srijeda, 12. kolovoza 2020.

IZJAVA MOSTARSKOG BISKUPA O MEĐUGORJU (25. July 1987)

Međugorje, 25. srpnja 1987.
     Braćo i sestre, ovdje danas na krizmi u Međugorju, očekujete da možda reknem neku riječ o događajima o kojima govori cijeli svijet. Crkva o tome mora voditi računa, i ono što Crkvu zanima, ona daje posebnim osobama, komisijama na istraživanje i prosuđivanje. Znate također da sada o ovome raspravlja komisija koju je sastavila Biskupska konferencija Jugoslavije, jer Crkva ne može tako lako izložiti svoju vjerodostojnost pred svijetom dvadesetog stoljeća.
      Mogu reći da sam šest godina molio, studirao i šutio. Molili su i mnogi drugi, i na tome im zahvaljujem. U svakoj svetoj misi je nakana o Međugorju bila prisutna, u svakoj krunici sam molio Gospu, svakog dana, da mi od Boga isprosi svjetlo a tako i Duha Svetoga. To mi je pomoglo da steknem jako i sigurno uvjerenje o svemu što sam čuo, čitao i doživio.
      Ovdje se mnogo moli i posti ali sve u vjeri da su događaji doista vrhunaravni, a vjernom puku propovijedati neistinu o Bogu, o Isusu, o Gospi, zaslužuje dno pakla.
      U cijelom mome radu, molitvi i studiju preda mnom je bio samo jedan cilj: doći do istine. U tu svrhu sam još '82. godine osnovao Komisiju od četiri člana, a kasnije je proširio, pomoću nekih biskupa i otaca provincijala, na petnaest članova, sa devet teoloških učilišta, iz sedam biskupija i četiri provincije i dva vrhunska psihijatra, a oni su mogli konzultirati i druge svoje kolege. Radili su tri godine. O radu i događajima bila je obavještavana i Sveta Stolica. Sada se tim istim problemom bavi već spomenuta Komisija koja je sastavljena od Biskupske konferencije Jugoslavije.
      Međutim, oni kojima se žurilo išli su naprijed, ispred suda Crkve, proglašavali čudesa i vrhunaravne događaje i s oltara propovijedali privatne objave, što nikako nije dopušteno dok Crkva te objave ne prizna kao autentične. Zato su razni forumi prozivali da se ne organiziraju hodočašća, da se čeka sud Crkve. Najprije je Komisija za Međugorje 24. III. 1984. na to upozorila. Nažalost, bez efekta. Onda je Biskupska konferencija Jugoslavije, u desetom mjesecu iste godine, rekla da se ne mogu organizirati službena hodočašća u Međugorje, a službeno je bilo svako koje se okupljalo i zajedno dolazilo. Ni to nije koristilo. Zatim je Kongregacija, u Rimu, za nauk vjere, 23. V. 1985. uputila Talijanskoj biskupskoj konferenciji dopis da biskupi nastoje smanjiti organiziranje hodočašća i svaku formu propagande. I to je ostalo bez ploda. Konačno, kada se prešlo na formiranje druge Komisije, uzoriti kardinal Franjo Kuharić i mostarski Biskup, u ime Biskupske konferencije Jugoslavije, 9. siječnja ove godine, su u izjavi za javnost rekli: "Stoga nije dopušteno organiziranje hodočašća ili drugih manifestacija motiviranih vrhunaravnim karakterom koji bi se pridavao međugorskim zbivanjima." To je rečeno s najvećega mjesta u Crkvi i ne smije se preko toga prelaziti kao da to nije ništa.
      Od prvih vijesti koje su najavile izvanredne događaje u ovoj župi, Biskupski ured je pažljivo pratio vijesti i sabirao sve što je moglo služiti u traženju istine. Biskup je pustio vidiocima i pastoralnom osoblju potpunu slobodu, čak ih je branio pred napadajima tiska i politike. Snimali smo sve razgovore na kasetama, skupljali kronike i dnevnike, pisma, dokumente i sve je to tri godine studirala Komisija sastavljena od naših profesora teologije i liječnika. Trogodišnji rad Komisije dao je rezultat: dva člana Komisije su glasovala da su ukazanja vrhunaravna, istinita. Jedan član se uzdržao od glasovanja, jedan da je nešto bilo u početku, a jedanaest non constat de supernaturalitate, tj. da ukazanja nije bilo.
      Duboko sam uvjeren da su svi članovi Komisije radili savjesno i ispitali sve što je moglo poslužiti u traženju istine. Crkva ne može riskirati svoju vjerodostojnost i često je u sličnim slučajevima pomno istraživala ovakve događaje i odbijala velika mnoštva ako su se okupljala na mjestima gdje je bilo ustanovljeno da događaji nisu vrhunaravni. Sjetimo se Garabandala u Španjolskoj i San Damiana u Italiji i još desetaka sličnih mjesta zadnjih godina. U Garabandalu su vidjelice govorile da je Gospa obećala veliki znak za cijeli svijet. Od tada je prošlo dvadeset i pet godina a toga znaka nema. Da je i ovdje Gospa ostavila znak, bilo bi svima jasno o čemu se radi.
      Gospa se, kažu, počela ukazivati na Podbrdu na brdu Crnici, pa kad je milicija zabranila ići tamo, sišla je u kuće, u ograde, u polja, u vinograde, u duhaništa, ukazivala se u crkvi, na oltaru, u sakristiji, na koru, na krovu, na zvoniku, po putovima, na putu u Cerno, u automobilu, u autobusu, u školama, u Mostaru na nekoliko mjesta, u Sarajevu na više mjesta, u Zagrebu po samostanima, u Varaždinu, u Švicarskoj, u Italiji, opet na Podbrdu, na Križevcu, u župi, u župnoj kući, itd. Sigurno nije nabrojeno ni pola mjesta navodnih ukazanja pa se trijezan čovjek, koji Gospu časti, pita: Gospe moja, što to od tebe čine?
