NIKI RAAPANA, April 2003. Revised March 21, 2006.
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.”
What is Communitarian Law?
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 annonymity. 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 Parliament intended to replace the WTO as the regulatory governing body. The unelected (and for the most part unknown) Andean Parliament 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 Creation of a Communitarian System of International Law from cyber.law.harvard.edu.
The European Union and the General International Law. Case law compiled by the University of Bucharest, last updated February 2004. Includes Communitarian law and National law.
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.
International Communitarian Juridical Systems
Google translation of Institutions of the Union and the European Communities by Professor Francis Snyder.
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 isneither 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 European Union and other supranational authorities require national constitutions to be restructured so that they conform to communitarian rule of law. Integration to the EU and Economic Transformation: State and Its Role on the Example of the Export-Promoting Policy by Marek Csabay
Presentation by Dr Jan Mazak, President of the Slovak Constitutional Court 21.10.2004. Professor Ján Mazák, PhD. President, Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic general remarks on “National judiciary after the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union” as follows:
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.
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.
“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.)
20 April 2001, Copenhagen – From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuana. Statement by Dr. Dalia Grybauskaite, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Candidate Countries Opinion Concerning the Future of the EU:
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.
Hauser Global Law Program at NYU teaches the “Code de rédaction interinstitutionnel” (communitarian law)
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.”)
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 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) Yaoundé, 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), Yaoundé, and the University of Yaoundé 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 Européen, member of the scientific directory of the Institut für Europäische Politik (Berlin), of the conseil d’administration d’Europartenaires (Paris) and of the Beirat of the BBI in Genshagen (Germany).
Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) issued a final report on UN control over the internet. American Senators object, SENATOR DENOUNCES REPORT CALLING FOR UN GLOBAL INTERNET CONTROL Mon Aug 01 2005. The Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers was one of the WGIG funders.
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.
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. This decision stipulates that “an internal law disposition cannot oppose to the law created through communitarian agreements, by its very autonomous nature” 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.
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. 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. Pierre Pescatore 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. 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. [emphasis added]
Many people who teach, preach, and enforce communitarian law in the United States have never heard of communitarian law. (How’s that for deliberately dumbed down Americans?) The world desperately needs lawyers and laymen who comprehend all facets of the new communitarian legislation and law. The European Union recognises, teaches, practices and endorses Community Law. U.N. Declarations like the Earth Charter are all communitarian documents.
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.
Niki’s work, above, continues at nord.twu.net/acl/research/commlaw.html