I found myself wondering, why does everyone act as if a Yes vote is binding, apparently forever, but a No vote merely means "not yet, but ask again soon".

So I did a little research and found that it may be possible for nations to withdraw from the Lisbon treaty after they have ratified it. It may even be possible to withdraw from the EU itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

To Zyme and the other Lisbo-philes -- what is your impression of the accuracy of this Wikipedia article?

Do you think the Lisbon treaty should be clarified to spell out the exact circumstances (if any) under which a nation can withdraw?

"economical suicide"

The economic integration of Europe is (mostly) already in place, the Lisbon treaty mostly deals with political integration. Withdrawing from the EU completely might be economic suicide, but I don't see why withdrawing from Lisbon (in the future, after ratifying it) would be economic suicide for a country like Ireland. Wouldn't a future withdrawal from Lisbon basically return Ireland to the status quo ante?

Presumably, the answer is no, but this is only because the countries remaining in the EU would probably try to punish Ireland for withdrawing. Sticking with the death metaphor, wouldn't this punishment be more correctly described as an economic death penalty, rather than economic suicide?

Assuming the report is factually correct, Tbilisi started something, but I don't see how it is reasonable to say that they started a war. As far as I can tell, Russia and Georgia have been at war for most of the 1990's and have never made peace. You can't start a war if a war already exists. It would be more accurate to say that in 2008, Tbilisi ended a cease fire or resumed a war.

International law regarding cease fire violations is notoriously vague and lax. Even if Tbilisi's termination of the cease fire wasn't, strictly speaking, purely defensive, there is an obvious case to be made that when a tiny country is facing an immanent threat from a much, much larger and more powerful adversary, then preemptive action may be justified, particularly when those two countries are already at war.

Meanwhile, international law regarding the duties of an occupying power to police the occupied territories and protect civilians from militias, is quite clear, or so I keep hearing.

'The roughly 1,000-page report, released on Wednesday by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, found no evidence to support Russian claims Georgia committed genocide the night of Aug. 7-8, 2008.'

'Moscow acted illegally in the extent of its invasion of Georgia and allowed "ethnic cleansing."'

Where is the outrage?

Why is Russia being treated as just another European country, when in fact it is the only European power that is still practicing actual, literal, imperial colonialism? Given its recent, ultra-violent history, why shouldn't Russia be held to the same high standard of anti-militarism that is expected of Germany?

"The fact that we don't hold Russia to the same standards as Germany has to do with realism."

You are correct, of course. Realism is a maddeningly vague word at the best of times. Here we must distinguish between political realism, by which you mean realpolitik, as contrasted with empirical realism, which requires factual accuracy, completeness, independent assessment, and balanced judgment that is free of political influence.

Where in the mandate for this fact-finding mission is the basis for permitting realpolitik into the report?

"I do expect [the US] to behave with more circumspection with regard to international law than Russia, as it is part of the community of liberal democracies."

So liberal democracies should be held to a higher standard than other nations. Morally, this is plausible or even defensible, since without this double standard, there will be a tendency for democracies to regress to the lowest common denominator.

But legally, this is very problematic. Shouldn't international law, like Lady Justice, be blind? Shouldn't international law hold all countries to the same standard?

If double standards are acceptable in international law, why stop with the one for liberal democracies? Shouldn't there be a double standard, for example, when a large and powerful country is in conflict with a small, weak country?

Certainly, the US, as both a super-power and a liberal democracy, is often held to a more severe double-standard than are other, liberal democracies.

Why does the report let Russia let off the hook in this regard? Perhaps the liberal democracy standard doesn't apply to Russia (paradoxically, Putin would claim grave offense at that and insist that they do qualify as a liberal democracy!) but the big guy vs. little guy double standard certainly does apply.

So we are left with a bizarre oxymoron -- a "fact-finding" mission that suffers from an excess of "realism"!

"The report indicates that the fact finding mission could not find support for the view that the war launched by Georgia was 'pre-emptive'."

Nanne, what is the basis for your statement? I've search the BBC article, the WSJ article, and the PDF excerpt of the commission report, and cannot find any instance of the words 'pre-emptive', 'preemptive' nor any of its variations. I've also looked for similar concepts like 'prevent'. Can you give me a page number or something?

Also, please note, I did not say that the war was preemtive, or was possibly justified by pre-emption. I said that breaking the cease-fire might have been pre-emptive.

The report's logic has a flaw. It correctly observes that all sides agree that the artillery strike of 7-8 Aug actually happened, and that it was an act of war. But, it offers no evidence that the artillery strike STARTED the war, rather, it merely assumes that peace existed in the region before the artillery strike. But I see no evidence of peace. The report did not document a peace treaty, just a peacekeeping agreement (which, in spite of the name, actually isn't necessary in times of actual peace). The report documents small, ongoing, clashes that had a military character. Permitting a "civilian" force operate in another country or region in ways that would be military, if the civilians were in uniform, is itself an act of war (unless the source country is willing to police these civilians).

It seems to me the report ducks all these questions because it can't find agreement as to the facts. But if one can't agree on the facts of incidents, it doesn't follow logically that countries are at peace! The correct conclusion should have been, the report was unable to determine the state of peace/war prior to 7-8 Aug.

Generally speaking, yes, that is what I am referring to. There were a number of cease-fire agreements, initiatives, peace-keeping groups, etc. over the decades, but the OCSE seems to be the main one.

----

Here is another example of what I am talking about when I ask, "what is the evidence that the countries were at peace before 7 Aug?"

In the report, there is no mention of the violation of Georgian (NOT S. Ossetian!) airspace by Russian (NOT S. Ossetian!) fighter jets that both sides agree happened on 9 July, 2008. In peacetime, that would qualify as an act of war under international law (nations own their airspace just as they own their land).

In a cease-fire situation, the legal threshold for resuming hostilities is even lower. If a cease-fire agreement bound parties as tightly as a peace agreement, no-one would bother with a cease-fire!

There are so many gaps like this in the report (at least the parts that are available to us), it makes me wonder if the start and end dates of the conflict were negotiated ahead of time, before a single fact was gathered!

Still, the fact-finding report is a valuable contribution, since it gathered valuable documents and testimony that otherwise might have been lost or remained obscure. I just think that in light of the report's own disclaimers, and other limitations, statements in the report such as 'X violated international law' must be treated merely as informed opinions, rather than legal conclusions.

This is a great discussion, I am learning a lot about European politics!

Congratulations to Marie-Claude for the impossible: connecting the topic of this post, to the Irish referendum. I bow in your direction!

Jorg, Editors: When there's breaking news like this, perhaps you could create a quick, simple post on the topic so we can comment?

"bred by the american state department"

Many said that about Sarko, it isn't true, and it isn't true for Klaus.

"would you say it isn't opportunism"

When Klaus moves closer to Russia, it is opportunism (bad) or even pathological (very bad). And yet, when France or Germany move closer to Russia, it is realism (good) and not gas greed (bad)?

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

I remember that brief moment (2003?) when Putin's scientists announced that Russia was officially skeptical of global warming. But I had forgotten that Klaus seemed to give Russia permission to invade Georgia, perhaps that was the trade the Kremlin demanded...I condemn that decision to sacrifice Georgia, while admiring Klaus's ability to punch above his weight in European affairs...so confusing!