      U ovoj biskupiji ja sam po božanskom pravu pastir, učitelj vjere i sudac u pitanjima vjere. Budući da su događaji u Međugorju stvorili napetost i podjelu u Crkvi - jedni vjeruju, drugi ne vjeruju - i pobjegli kontroli Crkve i jer su preporuke i odluke prije spomenutih foruma - Komisije, Kongregacije i Biskupske konferencije - ostale bez efekta, ja, mostarski Biskup, pred Bogom odgovoran za disciplinu u biskupiji, ponavljam i sankcioniram prijašnje odluke crkvenih foruma i svećenicima koji organiziraju hodočašća ili dolaze ovamo pridajući ovim događajima vrhunaravni karakter, dok ne završi rad Komisija Biskupske konferencije Jugoslavije, zabranjujem misiti u mojoj biskupiji.
      Obraćam se tebi, Bezgrješna Djevice i Majko, Majko Božja i Majko Crkve, Majko ovoga puka koji te traži, moli i ljubi. Obraćam se tebi, ja tvoj sluga, biskup mostarski i pred cijelim svijetom izričem svoju duboku i nepokolebljivu vjeru u sve povlastice kojima te je Bog obdario, po kojemu si prvo i najodličnije stvorenje. Izričem moju duboku i nepokolebljivu vjeru u tvoj zagovor kojim posreduješ kod svemogućega Boga za sve potrebe svoje djece u ovoj suznoj dolini. Izričem moju duboku i nepokolebljivu vjeru u tvoju ljubav prema nama grešnicima, a tu ljubav si posvjedočila i svojim ukazanjima i pomoćima. I sâm sam vodio hodočašća u Lourdes. Upravo snagom te vjere, ja tvoj sluga, biskup mostarski, pred brojnim mnoštvima koja su te zazivala, otkrivam i prihvaćam tvoj veliki znak koji je postao siguran i jasan nakon ovih šest godina. Taj znak jest da si šest godina uporno šutjela na sve navještaje o znaku: bit će na brdu "ukazanja" vidljiv i trajan, bit će brzo, bit će uskoro, još malo, strpite se malo - govorili su još 1981. … Pa onda: bit će za Bezgrešno, za Božić, za Novu godinu, itd. Meni posebni znak nije potreban, ali je bio potreban onima koji su vjerovali neistini.
     Hvala ti, Gospe, što si svojom šutnjom dugom šest godina pokazala da li si ovdje govorila, da li si se ukazivala, poruke i tajne dijelila i da li si posebni znak obećala. Presveta Djevice, Majko Kristova i Majko naša, posreduj za mir u ovoj nemirnoj crkvenoj pokrajini, u mostarskoj biskupiji, posreduj posebno za ovo mjesto, za ovu župu, gdje se bezbroj puta upotrijebilo tvoje sveto ime u govorima koji nisu bili tvoji. Daj da se prestanu izmišljati tvoje poruke. Primi, presveta Djevice, zadovoljštinu iskrene molitve pobožnih duša koje su daleko od fanatizma i neposluha u Crkvi. Daj nam svima da dođemo do prave istine. Gospe draga, ponizna i poslušna službenice Gospodnja, daj da Međugorje krene čvrstim koracima za pastirom mjesne Crkve da bismo te svi zajedno mogli veličati i hvaliti u istini i ljubavi. Amen.
                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                              Pavao Žanić, biskup
Crkva na kamenu, nr. 8-9/1987, str. 2.

utorak, 11. kolovoza 2020.

Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina (2003) CVs of three candidates: Ljiljana Mijovic, Zoran Pajic and Ahmed Zilic

Taken from the page of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=10273&lang=EN

Doc. 9914
19 September 2003
Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina
(in accordance with Article 23, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights)
Communication from the Committee of Ministers
Letter from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, dated 17 September 2003
Dear President,
      Pursuant to the decisions of the Ministers’ Deputies of which I enclose a copy, I have the honour to transmit to you the curricula vitae of the candidates for the post of Judge of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
...
Signed:
Walter SCHWIMMER
Decisions of Ministers' Deputies
852nd meeting – 17 September 2003
Item 4.2
European Court of Human Rights –
Presentation of candidatures for the election of a judge in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina

(CM(2003)105)
Decisions
The Deputies
1.       took note of the list of candidates for the election of judges of the European Court of Human Rights, presented in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
2.       agreed to transmit the said list of candidates to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly.
CURRICULUM VITAE
I.       PERSONAL DETAILS:
Ljiljana Mijovic
Female
21 April 1964, Banjaluka
Bosnia and Herzegovina
II.        EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC AND OTRER QUALIFICATIONS
1979-1983       High School, Banjaluka (& A-levels)
1984-1988       Faculty of Law, University of Banjaluka, BA in Law
1993-1997       Postgraduate studies in International Public and Private Law, M.A (M.Sc.),
      Faculty of Law, University in Banjaluka, finished magna cum laude
1999, September        Intensive Summer Course on Human Rights, Raoul Wallenberg Institute,
      Lund, Sweden
2000, July -        Intensive Summer University on EU, Institute for European Studies, Brussels,
      Belgium
2001, September        Legal Clinics Education Visit to USA, South Texas College of Law,
      Houston, USA
2002, June       defended Doctoral Thesis in International Public Law, "Tendencies of the
      International Legal Personality Development”; received the title of D.Sc.
