und warum sie deutschsprachige Journalisten weder verstehen, noch korrekt wiedergeben können.
Nachtrag zu:
Ungewöhnliche Worte auch von BR24:
Trump beschimpfte den ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodymyr Selenskyj und zweifelte im Einklang mit Putins Propaganda dessen Legitimität an. Selenskyjs Amtszeit ist tatsächlich abgelaufen, dazu gibt es jedoch höchst unterschiedliche Bewertungen.
[…]
“Für Selenskyj wird das katastrophal”
Putin habe international überhaupt kein Problem, mit höchst zweifelhaften Staatsmännern ins Gespräch zu kommen, so Blogger Anatoli Nesmijan (121.000 Fans): Russland verhandle mit dem neuen Machthaber Syriens, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, der vor kurzem noch als “Terrorist” gegolten habe und sich für mindestens vier Jahre keiner Wahl stellen wolle. Auch mit den Taliban in Afghanistan spreche Moskau, ohne jemals demokratische Maßstäbe einzufordern.
Der ukrainische Präsident wäre aber gut beraten gewesen, so Nesmijan, wenn er sich eine Bestätigung des Verfassungsgerichts geholt hätte: “Selenskyj verhielt sich aber nicht wie ein gewöhnlicher Politiker, sondern entschied, dass er das Recht habe, seine Machtbefugnisse einfach aus eigenem Antrieb auszuweiten, und jetzt wird das für ihn katastrophal.”
src: click
Canceling of the BR24 Journalist in 3, 2, 1…
Yay! Yay! Yay! We got our will.
Oh, sorry - ich sehe gerade, der BR Journalist hat Jobsicherheit, denn er lügt beim relevanten Teil… Und ist damit gottseidank wieder innerhalb der Wirkungsnorm ukrainischer Propaganda.
Allerdings schreibt die ukrainische Rechtslage vor, dass Wahlen frühestens sechs Monate nach Aufhebung des Kriegsrechts abgehalten werden können.
src: click
Das ist der relevante Paragraph im Artikel des BR24 Journalisten.
Und er ist komplett falsch.
Der Link in ihm belegt nicht was der Paragraph behauptet (dort gibts nur ein “soll” Statement). Aber in ihm gibt es einen weiterführenden link auf ein Telegram posting von David Arakhamiya als Originalquelle.
Das folgenden Inhalt hat:
David Arakhamiya - 16. Februar 2025:
I see there is some talk about elections again.
Not for the first time during the war.
So let me remind you once again that, first of all, elections are impossible during martial law. [Kontext: Special Envoy Keith Kellogg hatte gefordert, nach einem Waffenstillstand Wahlen abzuhalten src: click (Reuters), sowie: Kontext zur Rechtslage: click (TVP World) [wichtiger Kniff: Article 19 of Ukraine’s martial law legislation ist nicht Verfassungsrecht oder gleichwertig --] -- leider legitimiert das Selenskyjs unendlich Amtszeit nicht, weshalb Arakhamiya ergänzt - and secondly, …] And secondly, within the framework of the Jean Monnet Dialogue, the leaders of all factions and groups agreed that elections would be held no earlier than six months after the end of martial law.
I recommend everyone to read the document again
https://www.rada.gov.ua/uploads/documents/74725.pdf
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Lässt man sich das Dokument von ChatGPT 4o auf english übersetzen steht da folgendes:
Sitzung im November 2023 (Dh. bereits unter Kriegsrecht, und nach dem Verbot aller Oppositionsparteien die Selenskyj nicht gepasst haben (siehe: click (TAZ))):
We, the leadership of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the heads and delegated representatives of parliamentary factions and groups of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of the 9th convocation, have gathered for the Jean Monnet Dialogue for Peace and Democracy for the ninth time since October 2016, and for the third time during the tenure of the 9th convocation of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. This was the second in-person meeting since the beginning of the unprovoked full-scale military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine.
The fact that this meeting took place under such extraordinary circumstances underscores our unwavering and firm commitment to working together, regardless of political differences, to seek consensus, build trust, and strengthen the unity of democratic forces in Ukraine. Our goal is also to activate the necessary reform processes within the framework of the Jean Monnet Dialogue.
