The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I'm all for Civis Europaeus Sum, but I wouldn't like the EU to claim extraterritoriality just like I already dislike the US when it acts extraterritorially. In fact, the EU should be pushing for universal jurisdiction instead of bowing to US pressure to eliminate it from the EU national legislations where it was contemplated. The original meaning of the phrase you quote was an assertion of civil rights vis-a-vis the Roman Imperium, not a claim that the Imperium made its citizens above others' laws (though it may well have).
A phrase repeated with pride by many important Roman figures, it was put forward in order to assert the privileges granted to Roman citizens. Even prisoners were allowed to take advantage of that prerogative, and subsequently they were granted favorable treatment. Paul of Tarsus, under trial and appealing to the Emperor, claimed his right as a citizen to be tried in Rome, and the judicial process was suspended until he, in chains and escorted by guards, was carried to the capital city
The locution was quoted by Lord Palmerston who claimed on June 25, 1850 that every British citizen in the world should be protected by the British Empire like a Roman citizen abroad by the Roman Empire.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
But whatever one's stance on European human rights activism outside our own borders, we clearly cannot take any action against China that we demonstrated a lack of will to employ against the Americans on precisely the same issue less than a decade ago. So I guess we're down to the well-worn diplomatic sanction of Sternly Worded Letters.
Particularly when, from the press reports, it looks like the Chinese actually did less of a run-around of our diplomats than the Americans did in their case.
So it's about political justifications for intervention by the European Union's foreign service in the internal affairs of another country. That is not, and never has been, about laws. So a political justification is both necessary and sufficient - a legal justification is neither.
by Oui - May 23 14 comments
by Oui - May 23 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 17 67 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 24 4 comments
by melo - May 23 9 comments
by ATinNM - May 22 10 comments
by IdiotSavant - May 15 4 comments
by Oui - May 15 40 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 244 comments
by Oui - May 2314 comments
by Oui - May 239 comments
by melo - May 239 comments
by ATinNM - May 2210 comments
by gmoke - May 17
by Frank Schnittger - May 1767 comments
by Oui - May 1540 comments
by IdiotSavant - May 154 comments
by Oui - May 101 comment
by Oui - May 96 comments
by Oui - May 75 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 516 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 419 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 334 comments
by Oui - May 214 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3016 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 306 comments
by Oui - Apr 289 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2849 comments