III       RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
a. Judicial activities
2002- Member of the BiH High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council
b. Non-judicial legal activities
1989-1990        Professional Assistant of the Labour Union in Laktasi
1991-2002       Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law (International Law Department),
    University of Banja Luka, 2002 received the title of Professor of International Public Law at the Law Faculty in Banjaluka
1997- 2001       Professor, Police Academy in Banjaluka, International Law Department,
1997- 2001        Administrator, Computer Centre, Faculty of Law, Banjaluka,
1997-        Member of the Yugoslav Red Cross Commission for the International Humanitarian Law
1998-1999        Legal Expert at the USAID Banjaluka Field Office-Department of Legal and Regulatory Reform
1998-1999        Legal Expert at the Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Issues, Banjaluka Field Office
1999-        Director of the Human Rights Centre, University in Banjaluka
2000-        Professor at the European Regional Human Rights Master Studies, Sarajevo-Bologna, teaching on Women's Rights
2002-        Professor at the Human Rights Master Studies - Faculty of Law, Podgorica, Monte Negro, teaching on Women's Rights
c. Non-legal professional activities
2000-        Member of the WUS (World University Service) BiH Steering Board
2000-        Member of NGO "United Women" Steering Board
2001-        Member of the BiH Open Society Fund Executive Board
2002-        Member of the BiH Press Council
IV.        ACTIVITIES AND EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- Participant at the CoE Seminar "Some Aspects of the ECHR', organised by the CoE and Faculty of Law, Banjaluka, 1998;
- Participant at the ICTY Introduction Seminar, organised by the ICTY, Hague, Netherlands, October, 1998;
- Promoter of the ICRC "People on War" Study, 1998;
1999 - Director of the Human Rights Centre, University in Banjaluka
- Participant at the Human Rights Intensive Course, Raoul Wallenberg Institute, Lund, Sweden, September 1999;
2000- Professor at the European Regional Human Rights Master Studies, Sarajevo-Bologna, teaching on Women's Rights
- Co-ordinator of the Tempus Phare "EU-History, Law and Human Rights" Project, organised by the Dipartimento di studi sullo stato, Florence, Italy, 2000-2001;
- Legal Advisor at the "Democracy and Human Rights" NGO's "United Women" Project, supported by the Westminster Foundation, UK, 2000-2001;
- Project of the BiH Open Society Fund "International Support Policies to SEE Countries-Lessons (not) Learned in BiH, Human Rights in BiH", Team Member, 2001;
- Lecturer at the International Summer School "Human Rights and Human Wrongs in SEE", organised by HRC-SEE Network, Milocer, MonteNegro, August 2001;
- Co-director and a lecturer at the International Summer School "Implementation of Human Rights in SEE, organised by the European Training Centre, Graz, Austria and Inter-University Centre Dubrovnik, Dubroynik, October 2001;
- Lecturer at the International Seminar "Human Rights for Future Decision Makers", organised by Balkan Human Rights Network, Dubrovnik,October, 2001;
- Denied Future, "Save the Children", project related to the right to education of the Roma children population in BiH, Team Member, 2001;
- European Training Centre, Graz, Austria, Project "Ethnic Diversity", Team Member, 2000-2002;
- Lecturer at the International Summer School "Human Rights and Human Wrongs in SEE', organised by HRC-SEE Network, Ohrid, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, August, 2002;
2002- Professor at the Human Rights Master Studies, Faculty of Law, Podgorica, MonteNegro, teaching on Women's Rights
- Speaker on the BiH Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law-issues related to the Art. 5 of ECHR, Conference organised by the CoE, Sarajevo, December 2002
V.        PUBLIC ACTIVITIES
      a. Public office
2000- Member of the WUS (World University Service) BiH Steering Board
2001- Member of the BiH Open Society Fund Executive Board
2002- Member of the BiH Press Council
      b. Elected posts
2002- Member of the BiH High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council
      c. Posts held in a political party or movement
None
VI.        OTHER ACTIVITIES
2000- Member of NGO "United Women” Steering Board
- Organising of and participating at numerous human and women's rights and civil society related events (courses, seminars, round tables)
VII.        PUBLICATIONS AND OTHER WORKS
- published more than 20 scientific papers (articles, reports, studies), three textbooks (being a co-author), participated in more than 10 international scientific and research projects;
Scientific Articles and Studies:
1.       “International Organisations and (or) State Sovereignty?". Srpska Pravna Misao, Banjaluka,1/95, p.265-2812.
2.       "The International Legal Responsibility of the States", Yearbook, Faculty of Law, Banjaluka, 1998, p.209-211
3.       “International Personality of Belligerents and Rebellions” Znacenja, Matica Republike Srpske, July 20014.
4.       "The Tendencies of the International Legal Personality Development', Srpska pravna misao, Banjaluka, June 2000
5.       Human Rights in BIH, Policies of International Support to SEE Countries-Lessons (not) Learned in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chapter XIII-Human Rights in BiH, Sarajevo, December 2001 (www.soros.org.ba)
6.       "Women's Rights-Gap between Law and Reality", Human Rights Textbook, Sarajevo, January 2001
7.       'Individual as a Subject of the International Public Law", Zbornik drustveno humanistickih nauka, 2/2002, Banjaluka
8.       "Institutionalizing Ethnic Diversity in (Post-) Conflict Situations" - "Ethnic Diversity - Banjaluka Case Study" and "The Role of NGOs, Religious Institutions and Gender Issues in Reconciliation Processes", European Training Centre, Graz, Austria, 2002, www.peaceproject.at.
VIII.        LANGUAGES
    a.        First language
    S-B-H (Serbian-Bosnian-Croatian), reading, writing and speaking-very good;
    b.        Official languages
    English, reading, writing and speaking-very good;
    c.        Other languages
    German; reading-good
IX.        OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
References can be provided
X. CONFIRMATION ON WILLINGNESS TO TAKE UP PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN STRASBOURG
Hereby I confirm that I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge to the Court.
Banjaluka, 17 March 2003
Dr. Ljiljana Mijovic
CURRICULUM VITAE
I. Personal details
Name, forename:       PAJIC, Zoran
Sex:       Male
Date and place of birth:       22 May 1945, Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Nationalities:       Bosnia and Herzegovina & United Kingdom
II. Education and academic and other qualification
Ph.D. in International Law, 1984. University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Law
MA in Psychology of Higher Education Teaching, 1981. University of Sarajevo
LLM in International Law, 1974. University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Law
LLB, 1968. University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Law
III. Relevant professional activities
Office of the High Representative of the International Community in B&H, Sarajevo, from June 2002 to present.
Head of the Legal Reform Department. The position includes assessing national laws, proposing legislation policy and law drafts to the country authorities, according to the mandate of the OHR.
Centre for Defence Studies, King's College London, February 2001 to May 2002.
Senior Research Associate.
DFID, Project on Safety, Security and Access to Justice in the Balkans, May-August 2001,
and April-May 2002.
Consultant. Undertaking fact-finding missions and making analysis of the state of judiciary and public administration in the region, producing reports, drafting recommendations, etc.
Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), London, October 1998 to March 2001.
Associate Fellow.
International Crisis Group, Office in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, April 1999 to April 2000.
Senior Legal Adviser. Was in charge of the project "Promotion of Justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina", funded by the European Commission.
King's College London, June 1994 to March 1999.
