MENTOR CRITIQUE FORM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each Fellow works with one mentor who is Soros foundations
network-affiliated (usually Open Society Institute and Central European
University) and one or two ‘external’ mentor(s) who are experts in the
field working outside the Soros foundations network. Mentors should: 1)
Work with Fellows to devise a brief policy paper in their field(s) of expertise
based on a lengthy research paper written over the course of the fellowship
year, 2) Maintain contact with Fellows at least once every six weeks or
so by telephone, fax or e-mail to discuss the development of projects,
3) If feasible, meet with Fellows at least once during the fellowship year
to discuss the project, 4) Facilitate Fellows’ contact with other relevant
experts and participation in appropriate meetings (IPF has discretionary
funds to support Fellow attendance at relevant events), 5) Complete brief
mid-term and final critique forms supplied by IPF to provide the program
with feedback regarding the Fellow’s progress.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mentor name, position: Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova, Ph.D., S.J.D., Professor
Name of Fellow you have assisted: Renata Treneska – Deskoska, Ph.D., S.J.D.
1. What, in your opinion, have you and your Fellow/program/project gained from your cooperation thus far?
Intellectual partnership, brain storming through exchange of views, personal experiences and knowledge, up dating of comparative facts and figures, mutual analysis of current processes in the sphere of constitutional justice which confirm project hypothesis and need for changes.
2. Do certain areas of this Fellow’s work need improvement? Which areas?
Not improvement, because the problems are clearly identified and
the proposals are adequately chosen, but both the fellow and mentor are
aware that some of the recommendations could not be implemented in the
short period of time, because Macedonian Constitution was recently changed
and there is no strongly expressed will for deep reforms in this area.
Nevertheless there is a need for enlightenment role of scientists in order
to prepare conditions and atmosphere for reforms.
3. In your opinion, does your Fellow’s project make a significant
contribution to the field?
YES – NO
Yes. Sincerely, there is a need for more projects in this very important area having in mind: first, long tradition of constitutional judiciary in Macedonia (since 1963); second, rich activity of the Constitutional court in the last decade; and third, lack of specialized researchers and projects in this area. Ten years post-socialist existence and work of the Constitutional court is sufficient period for evaluation of its legal and real status.
4. Would the project be important to other countries in the CEE/fSU
region?
YES – NO
Yes, very important, especially for neighbouring countries, with
same background, similar problems and goals for promotion of legality and
constitutionality and protection of basic human rights and civil liberties.
There is a special need for cooperation and exchange of views and experiences
among scientists from these countries. We should meet each other, not only
at the conferences of International Association of Constitutional Law,
but also at some regional meetings of the scientists and judges, creating
strategy for influence to the policymaking process.
5. Could the proposed policy research make an impact on the policy
environment in specific countries or regions? (Policy makers, experts and
policy research community)
YES – NO
Of course, both on policy environment in Macedonia and in the
neighbouring countries and countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Renata
is well-known expert in the scientific public and respected person by policy
makers and policy research community that is very interested in her opinion
on different constitutional issues.
6. Is the timetable for the project realistic?
YES - NO
Yes, in regard with the phases of research, but much more time
is needed for building strategies and especially lobbying for implementation
of the proposals.
7. Could the project benefit a large number of people?
YES - NO
Yes, other experts, representatives of policy research community, policy makers, students, NGOs that deal with this materia and citizens, because the projects searches for proposals for better human rights protection.
8. Does the Fellow show evidence that he/she can think strategically
about the relevant project and/or field?
YES - NO
Indeed, she grow up in thoughtful, serious, brave and creative young scientists with whom is worth working and competing in search for answers to many open questions. Theoretical knowledge and empirical experience are strong guarantees for strategical thinking.
9. If the Fellow were to re-apply for continued OSI funding for
follow-up work associated with the project, would you support continued
funding?
YES - NO
Yes, surely, knowing that there is always need for consideration of unpredicted situations, lot of contacts in the country and in the region, consultations with stakeholders, testing of the hypothesis and refreshing the ideas.
10. Are there other appropriate funders that may support the project?
YES - NO
Yes, if there is an understanding and will by COLPI, Council
of Europe, OESCE, Bar Associations.
Recommendations for other potential senior contacts for this Fellow:
Knowing that she is member of International Association of Constitutional
Law, I recommend her to contact some distinguished names in this materia,
as: prof. Kristian Stark, prof. Julian Rivers, prof. Franc Grad, prof.
Ciril Ribicic etc.
Additional Comments:
It is a pleasure to teach somebody and to be taught at the same
time.