埃塞俄比亚-厄立特里亚战争

Background.

From 1961 until 1991, Eritrea had fought a long war of independence against Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Civil War began on 12 September 1974 when the Marxist Derg staged a coup d'état against Emperor Haile Selassie. It lasted until 1991 when the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)—a coalition of rebel groups led by the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (TPLF)—overthrew the Derg government and installed a transitional government in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa. The Derg government had been weakened by their loss of support due to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.  During the civil war, the groups fighting the Derg government had a common enemy, so the TPLF allied itself with the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF). In 1991 as part of the United Nations-facilitated transition of power to the transitional government, it was agreed that the EPLF should set up an autonomous transitional government in Eritrea and that a referendum would be held in Eritrea to find out if Eritreans wanted to secede from Ethiopia. The referendum was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of independence. In April 1993 independence was achieved and the new state joined the United Nations.  In 1991, the EPLF-backed transitional government of Eritrea and the TPLF-backed transitional government of Ethiopia agreed to set up a commission to look into any problems that arose between the two former wartime allies over the foreseen independence of Eritrea. This commission was not successful, and during the following years relations between the governments of the two sovereign states deteriorated.  Determining the border between the two states became a major conflict, and in November 1997 a border committee was set up to try to resolve that specific dispute. After federation and before independence, the line of the border had been of minor importance because it was only a demarcation line between federated provinces, and initially the two governments tacitly agreed that the border should remain as it had been immediately before independence. However, upon independence the border became an international frontier, and the two governments could not agree on the line that the border should take along its entire length, and they looked back to the colonial period treaties between Italy and Ethiopia for a basis in international law for the precise line of the frontier between the states. Problems then arose because they could not agree on the interpretation of those agreements and treaties, and it was not clear under international law how binding colonial treaties were on the two states.  Writing after the war had finished, Jon Abbink postulated that President Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea, realising that his influence over the government in Ethiopia was slipping and given that "the facts on the ground, in the absence of a concrete border being marked—which anyhow lost much of its relevance after 1962 when Eritrea was absorbed by Ethiopia—have eminent relevance to any borderline decision of today" calculated that Eritrea could annex Badme. If successful, this acquisition could have been used to enhance his reputation and help maintain Eritrea's privileged economic relationship with Ethiopia. However, because Badme was in the province of Tigray, the region from which many of the members of the Ethiopian government originated (including Meles Zenawi, the former Ethiopian prime minister), the Ethiopian government came under political pressure from within the EPRDF as well as from the wider Ethiopian public to meet force with force.

War.

Chronology.

After a series of armed incidents in which several Eritrean officials were killed near Badme, on 6 May 1998, a large Eritrean mechanized force entered the Badme region along the border of Eritrea and Ethiopia's northern Tigray Region, resulting in a firefight between the Eritrean soldiers and the Tigrayan militia and security police they encountered.  On 13 May 1998 Ethiopia, in what Eritrean radio described as a "total war" policy, mobilized its forces for a full assault against Eritrea. The Claims Commission found that this was in essence an affirmation of the existence of a state of war between belligerents, not a declaration of war, and that Ethiopia also notified the United Nations Security Council, as required under Article 51 of the UN Charter.  The fighting quickly escalated to exchanges of artillery and tank fire, leading to four weeks of intense fighting. Ground troops fought on three fronts. On 5 June 1998, the Ethiopians launched air attacks on the airport in Asmara and the Eritreans retaliated by attacking the airport of Mekele. These raids caused civilian casualties and deaths on both sides of the border. The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1177 condemning the use of force and welcomed statements from both sides to end the air strikes.  There was then a lull as both sides mobilized huge forces along their common border and dug extensive trenches. Both countries spent several hundred million dollars on new military equipment. This was despite the peace mediation efforts by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the US/Rwanda peace plan that was in the works. The US/Rwanda proposal was a four-point peace plan that called for withdrawal of both forces to pre-June 1998 positions. Eritrea refused, and instead demanded the demilitarization of all disputed areas along the common border, to be overseen by a neutral monitoring force, and direct talks.  With Eritrea's refusal to accept the US/Rwanda peace plan, on 22 February 1999 Ethiopia launched a massive military offensive to recapture Badme. Tension had been high since 6 February 1999, when Ethiopia claimed that Eritrea had violated the moratorium on air raids by bombing Adigrat, a claim it later withdrew. Surveying the extensive trenches the Eritreans had constructed, Ethiopian General Samora Yunis observed, "The Eritreans are good at digging trenches and we are good at converting trenches into graves. They, too, know this. We know each other very well".  Following the first five days of heavy fighting at Badme, by which time Ethiopian forces had broken through Eritrea's fortified front and was 10 kilometers (six miles) deep into Eritrean territory, Eritrea accepted the OAU peace plan on 27 February 1999. While both states said that they accepted the OAU peace plan, Ethiopia did not immediately stop its advance because it demanded that peace talks be contingent on an Eritrean withdrawal from territory occupied since the first outbreak of fighting.  On 16 May the BBC reported that, after a lull of two weeks, the Ethiopians had attacked at Velessa on the Tsorona front-line, south of Eritrea's capital Asmara and that after two days of heavy fighting the Eritreans had beaten back the attack claiming to have destroyed more than forty-five Ethiopian tanks; although not able to verify the claim, which the Ethiopian Government dismissed as ridiculous, the BBC reporter did see more than 300 dead Ethiopians and more than 20 destroyed Ethiopian tanks. In June 1999 the fighting continued with both sides in entrenched positions. About a quarter of Eritrean soldiers were women.  "Proximity talks" broke down in early May 2000 "with Ethiopia accusing Eritrea of imposing unacceptable conditions". On 12 May the Ethiopians launched an offensive that broke through the Eritrean lines between Shambuko and Mendefera, crossed the Mareb River, and cut the road between Barentu and Mendefera, the main supply line for Eritrean troops on the western front of the fighting.  Ethiopian sources state that on 16 May Ethiopian aircraft all returned to their bases after attacking targets between Areza and Maidema, and between Barentu and Omohager, while heavy ground fighting continued in the Da'se and Barentu area and in Maidema. The next day Ethiopian ground forces with air support captured Da'se. Eritrean forces evacuated Barentu and fighting continued in Maidema. Also on 17 May, due to the continuing hostilities, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1298 imposing an arms embargo on both countries.  By 23 May Ethiopia claimed that its "troops had seized vital command posts in the heavily defended Zalambessa area, about south of the Eritrean capital, Asmara". But the Eritreans claimed they withdrew from the disputed border town of Zalambessa and other disputed areas on the central front as a goodwill' gesture to revive peace talks" and claimed it was a 'tactical retreat' to take away one of Ethiopia's last remaining excuses for continuing the war; a report from Chatham House observes, "the scale of Eritrean defeat was apparent when Eritrea unexpectedly accepted the OAU peace framework." Having recaptured most of the contested territories—and having heard that the Eritrean government would withdraw from any other territories it occupied at the start of fighting in accordance with a request from the OAU—on 25 May 2000, Ethiopia declared the war was over. By the end of May 2000, Ethiopia occupied about a quarter of Eritrea's territory, displacing 650,000 people and destroying key components of Eritrea's infrastructure.  The widespread use of trenches has resulted in comparisons of the conflict to the trench warfare of World War I. According to some reports, trench warfare led to the loss of "thousands of young lives in human-wave assaults on Eritrea's positions". The Eritrean defences were eventually overtaken by a surprise Ethiopian pincer movement on the Western front, attacking a mined, but lightly defended mountain (without trenches), resulting in the capture of Barentu and an Eritrean retreat. The element of surprise in the attack involved the use of donkeys as pack animals as well as being a solely infantry affair, with tanks coming in afterwards only to secure the area.

Regional destabilisation.

The fighting also spread to Somalia as both governments tried to outflank one another. The Eritrean government began supporting the Oromo Liberation Front, a rebel group seeking independence of Oromia from Ethiopia that was based in a part of Somalia controlled by Mohamed Farrah Aidid. Ethiopia retaliated by supporting groups in southern Somalia who were opposed to Aidid, and by renewing relations with the Islamic regime in Sudan—which is accused of supporting the Eritrean Islamic Salvation, a Sudan-based group that had launched attacks in the Eritrea–Sudan border region—while also lending support to various Eritrean rebel groups including a group known as the Eritrean Islamic Jihad.

Casualties, displacement and economic disruption.