Senior Research Fellow in International Human Rights, School of Law and the British Institute of Human Rights. Undertook teaching of Human Rights Law and research in international human rights. Supervised a pilot project on "Human Rights Teaching in the Former Yugoslavia".
University of Essex, Department of Law and Centre for Human Rights, Colchester, September 1992 to June 1994.
British Council Fellow and Visiting Professor.
University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Law, February 1972 to July 1992.
Professor of Public International Law. Organised and taught undergraduate courses in Public International Law and Human Rights and (from 1988) in Constitutional Law. Organised and taught postgraduate courses. Supervised masters and doctoral dissertations. Served on many Faculty committees, including Acting Director of the Law Library for six years. Elected member of the University Council.
Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Brussels, February-July 1982.
Visiting Fellow. Undertook research with Professor Bart. De Schutter at the Centre for International Criminal Law.
IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights
The British Institute of Human Rights, King's College London, 1998 to present.
Member, 
Board of Governors.
"Human Rights Quarterly", The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994 to present.
Member, Editorial Review Board.
United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague,
January to July 1997.
Expert Witness for the Prosecution. Prepared an expertise and testified before the court on constitutional issues and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Southern Africa, United Nations, Geneva, 1991-1995.
Human Rights Expert. One of the six members, acting in personal capacity, appointed to "carry out various inquiries into allegations of human rights violations in South Africa and report regularly to the Commission on Human Rights and to the General Assembly" (for reference, see Note by the Secretary General, U.N. Doc. A/49/543 of 19 October 1994). Participated in annual missions to Southern Africa, visiting South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana. Interviewed victims of apartheid regime, anti-apartheid activists, government officials and political leaders, and NGOs acting in the region. Visited prisons in South Africa and took testimonies from inmates. Worked closely with U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and International Labour . Drafted annual and interim Reports to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and biannual Reports to the U.N. General Assembly. For reference, see Final Report: U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1995/23, 13 January 1995.
International Human Rights Law Group, Washington, D.C., 1996-7.
Project Adviser. This activity resulted in establishing an IHRLG Office in Bosnia and Herzegovina that has been very successful in human rights advocacy.
Yugoslav Association of International Law, 1989-1992.
President.
Executive Council of the International Law Association, London, 1989-1992.
Member.
Yugoslav Forum for Human Rights, 1988-1991. Co-Founder and Vice-Chairman. The Forum was the first NGO for human rights protection in the former Yugoslavia.
V. Public activities
None.
VI. Other activities
Institute of War and Peace Reporting, London, 1994 to present.
Member, Board of Trustees.
University Postgraduate Centre "European Studies", International Consortium of European Universities.
Professor of European Institutions and Member of the Board.
Supplementary Grant Programme for Students from the Former Yugoslavia, Open Society Fund, The George Soros Foundation, London, 1994 to present.
Member, U.K. Committee.
Verona Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the Former Yugoslavia, European Parliament, 1992-1995.
Member, Steering Committee.
Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, 1990-1992.
Member, Commission for Constitutional Affairs.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia, 1987-1990.
Member, Legal Advisory Council.
University of Sarajevo, 1987-1991.
Assistant-Rector, International Relations Programme.
Winter Olympic Games, Sarajevo 1984.
Executive Secretary, The Bob-Sledge Competition.
VII. Publications and other worla
Selected publications
    • The Yugoslav Case, in: Minority Rights in Europe: The Scope for a Transitional Regime. Ed. by Hugh Miall. Chatham House Papers, London, 1994.
    • Crimes Against Humanity: A Problem of International Responsibility, in: Human Rights in the 21st Century. Ed. by Robert Blackburn and James J. Busuttil. Pinter, London, 1997.
    • International Human Rights: Law and Practice in Bosnia and Herzegovina, ed. by Michael O'Flaherty and Gregory Gisvold. N.P. Engel Publishers, 1998.
    • A Critical Appraisal of Human Rights Provisions of the Dayton Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1February 1998.
    • Manual for Minority Rights (all chapters except for the national case review). Centre for Minority Protection, Sarajevo, 1999. This publication is available in the Bosnian language only.
    • The Role of Institutions in Peace Building, in: International Support Policies to South-East European Countries: Lessons (not) learned in BiH. Open Society Fund, Sarajevo 2002.
Other recent works
    • Edited the publication of Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, by Van Dijk & Van Hoof, in the Bosnian language. Open Society Fund, Sarajevo, 2001.
    • Edited the publication of the Amnesty International Fair Trial Manual in the Bosnian language. OSCE Mission in B&H, Sarajevo, 2001.
VIII. Languages
Language
Reading
Writing
Speaking
VG G F
VG G F
VG G F
a. First language
- Bosnian
X
X
X
(veuillez préciser)
b. Official languages
- English
X
X
X
- French
X
X
X
c. Other languages
- Croatian
X
X
X
- Serbian
X
X
X
………………………
IX Other relevant information
Teaching activities, for the past 20 years, have included following courses and seminars:
    • Democratic Transitions and Human Rights (University of Bologna);
    • Prosecuting War Crimes (Department of War Studies, King's College London);
    • Public International Law (London Centre for International Relations, University of Kent; University of Sarajevo);
    • European Institutions (Tempus sponsored Post-Graduate Course in "European Studies" at Sarajevo University, with partnership of LSE and University of Bologna);
    • Human Rights in the New Europe (Department of Law, University of Essex);
    • International Human Rights (Department of Law, University of Essex; Faculty of Law, University of Sarajevo; Department of Legal Studies, Central European University, Budapest);
    • Politics of Wider Europe (Centre for European Studies, University of Essex);
    • Human Rights Law (School of Law, King's College London);
    • International Law of Armed Conflict (Faculty of Law, University of Liverpool; Department of Law, University of Essex);
    • Constitutional Law (University of Sarajevo).
X. Confirmation
I hereby confirm that I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights.
**
Contact information
Mailing address:
Office of the High Representative (OHR)
Emerika Bluma 1
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Telephone: 00387.33 283-773
Fax: 00387.33 283-437
CURRICULUM VITAE
Ahmed Žilić
I       Personal details
Name, Forename       Ahmed Žilić
Sex       Male
Date and place of birth       9 March 1956. Visoko, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nationality       B&H
Married in 1998 to Aida Žilić, Judge; Daughter Emina (1998).
