today the country (flag at left), which is slightly larger than the state of Maryland, has a population estimated in the neighborhood of 3 million.

(Prior August 23 posts are here and here.)

Democracy and the Rule of Law in Armenia?

A few days ago, President Kocharian of Armenia dismissed Judge Pargey Ohanian, who had acquitted two businessmen who had been imprisoned and charged with corruption after they had accused Armenian custom officials of corruption. Judge Ohanian’s dismissal indicates that the effects of the Constitutional reforms of 2005 may be all too limited.
Following Armenia’s September 1991 independence from the Soviet Union, the country was held up often as a beacon of democracy among transitional countries. In a recent article, I used the disputed 2003 Armenian Presidential elections and analysis of Armenia’s constitution as lenses through which to assess the transition to democracy and adherence to the rule of law in Armenia. Based on analysis of the conduct of and events surrounding the elections of 2003, the status of the Armenian judiciary, and relevant Armenian Constitutional provisions, I claimed that, despite the wide-ranging changes in the legal and political landscape since 1991’s independence from the Soviet Union, rule of law reform and the spread of democracy was largely superficial and formalistic. I noted that, rather than enjoying democratic freedom and the protection of the rule of law following Armenia’s independence from the Soviet Union, Armenians were experiencing a curtailment of liberty and the capture of the mechanisms of government.
In the article I also attempted to identify the reasons for the failure of Armenia’s transition. Among the factors I identified were Armenia’s strategic geo-political location, pervasive corruption and clientelism, the balance of powers enshrined in the Armenian constitution, nationalism and the Armenian Diaspora, and multilayered and sometimes conflicting donor country motives. While I concluded that the factors were inextricably intertwined, making definitive diagnosis impossible, in the Article I pointed to several fundamental mechanisms, including a more knowledgeable and purposive role of the Armenian Diaspora, that may lead to rule of law and democratic reform. Judge Ohanian’s dismissal indicates that there continues to be executive domination of the judiciary, and a great need for reform in Armenia.
This past week, the 1915 genocide of the Armenian people has been much in the news. Despite protests from Turkey, the issue of the United States' recognition of the Armenian Genocide will go to the floor of the U.S. Congress. However, in the face of continued warnings regarding the geo-political implications of such a vote, Congressional support has waned, and it seems that the recognition will not come from the U.S. government.
It is not clear whether a vote in the U.S. Congress would stimulate a rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey. However, action that could stimulate long-suppressed dialog, and open Armenia to greater interaction with its neighbors and the rest of the world is to be desired. Resolution of the Karabakh conflict and of the unresolved and long-simmering issue of the genocide between Armenia and Turkey would benefit both countries and contribute to stabilizing the tension-filled region.

Sovereign Democracy?

In a couple of earlier posts (here and here), "Grace O'Malley" [IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann] and I discussed the fact that “democracy” has many meanings. Judy Dempsey writes in the Herald Tribune that Russia is now openly advocating a repressive political philosophy it calls “sovereign democracy”: subordinating democratic values to national interests. According to this “philosophy”, the foreign supervision Russia is subject to as a member of the Council of Europe (COE) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is nothing more than foreign meddling in Russia’s internal affairs. Thus, Russia is currently blocking reforms at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (at right), the court established in Strasbourg, France to hear human rights claims from individuals living in the 47 COE member states. Judges at the Court are seeking reforms to help deal with the 89,000-case backlog (while 90% of ECHR claims are dismissed as inadmissible, they still must be examined individually). Russia joined the court in 1996 and implemented the European Human Rights Convention in 1998. Since then, over 48,790 complaints have been filed against Russia – more than against any other country. Of those, 10,569 were lodged in 2006 alone, when the ECHR found 96 violations. As COE chair last year, Russia suggested the Council shift priorities away from human rights to education, culture, illegal migration, human trafficking and combating terrorism. Russia is also trying to curb election-monitoring activities undertaken by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Vienna. A division of the OSCE founded in 1976, the Office monitored elections in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine in which Russian-backed regimes were toppled by pro-democracy revolutions (below). Despite its criticisms of these organizations, however, Russia is not renouncing membership. Instead, it created the Collective Security Treaty Organization in 2003, which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Political cooperation and collective security are the main purposes; interference in member states' internal affairs is strictly forbidden. Russia is also supporting the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. which was founded in 2001 to fight terrorism and cross-border crime and, again, includes Russia and several Central Asian countries. This organization also directly competes with the Office for Democratic Institutions in observing elections. As Dempsey points out, this is a sad turn-around “for a rich and self-confident country that during the 1990s had fought hard to be accepted into Europe's human rights organizations”. While I cannot help but agree, I also cannot help but note that “Guantánamo”: from the camp itself to the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, CIA renditions and secret detention camps, abuse and disappearance of Muslim prisoners within the US, and withdrawing from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to avoid scrutiny of our application of the death penalty to foreign citizens are all signs of a return to sovereign democracy here at home.