We sincerely welcome the positive and objective report of the European Commission on Ukraine’s aspirations for EU membership and appreciate the recognition of the many efforts that Ukraine has already undertaken to meet the membership criteria of the European Union. We also acknowledge that there is still a significant amount of work ahead, requiring extraordinary efforts and effective cooperation among all branches of government.
We fully understand that a successful path toward the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance must be built on the broadest possible political consensus and public support. Therefore, the leadership, factions, and groups of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine will make concrete efforts to set an example of unity and inclusivity among all democratic forces in Parliament. We also believe that active and systematic involvement of civil society organizations in Ukraine’s accession process to the EU and NATO is crucial and will contribute to better informing all segments of society about EU and NATO-related matters. The Verkhovna Rada should strive to create appropriate mechanisms for cooperation with civil society organizations.
We acknowledge that transparency and accountability of Ukraine’s democratic institutions, especially the Verkhovna Rada, are of critical importance for Ukraine’s successful accession to both the European Union and NATO. We agreed that the Verkhovna Rada should establish institutional and procedural frameworks that align with these goals and ensure compliance with the numerous obligations arising from the EU enlargement process and NATO accession.
[…]
We recognize the growing importance of parliamentary diplomacy in realizing Ukraine’s aspirations for EU membership and NATO accession and, in particular, in fulfilling the functions assigned to the Verkhovna Rada. Political dialogue and exchanges of experience on EU-related issues with parliamentarians from EU countries and the Euro-Atlantic space are highly beneficial for all parties and contribute to a better understanding of the issues on the agenda.
Parliamentary diplomacy should aim for an inclusive approach, ensuring proportional representation in parliamentary assemblies, international forums, and interparliamentary diplomatic events. At the same time, parliamentary diplomacy must be carried out exclusively to protect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty, defend its interests and citizens, restore territorial integrity within the internationally recognized borders of 1991, and promote Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations. It should strengthen Ukraine’s image as a country committed to democracy even in the most challenging times.
Recognizing the deepening cooperation between the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the European Parliament, and in anticipation of a future document on expanding cooperation between the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and the President of the European Parliament, participants of the Dialogue express their readiness to take an active part in cooperation, particularly in the format of parliamentary observation missions to the European Parliament and staff training programs for the Verkhovna Rada Secretariat.
We also agree to continue the institutional reform of the Verkhovna Rada with renewed vigor, strengthening parliamentary oversight functions, as reflected in the European Commission’s report. We aim to reach consensus on the rights of the opposition and the adoption of an ethical code. We believe that timely decisions on these and other reform measures will not only enhance the effectiveness of the Verkhovna Rada but also increase public trust in it.
We are particularly aware of the strain placed on Ukraine’s democratic institutions by the unprovoked full-scale military aggression of the Russian Federation. The introduction of martial law is a direct consequence of this aggression.
While the fight against the aggressor continues, democratic institutions—primarily the Verkhovna Rada and its deputies—must continue to fulfill their constitutional duties and make the necessary decisions to ensure Ukraine’s military victory and pave the way for EU and NATO membership. We are therefore convinced that at this stage, ensuring the stability of the political system and democratic processes is of paramount importance.
To this end, the leadership of the Verkhovna Rada, parliamentary political leaders, and factions and groups of the 9th convocation commit to refraining from actions that could discredit the Parliament’s activities both domestically and internationally. To ensure this stability until the next convocation of the Verkhovna Rada is elected, we have agreed to create mechanisms that will adequately reflect democratically elected parliamentary pluralism within the Verkhovna Rada.
We have also agreed that future free and fair national elections (parliamentary and presidential) should be held after the war ends and martial law is lifted, with sufficient time for preparation (at least six months after the end of martial law). These elections should be conducted based on the existing Electoral Code while preserving key elements of national and local electoral systems, including restoring provisions that ensure fair competition among candidates within party lists.