Eritrea claimed that 19,000 Eritrean soldiers were killed during the conflict; most reports put the total war casualties from both sides as being around 70,000. All these figures have been contested and other news reports simply state that "tens of thousands" or "as many as 100,000" were killed in the war. Eritrea accused Ethiopia of using "human waves" to defeat Eritrean trenches. But according to a report by "The Independent", there were no "human waves" because Ethiopia instead outmaneuvered and overpowered the Eritrean trenches.  The fighting led to massive internal displacement in both countries as civilians fled the war zone. Ethiopia expelled 77,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin it deemed a security risk, thus compounding Eritrea's refugee problem. The majority of those were considered well off by the Ethiopian standard of living. They were deported after their belongings had been confiscated. On the Eritrean side, around 7,500 Ethiopians living in Eritrea were interned, and thousands of others were deported. Thousands more remain in Eritrea, many of whom are unable to pay the 1,000 Birr tax on Ethiopians relocating to Ethiopia. According to Human Rights Watch, detainees on both sides were subject in some cases to torture, rape, or other degrading treatment.  The economies of both countries were already weak as a result of decades of cold-war politics, civil war and drought. The war exacerbated these problems, resulting in food shortages. Prior to the war, much of Eritrea's trade was with Ethiopia, and much of Ethiopia's foreign trade relied on Eritrean roads and ports.

Aftermath.

Cessation of hostilities.

On 18 June 2000, the parties agreed to a comprehensive peace agreement and binding arbitration of their disputes under the Algiers Agreement. On 31 July 2000, Unites Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1312 and a 25-kilometer-wide Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) was established within Eritrea, patrolled by the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) from over 60 countries. On 12 December 2000 a peace agreement was signed by the two governments.

Continued tensions.

On 13 April 2002, the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission that was established under the Algiers Agreement in collaboration with Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague agreed upon a "final and binding" verdict. The ruling awarded some territory to each side, but Badme (the flash point of the conflict) was awarded to Eritrea. Both countries vowed to accept the decision wholeheartedly the day after the ruling was made official. A few months later Ethiopia requested clarifications, then stated it was deeply dissatisfied with the ruling. In September 2003 Eritrea refused to agree to a new commission, which they would have had to agree to if the old binding agreement was to be set aside, and asked the international community to put pressure on Ethiopia to accept the ruling. In November 2004, Ethiopia accepted the ruling "in principle".  On 10 December 2005, Ethiopia announced it was withdrawing some of its forces from the Eritrean border "in the interests of peace". Then, on 15 December the United Nations began to withdraw peacekeepers from Eritrea in response to a UN resolution passed the previous day.  On 21 December 2005, a commission at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that Eritrea broke international law when it attacked Ethiopia in 1998, triggering the broader conflict. Ethiopia and Eritrea subsequently remobilized troops along the border, leading to fears that the two countries could return to war. On 7 December 2005, Eritrea banned UN helicopter flights and ordered Western members (particularly from the United States, Canada, Europe and Russia) of the UN peacekeeping mission on its border with Ethiopia to leave within 10 days, sparking concerns of further conflict with its neighbour. In November 2006 Ethiopia and Eritrea boycotted an Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission meeting at The Hague which would have demarcated their disputed border using UN maps. Ethiopia was not there because it does not accept the decision and as it will not allow physical demarcation it will not accept map demarcation, and Eritrea was not there because although it backs the commission's proposals, it insists that the border should be physically marked out.  Both nations have been accused of supporting dissidents and armed opposition groups against each other. John Young, a Canadian analyst and researcher for IRIN, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs news agency, reported that "the military victory of the EPRDF (Ethiopia) that ended the Ethiopia–Eritrea War, and its occupation of a swath of Eritrean territory, brought yet another change to the configuration of armed groups in the borderlands between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Asmara replaced Khartoum as the leading supporter of anti-EPRDF armed groups operating along the frontier". However, Ethiopia is also accused of supporting rebels opposed to the Eritrean government.  At the November 2007 deadline, some analysts feared the restart of the border war but the date passed without any conflict. There were many reasons why war did not resume. Former U.S. Ambassador David Shinn said both Ethiopia and Eritrea were in a bad position. Many fear the weak Eritrean economy is not improving like those of other African nations while others say Ethiopia is bogged down in Mogadishu. David Shinn said Ethiopia has "a very powerful and so far disciplined national army that made pretty short work of the Eritreans in 2000 and the Eritreans have not forgotten that." But he stated Ethiopia is not interested in war because America would condemn Ethiopia if it initiated the war saying "I don't think even the US could sit by and condone an Ethiopian initiated attack on Eritrea."

Arbitration through the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

As decided in the Algiers Agreement, the two parties presented their cases at the Permanent Court of Arbitration to two different Commissions:  In July 2001 the Commission sat to decide its jurisdiction, procedures and possible remedies. The result of this sitting was issued on August 2001. In October 2001, following consultations with the Parties, the Commission adopted its Rules of Procedure. In December 2001 the Parties filed their claims with the Commission. The claims filed by the Parties relate to such matters as the conduct of military operations in the front zones, the treatment of POWs and of civilians and their property, diplomatic immunities and the economic impact of certain government actions during the conflict. At the end of 2005 final awards have been issued on claims on Pensions, and Ports. Partial awards have been issued for claims about: Prisoners of War, the Central Front, Civilians Claims, the Western and Eastern Fronts, Diplomatic, Economic and property losses, and "Jus Ad Bellum".  The Ethiopia–Eritrean claim committee ruled that: Christine Gray, in an article in the "European Journal of International Law" (2006), questioned the jurisdiction of the Commission making such an award, because "there were many factors which suggested that the Commission should have abstained from giving judgment". For example, the hearing of this claim, according to the Algiers agreement was to be heard by a separate commission and to be an investigation of exclusively factual concern not compensation.

2018 Peace Agreement.

The Ethiopian government under the leadership of new prime minister Abiy Ahmed unexpectedly announced on 5 June 2018 that it fully accepts the terms of the peace Algiers Agreement (2000). Ethiopia also announced that it would accept the outcome of the 2002 UN-backed Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling which awarded disputed territories including the town of Badme to Eritrea.  Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki noted the “positive signals”.  Eritrea Foreign Minister Osman Saleh led the first Eritrean delegation to Ethiopia in almost two decades when he visited Addis Ababa in late June 2018.  At a summit in July 2018 in Asmara, Eritrea's President Isaias Afewerki and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed signed a joint declaration formally ending the state of war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Following the peace agreement, on July 18, 2018, after twenty years Ethiopian Airlines restarted its operations to Eritrea. Flight ET0312 left Bole International Airport to Asmara.  The Ethiopian Prime minister Dr. Abiy Ahmed won the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.  In an interview made on February 7, 2020, between the country's major national media outlets, Eritrean TV and Dimtsi Hafash Radio Program, with President Isaias Afeworki, the president expressed uncertainty in finalizing the peace agreement processes. He said the condition in Badme has been heightened in the past months. Even though the decisions were made favoring Eritrea to gain the disputed land, the “bankrupt clique,” the president referring to small group of people who control the regional power near Badme, demand further conflict in order to change the decision. Therefore, according to the Eritrean president, the situation in Badme has aggravated and might lead to additional future conflicts.

Timeline: Continuing border conflicts.

On 19 June 2008 the BBC published a time line (which they update periodically) of the conflict and reported that the "Border dispute rumbles on": In August 2009, Eritrea and Ethiopia were ordered to pay each other compensation for the war.  In March 2011, Ethiopia accused Eritrea of sending bombers across the border. In April, Ethiopia acknowledged that it was supporting rebel groups inside Eritrea. In July, a United Nations Monitoring Group accused Eritrea of being behind a plot to attack an African Union summit in Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, in January 2011. Eritrea stated the accusation was a total fabrication.  In January 2012, five European tourists were killed and another two were kidnapped close to the border with Eritrea in the remote Afar Region in Ethiopia. In early March the kidnappers announced that they had released the two kidnapped Germans. On 15 March, Ethiopian ground forces attacked Eritrean military posts that they stated were bases in which Ethiopian rebels, including those involved in the January kidnappings, were trained by the Eritreans.

The Eritrean–Ethiopian War, was a conflict that took place between Ethiopia and Eritrea from May 1998 to June 2000, with the final peace only agreed to in 2018, twenty years after the initial confrontation.

埃塞俄比亚-厄立特里亚战争发生于1998年5月至2000年6月。当事两国都属于世界上最贫穷国家之列,承受了非常大量的人员伤亡,最终边界仅改变了极少部分。


Background.

