Kansankirkko, uskonnonvapaus ja valtio : Suomen evankelis-luterilaisen kirkon kirkolliskokouksen tulkinta uskonnonvapaudesta 1963-2003

A national church, freedom of religion, and the state The interpretation of freedom of religion formulated by the Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland in reference to the relationship between the Church and the state from 1963 to 2003 This paper discusses the interpretation of freedom of religion formulated by the Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland during the years 1963-2003. The effect of these formulations and decisions made by the Synod on the relationship between the Church and the state is also discussed as the relationship has been a central issue in the debate about freedom of religion in Finland. Active co-operation with the state caused a dispute in the Church during this period. Another cause for concern for the Synod, a strong defender of the national church, was the weakening position of the Church in a society undergoing many changes. As the Synod of 1963 discussed the status of the Church, the Church began to reflect upon its identity as a national church, and to evaluate freedom of religion in the country, as well as the relationship between the Church and the state. Some of the radicals of the 1960s and 1970s presented the Church as an obstacle to freedom of religion. The Synod was keen to emphasize that, in accordance with international agreements on human rights, freedom of religion means the freedom to have and follow a religion, and also that freedom of religion was a right of the majority in Finnish society. As an active guardian of the rights of its members, the Synod defended such issues as the teaching of religion in schools. Throughout the dispute, the Church focused on its right to act freely and, according to its identity, to express spirituality in the society. At the end of the 1960s, several efforts to reform the law on the freedom of religion and the relationship between the Church and the state gained favour in the Synod. These formulations of the Church were the basis for the work of a parliamentary committee in the 1970s, but no significant changes resulted. Instead, freedom of religion in Finland was judged to be fairly good. The committee paper did, however, lead to preparations for greater independence of the Church. The Synod at the time chose to react to the changes presented to it, but it was not before the 1990s that the Synod became an active force of reform in these matters. Though the Synod, particularly from the 1970s onwards, began clearly to favour the improvement of the position of other religious communities in Finland, it felt it had reason to be cautious as each church and religious community had the freedom to decide individually its relationship with the state. Any changes that would have weakened the position of the Church in Finnish society were met with disapproval in the Synod. Even though some theological concerns regarding the national identity of the Church were raised, the Synod emphasized issues of church policy. Keen to preserve and protect its legal status in society, the Synod judged that this status supported the freedom of action enjoyed by the Church as well as the freedom of religion.

Regional Integration and the State : The Changing Nature of Sovereignty in Southern Africa and Europe

The study explores the role of the state in regional integration processes. The question is approached through theoretical discussion and two case-studies - SADC (Southern African Development Community) and the EU. The main research question of the study is, what are the possibilities and problems of the integration process in Southern Africa and how do they differ from the possibilities and problems of the integration process in Europe. The undelrying question of the study is why do states decide to participate in an integration process where they have to limit their sovereignty. Review of the theoretical discussion of the integration studies shows that the integration process is affected by several factors on different levels of the international system. But the state plays a central role in integration processes - integration processes are inititated and carried on by the participatig states. The European integration process shows that the interests of the state can change over time. At the beginning of the integration process, the objective was to strengthen participating states. Later EU member states have decided that it is in their interest to deepen the process even if it has meant limitation of their sovereignty. The determinant factor has been that the member states have considered it to be in their interst to deepen the process. In Southern Africa the integration process is only at the beginning. SADC aims to establish a free trade area by 2008. The biggest challenge is how to implement the integration process so that it benefits all member states in a region that is economically dominated by South Africa. In practice this can be achieved through establishment of corrective mechanisms, which ensure equitable distribution of benefits. This would require deeper integration and South Africa to adapt responsibility towards its regional partners. African integration processes in general have not been as successful as for example the EU. African states have been reluctant to limit their sovereignty in favour of regional organisations.This can be explained by the differences between European and African states. The EU member states have been democracies while African states have been characterised by concentration of power in the executive branch. Furthermore the political systems in Africa have been characterised by vertical clientelist reltionships. As a result it has not been in the interest of the political elite to limit the state sovereignty in favour of regional organisations. In recent years SADC has been relatively succesful in its integration process and reforms, but a lot remains to be done before the implementation of the free trade area can be succesful. The institutional structure and treaties of SADC differ from the structures of the EU. Member states are the main actors of the integration processes. Their differences are reflected in the process and produce different kinds of integration in different parts of the world.