Contact information
Address       …Ph
Phone       …Fa
Fax       + 387 33 20 79 20
II       Education and academic and other qualifications
- Education
1986       Qualified as Attorney
1985       Sarajevo University, Faculty of Law
- Academic
1998,1999,2000       Course of advocacy training for Minority Rights, Budapest
Summer 1998       The Hague Academy of International Law (Public International
      Law)
Summer 1996       The Hague Academy of International Law (Private International
      Law)
III       Relevant professional activities
a. Judicial activities
Not applicable
b. Non-judicial legal activities
2002 - Present        Membership of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the protection of national minorities of the Council of Europe (18 Members from. 45 Countries) for Minority Rights.
2000 - Present        Legal Adviser to Inter Religious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (consists of religious leaders of different religious communities and churches in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Islamic Community in B&H. Serbian Orthodox Church, Catholic Church (Franciscan Monasteries) Jewish Community in B&H.
2000 - Present        Attorney to UNITIC Sarajevo (joint venture company with KCIC, subsidiary of Kuwait Investment Authority, the largest foreign investor in Sarajevo Canton / Bosnia and Herzegovina) covering the full spectrum of the company’s legal affairs.
2000 - Present        Attorney of: BAYER GmbH, KPMG, American Chamber of Commerce in Bosnia and Herzegovina, World Bank – Programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
1998       Author of the study: The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina
      (the first instance of this kind in Dayton's Bosnia and Herzegovina)
1997 - 2000       Adviser on International Law (Humanitarian Law, Human Rights, succession etc.) to the Council of Ministries of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to its ministries
1997 - 2000       Legal draftsman of laws for Bosnia and Herzegovina – State level laws: Law on Freedom of Religion and the legal Position of Churches and Religious Communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Law on Y2K; Law on Implementation of Human Rights Treaties in Bosnia and Herzegovina (draft / study)
1996 - Present       Legal Adviser to World Conference on Religion and Peace
1993       Legal Adviser of Bosnia and Herzegovina delegation at International Conference on the former Yugoslavia in Geneva, Swiss.
1989 - 1990       Legal Attorney and Adviser to the editorial of political weekly magazines: Nasi dani, Valter, Vox and Slobodna Bosna i Hercegovina
1989       Called to Bar
1985 - 1986,
1989 - 1992,
1996 - Present        Practicing Attorney
1985 - 1986,
1989 - Present        Member of Bar Association
c. Non- legal professional activities
1990 - 1991       Director and contributor of weekly magazine Bosanski pogledi
      (Bosnian View)
1991 - 1992       Director and contributor to weekly magazines: Slobodna Bosna
      i Hercegovina (Free Bosnia and Herzegovina)
1985 - 1989       Occasional contributor to Sarajevo magazines Preporod
      (Revival) official publication of the Islamic Community in
      former Yugoslavia, and Islamska Misao (Islamic Mind)
      (monthly magazines).
IV       Activities and experience in the field of human rights
1999 - Present       Member of the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights
      Center, Sarajevo
November 1997       Faculty of Law at Sarajevo University - Guest Lecturer on
      Human Rights and International Rights
1996       Professor at International Human Rights Summer School
      in Croatia
1994 - 1996       Legal Adviser to Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human
      Rights
Lecturer / participant at various seminars on international law / human rights in Budapest, Vienna, New York, Munich, Graz, Strasbourg, Sofia, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Banja Luka, TuzIa, Mostar ....
V       Public activities
a. Public office
Not applicable
b. Elected posts
Not applicable
c. Posts held in a political party or movement
Not applicable
VI       Other activities
November 1997       Lecturer / participant at Interfaith Foundation in Amman,
      Jordan / London, UK
1997       Lecturer at the Calamus Foundation (with Dr Noel Malcolm)
VII       Publications and other works
Published books and studies:
1)       Bosna i Hercegovina: Kodeks Ijudskih prava / Bosnia and Herzegovina: Human Rights Code, Slavonski Brod, 1996;
2)       Dayton v. Attorneys, with S. Risaluddin, Sarajevo, 1997;
3)        Freedom of Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. / Sloboda religije u. Bosni i Hercegovini, New York / Sarajevo, 1998, editor and author of introduction Ahmed Žilić (book / brochures published in English, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages);
4)       Occupancy Rights between International Law and National Law in Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, 2000 (book / study, English language);
5)       European Judaism 98/1: religious Pluralism in Bosnia - Five Centuries of Convivencia, Five Years of Conflict;
6)       Constituent Peoples and / or Minorities in Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo,1999;
7)        Participant in drawing up Advisory Opinion for the Framework Convention on the Protection of the Rights of National Minorities of the Council of Europe (Russian Federation, Republic of Slovenia, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Lithuania, Albania ... ) 2002 - 2003;
8)       The case of the ZVORNIK SEVEN, with S. Risaluddin, London 1998.
VIII       Language
Mother tongue is Bosnian
Official languages:
      Reading       Spoken       Written
French       F       F       -
English       VG       VG       VG
Other languages:
Russian       VG       G       VG
German       G       G       F
IX       Other relevant information:
X
I am confirming that I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge to the Court.
Signed on each page
(signature)

petak, 7. kolovoza 2020.

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY: RESISTING REGULATION by Charles Koch, July 1, 1978

“In sum, the Party transforms libertarianism from purely a political philosophy to a movement, to a force for radical social change.”
THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY:
RESISTING
REGULATION
by
Charles
Koch
The majority of businessmen today are not supporters of free enterprise capitalism. Instead they prefer “political capitalism,” a system in which government guarantees business profits while business itself faces both less competition and more security for itself. As California Governor Jerry Brown puts it, “Sometimes businessmen almost operate as though they’d feel more comfortable in a Marxist state where they could just deal with a few commissars who would tell them what the production goals were, what quota they had.… I am really concerned that many businessmen are growing weary of the rigors of the free market.” New York Times columnist William Safire agrees with this sobering analysis: “The secret desire of so many top‐​level managers for controls and regulated monopoly is never openly stated.… But today’s managerial trend is not toward accepting risk. It is toward getting government help to avoid risk.”