Unterzeichnet:
Iryna HERASHCHENKO, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Co-chair of the parliamentary faction “European Solidarity”
Oleksandra USTINOVA, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Head of the parliamentary faction “Holos”
Volodymyr ARESHONKOV, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary group “Dovira”
Mykhailo PAPIEV, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary group “Platform for Life and Peace”
Serhii KALCHENKO, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary faction “Servant of the People”
Ivanna KLYMPUSH-TSINTSADZE, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary faction “European Solidarity”
Andrii PARUBII, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary faction “European Solidarity”
Volodymyr TSABAL, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary faction “Holos”
Vadym HALAICHUK, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary faction “Servant of the People”
Viktoria PODHORNA, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary faction “Servant of the People”
Serhii SOBOLEV, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary faction “Batkivshchyna” [Unterschrift fehlt.]
Larysa BILOZIR, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary group “Dovira”
Anna SKOROKHOD, Member of Parliament of Ukraine,
Parliamentary group “For the Future”
So leids mir tut, das ist kein ukrainisches Gesetz.
Schon gar nicht eines von Verfassungsrang.
Aber der Journalist hat sich das Dokument wieder nicht übersetzten lassen, also ist die Ukraine hier im Recht, und dieses Sitzungsprotokoll sei “ukrainisches Recht”.
Toll, wie das läuft im deutschsprachigen Journalismus!
Und was ist jetzt eigentlich diese -
Sitzung im Rahmen des Jean Monnet Dialogues?
The Jean Monnet Dialogue and Inter-Party Dialogue seeks to strengthen the ability of political leaders to develop true inter-party dialogue and to build the consensus necessary for generating a democratic parliamentary culture and trust. It also provides a platform for political group leaders to seek consensus on national priority policies and institutional reforms, to be implemented subsequently by Parliament.
The Jean Monnet Dialogue for Peace and Democracy is a parliamentary mediation instrument. It brings together political leaders from partner countries’ parliaments in cycles of dialogue facilitated by Members of the European Parliament. They are composed of preparatory consultations leading to in camera meetings with concrete outcomes and follow-up.
src: click
Einfach eine Sitzung einer fucking Dialogplattform.
edit: Moneyquote:
Columbia Undergraduate Law Review:
October 16, 2024 - Katherine Grivkov: Upholding Democratic Legitimacy Under Martial Law: Ukraine’s Legal Mandate for the 2024 Presidential Election
The Ukrainian government has continuously reiterated its rationale for not holding the 2024 presidential election in Ukraine. First, the government has relied on the Ukrainian Constitution to support the election cancellation process. [2] In addition to using the Ukrainian Constitution to defend the cancellation of its elections, the government argues that logistically, it would be nearly impossible to hold a wartime election because many Ukrainian citizens have fled the country to seek asylum in neighboring countries. Furthermore, those who are active duty Ukrainian soldiers would also have immense trouble participating in an election as they fight on the front-lines. [3] Yet these arguments––no matter how rational––do not excuse the government from upholding its international and legal obligations. Democratic alternatives need to be presented to Ukrainian citizens, which is something that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself has acknowledged. Zelenskyy has attempted to collect feedback from Ukrainian citizens, even those who have become refugees, using government-operated digital platforms; notably, his government has “… worked to digitize Ukrainian democracy by creating (or updating) state-run apps that are accessible to all citizens.” [4] If, during a global pandemic, countries were able to hold free and fair elections, Ukraine and its democratic partners can work together to create electoral solutions.
By canceling its 2024 presidential election, Ukraine has violated multiple international legal covenants and treaties to which it is a signatory. Ukraine ratified the United Nations (UN) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1973. [5] According to Article 4, “[in] time of public emergency … the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations … provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law.” [6] Derogation is “… the suspension or suppression of a law under particular circumstances.” [7] Different international laws often contain derogation clauses which permit states to avoid legal responsibilities during times of crisis. While derogation is permitted in certain circumstances, this article is one among an array in the covenant, and these articles must be weighed equally. Section (b) of Article 25 states that state signatories should provide the opportunity “to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot.” [8] Ukraine is derogating from its obligations and in turn, is violating the international law to which it subscribes. Holding regular elections is a critical component to ensuring that countries do not violate the civil rights of their citizens. In essence, canceling planned elections is the opposite of regularity. In addition to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Ukraine ratified Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1997. Article 3 of Protocol 1 states that parties are obligated to “hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot.” [9] International law reinforces Ukraine’s responsibility to hold elections at regular intervals, an obligation that a country which aspires to join liberal democratic institutions should uphold.