The right to petition for redress of grievances was a principle included in the 1215 Magna Carta, as well as the 1689 English Bill of Rights. In 1776, the second year of the American Revolutionary War, the Virginia colonial legislature passed a Declaration of Rights that included the sentence "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments." Eight of the other twelve states made similar pledges. However, these declarations were generally considered "mere admonitions to state legislatures", rather than enforceable provisions. After several years of comparatively weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring among other changes a stronger chief executive. George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that the Constitution include a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing civil liberties. Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter James Madison—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked the implication that other, unnamed rights were unprotected. After a brief

Religious liberty clauses.

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are the religious liberty clauses of the First Amendment. In his dissenting opinion of the 1961 case "McGowan v. Maryland", Justice William O. Douglas illustrated the broad protections offered by the First Amendment's religious liberty clauses:  The First Amendment commands government to have no interest in theology or ritual; it admonishes government to be interested in allowing religious freedom to flourish -- whether the result is to produce Catholics, Jews, or Protestants, or to turn the people toward the path of Buddha, or to end in a predominantly Moslem nation, or to produce in the long run atheists or agnostics. On matters of this kind, government must be neutral. This freedom plainly includes freedom from religion, with the right to believe, speak, write, publish and advocate anti-religious programs. "Board of Education v. Barnette, supra", 319 U. S. 641. Certainly the "free exercise" clause does not require that everyone embrace the theology of some church or of some faith, or observe the religious practices of any majority or minority sect. The First Amendment, by its "establishment" clause, prevents, of course, the selection by government of an "official" church. Yet the ban plainly extends farther than that. We said in "Everson v. Board of Education", 330 U. S. 1, 330 U. S. 16, that it would be an "establishment" of a religion if the Government financed one church or several churches. For what better way to "establish" an institution than to find the fund that will support it? The "establishment" clause protects citizens also against any law which selects any religious custom, practice, or ritual, puts the force of government behind it, and fines, imprisons, or otherwise penalizes a person for not observing it. The Government plainly could not join forces with one religious group and decree a universal and symbolic circumcision. Nor could it require all children to be baptized or give tax exemptions only to those whose children were baptized.

Establishment of religion.

The Establishment Clause acts as a double security, for its aim is as well the prevention of religious control over government as the prevention of political control over religion. The First Amendment framers knew that intertwining government with religion could lead to bloodshed or oppression, because this happened too often historically. To prevent this dangerous development they set up the Establishment Clause as a line of demarcation between the functions and operations of the institutions of religion and government in society. Under Establishment Clause the Federal government of the United States as well as the government of the several states are prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion, because, as observed by the Supreme Court in "Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York" (1974), the ‘establishment’ of a religion historically implied sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity. The Establishment Clause thus serves to ensure laws, as said by Supreme Court in "Gillette v. United States" (1970), which are “secular in purpose, evenhanded in operation, and neutral in primary impact.”  The National Constitution Center observes that, absent some common interpretations by jurists, the precise meaning of the Establishment Clause is unclear and that decisions by the United Supreme Court relating to the Establishment Clause often are by 5–4 votes. The Establishment Clause, however, reflects a widely held consensus that there should be no nationally established church after the American Revolutionary War. Against this background the National Constitution Center states:  Virtually all jurists agree that it would violate the Establishment Clause for the government to compel attendance or financial support of a religious institution as such, for the government to interfere with a religious organization’s selection of clergy or religious doctrine; for religious organizations or figures acting in a religious capacity to exercise governmental power; or for the government to extend benefits to some religious entities and not others without adequate secular justification.  The precise meaning of the Establishment Clause can be traced back to the beginning of 19th century. Thomas Jefferson wrote about the First Amendment and its restriction on Congress in an 1802 reply to the Danbury Baptists, a religious minority that was concerned about the dominant position of the Congregational church in Connecticut, who had written to the newly elected President about their concerns. Jefferson wrote back:  Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account

Free exercise of religion.

Free exercise is the liberty of persons to reach, hold, practice and change beliefs freely according to the dictates of conscience. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice. "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order."  In "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the now obsolete Hindu practice of suttee).

Freedom of speech and of the press.

Wording of the clause.

The First Amendment bars Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens commented about this phraseology in a 1993 journal article: "I emphasize the word 'the' in the term 'the freedom of speech' because the definite article suggests that the draftsmen intended to immunize a previously identified category or subset of speech." Stevens said that, otherwise, the clause might absurdly immunize things like false testimony under oath. Like Stevens, journalist Anthony Lewis wrote: "The word 'the' can be read to mean what was understood at the time to be included in the concept of free

Speech critical of the government.

The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century. For example, the Supreme Court never ruled on the Alien and Sedition Acts; three Supreme Court justices riding circuit presided over sedition trials without indicating any reservations. The leading critics of the law, Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the Acts' unconstitutionality based on the First Amendment and other Constitutional provisions. Jefferson succeeded Adams as president, in part due to the unpopularity of the latter's sedition prosecutions; he and his party quickly overturned the Acts and pardoned those imprisoned by them. In the majority opinion in "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), the Court noted the importance of this public debate as a precedent in First Amendment law and ruled that the Acts had been unconstitutional: "Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history."

World War I.

During the patriotic fervor of World War I and the First Red Scare, the Espionage Act of 1917 imposed a maximum sentence of twenty years for anyone who caused or attempted to cause "insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States". Specifically, the Espionage Act of 1917 states that if anyone allows any enemies to enter or fly over the United States and obtain information from a place connected with the national defense, they will be punished. Hundreds of prosecutions followed. In 1919, the Supreme Court heard four appeals resulting from these cases: "Schenck v. United States", "Debs v. United States", "Frohwerk v. United States", and "Abrams v. United States". In the first of these cases, Socialist Party of America official Charles Schenck had been convicted under the Espionage Act for publishing leaflets urging resistance to the draft. Schenck appealed, arguing that the Espionage Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In "Schenck v. United States", the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Schenck's appeal and affirmed his conviction. Debate continued over whether "Schenck" went against the

Extending protections.

The Supreme Court denied a number of Free Speech Clause claims throughout the 1920s, including the appeal of a labor organizer, Benjamin Gitlow, who had been convicted after distributing a manifesto calling for a "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". In "Gitlow v. New York" (1925), the Court upheld the conviction, but a majority also found that the First Amendment applied to state laws as well as federal laws, via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Holmes and Brandeis dissented in several more cases in this decade, however, advancing the argument that the Free Speech Clause protected a far greater range of political speech than the Court had previously acknowledged. In "Whitney v. California" (1927), in which Communist Party USA organizer Charlotte Anita Whitney had been arrested for "criminal syndicalism", Brandeis wrote a dissent in which he argued for broader protections for political speech: Those who won our independence... believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.  In "Herndon v. Lowry" (1937), the Court heard the case of African American Communist Party organizer Angelo Herndon, who had been convicted under the Slave Insurrection Statute for advocating black rule in the southern United States. The Court reversed Herndon's conviction, holding that Georgia had failed to demonstrate any "clear and present danger" in Herndon's political

Political speech.

Anonymous speech.

In "Talley v. California" (1960), the Court struck down a Los Angeles city ordinance that made it a crime to distribute anonymous pamphlets. Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority opinion: "There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby

Campaign finance.

In "Buckley v. Valeo" (1976), the Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related laws, which restricted the monetary contributions that may be made to political campaigns and expenditure by candidates. The Court affirmed the constitutionality of limits on campaign contributions, saying they "serve[d] the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion." However, the Court overturned the spending limits, which it found imposed "substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech".  The court again scrutinized campaign finance regulation in "McConnell v. Federal Election Commission" (2003). The case centered on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), a federal law that imposed new restrictions on campaign financing. The Supreme Court upheld provisions which barred the raising of soft money by national parties and the use of soft money by private organizations to fund certain advertisements related to elections. However, the Court struck down the "choice of expenditure" rule, which required that parties could either make coordinated expenditures for all its candidates, or permit candidates to spend independently, but not both,

Flag desecration.

The divisive issue of flag desecration as a form of protest first came before the Supreme Court in "Street v. New York" (1969). In response to hearing an erroneous report of the murder of civil rights activist James Meredith, Sidney Street burned a 48-star U.S. flag. Street was arrested and charged with a New York state law making it a crime "publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]". The Court, relying on "Stromberg v. California" (1931), found that because the provision of the New York law criminalizing "words" against the flag was unconstitutional, and the trial did not sufficiently demonstrate he had been convicted solely under the provisions not yet deemed

Falsifying military awards.

