Posted on

IA’s suggestions for drafting the Resolution on the European integration

Upon the invitation by the Parliamentary Working Group for drafting resolution on the European integration, we have prepared suggestions and proposals as a contribution to this important process.

The proposals are based on the findings and recommendations from our research on the role of Parliament in the EU integration process.

As we were unable to have access to the current Draft resolution, our recommendations are structured in regard to the relevant segments which, in our opinion, the resolution should contain.

Our suggestions and recommendations of which can be found here. (in Montenegrin only)

Posted on

Comments on AP for the implementation of the Strategy for fight against corruption and organized crime

The process of developing the Action Plan for the fight against corruption and organized crime Strategy implementation for the period 2013 -2014.

We are willing to contribute to this process, so we have prepared comments on the draft action plan, based on our research, the findings and recommendations of our publications.

For work on the comments, we used a version of the document that we have received from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for political system, internal and foreign policy (January 29, 2013).

Comments in general can be found here. (in Montenegrin only)

Posted on

Stevo Muk in the political talkshow “From my point of view”

Stevo Muk, President of IA’s Managing Board, has been a guest of the political talkshow “From my point of view”, on TV Vijesti. The topic of the programme was the marking of the seventh anniversary of renewing Montenegro’s independence. other guests in the programme were Miodrag Lekić (Democratic Front), Milutin Simović (DPS) and Nedjeljko Rudović (Daily Newspaper “Vijesti”).

Watch the whole programme here:

Posted on

Committee for Anticorruption: Cure or Placebo?

Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro, made in May 2012, have envisaged the establishment of the Committee for Anticorruption, as a permanent working body. The competences of the new Committee include the monitoring and analysis of the work of state authorities, institutions, organizations and bodies engaged in the fight against corruption and organized crime, as well as the consideration of issues and problems arising from the implementation of laws, strategies and action plans in the field and proposing the measures for their improvement. Furthermore, the Committee is also in charge of considering petitions and its referral to the competent authorities.

Strengthening the Parliament’s role and more efficient fight against corruption and organized crime are among the key challenges that Montenegro has been confronted with in the accession process into the EU. Thus, the establishment of the Committee represents a chance for making a comprehensive progress in the required reforms. However, in order for it to efficiently use its competences and to overcome the challenges that may arise in its work, the Committee for Anticorruption needs to define the directions of its work and the relationship with other Committees and anticorruption bodies.

The objective of this paper is to pinpoint possible dilemmas in the work of the new Committee, as well as to present desirable interpretation of its competences aimed at strengthening the parliamentary role in the fight against corruption and organized crime.

Posted on

Press release: The Parliament Should Provide Access to Draft Negotiating Positions to all Interested Committees

The Parliament of Montenegro won’t be able to fundamentally contribute to progress in the negotiations with consideration of the draft negotiating positions solely on the sessions of the Committee for European Integration, closed for the public.

The Committee for European Integration will meet on 19 February, on session closed for the public, to consider a draft negotiating position on Chapter 26 – Education and Culture. It will be the first draft negotiating position discussed in the Parliament. Due to post-election dynamics, Chapter 25 – Science and Research was opened and provisionally closed without involvement of the Parliament during the preparation of the negotiating position.

The Government, following the practice of countries that have been so far negotiating for membership in the European Union, will not disclosed for the public and interested parties the content of the negotiating positions. However, the Parliament, opting for a more functional model for consideration of these documents, can itself provide a more active role and, thus, better control of the negotiation process. Specifically, the Committee for European Integration is excluded from the review process of harmonization of legislation. The parliamentary working bodies that are specialized in those specific areas of the negotiating chapters check compliance of the draft laws with EU acquis. Therefore, discussion on the draft negotiating positions in the Committee for European Integration will be deprived of the debate on substantive issues relevant to the course of negotiations. Nevertheless, it appears as the optimal model according to which the negotiating positions will be discussed at the joint sessions of the “parent” committees and the Committee for European Integration. To establish this model there are no formal obstacles in the Rules of the Procedure of the Parliament. Such model should improve the quality of the negotiation process, and the role of the Parliament in the process.

Jovana Marović
Research Coordinator

Posted on

Second Year Of Implementation Of The Law On Parliamentary Oversight In Security And Defense Sector

Institute Alternative organized a roundtable entitled “The second year of implementation of the Law on Parliamentary Oversight in the field of security and defense”, with the support of the Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces Geneva (DCAF).

We managed to gather all relevant stakeholders of parliamentary oversight of the security and defense sector and to hold a detailed discussion about the implementation of the Law on Parliamentary oversight in the field of security and defense in 2012.

For the purposes of this paper, we have prepared a monitoring report on the activities of the Security and Defence Committee in 2012 in aimed at meeting its legal responsibilities.

Here are some findings from the monitoring report on the implementation of the Law on Parliamentary Oversight in the field of security and defense in 2012:

Partly due to the parliamentary elections, the 2012 represents a step backwards when it comes to fulfilling responsibilities and measures envisaged by the Law on Parliamentary Oversight in the field of security and defense. A significant number of activities from the Oversight Plan is not carried out.

Last year was marked by the passivity of MPs of the ruling majority and opposition MPs in terms of initiating Parliamentary Oversight Mechanisms. There were only two initiatives for holding control hearings and none for a consultative hearing. By failing to review the annual work reports of the Police and the National Agency of Security, the Committee didn’t fulfill one of its most important commitments.

In 2012, the Committee didn’t use any of the numerous mechanisms available for the control of the implementation of the secret surveillance measures. This is particularly problematic if we consider that the parliamentary oversight in this area had not been carried out at all in 2011.

The Parliament is excluded from the decision to send members of civil protection, police and employees of the state administration to the peacekeeping missions abroad; It was not informed about their activities. Cooperation with civil society is significantly lower than in 2011, primarily due to failures to hold planned consultative hearings.

The mechanism of the visit is imprecisely defined, and the Committee does not adopt reports on completed visits. The Parliament on the plenum does not discuss reports on the parliamentary oversight submitted by the Committee during the respective year (and in 2012, there were nine reports). Regarding gender equality, situation in the Committee was not improved altough its structure changed following the 2012 general elections