Talk:European court upholds asset freeze in terrorist case

This is the first article I ever read on Wikinews. It's also the last one.

Good title, but its not entirely acurate. We should change it to "European court undermines rule of law", as abolishes is a bit strong. You could alternatively place "abolishes rule of law" in quotation marks. The phrase "undermines rule of law" is IMHO objective, fo the trivial reason that the UN Security Council simply does not make laws, so it does not require quotation marks. What do people think abolishes with quotes vs. undermines without quotes? - Nyarlathotep 12:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree ; undermines without quotes is suiting better, to me. (Comments by 193.52.221.27)

• "Abolishes rule of law" seems sensationalistic to me and is certainly not factual. "Undermines rule of law" is also not NPOV in my view since the EU certainly doesn't think so. Additionally, the article does not mention a single time what the case was about, the freezing of funds. Someone who does not read the sources might think this is about serious human rights violations like imprisonment or something. But the judgment is certainly troubling IMHO. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be mentioned that its about its about freezing of funds, as I did not know that myself. I agree that lack of it is POV and the article should not side with the defendant, as it mildly does now. Still, such rulings really do "undermine the rule of law", as they tend to be applied in some anti-humanitarian way later, at least in the U.S. It would be best to have a quote from a real humanitarian organization which feels worried by the ruling. European court "[undermines] rule of law" is perhaps the most accurate form of the exciting title, as the lawyer did not use the word undermines per se, but I think we can drop the brackets and keep the quotes. - Nyarlathotep 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

At the very least I'm going to clean up some of the capitalization... RB McLeroy 13:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, ended up making more changes. But factually it should be cleaner, and added a bit about the subject of the case. Agree that the title should change but I'll leave that to the philosophers. RB McLeroy 13:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is, excuse me, too deficient to be published.

1. The title is highly POV and sensationalistic. Wikinews doesn't do hyperbole
2. The article has poor typography and is poorly wikified.
3. There is no decent legal analysis. There are 349 articles in the justification of the judgment, yet only a few sentences are extracted out of context.
4. Since China is a member of the UN, this verdict implies that decisions of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party can gain precedence over the European Human Rights Convention. is blatant sensationalism, in addition to being inaccurate.

Submarine 14:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Submarine, I definitely agree on number 4 - while you can now argue that Security Council members (esp. those with veto power) could, via this decision, exert an abnormal influence on the European Community, that's much more appropriate as commentary than fact. RB McLeroy 14:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why it was still in publish mode, I moved it back to develop. I though the title was fun, but I don't have strong opinions anymore, althgouh it would be nice to avoid a million renames.  :) - Nyarlathotep 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't it also be argued that this change strengthens the rule of International law, which the UN Security Council is, in theory at least, supposed to oversee (that was what all the wrangling over the Iraq resolution was, in part, about, back in 2003)? Isn't this more a story about potential clashes between national and international law? The line about China is largely nonsense, because the UNSC works by consensus. No individual member can impose stuff unilaterally.

80.43.14.68 15:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, since creation of the United Nations, the General Assembly was supposed to be a body with some level of international legitimacy, while the Security Council (UNSC) was clearly a might is right body, which was intended to have much less power than the General Assembly. As time went on, the mainstream media on both sides of the cold war, naturally rather strongly were POVed in favour of (respectively) France, UK, USA, the Soviet Union and PRChina, and the UNSC de facto became more powerful because people thought it was more powerful, and, as well, it wanted the power. In any case, it's hard to imagine in what sense the UNSC today has any moral legitimacy apart from might is right - whereas the fundamental basis of most legal systems (derived from Roman law, anyway), is supposed to be that might is not necessarily right. IANAL, but IMHO, independently of whether or not the UNSC has any formal legal rights, it certainly lacks in political legitimacy. But i would have to dig up some URLs (with POVs by notable people, not by me ;) and even then, i'm not sure whether it would be relevant... Try w:United Nations Security Council if someone has the time... /me = sleep. Boud 23:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The U.N. is a form for nations to work out their diffrences, not a legislative body. Even for fully democratic nations, the U.N. representitive only represents those minorities with sufficent money and power to grab 51% of the vote. So we must view "might is right" as the source of U.N. legitimacy, as otherwise it fails to do its job of preventing wars. You can talk about expanding U.N. military power, but I feel this is a very bad idea, as ALL human social institutions eventually scum to manipulation by powerful minorities who wish to guard their power. So, in the long run, world government has a high risk of slowing technological and social progress, as do all other "harmonization" treaties, especially those connected with intellectual property. Humanity should revel in its difffrences, legal and otherwise. If hypothetically China wanted to make patents last two years, I say good for them see how it goes. - Nyarlathotep 11:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, i agree with most of that. BTW, i wasn't trying to suggest expanding UN military power, even if it were controlled by the General Assembly instead of the Security Council. Unfortunately, it seems that Amnesty International has now dropped its neither for nor against war stance (and the local Polish section of Amnesty International is paranoid about keeping this secret!), and now may oppose a war but also may recommend that war be used if necessary to protect human rights. i guess whether or not this is a good thing depends on how much influence the Amnesty International Executive Committee will accept from ordinary, well-informed members compared to how much it will be under pressure from government/corporate press releases and mainstream media campaigns. Boud 10:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this case has anything to do with international law per se. The U.N. Security Council made a list of terrorist supporters, which the E.U. said it would enforce. However, this violates the E.U. charter as E.U. law cannot lead to disciplinary actions against single individuals. So it looks like an issue of state sovereignty vs. E.U. power. My guess is the court sided with the E.U. because his assets have been frozen not taken, a subtle point may worry rich E.U. citizens, but not most. I expect they will need to try him in Sweden to confiscate his assets. - Nyarlathotep 11:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Article title

How about "European court recognises limits on state sovereignty"? - Borofkin 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Or "European court upholds asset freeze in terrorist case" or "European court upholds U.N. terrorist asset freeze over state sovereignty" with an explination that E.U. law may not punish individuals, but may be doing so here. - N

I like the title "European Court Ruling Challenges Rule of Law"

Title npoved

Seems ok now. If anyone wishes to put the tag back, go ahead, but to me it looks publishable now. Neutralizer 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't like the way the court phrased their ruling. I would have prefered if they had affirmed national sovereignty over the U.N. & E.U., but given the E.U. temporary power, which is all that was required. We would probably all be better off if the court eventually unfroze this guys assets due to a poor ruling in this court.. even if he is an (innherently ineffective) terrorist. - Nyarlathotep 21:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)