While the unauthorized wear or sale of the Medal of Honor has been a punishable offense under federal law since the early twentieth century, the Stolen Valor Act criminalized the act of not only wearing, but also verbally claiming entitlement to military awards a person did not in fact earn. In "United States v. Alvarez" (2012), the Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling that the First Amendment bars the government from punishing people for making false claims regarding military service or honors where the false claim was not "made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations". The Supreme Court could not agree on a single rationale for its decision.

Compelled speech.

The Supreme Court has determined that the First Amendment also protects citizens from being compelled to say or pay for certain speech.  In "West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette" (1943), the Court ruled that school children could not be punished for refusing either to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the American flag.  In "National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra" (2018), the Court ruled that a California law

Commercial speech.

Commercial speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the purpose of making a profit. Unlike political speech, the Supreme Court does not afford commercial speech full protection under the First Amendment. To effectively distinguish commercial speech from other types of speech for purposes of litigation, the Court uses a list of four indicia:  Alone, each indicium does not compel the conclusion that an instance of speech is commercial; however, "[t]he combination of "all" these characteristics... provides strong support for... the conclusion that the [speech is] properly characterized as commercial speech."  In "Valentine v. Chrestensen" (1942), the Court upheld a New York City ordinance forbidding the "distribution in the streets of commercial and business advertising

School speech.

In "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District" (1969), the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not "materially and substantially" interrupt school activities. Justice Abe Fortas wrote: In "Healy v. James" (1972), the Court ruled that Central Connecticut State College's refusal to recognize a campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society was unconstitutional, reaffirming "Tinker".  However, since

Internet access.

In "Packingham v. North Carolina" (2017), the Supreme Court held that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites impermissibly restricted lawful speech

Obscenity.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not apply to obscene speech. Therefore, both the federal government and the states have tried to prohibit or otherwise restrict obscene speech, in particular the form that is called pornography., pornography, except for child pornography, is in practice free of governmental restrictions in the United States, though pornography about "extreme" sexual practices is occasionally prosecuted. The change in the twentieth century, from total prohibition in 1900 to near-total tolerance in 2000, reflects a series of court cases involving the definition of obscenity. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that

Memoirs of convicted criminals.

In some states, there are Son of Sam laws prohibiting convicted criminals from publishing memoirs for profit. These laws were a response to offers to David Berkowitz to write memoirs about the murders he committed. The Supreme Court struck down a law of this type in New York as a violation of the

Defamation.

American tort liability for defamatory speech or publications traces its origins to English common law. For the first two hundred years of American jurisprudence, the basic substance of defamation law continued to resemble that existing in England at the time of the Revolution. An 1898 American legal textbook on defamation provides definitions of libel and slander nearly identical to those given by William Blackstone and Edward Coke. An action of slander required the following:  An action of libel required the same five general points as slander, except that it specifically involved the publication of defamatory statements. For certain criminal charges of libel, such as seditious libel, the truth or falsity of the statements was immaterial, as such laws were intended to maintain

Private action.

Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so.  State constitutions provide free speech protections similar to those of the U.S. Constitution. In a few states, such as California, a state constitution has been interpreted as providing more comprehensive protections than the First Amendment. The Supreme Court

Freedom of the press.

The free speech and free press clauses have been interpreted as providing the same protection to speakers as to writers, except for wireless broadcasting which has been given less constitutional protection. The Free Press Clause protects the right of individuals to express themselves through publication and dissemination of information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the government. This right was described in "Branzburg v. Hayes" as "a fundamental personal right" that is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. In "Lovell v. City of Griffin" (1938), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined "press" as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion". This right has been extended to media including newspapers, books, plays, movies, and video games. While it is an open question whether people who blog or use social media are journalists entitled to protection by media shield laws, they are protected equally by the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause, because both clauses do

Petition and assembly.

The Petition Clause protects the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances". This includes the right to communicate with government officials, lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits with a legal basis. The Petition Clause first came to prominence in the 1830s, when Congress established the gag rule barring anti-slavery petitions from being heard; the rule was overturned by Congress several years later. Petitions against the Espionage Act of 1917 resulted in imprisonments. The Supreme Court did not rule on either issue.  In "California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited" (1972), the Supreme Court said the right to petition encompasses "the approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." Today, thus, this right encompasses petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the executive and the judiciary—and has been extended to the states through incorporation. According to the Supreme Court, "redress of grievances" is to be

Freedom of association.

Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama" (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in "Roberts v. United States Jaycees" (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with

References.

Notes Citations Bibliography

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

美国宪法第一修正案(英语:First Amendment to the United States Constitution,简称:第一修正案(英语:Amendment I))禁止美国国会制订任何法律以确立国教;妨碍宗教自由;剥夺言论自由;侵犯新闻自由与集会自由;干扰或禁止向政府请愿的权利。该修正案于1791年12月15日获得通过,是美国权利法案中的一部分,使美国成为首个在宪法中明文不设国教,并保障宗教自由和言论自由的国家。


Global outlook.

While having some overlaps, Euroscepticism and anti-Europeanism are different. Anti-Europeanism has always had a strong influence in American culture and

Terminology.

There can be considered to be several different types of Eurosceptic thought, which differ in the extent to which adherents reject integration between member states of the European Union (EU) and in their reasons for doing so. Aleks Szczerbiak and Paul Taggart described two of these as hard and soft Euroscepticism.  At the same time, some have said that there is no clear line between the presumed 'hard' and'soft' Euroscepticism. Kopecky and Mudde have said that if the demarcation line is the number of and which policies a party opposes, then the question arises of how many must a party oppose and which ones should a party oppose that makes them 'hard' Eurosceptic instead of'soft'.

Hard Euroscepticism.

According to Taggart and Szczerbiak, hard Euroscepticism (also called anti-EU-ism) is "a principled opposition to the EU and European integration and therefore can be seen in parties who think that their countries should withdraw from membership, or whose policies towards the EU are tantamount to being opposed to the whole project of European integration as it is currently conceived."  The Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group in the European Parliament, typified by such parties as the Brexit Party and UK Independence Party (UKIP), displays hard Euroscepticism. In western European EU member countries, hard Euroscepticism is currently a characteristic of many anti-establishment parties.  Some hard Eurosceptics prefer to call themselves "Eurorealists" rather than "sceptics", and regard their position as pragmatic rather than ‘in principle’. Additionally, Tony Benn, a left-wing Labour Party MP who fought against

Soft Euroscepticism.

Soft Euroscepticism is support for the existence of, and membership of, a form of European Union, but with opposition to specific EU policies; or, in Taggart's and Szczerbiak's words, "where there is NOT a principled objection to European integration or EU membership but where concerns on one (or

Other terms.

Some scholars consider the gradual difference in terminology between 'hard' and'soft' Euroscepticism inadequate to accommodate the large differences in terms

Eurobarometer surveys.

A survey in, conducted by TNS Opinion and Social on behalf of the European Commission, showed that, across the EU as a whole, those with a positive image of the EU are down from a high of 52% in 2007 to 37% in autumn 2015; this compares with 23% with a negative image of the EU, and 38% with a neutral image. About 43% of Europeans thought things were "going in the wrong direction” in the EU, compared with 23% who thought things were going "in the right direction" (11% "don't know"). About 32% of EU citizens tend to trust the EU as an institution, and about 55% do not tend to trust it (13% "don't know"). Distrust of the EU was highest in Greece (81%), Cyprus (72%), Austria (65%), France (65%) and Germany, the United Kingdom (UK) and the Czech Republic (all 63%). Overall, more respondents distrusted their own government (66%) than they distrusted the EU (55%). Distrust of national government was highest in Greece (82%), Slovenia (80%), Portugal (79%), Cyprus (76%) and France (76%).  A Eurobarometer survey carried out four days prior to and six days after the U.S. presidential election in November 2016 revealed that the surprise victory of Donald Trump caused an increase in the popularity of the European Union in Europe. The increase was strongest among the political right and among respondents who perceived their country as economically struggling.  A survey carried out in April 2018 for the European Parliament by Kantar Public consulting found that support for the EU was "the highest score

History in the European Parliament.

1999–2004.

A study analysed voting records of the Fifth European Parliament and ranked groups, concluding: "Towards the top of

2004–2009.

In 2004, 37 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the UK, Poland, Denmark and Sweden founded a new European Parliament group called "Independence and Democracy" from the old Europe of Democracies and Diversities

2009 elections.

