In connection with the election of new members of CANU and recent public reactions, where my name is also mentioned, I feel the need to come forward and clarify some things.
I knew that I had not been nominated, although the former president of CANU, Dragan Vukčević, had repeatedly hinted to me that he considered me the most serious candidate for CANU from the legal sciences. My reaction was that nothing would come of it, because I knew something about the selection process. In addition, I knew that one of the academics from CANU had long harbored animosity towards me. He was Dragan Radonjić, a former colleague from the Faculty of Law in Podgorica.
A few months ago I found out that Academician Vukčević had nominated Milan Marković for academician of legal sciences. I called him to ask if that was true. He confirmed it and told me to wait for the next election, because now I would not pass due to Dragan Radonjić's opposition. True, not by name, but clearly making it known who it was. Reminding me of the problem that arose with the printing of a book that was supposed to be published by CANU, but Dragan Radonjić prevented it. I replied that, as far as I was concerned, there would be no next election. I asked him to "erase" my name from his notebook, that I did not want to be a member of CANU and that I would not agree to humiliation.
I don't know if the real reason why Dragan Vukčević didn't propose me was that "I wouldn't pass", as he told me, or if it was just an excuse, so that he could propose his favorite. That's irrelevant now. I'm leaving those things behind, without anger. My biggest mistake is that I didn't say right away that I didn't want to be a member of CANU. I should have known what Montenegro was.
I understand the logic of proposing someone who has a better chance of passing. However, I think it is wrong. I guess the best should be elected to the academy. This way, the quality of the academy is being devalued, and the number of members is "inflated". As a comparison, SANU has three academicians from the field of legal sciences, and CANU now has five. Montenegro has ten times fewer inhabitants than Serbia, and more academicians?! Something is not right there.
I feel it is necessary to clarify this about the book, which is mentioned in the text of the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIN). It is a book that I wrote with Professor Borislav Ivošević, entitled "Maritime Law: A Comparative Legal Study". This book of over 900 pages is a major work on which Professor Ivošević and I worked for several years. When I mentioned the work on that book in a conversation with Dragan Vukčević, he suggested that the book be printed by CANU. In agreement with Professor Ivošević, I accepted this offer. When the book was finished, I took the text to CANU and handed it over to Dragan Vukčević. He said that for the sake of formality, a review by one of the academicians of CANU was required. And that is where the problem arose, because Dragan Radonjić, on the very day he received the text, refused to write a review, claiming that it was an ordinary textbook. It was a very unfair procedure, because he made the decision without even reading the book. Of course, that book is not a textbook. This follows from the subtitle "comparative law study". The study is not a textbook. The term "comparative law" indicates that it is comparative maritime law. Such a subject does not exist at any faculty in Montenegro. It is known what the procedure is for textbooks, what their purpose is, how they are written and which program they should be adapted to. It would have been correct if he had just said that he did not consider himself competent to evaluate a book on a subject that is not familiar to him. Not like this. The book was eventually printed in Belgrade and received very positive criticism from the professional public. One of the reviews stated that "the book represents a capital work and a comprehensive system of maritime law that has not been seen in the former Yugoslav territories for a long time, and that this book has thus raised the bar high in terms of demands for future works of this type". Thus, Dragan Radonjić, instead of contributing as a member of CANU to the progress of legal science in Montenegro, in a way "expelled" the book from Montenegro. Although Montenegro was the right place for a book on maritime law written by authors from Montenegro. The reason was not that it was a textbook, because that is pointless. The real reason is the animosity towards me that has a long history. At one time in the 90s, he "expelled" me from the Faculty of Law, as the then dean, handing me my resignation. For which I am immensely grateful to him. I do not know the reasons for the animosity, but I can guess.