Even Henry Ford II has pointed out that “it’s not just liberal do‐​gooders, Democrats, unions, consumerists and environmentalists who are responsible for the growth of government. It’s also conservative politicians who favor increased defense programs, especially if the money is spent in their own districts. It’s bankers and transporters and retailers and manufacturers who want protection from competitors. It’s insurance companies that lobby for bumper and air bag regulations that might lower their claims costs. It’s even, if you’ll forgive me, car dealers who want state government to protect them from the factory or from new dealers in their territory.”
But that is only the tip of the iceberg. It was support from a large portion of the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which enabled Nixon to impose wage and price controls in 1971. Much earlier, bankers succeeded in pushing through legal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits. Moreover, the steel industry has just caused the government to set minimum prices on imported steel.
Businesses often fight bitterly against deregulation, as well as urging new controls. Despite support by both liberals and conservatives in Congress, deregulation of the airline industry has bogged down under heavy pressure from the airlines themselves. Deregulation of the trucking industry has buckled under pressure from the American Trucking Association.
My own industry, oil, is no different. Over the past five years our company has participated in dozens of hearings on regulatory matters before the Federal Energy Administration and the Department of Energy. At virtually all of these hearings, most oil companies have come down on the side of state regulation. Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger summed it up: “The oil industry loves regulation and has been in love with it for many years.” Precisely so.
Businessmen have always been anxious to convince a gullible public and an opportunistic Congress that the free market cannot work efficiently in their industry, that some governmental planning and regulations would be in the “public interest.” Indeed, much of the government regulation which plagues us today has come only after businesses have begged and lobbied for it. Nearly every major piece of interventionist legislation since 1887 has been supported by important segments of the business community.
This old business strategy of accommodation with government paid off in the past to some extent, perhaps, but today it falls on its face. Business now suffers as much as the rest of society from the adverse consequences of its own interventionism—the exhaustion of the “reserve fund” predicted by the great economist Ludwig von Mises. Passed at the behest of business, regulations boomerang. A refiner may procure price controls on his purchased crude oil, yet later he experiences shortages and even may find price controls slapped on his own gasoline to capture his politically derived “excess” profits. Oil pipeline companies invite the DOE in to study regional pipeline needs, hoping that their particular project will be favored. But in the future, Washington may well make all pipeline decisions, and even build all pipelines.
Businessmen should realize that the more regulated an industry becomes, the less it can cope with changing conditions in the world. It is no coincidence that the four lowest ranking industries in return on capital today (airlines, railroads, natural gas utilities, and electric utilities) are also the most highly regulated.
It is no coincidence that the four lowest ranking industries in return on capital today (air, rail, natural gas, and electric utilities) are also the most highly regulated.
The final stage of political capitalism is even worse. Richard Ferris, president of United Airlines (an exception in his industry) predicts, “Continued governmental control will mean airline service as you know it today will be seriously jeopardized. And, as service and equipment deteriorate, you will stand by helplessly as the threat of nationalization becomes reality.” In the electric utility industry, a number of states have already organized agencies to take over from private utilities unable to finance needed additional generating capacity.
Even business’s dwindling successes in achieving precisely the regulatory scheme desired by them do not guarantee future control. Just the opposite often occurs. Politically derived benefits for business cause hardships for other special interest groups, who apply pressure on the regulators to turn the regulatory weapon around.
Thus, the business community is growing more and more aware of the shortcomings of this strategy as more and more firms directly suffer the aftereffects of their own pathetic schemes. Moreover, examples of the ultimate consequences of interventionism, especially the plight of the railroad industry in the United States and major industries in Great Britain, are awakening businessmen to their own probable fate.
Businessmen are also becoming justifiably concerned with the rapidly growing antibusiness sentiment in this country. Recent public opinion polls show that a large portion of intellectuals and the general public believe that business—especially big business—has undue political power, which it uses to stifle and smash competition and to control prices.
The liberation of business
But business can free itself from this predicament, if only it will. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Despite the blows they have suffered in the political arena [businessmen] still have the capacity to be highly influential in the political sphere. But they will not bring about such a reversal unless they are able to put aside short‐​term concepts in favor of those longer‐​term considerations.… We may be reaching the point where American businessmen will have to decide whether they really believe in the market system. If they don’t, it is hard to see who will muster the political forces to defend it against its very real and often intensely committed enemies.” In spite of business’s sullied record in defending free enterprise, there are large numbers of businessmen who want nothing more from government than to be left alone. And these numbers are growing quickly today.
To survive, business must develop a new strategy. The great free‐​market and Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek has prepared a guide for us:
Almost everywhere the groups which pretend to oppose socialism at the same time support policies which, if the principles on which they are based were generalized, would no less lead to socialism than the avowedly socialist policies. There is some justification at least in the taunt that many of the pretending defenders of “free enterprise” are in fact defenders of privileges and advocates of government activity in their favor, rather than opponents of all privilege. In principle the industrial protectionism and government‐​supported cartels and the agricultural policies of the conservative groups are not different from the proposals for a more far‐​reaching direction of economic life sponsored by the socialists. It is an illusion when the more conservative interventionists believe that they will be able to confine these government controls to the particular kinds of which they approve. In a democratic society, at any rate, once the principle is admitted that the government undertakes responsibility for the status and position of particular groups, it is inevitable that this control will be extended to satisfy the aspirations and prejudices of the great masses. There is no hope of a return to a freer system until the leaders of the movement against state control are prepared first to impose upon themselves that discipline of a competitive market which they ask the masses to accept. The hopelessness of the prospect for the near future indeed is due mainly to the fact that no organized political group anywhere is in favor of a truly free system.
Before businessmen can serve as effective defenders of individual liberty and the free enterprise system, it is first necessary for them to learn precisely what free enterprise is and what it is not.We must do our homework; we must comprehend “the philosophic foundations of a free society.” Only then will we have the necessary resolve to carry out the difficult task ahead.
Armed with understanding, businessmen can confidently proceed with the new strategy, which is composed of three parts: business/​government relations, education, and political action
1. Business /​Government Relations—The first requirement is to practice what we preach. People see our inconsistencies and—quite justifiably—simply don’t believe businessmen anymore. How discrediting it is for us to request welfare for ourselves while attacking welfare for the poor. Our critics rightfully claim that we want socialism only for the rich.