The elections of 2009 saw a significant fall in support in some areas for Eurosceptic parties, with all such MEPs from Poland, Denmark and Sweden losing their seats. In the UK, the Eurosceptic UKIP achieved second place in the election, finishing ahead

2014 elections.

The elections of 2014 saw a big anti-establishment vote in favour of Eurosceptic parties, which took around a quarter of the seats available. Those that won their national elections included: UKIP in the UK (the first time since 1906 that a party other than Labour or

2019 elections.

The elections of 2019 saw the centre-left and centre-right parties suffer significant losses including losing their overall majority, while green, pro-EU liberal, and some Eurosceptic right wing parties saw significant gains. Those that won their national elections included: The Brexit Party in the UK (which was only launched on 12

In EU member states.

Austria.

The Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ), established in 1956, is a right-wing populist party that mainly attracts support from young people and workers. In 1989, it changed its stance over the EU to Euroscepticism. It opposed Austria joining the EU in 1994, and opposed the introduction of the euro in 1998. The party would like to leave the EU if it threatens to develop into a country, or if Turkey joins. The FPÖ received 20–27% of the national vote in the 1990s,

Belgium.

According to Eurostat, in the fall of 2018, 44% of Belgium people stated that they did not trust the European Union. The main Eurosceptic party in Belgium is Vlaams Belang which is active in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. In the 2014 European Parliament election, Belgium's Vlaams Belang lost over half of its previous vote share, polling 4.26% (down 5.59%) and losing 1 of its 2 members of the European Parliament.  Despite the presence of Eurosceptic parties in Belgium, their weight is relatively

Bulgaria.

Parties with mainly Eurosceptic views are Union of Communists in Bulgaria, NFSB, Attack, and VMRO – BND, which is a member of the Eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists). Bulgaria's Minister of Finance, Simeon Djankov, stated in 2011 that ERM II membership to enter the Euro zone would be postponed until after the Eurozone crisis had stabilised.  In the 2014 European Parliament election Bulgaria remained overwhelmingly pro-EU, with the Eurosceptic Attack party receiving 2.96% of the

Croatia.

Parties with Eurosceptic views are mainly small right-wing parties like Croatian Party of Rights, Croatian Party of Rights dr. Ante Starčević, Croatian Pure Party of Rights, Autochthonous Croatian Party of Rights, Croatian Christian Democratic Party and Only Croatia – Movement for Croatia.  The only parliamentary party that is

Czech Republic.

In May 2010, the Czech president Václav Klaus said that they "needn't hurry to enter the Eurozone".  Petr Mach, an economist, a close associate of president Václav Klaus and a member of the Civic Democratic Party between 1997 and 2007, founded the Free Citizens Party in 2009. The party aims to mainly attract dissatisfied Civic Democratic Party voters. At the time of the Lisbon Treaty ratification, they were actively campaigning against it, supported by the president Vaclav Klaus, who demanded opt-outs such as were granted to the United Kingdom and Poland, unlike the governing Civic Democratic Party, who endorsed it in the Chamber of Deputies. After the treaty has been ratified, Mach's party is in favour of withdrawing

Cyprus.

Parties with mainly Eurosceptic views in Cyprus are New Internationalist Left, the Progressive Party of Working People, Committee for a Radical Left Rally and ELAM.

Denmark.

The People's Movement against the EU only takes part in European Parliament elections and has one member in the European Parliament. The soft Eurosceptic June Movement, originally a split-off from the People's Movement against the EU, existed from 1992 to 2009.  In the Danish Parliament, the Red-Green Alliance has withdrawal from the EU as a policy. The Danish People's Party also advocates withdrawal, but says it supports some EU structures such as the internal market, and supported the EU-positive Liberal-Conservative coalition between 2001 and 2011 and again from 2015 to present.  The Socialist People's Party, minorities within the Social Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party, and some smaller parties were against accession

Estonia.

The Independence Party and Centre Party were against accession to the EU, but only the Independence Party still wants Estonia to withdraw

Finland.

The largest Eurosceptic party in Finland is the Finns Party. In the European Parliament election, 2014, the Finns Party increased their vote share by 3.1% to 12.9%, adding a second MEP. With their 39 seats, the Finns Party are also the second-biggest party in

France.

In France there are multiple parties that are Eurosceptic to different degrees, varying from advocating less EU intervention in national affairs, to advocating outright withdrawal from the EU and the Eurozone. These parties belong to all sides of the political spectrum, so the reasons for their Euroscepticism may differ. In the past many French people appeared to be uninterested in such matters, with only 40% of the French electorate voting in the 2009 European Parliament elections.  Right-wing Eurosceptic parties include the Gaullist "Debout la République", and "Mouvement pour la France", which was part of Libertas, a pan-European Eurosceptic party. In the 2009 European Parliament elections, Debout la République received 1.77% of the national vote, and Libertas 4.8%. In a similar way to some moderate parties, the French right and far-right in general are naturally opposed to the EU, as they criticise France's loss of political and economic sovereignty to a supranational entity. Some of these hard Eurosceptic parties include the Popular Republican Union and the Front National (FN). Front National and Popular Republican Union both seek France's withdrawal from the

Germany.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is Germany's largest Eurosceptic party. It has been elected into the German Parliament with 94 seats in September 2017. Initially the AfD was a soft Eurosceptic party, that considered itself pro-Europe and pro-EU, but opposed the euro, which it believed had undermined European integration.  In the European Parliament election, 2014, the Alternative for Germany came 5th with 7% of the vote, winning 7

Greece.

Golden Dawn, Communist Party of Greece (KKE), Greek Solution, ANEL, Course of Freedom, Popular Unity, and LAOS have been the main Eurosceptic parties in Greece. According to the London School of Economics, Greece used to be the second most Eurosceptic country in the European Union, with 50% of Greeks thinking that their country has not benefited at all from the EU (only behind the UK). Meanwhile, 33% of Greeks viewed Greek membership in EU as a good thing, marginally ahead of the UK. 81% of Greeks felt that the EU was going in the wrong direction. These figures represented a

Hungary.

Viktor Orbán is the soft Eurosceptic Prime Minister of Hungary for the national-conservative Fidesz Party. Another Eurosceptic party in Hungary is Jobbik, a radical, xenophobic and far-right party.  In Hungary 39% of the population have a positive image of the EU, 20% have a negative image, and 40% neutral (1% "Don't know").  In the 2014 Hungarian parliamentary election, Fidesz got 44.54% of the votes, Jobbik got 20.54% of the votes and the communist Hungarian Workers' Party got 0.58% of the votes. Thus, Eurosceptic parties in Hungary obtained 65.66% of the votes, one of the highest figures in Europe.  The green-liberal Politics Can Be

Ireland.

Euroscepticism is a minority view in Ireland, with opinion polls from 2016 to 2018 indicating growing support for EU membership, moving from 70% to 92% in that time.  The Irish people initially voted against ratifying the Nice and Lisbon Treaties. Following renegotiations, second referendums on both were passed with approximately 2:1 majorities in both cases. Some commentators and smaller political groups questioned the validity of the Irish Government's decision to call second referendums.  The left-wing Irish republican party Sinn Féin expresses soft Eurosceptic positions on the current structure of the European Union and the direction in which it is moving.

Italy.

The Five Star Movement (M5S), an anti-establishment movement founded by comedian Beppe Grillo, originally set itself out as a Eurosceptic party. The M5S received 25.5% of vote in the 2013 general election, becoming the largest anti-establishment and Eurosceptic party in Europe. The party used to advocate a non-binding referendum on the withdrawal of Italy from the Eurozone (but not from the European Union) and the return to the lira. This policy was rejected in 2018, and the M5S's leader has since stated that the "European Union is the Five Star Movement's home", clarifying that the party wants Italy to stay in the EU, even though it remains critical of some of its treaties. The M5S's popular support is distributed all across Italy: in the 2018 general election the party won 32.7% of the popular vote nation-wide, and was particularly successful in central and southern Italy.  A party that retains a Eurosceptic identity is Lega Nord, a regionalist movement led by Matteo Salvini favouring Italy's exit from the Eurozone and the re-introduction of the lira. When in government, LN approved the Treaty of Lisbon. The party won 6.2% of the

Latvia.

The National Alliance (For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK/All for Latvia!), Union of Greens and Farmers and For Latvia from the Heart are parties

Lithuania.

The Order and Justice

Luxembourg.

The Alternative Democratic Reform Party is a soft Eurosceptic

Malta.

