Muzzle Law of Poland: An attack on the Independence of Judiciary
Publisher
Global Views 360
Publication Date
August 16, 2020
URL
Andrzej Duda, the President of Poland | Source: Wojciech Grabowski via Wikimedia
On February 4, 2020 the president of Poland, Andrzej Duda signed a law that prohibits the country’s judiciary to question the appointment of judges by the President and bars them from being involved in political activities. The law also prohibits judges to seek guidance from the EU Court of Justice on appointments by the National Council of Judiciary (NCJ) of Poland.
Opposition parties condemned the law and Supreme Court president Malgorzata Gersdorf termed it as “Muzzle Law”.
In December 2019, the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament passed the bill that would penalize judges who criticize the judicial reforms of the ruling Law and Justice party. It was sent back by the upper house for further discussion and a vote. However Sejm, using its superior power, enacted the bill, which the president signed on February 4, 2020, making it a law in the country.
The SC of Poland had earlier ruled on December 5, 2019 that the NCJ is not an independent body. Again on January 23, 2020 the SC in a ruling termed the appointment of the judges by the NCJ as illegal stating their apprehension that they may not be free from political influence. The Justice Ministry, quite predictably termed the SC verdict as a “serious violation of the law”.
The law has drawn criticism from lawmakers as well as legal scholars across Europe and the European Union. On 11th January 2020, hundreds of judges from across Europe marched in Warsaw to protest against the enacting of the controversial law. Thousands of lawyers and residents joined in with many waving Polish and EU flags as they marched from the SC to the parliament. "We have come here to support the Polish judges but we are not politicians. We are here about the rule of law, not about politics." John MacMenamin, an Irish Supreme Court judge, told reporters.
In February 2020, a group of 44 ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members along with senior judges, lawyers and legal scholars from across the world released a statement in which they said, “it is clear that the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the capacity of Polish judges to uphold the rule of law are now severely compromised. Judges’ freedom of expression, association and assembly are under immediate threat.”
Ever since it came to power in 2015, The Law and Justice Party of Poland, has been working towards dismantling the independence of the judiciary, terming it judicial reforms. There has been opposition to these actions by the opposition parties, judicial bodies as well as European Union.
EU flags at the European Commission Berlaymont building Brussels, Belgium | Source: Guillaume Périgois via Unsplash
Late in 2017, the European Union had initiated what it called “unprecedented proceedings” against Poland. The move was a response to the worrying reforms in the judiciary that were being enforced by the government. The EU had stated back then that these “systematic threats” could see Poland losing its EU voting rights.
On 29th April, 2020, The EU started a new legal case against the nationalist Polish government in response to the adoption of the “muzzle law”. The EU further added that it was giving Poland two months to address the issues pertaining to the law. “This is a European issue because Polish courts apply European law. Judges from other countries must trust that Polish judges act independently. This mutual trust is the foundation of our single market,” said Vera Jourova, the Czech member of the executive Commission who is responsible for upholding the EU’s democratic values at a news conference.
A few European legal scholars have warned that the developments in Poland are a threat to the entire legal system of the EU. Despite all the criticism and pressure from the EU, the Polish government is yet to respond meaningfully to the growing concerns over the assault on Poland’s judicial system and its potential EU exit.
Support us to bring the world closer
To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.
Iran, Turkey, Qatar Alliance: Will this mark a shift in MENA's Balance of power?
Qatar, Iran and Turkey have been forming an alliance—which impacts several countries—especially in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region. The move comes after Israel recently established its diplomatic relations with four Arab league countries, namely, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. The article covers how this move can have an impact on the balance of power in the region.
Support for the Palestinian Cause
The three countries are critical of the Israel-Arab ties and support the Palestinian cause. Various Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Fatah as well, are shoring up ties with Turkey and other countries in the region that stand against normalization with Israel.
During his speech in the 75th United Nations General Assembly, Erdogan called out on Israel and proclaimed, “The occupation of Palestine is a bleeding wound.”
Since the Gaza attack, which killed 10 Turkish social activists aboard a ship by the Israeli commandos in international waters, the relationship between the two has only soured. After this incident, Turkey recalled its ambassador from Israel, downgrading the diplomatic status. Yet in 2016—after a few meetings—the relationship was restored. However, after another attack in Gaza in 2018, Turkey called back its ambassadors again and expelled the Israeli ambassador to Turkey. Since then they do not have full diplomatic status.
Following the attacks Erdogan—the president of Turkey—even called Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu “a terrorist.” The country has been openly supportive of the Palestinian cause, and has also sent aid for humanitarian relief to the Palestinians. Several Hamas leaders have been visiting, taking refuge, and even meeting with Erdogan.