Our credibility cannot be regained if we continue to file, hat in hand, to Washington while mouthing empty, insincere platitudes about free enterprise. We cannot continue to have it both ways. Government will not keep granting us favors on the one hand, while allowing us to run our own businesses as we see fit, on the other. We must stop defending existing interventions and demanding new ones. This might well diminish the impetus for new regulations and win new allies for us among intellectuals, legislators, and the general public.
Then we should advocate the repeal of existing regulations in our industries, as well.
Never ask for tighter regulation of a competitor even if he has the advantage of being less regulated than you are. This starts the suicidal cycle which ends in the destruction of both. Instead we should concentrate on loosening our own regulations. We should defend our own right to be free of unjust regulations, and not try to shackle competitors. Strategically, the critical point is to fight to eliminate, rather than continue, all interventions, even those that provide short‐​term profits. Only by rigidly adhering to this policy can we begin the step‐​by‐​step process of freeing ourselves.
Taxes are particularly troublesome, especially since many free market businessmen believe that tax exemptions are equivalent to subsidies. Yet morally and strategically, tax exemptions are theopposite of subsidies. Morally, lowering taxes is simply defending property rights; seeking a subsidy is asking the government to steal someone else’s property for your benefit. Strategically, lowering taxes reduces government; subsidies increase government. Nor is it valid to say that reducing your taxes simply shifts your “fair share” of the tax burden to someone else. There is no“fair” share. Our goal is not to reallocate the burden of government; our goal is to roll back government. We should consistently work to reduce all taxes, our own and those of others.
Finally, we should not cave in the moment a regulator sets foot on our doorstep. Put into practice Henry Manne’s recommendation that “the business community utilize available techniques of legal adversary proceedings to announce publicly and vigorously, both as individual companies and through associations, that they will not cooperate with the government beyond the legally compelled minimum in developing or complying with any control programs.” As he urges, “publicize as widely as possible the inevitable inefficiencies, mistakes, and human miseries that will develop with these controls … help the public understand that morality, in the case of arrogant, intrusive, totalitarian laws, lies in the barest possible obedience and in refusal to cooperate willingly beyond the letter of the law.” Do not cooperate voluntarily; instead, resist wherever and to whatever extent you legally can. And do so in the name of justice.
2. Education—Business’s educational strategy has been guided more by concern with short‐​term “respectability” and acceptance by the establishment than with long‐​term survival.
We have voluntarily supported universities and foundations who are philosophically dedicated to the destruction of our businesses and of what remains of the free market. This must stop. We must stop financing our own destruction. Period.
Even when business has supported “free enterprise” education, it has been ineffectual because businessmen have had little understanding of the underlying philosophy or of a meaningful strategy. Businessmen have spent their money on disasters such as buying a “free enterprise” chair at their alma mater and watching in dismay as the holder teaches everything but free enterprise.
Also largely wasted has been the money contributed to those private colleges who make free enterprise noises, but have failed to produce competent graduates dedicated to establishing the free enterprise system. There are too many of these.
The development of talent is, or should be, the major point of all these efforts. By talent, I mean those rare, exceptionally capable scholars or communicators willing to dedicate their lives to the cause of individual liberty. To be effective, this talent must have the knowledge, skill, and sophistication to meet statist adversaries and their arguments head on, and to defeat them. They must have the desire and commitment to unceasingly advance the cause of liberty. Statists have succeeded while we floundered because they’ve had their talent, their cadre, to develop and sell theirprograms. During the 15 years I have been actively investing my time and money in reestablishing our free society, our biggest problem has been the shortage of talent. When conscientious, dedicated scholars or communicators worked on a project, we were effective; when they weren’t available, we failed.
Thus, business must concentrate its support on those few institutes and university departments that have effective programs for producing a libertarian cadre.
Our own direct defense of business, particularly our media advertising, has been either bungling and pitifully ineffectual, or else downright destructive. We have substituted intellectual bromides for a principled exposition of a point of view. We have taken a conciliatory attitude. Our ads have applogized for profits.
We have accepted the fallacious concept that the corporation has a broad “social responsibility” beyond its duty to its shareholders. We have been made to feel ashamed of private ownership and profits, and have been hoodwinked into characterizing government regulation as “virtuous” and in the “public interest.” As a typical example, the Advertising Council, backed by most of the major U.S. corporations, goes so far as to describe regulation as, “the promotion of fair economic competition and the protection of public health and safety.” What simple‐​minded nonsense!
Instead of this bankrupt approach, we need to go on the offensive. We need to cast aside our desire to be popular with our colleagues and the establishment intellectuals, to cast aside our fears of reprisals by government. We need to advertise that the market system is not only the most efficient, it is also the only moral system in history. We need to attack government regulation for wreaking havoc on those it is allegedly designed to help— those least able to fend for themselves. We need to stigmatize interventionism as being intrinsically unjust because it deprives individuals of their natural right to use their lives and property as they see fit. We need to defend the right of “capitalist acts between consenting adults,” in the words of Robert Nozick.
We need to cast aside our desire to be popular with our colleagues and with the establishment intellectuals, to cast aside our fears of reprisals by the government.
A recent demonstration of the need for arguments beyond the standard one of efficiency is the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a Maryland law (passed at the bidding of a service station dealers’ association) barring oil producers and refiners from operating service stations. The Court found that, “regardless of the ultimate economic efficacy of the statute, we have no hesitancy in concluding that it bears a reasonable relation to the state’s legitimate purpose in controlling the gasoline retail market.…” The determinative defense of business will rest not in arguments from efficiency, but in arguments from justice. To claim that the state has the right to “control the gasoline retail market” is totalitarian nonsense.
We must demand the same principled behavior of our organizations as we do of ourselves and our companies. When, for example, the Committee for Economic Development advocates “that public‐​private partnerships must be an essential part of any national urban strategy,” business should withdraw its support. It should do the same if the Chamber of Commerce continues to promote government intervention under the philosophy espoused by a former president: “It’s not possible or desirable to remove all the regulations.” New business organizations should be set up which refrain from asking for state protection and subsidies, and which, going further, criticize, expose and lobby against instances of political capitalism, of “the partnership between business and government.” Only such organizations can help business regain the respect of the American people. In fact, a group of us is launching just such an organization, The Council for a Competitive Economy.