The Labour Party was not in favour of Malta entering the European Union. It was in favour of a partnership with the EU. After a

Netherlands.

Historically, the Netherlands have been a very pro-European country, being one of the six founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, and campaigning with much effort to include the United Kingdom into the Community in the 1970s and others after that. It has become slightly more Eurosceptic in the 2000s, rejecting the European Constitution in 2005 and complaining about the relatively high financial investment into the Union or the democratic deficit amongst other issues.  A prominent former Eurosceptic party in the Netherlands was the Pim Fortuyn List (LPF) established by politician and academic Pim Fortuyn in 2002. The party campaigned to reduce Dutch financial contributions to the EU, was against Turkish membership and opposed

Poland.

The main party with Eurosceptic views is the Confederation Freedom and Independence.  Former president of Poland Lech Kaczyński resisted giving his signature on behalf of Poland to the Treaty of Lisbon, objecting specifically to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Subsequently, Poland got an opt-out from this charter. As Polish President, Kaczyński also opposed the Polish government's intentions to join the euro.  In 2015,

Portugal.

The main Eurosceptic parties in Portugal are National Renovator Party (PNR), Portuguese Communist Party (PCP), and Left Bloc (BE). Opinion polling in Portugal in 2015 indicated that 48 per cent tended not to trust the EU, while 79 per cent tended not to trust the Portuguese government (then led by Portugal Ahead). Eurosceptic political parties hold a combined total of 34 seats out of

Romania.

Several parties espousing Eurosceptic views exist on the right, such as the New Republic, the Greater Romania Party and Noua Dreaptă, but as of June 2020 none of these parties

Slovakia.

Parties with primarily hard Eurosceptic views represented in the National Council are People's Party - Our Slovakia and We Are Family. Prominent Slovak Eurosceptic politicians include Marian Kotleba, Boris Kollár, Andrej Danko and Richard Sulík

Slovenia.

Parties with mainly Eurosceptic views are Slovenian National Party

Spain.

The process of Europeanization changed during the years in Spain. In 1986 Spain entered in the European Community. Since then, Spain has been one of the most Europeanist countries. Therefore, when Spain became part of the European Community, the country had a strong pro-Europeanist feeling, according to Eurobarometer, as it reflected a 60% of the population. In Spain different reasons explain its entrance to the European Community. On the one hand, democracy has just been established in Spain after Francisco Franco dictatorship. On the other hand, the main objectives of Spain were to achieve economic development, and also a social modernization. Spain was one of the few countries to vote Yes for the European Constitution in a referendum in February 2005, though by a lower margin in Catalonia and the Basque Country. In 2008, after the financial crisis reached Spain, the percentage of pro European persons started to fall. Thus, during the five years of the economic crisis, the Eurobarometer shows how the trust in the EU

Sweden.

The Left Party of Sweden is against accession to the eurozone and wants Sweden to leave the European Union.  The right-wing populist party Sweden Democrats are also strongly against the Union but not to withdraw EEA and Schengen Agreement.  The June List, a Eurosceptic list consisting of members from both the political right and left won three seats in the 2004 Elections to the European Parliament and sat in the EU-critical IND/DEM group in the European Parliament. The movement favours a withdrawal from the EU.  Around 75% of the Riksdag members represent parties that officially supports the Sweden

In other European countries.

Armenia.

Prosperous Armenia represents the main Eurosceptic party in Armenia. Following the 2018 Armenian parliamentary election,

Georgia.

Georgian March is the main Eurosceptic party in Georgia. The party supports

Iceland.

The three main Eurosceptic parties in Iceland are the Independence Party, Left-Green Movement and the Progressive Party. The Independence Party and the Progressive Party won the parliamentary election in April 2013 and they have halted the current negotiations with the European Union regarding Icelandic membership and tabled a parliamentary resolution

Moldova.

The two main Eurosceptic parties in Moldova are the left-wing Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova, which officially declared its main purpose to be the integration of Moldova in the

Montenegro.

All parliamentary parties in Montenegro officially support the country's bid for accession to the European Union. The

North Macedonia.

Since having come into national opposition, and amid disagreements in the Macedonia naming dispute, the VMRO-DPMNE - which does not endorse the

Norway.

Norway has rejected EU membership in two referendums, 1972 and 1994. The Centre Party, Christian Democratic Party, Socialist Left Party and

Russia.

Parties with mainly Eurosceptic views are the ruling United Russia, and opposition parties the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.  Following the 2014 Crimean crisis, the European Union issued sanctions on the Russian Federation "in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and deliberate destabilisation of a neighbouring sovereign country". In response to this, Alexey Borodavkin – Russia's permanent representative with the UN – said "The EU is committing a direct violation of human rights by its actions against Russia. The unilateral sanctions introduced against us are not only illegitimate according to international

San Marino.

A referendum was held in the landlocked microstate on 20 October 2013 in which the citizens were asked whether the country should submit an application to join the European Union. The proposal was rejected because of a low turnout, even though 50.3% of voters approved it. The "Yes"

Serbia.

Parties with mainly Eurosceptic views are Serbian Radical Party,

Switzerland.

Switzerland has long been known for its neutrality in international politics. Swiss voters rejected EEA membership in 1992, and EU membership in 2001. Despite the passing of several referendums calling for closer relations between Switzerland and the European Union such as the adoption of bilateral treaties and the joining of the Schengen Area, a second referendum of the joining of the EEA or the EU is not expected, and the general public remains opposed to joining.  In February 2014, the Swiss voters narrowly approved a referendum limiting the freedom of movement of EU citizens to Switzerland.  Eurosceptic political parties include the Swiss People's Party, which is the largest political party in Switzerland, with

Turkey.

The two main Eurosceptic parties are the far-right ultranationalist, Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which secured 11.10% of votes, and 49 seats in the Parliament at the last election, and the Felicity Party (Saadet Partisi), a far-right Sunni Islamist party, which has no seats in

Ukraine.

Parties with mainly Eurosceptic views are Opposition Platform — For life, Communist Party of Ukraine and

United Kingdom.

Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom has been a significant element in British politics since the inception of the European Economic Community (EEC), the predecessor to the EU. The European Union strongly divides the British public, political parties, media and civil society.  The UK Independence Party has backed the idea of the UK unilaterally leaving the European Union (Brexit) since its inception in 1993. During the 23 June 2016 referendum on the issue, the Conservatives had no official position on the issue; although its leader David Cameron was in favour of remaining in the EU, the party was split on the issue. The Labour Party officially supported remaining in the EU, although party leader Jeremy Corbyn did suggest early on in the campaign that he would consider withdrawal; which he advocated years previously. The Liberal Democrats were the most adamantly pro-EU party, and since the referendum, pro-Europeanism has been their main policy.  The referendum resulted in an overall vote to leave the EU, as opposed to remaining an EU member, by 51.9% to 48.1%, on a turnout of 72.2%. The vote was split between the constituent countries of the

Euroscepticism, also known as EU-scepticism, means criticism of the European Union (EU) and European integration. It ranges from those who oppose some EU institutions and policies and seek reform (soft Euroscepticism), to those who oppose EU membership outright and see the EU as unreformable (hard Euroscepticism or anti-European Unionism/anti-EUism). The opposite of Euroscepticism is known as pro-Europeanism, or European Unionism. Euroscepticism should not be confused with anti-Europeanism, which is a dislike of European culture and European ethnic groups by non-Europeans.

欧洲怀疑主义(英语:Euroscepticism)是指反对欧洲一体化的思想或理念,其非单一的意识型态,亦非反对欧洲,但很大部分是反对欧盟的立场有关,不少具有民族主义的因素。


Morphology.

Anatomy.

Tetanurans have two basic skull morphologies. The first skull type, typical in large theropods such as "Allosaurus", is common within ceratosaurs and may be primitive for tetanurans. In this type, the skull is about three times longer than tall, with a blunter snout and frequent elaborations such as horns or spikes along the lacrimals, nasals, and frontals. In the second skull type, the skull is lower and longer, with a less elaborated skull roof and a more elongated snout. Shared tetanuran features include the maxillary fenestra (an opening in the antorbital fossa), a pneumatic excavation in the jugal, and the position of the maxillary teeth anterior to the orbit. The posterior skull is little modified in tetanurans, except within Spinosauridae.  In the postcranial skeleton, tetanurans transition between the most primitive theropod morphologies in basal tetanurans towards more derived, bird-like states in coelurosaurs. Most tetanurans possess specialized wrist bones, the absence or reduction of the fourth digit of the hand, a strap-like scapula, stiffened tails, and a laminar astragalar ascending process. Advanced tetanurans would have possessed a sophisticated air-sac-ventilated lung system similar to birds, and an advanced circulatory system. In megalosaurids and allosaurids, the orientation of the femoral head is anteromedial such as in ceratosaurs, but in avetheropods this orientation is fully medial. Tetanuran locomotor morphology is relatively generalized, with few variations between taxa.

