•        If Russia is the main territory for this idea, we must note that in the 21^st century ideas must be kept by a stronger population²⁵; thus — the future of Eurasian ideas in Russia must be accompanied by a better demography. 3. Our opinion about Eurasia is expressed in a very «scholar language» for a correct order of ideas.

Eurasia is a great political concept, but not completes, because the map limits are not always well understand.

Looking to the world map, we must note that the human land is separated between two big parts, understood as Old World and New (Columbus) World. All scientists have a great problem when the want to separate the Old world, because:

Western Europe is more or less catholic, protestant or atheist and is strong separated by the eastern Europe (history and economy, mainly after European Union creation;

Eastern Europe don't have a real limit, because Russia is situated on both continents;

Southern Europe is presented much more as part of Western Mediterranean Sea;

Southern Europe is related — because of Gibraltar and the same sea to Northern Africa;

Northern Africa is separated by a big desert (Sahara) to the rest of African continent (which is much richer with mineral resources than the Maghreb and Egypt);

Near East or Proche Orient²⁶ means Turkey (the other state with double Eurasian continental dimension), Caucasus, Jordan river territory and Egypt (a country belonging mainly to another continent (African), with a step in Asia (by territory and history) and ho was occupied and created as modern state by European powers of 19^th century;

Near East is separated by the main Arabic population and energy resources by another strong desert;

---

Middle East has two important borders (mainly because of history): Central Asia — where the Russian influence is the main actor for the last almost 200 years — and the Chain Mountains Pamir — Himalaya;

India is separated by big rivers and big chain mountains to Pakistan (Indus), South East of Asia (yellow race) and China;

China is the Middle Empire, with one hand related to the south and with the other one to the north. Today we are not sure where Beijing looks straight: to Paciic Ocean or to Middle East, Russia and India¹ in the same time. Last years show us that both directions are possible; in our opinion, always the middle position obliged the state claiming this position to watch more carefully inside;

South East of Asia is related more with Australia, where an important position is kept by the United Kingdom (the same chief of state In Australia and New Zealand);

Japan represents — somehow — a padlock for almost all Asian powers with interests of Paciic Ocean: here, the key belong to Washington sea power (on Mahan admiral doctrine).

Thus, we cannot consider that the actual dimension of Eurasia is correct, related with the geography and mainly to the history. Despite all innovative technology, the desert is still a desert, a big chain mountain remain on the same position.

It is true: maritime ships can transport a lot of products (it is very interesting to observe the Chinese offensive in weak Europe's ports²⁷) and pipe-lines create a faster way to transport energy resources, but we must understand another limits:

¹ India is an »obstacle for a perfect seeing» to the South African rivers and mineral resources.

Pipe-lines represent land states, land powers cooperating or in a perpetual competition (the differences between two attitudes is not always clear). In this case, we must note few moments when

---

tensions can create bigger problems, as blocking of oil transport in Ukraine or terrorist attacks on pipe-lines. In the same time, it is very easy to control a pipe-line, because it is stable on the land for kilometers, and no one can pay guards for every 100 meters to have a perfect safety of them;

Maritime transport means to control the straits, and for Eurasia there are four very important ones: Skagerrack, Gibraltar, Malacca and the sea in the front of Arabian Peninsula, to control Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. We see here a strong position of United Kingdom, USA and to the sea powers by excellence. Inside this perimeter, there is Bosporus, Suez channel and a lack of military leet for the «land powers of Eurasia».

As conclusion: the author believe that Eurasia is a small concept, we need to add here Africa too — minimum the northern part, from French part of Senegal to Bab-el-Mandeb strait near the Ethiopia and Somalia; today Chinese politics introduce in the geopolitical equation whole Africa . and, in our opinion, soon we must be extend with Australia.

In this case, every state must understand its political dimension and its role on the Eur-Asi-African (our tri-continental proposal), named EAA, and to play well its card.

Following this idea, we must note the words of Professor J.L. Granatstein, on April 2011, at the reunion of Canadian Forces College1: «can a small or middle power have a Grand Strategy? Former diplomat Daryl Copeland deined Grand Strategy as a unifying, long-term vision of a country's global values and interests; an expression of where the country is, and where it wants to go in the world; and an analysis of its potential and capacity to achieve its objective. I consider it a core element of statecraft.

That sounds dificult to derive for most nation-states, but to me it does not sound like Grand Strategy, at least not for smaller powers. Smaller countries can ight wars against other smaller powers or

---

maneuvers to avoid them. They can join Great Power alliances or not. They can follow particular economic policies or decide not to. But they do not have Grand Strategies because they lack the human, industrial, and military resources to sustain them. In other words, the God of Grand Strategy is only found on the side of the big battalions. But small countries do have, like every other state, national interests, and their policies are (or should be) focused on advancing or protecting these interests and on their national survival.»

4. If we analyze Eurasia in this dimension, we must express another idea about the legal concept of Eurasia.

Legal concepts exist as it is written. In this scientiic branch, words are words, and they cannot be understood in different senses. For any word it is a clear deinition and a complex base for any different sense regarding any legal institution²⁸.

Eurasian is not a concept for legal sciences; we need international treaties to proclaim the existence of this new legal institution. Thus, the author will analyze briely only few ideas, because the potential for this scientific debate is huge and we don't have here enough space for it.

First of all, we must underline that inside Eurasia there are many legal systems, with many traditions — to create a real, single and unite Eurasia as concept and political entity, we need to harmonize these differences. For that, we can use only the legal principles, but

¹ E. Balan: Institutii administrative (Administrative institutions), CH Beck,

Bucharest, 2008, p. 8

«Although confirmed by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the idea that there exist general principles of law that are recognized by civilized nations has lost ground in recent years. This fact raises the question of whether such general principles have any order-providing meaning or value beyond the State. If compared to the apparently «natural» systematic structure of state legal orders, the global legal space appears to lack a body of general rules and seems dominated by sectionalism and fragmentation. Indeed, it resembles the medieval legal order,

---

characterized as that was by the simultaneous presence of various legal orders competing with each other. In reality, studies of legal history have led to a different understanding. We now know that that systematic structure was not natural. It was an integral part of a general pattern of morphological transformations undergone by the legal orders of states.))²⁹

In this case, we don't know which legal principles must be fulilled, because there are many differences between European continental law and religious Islamic law; between Chinese system law and the Britain law. For this debate we can write books, but, of course, in national parliaments it will be a complicate debate, because no one wants to renounce to the history (at least).

Second question: if we want a single Eurasia, where it might be the capital of the state? Any political entity without a center (capital) collapse in less than 5 years: thus, where it must be!

Logics speak: at the middle of the distance, because it is necessary to offer equal access to all persons to all services which are ruled from this big center. So, we can look to Caucasus, maybe to the Near East: Damascus — or Baghdad? ... Islamic capital means a different kind of administration of it, because here it was in the last two decades the most important military conlicts — it is need to a new urban architecture, for a capital of almost 4 billion inhabitants!

A lot of new institutions must be settled in this new capital: a Eurasian parliament, which must be able to adopt important, ethic laws, with a great availability for lexible interpretation, because:

5. These laws cannot be applied from the irst moments, because it will be a great problem with internal constitution of the states, and with all secondary (administrative) legislation;

6. Looking to European Union constitutional treaty of 2006 and to the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, we can see the huge dimension of the texts³⁰: if this it was possible for a group of 27 states with

---

Смотрите также файлы

• Левиафан выпуск 3.pdf

• Левиафан выпуск 4.doc

• Левиафан выпуск 4.pdf

• Левиафан выпуск 5.doc

• Левиафан выпуск 5.pdf