2 December 2022 – Online conversation
On 2 December 2022, an expert online seminar, „The Meaning and Future of State and National Symbols”, took place. The participants of the event were professors at Polish Universities. One of them was also a professor at Princeton University, and the other one was a specialist in Japanese law. For this reason, the discussion also covered the protection of state and national symbols in the USA and Japan.
Prof. Aleksandra Syryt welcomed the participants of the expert seminar on the meaning and future of state and national symbols. She thanked for the participation of specialists in private and public law (constitutional law, administrative law, financial law, international law of law human rights, computer law, criminal law, civil law), dealing not only with scientific work and educating students but also being experts in state institutions such as the Constitutional Tribunal, courts, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations.
Aleksandra Syryt introduced the seminar’s subject, which reflected on the social and legal meaning of national and state symbols. She underlined that research within the Central European Professors Network has shown that these symbols are legally protected goods at various legislative levels, including the constitutional level, in criminal, administrative, private, and sometimes economic law. These symbols are a part of national identity, help build community, and are a sign of the connection to the community. National and state symbols are a part of a state’s culture and historical heritage, building a state’s identity. On the base of the symbols, one can learn about the values on which the state and nation are built.
Aleksandra Syryt raised three issues for consideration. The first question was about the contemporary meaning of state and national symbols. The second issue – is whether there is a need for legal protection of state and national symbols – whether it is obsolete. And the third issue – how do you see the future of legal protection of state and national symbols in the context of contemporary challenges (social, pandemic, digitization, etc.)?
Prof. Agata Czarnecka (Princeton University, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń) enrich the legal discussion with a sociological perspective and an American perspective. She said there was a difference in how we perceive and protect legal national symbols between European countries. Sociology and political science usually distinguish between countries or states where identity is based on ethnicity and those usually based on political identity. Most European states are based on ethnical identity, even though it has changed over the course of time. On the other side of the ocean, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and countries are the most visible examples of states based on political identity. And they were established at some point in history, and immigrants from different parts of the world became their citizens. This division is very important when considering all kinds of national symbols.
Prof. Wojciech Kwiatkowski (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Constitutional Tribunal), an American law expert, presented Americans’ viewpoint on protecting national and state symbols. He illustrated it with examples and case studies. He also
showed the pictures presented violations of the protection of national and state symbols were committed. Wojciech Kwiatkowski underlined that American people are attached to their country’s flag. The respect for the flag sometimes reached religious views in many states, like Texas and Louisiana. The flag has become the powerful symbol of Americanism, and it’s flown on many occasions with giant outdoor and indoor slugs behind, used by retailers to attract customers. Americans attach great importance to the national flag, which does not prevent them from burning it or anything else. Prof. informed the participants about the current leftist revolution. The liberals, the left part of the US is, trying to install shame code into the flag to apologize for American imperialism.
Wojciech Kwiatkowski explained the relations between protecting national and state symbols and freedom of speech and expression.
Prof. Małgorzata Frysztak (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, District Court) shared a general opinion. She focused on how the issue of national symbols is regulated in Polish law in a very specific way (in some technical terms only). It is limited. In the opinion of Małgorzata. Frysztak national symbols, which represent the identity of some special group or nation, are also community-forming, which is very important. The research shows that social psychological crisis is connected to the lack of bonding, a community sense of belonging, support, and real support from a group that satisfies human needs. We can argue that nation is not very important and the first community with the greatest impact on our vicinity, but it can affect professional or material opportunities. These symbols deserve protection. There is only one problem: the practical possibility of enforcing some specific behaviours. Małgorzata Frysztak reminded the meaning of the national and state symbols as part of building the community. There is not only a matter of law but also a matter of human behaviours. Sometimes we can’t impose things by law, but we must educate people to be good citizens.
Prof. Jakub Czepek (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw) presented the protection of national and state symbols from an international and human rights perspective. He said that the national symbols were not only flags and coats of arms; they should be understood wider. Under the international law of human rights, these symbols should be regarded as an element of the identity of individuals and part of our national cultural heritage. Under international public law, one should regard them as an element of a nation’s common history. Jakub Czepek presented case law on the European Court of Human Rights, which referred to national and state symbols. He said it is not common to refer to national or state symbols before this Court. The symbols are present in judgments of ECHR but indirectly, and it is related to article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and freedom of expression.
Jakub Czepek underlined the need for legal protection of national and state symbols. Such symbols should be afforded certain protection, which is a matter of domestic law. In international law, they should be protected as the common heritage of a nation, emerging nation or a group, even an ethnic group. Prof. J. Czepek was afraid that there are more and more situations or more and more cases even before the European Court of Human Rights in which there is a question of how far the debate of a historical fact or national symbols can be taken into account.
Prof. Krzysztof Świtała (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw) made a few remarks on the problems of using national and state symbols in cyberspace. He presented the issue from the perspective of the European interoperability framework. Krzysztof Świtała explained the term „interoperability”. He said that is the ability to interact, for example, by utilizing electronic services. It is about sharing information, also sharing and marking such information as a national or state symbol.
Krzysztof Świtała explained that on the legal level, one can see the works activities regarding relations between the European and national levels of regulation. That regulation could be connected to sharing information regarding symbols. To have a coherent attitude to creating and presenting the symbols, one needs to have technical and legal standards. For example, in Poland, we have an act about symbols. There is a need to have proper regulation with some technical and semantic standards for data regarding graphic data regarding symbols, symbols of countries.
Prof. Ewa Płocha (Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, attorney at law) shared her opinion on the level of protection of national and state symbols from the perspective of criminal law. She recalled the provisions protecting certain national and state symbols in the Criminal Code. However, she drew attention to the issue of ensuring the protection of state symbols of other countries. At the same time, Ewa Płocha raised possible practical problems that may arise, for example, in connection with the war in Ukraine, regarding the protection of state symbols of Russia, especially the Russian flag.
In addition, she drew attention to possible violations of national and state symbols, e.g., in connection with the fact that they are used illegally for commercial purposes, in sports and during cultural events.
Aleksandra Syryt, referring to Ewa Płocha’s statement, pointed out that possible problems may also result from the improper use of state symbols of other countries by Polish public authorities.
Summing up the seminar, Aleksandra Syryt pointed out that the discussion participants raised many issues concerning the role and future of state and national symbols. The opinions referred to different levels of assessment. For this reason, the seminar participants considered that the subject matter was still open.
There is a future discussion on this issue: building national and state identity, freedom of speech or expression and building community and international relationships. There is the digital perspective of talking about protecting national and state symbols.
In the end, Aleksandra Syryt thanked the seminar participants for the interesting and multifaceted statements. She figured out that the seminar showed that national and state symbols occupy an important place in society and should be covered by legal protection. The degree of this protection depends on many factors; however, this matter should be based on proper civic and legal education.