Such an organization will help businessmen avoid blunders similar to the Wichita Chamber of Commerce when it heavily promoted a one‐​billion‐​dollar coal gasification plant, which would have been partially owned by Wichita and subsidized by Washington. The people of Wichita rejected Chamber propaganda that the plant would not cost them anything and voted it down. Again, such an organization will help prevent blunders such as the business community in California opposing Proposition 13. These blunders create an image of business in cahoots with government to tax and exploit the people. Milton Friedman describes this as business following “its unerring instinct for self‐​destruction.”
Business should also stop shackling the free‐​market position with antilibertarian stands such as hostility to civil liberties and an interventionist foreign policy. What a spectacle it is for the same people who preach freedom in voluntary economic activities to call for the full force of the law against voluntary sexual or other personal activities! What else can the public conclude but that the free‐​market rhetoric is a sham—that business only cares about freedom for itself, and doesn’t give a damn about freedom for the individual?
The public reacts at least as negatively to business calls for still further foreign adventurism. What other feelings can we expect from people taxed and conscripted to save our foreign investments or to enlarge our foreign profits? We should take our own risks abroad, and not expect them to be borne by the American people.
Businessmen have been the first to support any sort of foreign adventurism, if only it is sold under the rubric of “national security.” If business really wants a free market/​private property system it must resist government’s foreign interventions as well as its domestic interventions. Businessmen must realize that the single greatest force behind the growth of government is foreign adventurism and its daughter—war. America cannot both be policeman to the world and have a free domestic economy; they are mutually exclusive. Our classical liberal forebears in England who struggled for free trade and laissez‐​faire realized this—the peace movement and the free trade movement are one and the same.
3. Political Action—Businessmen should be involved in politics and political action—from local tax revolts to campaigns for Congress and the presidency. But we should apply the same standards of understanding and principled behavior as in the other parts of our strategy. We must discard our lesser‐​of‐​evils approach to politics. This has brought only the continued growth of government.
Many businessmen who do see the need for a new strategy still hold out hope that the Republican Party will become “The Liberty Party,” that this is its “philosophical heritage.” If this is our only hope then we are doomed. The Republican Party is the party of “business” in the worse sense—in the sense of business accommodation and partnership with government. Historically, it is the party of wage and price controls, of high protective tariffs, of cartelization, of subsidies, of special privileges to business. And worse, the Republican Party is and has been a party of foreign interventionism and adventurism. This is scarcely the heritage upon which to build a “Liberty Party!” It is the embodiment of the old strategy which has failed so miserably.
Other free enterprise businessmen, grasping the futility in attempting to change the Republican Party, have eschewed political action altogether. They have concluded instead that, since ideas determine actions, we should limit our strategy to developing and spreading ideas. It is undeniable that ideas do determine actions and that we should refine and apply our ideas. But ideas do not spread by themselves; they spread only through people. Which means we need a movement. Only with a movement can we build an effective force for social change.
Our movement should have as its goal the fulfillment of the ideal of the free and independent entrepreneur. To accomplish this, our movement must destroy the prevalent statist paradigm and erect, in its stead, a new paradigm of liberty for all people. Our movement must avoid the faulty strategy of conservatives, whose acceptance of statist premises has caused their proposals to be simply moderate versions of the original statist schemes. Our movement must struggle for the realization of the principle of the free market rather than settle for immediately obtainable reforms. For, as Aileen Kraditor writes, “To criticize the (radical) agitator for not trimming his demands to the immediately realizable—that is, for not acting as a politician—is to miss the point … the more extreme demand of the agitator makes the politician’s demand seem acceptable and perhaps desirable in the sense that the adversary may prefer to give up half a loaf rather than the whole. Also, the agitator helps define the value, the principle, for which the politician bargains. The ethical values placed on various possible political courses are put there partly by agitators working on the public opinion that creates political possibilities.”
Such a movement already exists, the libertarian movement. Libertarianism offers the only systematic worldview that supports the ideal of the free and independent businessman. It only remains for businessmen to support this movement. How each businessman can best support it depends on his own abilities and resources.
Businessmen should not only support the movement’s educational and single‐​issue activist arms. We should also support—with time and money—the Libertarian Party, the movement’s political, mass action arm. The Libertarian Party is a vital organ of the libertarian movement, even if it never elects anyone to major office. It exposes large numbers of people, whose interest in questions of government intervention is limited to election time, to free market ideas. And, when we do get a significant number of votes for a libertarian candidate or on a libertarian issue, as with Proposition 13, people do listen. The Party causes libertarians to apply their philosophy to topical political issues, and to act. In sum, the Party transforms libertarianism from purely a political philosophy to a movement, to a force for radical social change.
Business can survive, but it cannot survive without the help of businessmen. By fighting against interventions, however profitable, by advocating a principled, philosophical defense of the free enterprise system, and by becoming a part of the libertarian movement, businessmen can, with pride, be a vital force in restoring our free society. To date, businessmen have not seen fit to do so. Whether businessmen do so in the future may determine whether business, indeed, has a future. Or deserves to.
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/business-community-resisting-regulation

The Mediterranean Connection: Israel and the War in Bosnia (Daniel Kofman Journal of Mediterranean Studies Mediterranean Institute, University of Malta Volume 6, Number 2, 1996)

Israel's Foreign Ministry did offer Bosnia mutual recognition from 1993, while the Bosnian government—dependent on aid from Muslim countries, including Iran—reluctantly delayed acceptance of the Israeli offer. (...) the same Iran has been a spiritual and material supporter of the Palestinian groups claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. (During the first three years of the war) it was the express policy of the government not to take sides in any of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. The first explicit condemnation of Serbian atrocities in the name of the government came only after the fall of Srebrenica (...) Until that moment, that is, throughout the first three years of war, Israeli officials had insisted on maintaining official neutrality at best, and sometimes overt pro-Serbian sympathy. (...) There is now no doubt that Israeli arms—and arms, not necessarily Israeli, but supplied by Israeli dealers— are being sold to Serbia; the only question is the extent, if any, of Israeli government involvement.