On August 22, 2020, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh met Erdogan in Istanbul. Jibril Rajoub, secretary of Fatah’s Central Committee, as well arrived in Turkey on September 21, 2020 to meet with Haniyeh and his deputy Saleh al-Arouri and discuss ways to end the internal Palestinian division.
On the same day, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas phoned Erdogan and thanked him for his support for the Palestinian cause. The two have shared several calls since—discussing political developments and US pressure on the region to normalize ties with Israel and ways to face such pressure.
Turkey has tried to balance its relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran, who happen to be arch rivals. But after the recent growing closeness with two of Saudi Arabia’s rival countries, Iran and Qatar, Turkey might end up straining its relations with Saudi Arabia.
Qatar-Saudi Arabia conflict
This diplomatic conflict is also known as the Second Arab Cold War (the first one being the Iran-Saudi Arabia Cold War). There is an ongoing struggle between the two countries to gain influence in the Gulf. Their relations strained especially after the emergence of Arab Spring. During that time, Qatar became in favour of the revolutionary wave, whereas Saudi Arabia was against it. Both the States are allies of the United States, but have a tussle in their ideologies. Both have avoided direct conflict with each other.
There are other issues between them which leads to further tussle-
1. Qatar broadcasts a news channel, Al Jazeera, which favours the Arab Spring.
2. Qatar has good relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia's rival.
3. Qatar also allegedly supported Muslim Brotherhood in the past. Which it denies.
The Qatar diplomatic crisis became worse in 2017. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt severed diplomatic relations and trade ties with Doha, and imposed a sea, land and air blockade on Qatar, claiming it supported “terrorism” and was too close to Iran. Yemen, the Maldives and Libya's eastern-based government also followed later. Qatar rejected the claims and said there was “no legitimate justification” for the severance of the relations.
How does this new alliance affect the other countries in the region?
The new alliance seems to lead into formations of two alliance groups or blocs in the region, with some countries siding with Iran, Qatar and Turkey and others with the Saudis and their allies. Another point to keep in mind is that Saudi Arabia is supported by the US, while two countries from the former alliance—Turkey and Iran—are supported by Russia. This will lead to further division among the Middle Eastern countries.
President Trump, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain, Israeli Prime Minister, and Minister of Foreign Affairs for the UAE Signing the Abraham Accords | Source: Trump White House Archives
This alliance can also affect the trade among these countries, and can severe the ties of many Middle Eastern countries. The biggest beneficiary is going to be Israel, which doesn’t have good relations with most of the Muslim world, except the ones which established diplomatic ties recently by signing the Abraham Accords.
In North Africa countries like Egypt and Morocco recognise Israel. However, most of the North African countries also supported the Arab Springs, which is against the ideas of Saudi Arabia. The Islamic holy land seriously seems to have less Arab allies when it comes to opposing the Arab Springs.
In fact, there can be impacts on trade and diplomatic ties with other countries outside the Middle East and North African region as well. Countries will have to balance their relations with both these groups.
How does it affect the Balance of power in the region?
In international relations, balance of power refers to the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power with the power of the other side.
There has been a Cold War situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia as they are very (perhaps most) influential powers in the region. But Saudi Arabia is still more influential as a business as well as a soft power—it has a richer economy, oil exports, and most importantly, being the holy land where every Muslim comes for Hajj pilgrimage—it has Mecca and Medina. It is the land where the Prophet Muhammad first delivered his messages and teachings. Iran may try to compete in the economic part, but isn't equally as challenging in the religious part—although it is an important country for the Shia Muslims.
There have been arms embargo on Iran by the UN for arms race. Russia and China have been eager to supply Iran with advanced jets, tanks and missiles, which is quite alarming for its Gulf Arab neighbours, especially its primary adversaries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
On 14 September 2019, drones were used to attack the state-owned Saudi Aramco oil processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais in eastern Saudi Arabia. The Houthi movement in Yemen claimed responsibility, joining it to events surrounding the Saudi Arabian intervention in the Yemeni Civil War and stating that they used ten drones in the attack from Yemen. Saudi Arabian officials said that many more drones and cruise missiles were used for the attack and these originated from the north and east, and that they were of Iranian manufacture. The United States and Saudi Arabia have stated that Iran was behind the attack while France, Germany, and the United Kingdom jointly stated Iran bears responsibility for it. Iran has denied any involvement. The situation has only exacerbated the Persian Gulf crisis.
By forming this new alliance, supporting the Palestinian cause—with Qatar—even supporting the idea of Arab Springs; the Iran-Turkey-Qatar alliance has a new power with them. What remains to be seen is the other Middle Eastern country’s decision—whether they support this new alliance and the Palestinian cause or go for yet another fragile “peace-building” initiative in the already disturbed region.
