After recognizing that the motions in the party-ban proceedings against the “National Democratic Party of Germany” were partly based on evidence provided by so-called V-Männer informants (members of the party who were supervised and paid by the secret-services) and after suspending the decision to hold the substantive hearing because of this information, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court) last Tuesday, 8 October 2002, resumed the party-ban proceedings with an extraordinary and – in the history of the Court - unique session.

Since the mid-90\'s Germany has seen a whole range of laws on corporate governance: first and foremost the KonTraG, i.e. the law on control and transparency, followed by the NaStraG, i.e. the law on registered shares and the facilitating of proxy voting, then, more recently, the TransPuG, i.e. the law on transparency and disclosure, and - finally - the German Corporate Governance Codex issued by the Cromme Commission – and there is probably more to come during the next legislative period. What are the reasons for this striking increase in activity? What are the driving forces and is there a master plan behind these efforts?

For those concerned with the future of Euro-American relations, patience should be the order of the day. It is perfectly possible that the Bush Administration will turn out to be a short-term aberration.

For some months now and with special intensity in the past few weeks, a battle over legal process – what may or may not the United States do militarily in Iraq without new authorization from the UN Security Council, and at what stage and under what conditions should a Council resolution give such authorization? – has simultaneously become a battle over what words in a resolution will be sufficient to count as implicit authorization. The current diplomatic discourse around a new Iraq resolution is focussing on one or more “hidden triggers” in the draft text presented by the US on October 21.

The German doctrinal system of fundamental rights is characterized by the interplay of three components: the scope of protection, the impairment and the explicit justification of restrictions. In the traditional conception fundamental rights serve as individual rights as a defense against governmental or administrative activities which impair the protected freedom without being legitimated by the Basic Law. The impairment occupies the central role: The scope of protection shall not define but leave room for the individual freedom, and that is possible because it refers to present possibilities and to interests like self-determination, freedom of action or freedom of property. In contrast, the “impairment” is strictly defined. It is a governmental or administrative order or prohibition by or based upon law; the order or prohibition includes sanctions; it is addressed to the person protected by a specific fundamental right, and it reduces the freedom protected by this very right. In case of an impairment, the governmental or administrative act has to meet all requirements of Basic Law. One of the most important requirements is the parliamentary legal basis.

It has became common for some States, international or regional organizations to establish a link between good governance, respect of human rights and the democratization of States. This idea is now a condition for development aid. Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Lomé Convention between the European Community (EC) and African, Carribean and Pacific States (ACP) of 15 December 1989, revised at Maurice 4 November 1995, provides that the politics of development and cooperation are closely linked to the respect and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, to the strengthening of the rule of law and good governance. In Paragraph 2, cooperation is established as an instrument for promoting the enjoyment of economic, social, politic and cultural rights. The democratic clause contained in Article 5 of the Lomé Convention, and for which the respect of human rights, democratic principles and rule of law are essential elements of this Convention, firstly favours the achievement of positive actions in this framework and dedicates these elements as topics of common interests and a matter of dialogue. The European Union has stressed its willingness to develop a positive approach to these essential elements, which are the bedrock of the EU-ACP relationship besides being fields of cooperation and Community support. For that purpose, the Cotonou Agreement signed on 23 June 2000 strengthens this approach in Paragraph 2 of Article 9. The EU clearly places these essential elements at the heart of its partnership and defines the shared values that underpin this kind of relationship. It is in the spirit of common commitment to the respect and promotion of universal values that this approach has been taken.