Recent world events have created a compelling need for new perspectives and realistic solutions to the problem of sovereign debt. The success of the Jubilee 2000 movement in raising public awareness of the devastating effects of debt, coupled with the highly publicized Bono/O'Neill tour of Africa, and the spectacular default and economic implosion of Argentina have helped spur a global debate over debt. A growing chorus of globalization critics, galvanized by the Catholic Church's demand for forgiveness and bolstered by recent defaults, has put debt near the top of the international agenda. Creditor governments and international financial institutions have belatedly recognized the need for more sustainable progress on debt as an inescapable step towards economic recovery in many parts of the world. This book is intended to advance the dialogue around these issues by providing a comprehensive overview of the problems raised by debt and describing new and practical approaches to overcoming them. It will be the first in more than a decade to bring together under one cover the voices of prominent members of the international debt community. It will include pieces from the most relevant constituencies: from creditors (the IMF/World Bank, government lenders, private investors) to critics (debtor representatives, activists, and academics) and analysis from economists, bankers, lawyers, social scientists, and politicians. As contributions come from such leading thinkers across a range of disciplines, this book will offer a timely guide for understanding and influencing the debt debate.

The modern Romanian judiciary originates in the middle of the nineteenth century. The structure of the judiciary follows both the French model (the civil matters), and the Italian one (the commercial regulations). The Ministry of Justice plays a significant role in the administration of the judiciary. Romanian is a Roman language, and Romania has had long-standing cultural ties to France that were carried over to the legal sphere.

In the former (second) Yugoslavia (1945-1991) which was a federal state, according to the constitutional provision on the federal character of the state, judicial system was organized on the level of federal units (republic and provinces) and on the federal level only consistency of the case law was provided by the revision function of the Federal Court (cassation). Furthermore the Federal Attorney prosecutes the most severe crimes against the state and political order, taking into account the ideological charters of that order.

In this report we examine the role of internal and external factors in advancing or preventing "democratic rule of law" reforms in Turkey over the last decade. We focus particularly on the role of the EU in trying to influence domestic reforms. We underline the interaction between domestic actors and this external actor. We primarily aim to figure out why, when, where and how has the EU managed to influence rule of law reforms and where it has failed to make a real impact. In conceptualizing this influence we distinguish between direct (through government-to-government pressure etc.) and indirect (through empowering domestic reformists strengthening pro-reform civil society, or coordinating with other international organizations to maximize external pressures) impacts.

Prepared for the workshop organized by Sabanci University, Stanford University and Centre of European Excellence - University of Florence on "Europeanisation and Democratisation: The Southern European Experience and the Perspective for New Member States of the Enlarged Europe", Istanbul 10-11th December 2005.

In an article written for the current issue of the Washington Quarterly by Larry Diamond, Michael McFaull and Abbas Milani, suggests that the U.S. government seek a comprehensive agreement with Tehran that would "end the economic embargo, unfreeze all Iranian assets, restore full diplomatic relations, support the initiation of talks on Iran's entry into the WTO, encourage foreign investment, and otherwise move toward a normal relationship with the Iranian government." In exchange, Iran would have to suspend its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner, accept fundamental human-rights principles and terminate its "support for terrorist groups and activities, including training, intelligence support, and weapons shipments for Hezbollah, Hamas, and radical Shi'ite militias in Iraq." As much as possible, it is important that the people of Iran are made aware of the proposal and its benefits: "badly needed economic development, foreign investment, increased employment, new educational prospects at home and abroad and more generally an end to Iran's international isolation." Diamond, McFaul, and Milani think the Iranian regime will probably reject this grand bargain, but by doing so the mullahs "further undermine their already weak legitimacy with a young, restive, and suffering people. The blunt exposure of the mullahs' obsession with defending their own power and privilege at the expense of the public could intensify popular unrest, further divide an already splintered regime, and eventually create the conditions for regime crisis and transition to democracy. Heads we win, tails they lose."