Body Size.

Basal tetanurans were the first theropod clade to achieve truly giant body sizes, with both megalosauroid and allosauroid taxa weighing over 1 ton. Sequential temporal appearances of large body size in subsequent clades suggest a pattern of size-cycles, with the extinction of incumbent giant forms allowing for replacement with a new, more bird-like theropod group that then also evolved giant body size. It is, however, possible that more than one giant tetanuran existed at a time in the same paleoenvironment, perhaps with feeding habit variations. Within most dinosaur clades, body size tended to increase over time along a lineage according to Cope's rule. Coelurosaurian theropods are the notable exception to the pattern of body size increases.

History of study.

History of classification.

Tetanurae was recognized and named by Gauthier in 1986. The earliest-discovered tetanuran is the earliest-named dinosaur, "Megalosaurus". For a century after the description of "Megalosaurus", most large carnivorous dinosaurs were serially arrayed into the family Megalosauridae within the order Theropoda. In 1914, Friedrich von Huene separated small, lightly built forms into the infraorder Coelurosauria and larger taxa into the infraorder Pachypodosauria. Later, he transferred large, carnivorous taxa to the new infraorder Carnosauria, which came to include all known large-bodied carnivores other than "Ceratosaurus". The size-based arrangement persisted until Gauthier, who redefined Carnosauria and Coelurosauria based on new cladistic analyses but retained the terms. Gauthier defined Coelurosauria as a taxon comprising birds and theropods closer to birds than to Carnosauria, and listed within Carnosauria several large-bodied theropod taxa but did not formally define the group. Many of these original carnosaurs have since been reclassified as coelurosaurs or primitive tetanurans, and Carnosauria has now been defined as "Allosaurus" and all Avetheropods closer to "Allosaurus" than to birds.  Initial cladistics studies supported the arrangement of primitive megalosaurs as serial outgroups to a clade of allosaurids, followed by the Coelurosauria. Subsequent studies have discovered that many of these basal tetanurans formed a true clade, termed Megalosauroidea or alternatively Spinosauroidea.

Current phylogeny.

Current phylogeny agrees on a monophyletic Tetanurae that includes a series of generally large-bodied basal taxa outside a monophyletic Coelurosauria. Coelophysoids are basal to Tetanurae, with Ceratosauria forming a sister taxa that diverged during the late Triassic.  After their initial appearance, Tetanurae radiated into two main clades, Spinosauroidea or Megalosauroidea and Avetheropoda or Neotetanurae. Spinosauroidea are believed to represent basal Tetanurans. At the Neotetanurae/Avetheropoda node, allosaurids split from the Coelurosauria. Tyrannosauridae has been placed within Coelurosauria. The allosaurids and their closest relatives form a reconstituted Carnosauria. Debate persists about whether the allosaurids form a clade with spinosauroids/megalosauroids, and whether Allosauroidea belongs in Avetheropoda with Coelurosauria or forms a sister taxa to Megalosauroidea, and whether Megalosauroidea forms a valid clade.  The cladogram presented below follows a phylogenetic analysis published by Zanno and Makovicky in 2013.  In 2019 saw the description and publication of "Asfaltovenator vialidadi", a basal allosauroid that curiously has characteristics displaying primitive and derived features seen in Tetanurae. Their phylogenetic analysis has found Megalosauroidea to be a basal grade of carnosaurs in respect to Allosauroidea.

Paleobiology.

Biogeography.

The biogeographical history of non-avian Tetanurae spans over 110 million years and all continents. The presence of major lineages prior to the breakup of Pangaea implies wide dispersal of these clades, with later absences indicating regional extinctions or dispersal failure. The density of sampling is currently insufficient to provide a detailed analysis of biogeographical evolution for the Tetanurae.

Diversity.

Tetanurae and Ceratosauria likely diverged during the late Triassic, more than 200 mya. By the Early Jurassic, Tetanurae fossils appear in the fossil record and reached global distribution by the Middle Jurassic. In the Late Jurassic, the fossil record demonstrates widespread presence of multiple clades within both megalosauroids and avetheropods. The Megalosauroidea contained high diversity with two Jurassic clades, Piatnitzkysauridae and Megalosauridae, as well as the Cretaceous Spinosauridae. Tetanuran evolution appears to exhibit waves of diversification, although this may be due to uneven sampling. During the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous, large spinosaurids and allosaurids flourished, but the latter possibly died out before the end of the Cretaceous due to the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event, while spinosaurids are known from the Santonian. Soon afterwards the niche of terrestrial apex predator ceratosaurs and tyrannosaurid coelurosaurs, which dominated terminal Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems. Coelurosaurs persisted through the end of the Mesozoic Era. Modern birds are the only living representatives of the Tetanurae.

Tetanurae (/ˌtɛtəˈnjuːriː/ or "stiff tails") is a clade that includes most theropod dinosaurs, including megalosauroids, allosauroids, tyrannosauroids, ornithomimosaurs, maniraptorans, and birds. Tetanurans are defined as all theropods more closely related to modern birds than to "Ceratosaurus" and contain the majority of predatory dinosaur diversity. Tetanurae likely diverged from its sister group, Ceratosauria, during the late Triassic. Tetanurae first appeared in the fossil record by the Early Jurassic about 190 mya and by the Middle Jurassic had become globally distributed.

坚尾龙类(学名:)是个演化支,包含大部分的兽脚亚目恐龙(也包含恐龙的后代鸟类)。坚尾龙类首次出现于侏罗纪早期或中期。


弗拉基米尔·列宁全联盟先锋组织

History.

After the October Revolution of 1917, some Scouts took the Bolsheviks' side, which would later lead to the establishment of ideologically altered Scoutlike organizations, such as "ЮК" ("Юные Коммунисты", or "young communists"; pronounced as "yook") and others.  During the Russian Civil War from 1917 to 1921, most of the Scoutmasters and many Scouts fought in the ranks of the White Army and interventionists against the Red Army.  Those Scouts who did not wish to accept the new Soviet system either left Russia for good (like Oleg Pantyukhov and others) or went underground.

Foundation of the Young Pioneers.

However, clandestine Scouting on both sides of the war did not last long. The Russian Union of the Communist Youth (RKSM, later known as Komsomol) persistently fought with the remnants of the Scout movement. Between 1918 and 1920, the second, third, and fourth All-Russian Congresses of RKSM decided to eradicate the Scout movement and create an organization of the communist type, that would take Soviet children and adolescents under its umbrella. This organization would properly educate children with Communist teachings.  On behalf of the Soviet Council of People's Commissars, Nadezhda Krupskaya (Vladimir Lenin's wife and the People's Commissar of State for Education) was one of the main contributors to the cause of the Pioneer movement. In 1922, she wrote an essay called "Russian Union of the Communist Youth and boy-Scoutism." However, it was the remaining scoutmasters themselves who supported the Komsomol and the Red Army, like Innokentiy Zhukov and some others around Nikolaj Fatyanov's "Brothers of the fire", who introduced the name "pioneer" to it and convinced the Komsomol to keep the scout motto "Be prepared!" and adapt it to "Always prepared!" as the organizational motto and slogan.  Just some days before the Komsomol conference the Moscow scoutmasters adopted a "Declaration of the scoutmasters of Moscow concerning the question of the formation of a children's movement in the RSFSR" on May 13, 1922. Thereby they suggested to use the "scouting system" as a foundation of the new communist organization for children, and give the "Young pioneers" name to it.  The main contribution of the scoutmasters was the introduction of the new expression "system scouting" into the discourse on communist children's and youth organizations. By doing so they avoided the dissolution of the "scout organization" as it would happen sooner or later to any organization opposed to the Komsomol.  On May 19, 1922 the second All-Russian Komsomol Conference adopted the scoutmasters' suggestions and decided to "work on the question of a children's movement by using the re-organized system of scouting." During the following years many of the remaining former scoutmasters, who later became the first pioneer leaders in their respective areas, founded pioneer groups and educated future pioneer leaders in these.  May 19, 1922 was later on considered the birthday of the All-Union Pioneer Organization ("Всесоюзная пионерская организация", or "Vsesoyuznaya pionerskaya organizatsiya"). By October 1922 pioneer units nationwide were united to form the Spartak Young Pioneers Organization (SYPO) (), which was officially granted the honorific title "V. I. Lenin" by a decision of the Central Committee of Komsomol of January 21, 1924, becoming the Vladimir Lenin Spartak Young Pioneers Organization (VLSYPO). Since March 1926 it bore the name Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization (VLAUPO).

