Tanel Kerikmäe

Less is More or More is More? Revisiting Universality of Human Rights

Abstract Human rights are much talked about and much written about, in academic legal literature as well as in political and other social sciences and the general political debate. Indeed, they are so oft en referred to and used as a basis for claims of various kinds that there may be a risk of certain “inflation” in that so much is said to be a human right that the notion loses its essential meaning. Th is article argues that the universality of basic human rights is one of the values of the concept of rights. Th e rights and the understanding and interpretation of rights may have to be purist. Th is may be the way universal human rights as a concept can survive at all. In the modern world there are different trends that to some extent conflict, like the trend of globalisation but also the re- emphasising in different parts of the world of traditional values, whether from a religious background or something else. It appears that the basic dogma of human rights - which has also been called the first universal ideology - that it is the individual and her rights and freedoms that should always be in the centre of any human rights discourse, is abandoned all the more oft en as the central principle. Instead the banner of human rights is used for various political and economic aims

“Is This Really What I Voted For?” – On The Legitimacy Of European Integration

ABSTRACT This paper discusses the problems and dangers of proceeding with European integration without facing a transparent constitutional debate. The crucial issue demanding clarity is whether the current integration in the form of the EU shall be seen within the framework and concepts of public international law or within those of constitutional law. The authors argue that more intensive integration cannot be achieved on the basis of undermining rule of law and democracy by vacillating between different international law or constitutional law models of proceeding without taking any clear standpoint.

Negotiating Spaces and the Public–Private Boundary: Language Policies Versus Language Use Practices in Odessa

While the so-called “end of public space” literature, focusing on encroachment of private interests and state surveillance, has contributed to critical thinking of access (or the lack thereof) to public space, and the loss of publicity of public space, the conceptual tools such literature offers to understand contestations in and over public space have remained underdeveloped or, at best, underexplored. This article builds on the above debates to provides further empirical evidence on the way actors of a country compete over, and negotiate, the use of public space and the way it should be regulated. Empirically, it illustrates competition and negotiation of the use of language in Odessa, the third largest city of Ukraine, where Ukrainian should be the official language but Russian is widely used. Theoretically, starting from the way public and private are negotiated, and the extent to which this happens, we will suggest that resistance to state measures, and policies, that do not suit a considerable portion of a population may happen not only formally but also informally. The practices, tactics, and mechanisms used may, however, remain “invisible” for some time and then surprise everyone by emerging, all of a sudden, one day. A possible way to notice these dynamics is to engage with an “everyday” approach, thus acknowledging that everyday practices are a meaningful, and useful, site for understanding sociopolitical developments in the process of the construction of “the political.”

EU Charter: Its Nature, Innovative Character, and Horizontal Effect

The European Union, moving towards citizen’s Europe, cannot avoid responsibility for guaranteeing basic rights for those who are contributing to the internal market. Complicated history of protecting human rights within the EU has, at least, reached the next level—Charter of Fundamental Rights. There are certain prerequisites explaining the existing Charter, societal need, and rule of law from one side and federalist ambition from the other side. CJEU case law marked important milestones before drafting the Charter and now, after the adoption of the Charter, helps to ascertain the somewhat controversial and complex nature and content of that remarkable legal text. Several authors, critical or not, call the Charter “innovative” and “intricate” because of its manifold content and character. There are still interpretations that can be differentiated; there are still approaches and doctrines that try to frame the future of the Charter by different methods. The contribution makes reference to the Charter’s best practice (or, at this stage, theory) at several member states of the EU, particularly at Estonia.

BOOK REVIEWS: The Politics of Encounter: Urban Theory and Protest Under Planetary Urbanization; Elections to the European Parliament as a Challenge for Democracy; and Transformations in Central Europe Between 1989 and 2012: Geopolitical, Cultural, and Socioeconomic Shifts

ABSTRACT This article contains three book reviews. The reviewed books are: The Politics of Encounter: Urban Theory and Protest under Planetary Urbanization (2013) by Andy Merrifield; Elections to the European Parliament as a Challenge for Democracy, European Integration and Democracy Series Vol. 2 (2013), Eds. Elżbieta Kużelewska and Dariusz Kloza; and, Transformations in Central Europe between 1989 and 2012: Geopolitical, Cultural, and Socioeconomic Shifts (2012) by Tomas Kavaliauskas.