Despite the military and political significance of martial law [not Ukraines constitutional set limits], Ukraine is still legally responsible to uphold democracy. In 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy submitted a draft resolution to the Ukrainian legislature, Verkhovna Rada, regarding the declaration of war; it ultimately failed to become law. [10] Since the state of war declaration was not implemented as initially anticipated, Ukraine still remains under martial law. According to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine, martial law is a “special legal regime” that “provides for the provision of appropriate state authorities, military command … [and] local self-government of the powers necessary to … [temporarily restrict] the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and citizen.” [11] Similarly, Article 8 secures the right to implement “… temporary restrictions on the constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen, as well as the rights and legal interests of legal entities.” [12] Both Article 1 and Article 8 emphasize the temporary restriction of rights and liberties during times of military crisis. In this case, it appears that the term ‘temporary’ is continually being redefined by Ukraine as it navigates an ever-changing military landscape. Therefore, Article 11 ensures that the current President of Ukraine and his powers “cannot be limited in the conditions of martial law.” [13] Yet, the absence of a limit on these “temporary” restrictions is inherently incompatible with the responsibility to hold regular and free elections under international law. Article 22 states that “[any] attempt to use the imposition of martial law to seize power entails liability under the law.” [14] In October 2023, martial law was extended, and in turn, the Verkhovna Rada was unable to hold its parliamentary election. [15] Likewise, this extension of martial law canceled the 2024 presidential elections. Based on Article 22, extending martial law to offset a parliamentary or presidential election is an unlawful seizure of power. While President Zelensky was previously elected by the Ukrainian people, he is no longer the rightfully elected leader of their country. His power is granted by virtue of martial law extensions, not by the votes of the Ukrainian people. Most importantly, even under martial law, restrictions on civil and constitutional rights should be temporary, not indefinite.
Identifying whether Ukraine is legally permitted to derogate from its legal obligations under international law is critical in assessing the validity of restricting elections. Notably, Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits States to derogate in “exceptional circumstances” and in “a temporary, limited and supervised manner.” [16] Not only should the derogation be temporary, but it should also be supervised––an element with which Ukraine is struggling as its anti-corruption entities have failed to uphold their mandates. [17] Moreover, “any derogations may not be inconsistent with the State’s other obligations under international law.” [18] Ukraine is obligated under international law to hold regular elections. Furthermore, since Russia did not make a state of war declaration which would formally acknowledge its aggression on Ukraine, Ukraine is even more limited in its derogation abilities. Notably, in the case Cyprus v. Turkey (1983)––against the backdrop of Turkish invasion into Cyprus in 1974––Cyprus accused Turkey of violating several articles of the European Commission on Human Rights.
[…]
What differs from the situation in Ukraine is that the aforementioned court held that the United Kingdom did not violate Article 5 and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect liberty and security, whereas Ukraine’s election cancellation does. In canceling its 2024 presidential election, Ukraine is directly stripping its citizens of liberty. By violating this international law, Ukraine is denying its citizens the civil rights they should maintain in a democratic state. Furthermore, Ukraine is putting its country in a risky security position. Ukraine’s refusal to adhere to the rule of law could cause security concerns for the country, as major allies consider withdrawing aid and support to Ukraine if they believe Ukraine is violating international law with its elections.
As Ukraine seeks to join alliances such as the EU and NATO, it must uphold the democratic principles of its peers even in extreme circumstances. For instance, the Treaty on European Union reinforces the importance of upholding democracy by respecting civil rights for all member states: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.” [22] Member states must be committed to upholding these values. If Ukraine wants to gain EU membership in the near future, it must adhere to the principles and rules by which EU member states govern themselves; holding free and fair elections is fundamental to attaining membership. Extended derogation is not an adequate solution for prolonged conflicts or wars. Notably, many states have been misusing Article 15 to derogate for very extended periods of time, and long after the acute emergency has ended. [23] While Ukraine is in crisis, it cannot solely rely on limiting civil rights to govern the nation during wartime.
[…]
src: click