Growth.

By the middle of 1923, the young organization had 75,000 members with hundreds of adult and teen instructors. Among other activities, Young Pioneer units, helped by the Komsomol members and leadership at all levels, played a great role in the eradication of illiteracy (Likbez policy) since 1923. Membership was at 161,000 in the beginning of 1924, 2 million in 1926, 13.9 million in 1940, and 25 million in 1974. Many Young Pioneer Palaces were built, which served as community centers for the children, with rooms dedicated to various clubs, such as crafts or sports. Thousands of Young Pioneer camps were set up where children went during summer vacation and winter holidays. All of them were free of charge, sponsored by the government and the Trade Unions. By the 1930s, as Stalin's cult of personality was taking shape and the nation becoming a growing economic and later on a military superpower via the Five Year Plans and the expansion and modernization of the armed forces, the Pioneers were promoted as models of a true socialist future generation of youth determined to help bring the Soviet Union towards the total victory of communism at home in all sectors of society.  During the Second World War the Pioneers worked hard to contribute to the war effort at all costs. Thousands of them died in battles as military personnel and in the resistance against Nazi Germany in its occupied territories as partisans and Pioneers under secrecy in enemy-occupied towns and cities, even in concentration camps. One of them became widely known, for his resistance in Kerch: Volodia Dubinin. Four Pioneers would later receive the coveted Gold Star Medal as Heroes of the Soviet Union, and countless others were awarded various state orders, decorations and medals for acts of bravery and courage in the battlefield, on enemy lines and occupied territories. Pioneers in areas away from military operations assisted in the home front efforts to support the men and women fighting in the front lines, as well as in preparing to meet the requirements for wartime conscription service.

Present.

After the ban of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1991, the organization had to disband. Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus are the only Republics where the restored Pioneer Organizations are located and active.

Structure.

Its main grouping of members until 1942 was the "Young Pioneer detachment," which then typically consisted of children belonging to the same secondary school.  From 1942 to October 1990 (when the organization was broken up) the "squad" (отряд) was made up of children belonging to the same class within a school, while a school was referred to as a "Young Pioneer druzhina." Larger squads were split into sub-units called "zveno" (Звено, literally "chain link").  There was also an age-scale structure: children of 10–11 years were called Young Pioneers of the first stage; 11–12 years were Young Pioneers of the second stage; 13–15 years were Young Pioneers of the third stage. At age 15, Young Pioneers could join Komsomol, with a recommendation from their Young Pioneer group.  The main governing body was the Central Soviet of the Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union, which worked under the leadership of the main governing body of Komsomol.  Its official newspaper was Pionerskaya Pravda.

Main goals and requirements of membership.

The main goals and duties of Young Pioneers and requirements of membership were specified by the Regulations of the Young Pioneer organization of the Soviet Union; by the Solemn Promise (given by each Young Pioneer joining the organization); by the Rules of the Young Pioneers; and by the Young Pioneer Motto, "всегда готов!" ("vsegda gotov!", "Always Ready!"). There were two major revisions of them: in 1967 and 1986. Although membership was theoretically optional, almost all the children in the Soviet Union belonged to the organization; it was a natural part of growing up. Still, joining was not automatic. In the 3rd grade of school, children were allowed to join the Young Pioneer Organization, which was done in batches, as a solemn ceremony, often in a Pioneers Palace. Only the best students were allowed into the first batch, slightly less advanced and well-behaved were allowed into the second batch, several weeks later. The most ill-behaved or low-performing students were given time to 'catch up' and could be allowed to join only in the 4th grade, a year after the first batch of their classmates. Not being admitted at all was odd, and lack of desire to join was considered suspicious.  In line with the Soviet doctrine of state atheism, the «Young Pioneer Leader's Handbook» stated that "every Pioneer would set up an atheist's corner at home with anti-religious pictures, poems, and sayings", in contrast to the traditional Russian Christian icon corners. The Young Pioneers, "as representatives of atheism and political change, encountered massive resistance in rural areas". In the same vein, some students refused to join the organization because of its promotion of Marxist-Leninist atheism.

Symbols, attributes, rituals and traditions.

The main symbols of Young Pioneers were the red banner, flag, Young Pioneer's red neck scarf and the organizational badge. Attributes: the bugle, the drum, the organizational uniform (with badges of rank). Some rituals and traditions of the organization were: the Young Pioneer salute, Young Pioneer parade, color guard duty and flag raising. Most common traditions were the Young Pioneers rally (usually round a bonfire, similar to Scout Jamborees) and festivals.

Uniform.

The uniform was one of many things that identified Pioneers with each other and the people. The uniform, part of the school uniform worn at school, included the red neckerchief and the organizational and rank badges on the white shirt with long or short pants for boys and long or short skirts for girls, with optional side caps as headdress. Full dress uniforms, used in occasions, were light blue or white with red side caps, the red neckerchief and the badges, with crimson sashes for color bearers and the color escorts. When on outdoor duties brown polo shirts with pants or skirts depending on gender were used, with an optional side cap. Sea service uniforms used sailor caps and blue and white shirts (with Telnyashkas) and pants or skirts depending on the gender, with a brown belt. Instructors and adult leaders wore the same uniforms and the caps in every occasion and in all meetings. In its early years the Pioneers wore campaign hats in major events.

The Solemn Promise.

On the day a child joined the Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization, he or she would have to recite the following Solemn Promise in front of a group of other Pioneers (1986 revision is presented below). After reciting, the new member had the Pioneer's scarlet tie tied by an older Pioneer, and thus, becoming a full-fledged member of the organization.  "I, (last name, first name), joining the ranks of the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization, in the presence of my comrades solemnly promise: to passionately love and cherish my Motherland, to live as the great Lenin bade us to, as the Communist Party teaches us to, as require the laws of the Pioneers of the Soviet Union."

The Motto.

The motto of the Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union consisted of two parts, the summons and the answer or response (1986 revision is presented below). This, like other rituals and customs of the organization, reflected its origin in the Scouts movement (their motto is "Be Prepared").

The Rules.

The latest revision of official Rules of the Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union was in 1986, it is presented below. The Rules often appeared on many children's items, such as school notebooks.

Songs.

Young Pioneer songs were usually sung at various Young Pioneer meetings, in Young Pioneer camps, and at schools. One of the earliest and the most popular song was the "Young Pioneer March". It was written in 1922 by (music by Sergei Dyoshkin) and was sometimes called "The Anthem of Young Pioneers". There were a great many other songs, here are some very popular ones:

Colours of units of the VLAUPO.

These colours were in red with the organizational badge in the observe and in the reverse the name of the school detachment (elementary or secondary) or area authority (village/selsoviet, town/city, district/autonomous district, oblast/autonomous republic/autonomous oblast and republican) of the VLAUPO in gold lettering.

Awards.

The Young Pioneers who excelled in academic study, work, sports or social activity were elected to the self-governing institutions, were sent as delegates to the Young Pioneers gatherings (including All-Union ones). The most notable were recognized in the organization's Book of Honor. During World War II, many Young Pioneers fought against Nazis in partisan detachments and/or Party underground units, which existed near their homes on territories occupied by Nazi Germany and their allies, while Pioneers in areas away from enemy lines helped in the homefront efforts. Nearly 30,000 of them were awarded various orders and medals; four Young Pioneers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. One of the famous young pioneer All-Union camps was "Artek" located in Crimea, Russia, opened in the 1930s. The camp was located on the top of the mountain "A-yu-dahg" which means "Bear's Mountain". Only the best students were selected to go there based on their grades and leadership. Young communists from other countries were welcome as well.

The Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization (), abbreviated as the Young Pioneers, was a mass youth organization of the Soviet Union for children of age 9–15 that existed between 1922 and 1991. Similar to the Scouting organisations of the Western world, Pioneers learned skills of social cooperation and attended publicly funded summer camps.

弗拉基米尔·列宁全联盟先锋组织(,),即苏联少年先锋队,为1922至1991年苏联的先锋运动组织,成员年龄为10-15岁。