One of the standards used by the University of Montenegro (UCG) to evaluate its teaching staff is the Google Scholar site, which lists available papers and citations. On that site, as far as I could see, Radonjić has only a few papers that have zero citations. On the same site, I have 86 papers, and one of them has been cited 242 times, almost entirely by foreign authors. Almost all of my papers have been published abroad, most in English, some in the world's most famous journals, from Canada, through the USA, England, France, Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Thailand, China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, all the way to New Zealand. Not all of my papers are listed on the aforementioned site. Some were published in Japan in Japanese, some were translated into Chinese. They are not on the Google Scholar site. Probably because the web robot does not recognize those languages. I have no doubt that Radonjić also has a few more papers, but that cannot come close to my results. If I were to list other references, such as memberships in international organizations, lectures and stays at foreign universities, presentations at international conferences, only then would it become clear how much of a difference there is between us. We belong to different and different worlds. And now a man who belongs to some third league, when it comes to references, should evaluate my references. So that he could say that I do not meet the criteria, as he said about that book. I am ready to accept many things in life, but I do not agree to humiliation.
Based on this year's elections, I concluded that the criteria and procedures at CANU are such that I can hardly fit in and "get through". More important than professional references are related relationships and interests, while personal intolerance and vanity can block entry to CANU. Along with this comes the unwillingness to stand behind principles due to fear of being resented, non-violence as a principle, conformism. That is why I told Dragan Vukčević that I did not want to be a member of CANU. If someone like Dragan Radonjić can block my election, that is not the place for me.
Complaints can often be heard that CANU is silent about current problems in Montenegrin society. In a recent reaction to this topic, some of the leading members of CANU justified their silence by saying that CANU was not asked for an opinion. Is it really necessary to wait for an invitation to express a position? What has caught many ears is that CANU cited, as an excuse for their silence, the fact that they do not want to get into the mud. I am afraid that Montenegro is deep in the mud and that CANU, perhaps before anyone else, needs to roll up its sleeves to get out of that mud. Who cares if you get a little dirty, if it is for the benefit of society and the state? If CANU cannot reach a consensus on an issue, which CANU cites as the reason for not responding (more precisely, silence), why would CANU members not go public with a position on their own behalf? That is almost non-existent, with rare exceptions. What is the problem?
The duty of leading intellectuals is not to remain silent about the problems facing a society. They are expected to point out problems, make suggestions and contribute to progress. Following this principle, I wrote about various topics that concerned my professional and personal habitus, where I believed I had something to say. I wrote about the harmful project of dams on the Morača River, the shameful verdict of the Court of Appeal in the Regional Waterworks case, about disrespect for the rule of law, misleading the people with unrealistic stories about Prevlaka, the harmful agreement with the UAE, the sale of the ships of the Montenegrin Shipping Company, the glorification of war criminals… My criticisms were never selective or politically motivated. I may have made a mistake somewhere. But never because of bad intentions or someone's interest. There are no infallibles among mortals. Infallibility is reserved for saints.
There has been a lot of talk about the perks that CANU members receive. Those who know me know that I have never run after money. I have earned enough for myself and my family, so that we can lead a normal life. I don't need it anymore. Why? Working and living abroad for decades, in a different culture, I have seen better from afar how "easy with money" people in Montenegro are. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that it has never been like this. Or at least not this much.
From the comments on the texts that can be read in the media, one can sense great dissatisfaction with the work of CANU. Almost all the comments are very negative. popular voice. I'm not sure if that voice of the people reaches up there. To the comfort zone. Above the mud.
From a positive perspective, this debate can be useful for CANU. Instead of trying to justify it, it would be more expedient to try to make reforms from within, in order to correct the shortcomings and create conditions for CANU to play a much more active and useful role in social processes and the progress of Montenegro. One of the things that should be done, in my opinion, is to redirect the funds that have so far been given to CANU members in the form of appanages to create a fund that would be used by young scientists from Montenegro. I think that this money is much more needed by young scientists who are at the beginning of their careers than by CANU members, who already have established careers and incomes on other grounds. It would be much better for CANU's image if this initiative came from CANU itself, and not from the non-governmental sector. This would help to cut down on the criticism about appanages that is currently being directed at CANU. In this way, CANU members themselves would show that they put the welfare of Montenegro ahead of their personal material interests.
The author is a professor emeritus of the Faculty of Law of Kyushu University
Bonus video:
