Institutional autonomy as an instrument to implement the right of individual academic freedom, better fits the collectivity that characterises modern universities, hut institutional autonomy and academic freedom are seldom treated in such perspective (compare: In 't Veld, Füssel, Neave, 1996, p. 56-57). An individual professor or student, only protected by academic freedom, is vulnerable vis-á-vis the State. Autonomy can, probably already did, replace academic freedom as the main vehicle for protecting the academic community as a group from the State. However, autonomy refers to institutional governance, and is only to a very small extent a prerequisite of individual academic freedom as Andén and Johansson-Dahre (1993) want us to believe. Their idea is rigorously followed by Romania which considers academic freedom rather as a collective right. Methods of modern steering and institutional governance, especially those based on strategie planning, financing models, peer assessment, and top-down incentives, are also a potential threat to academic freedom; the Romanian legal provision proves that too. On the ene hand, the State will have juridical problems in ensuring freedoms in domains it has attributed to institutions. Decentralisation implies that academic freedom is only effectively protected when the responsibility for its maintenance is decentralised toe. On the other hand: corporatie identity protected by institutional autonomy is not necessarily a condition for creative research that moves horizons and ensure academic freedom (although it certainly helps to win profitable research tenders). So, academicfreedom remains a prerequisite ofinstitutional autonomy and university life at large, and it is an open question whether academic freedom is still protected well enough. Granting more autonomy (decentralisation) does not relocate all responsibility. A new balance can befound by an institutional legal responsibility for academic freedom: to oblige the institution to guarantee and protect academic freedom within its walls. After all it may be a good idea to use the Romanian wording 'academic autonomy' at State and institutional level, but not as 'referring to institutional management, structuring and operation, teaching and scientific research activities, administration and financing' as in Art. 92.2 of the Romanian Education Law.

3.2 Communication

Both a higher education system and an individual institution can be compared with a 16th century fleet. The admiral's ship tries to organise the manoeuvres by waving flags hut when the battle really starts, the admiral can only hope that his captains and their crew follow his orders, if they can be given at all. A clear distribution of responsibilities and labour, as well as a good plan with which the crew is acquainted, are very important. These are only three elements of success. lt is crucial how freely and intelligently a crew can act. To control submarines, like which faculties and departments sometimes behave, requires more sophisticated management structure and style, especially when there is no radio contact. This metaphor makes clear what research proves and practice experiences: planning and steering higher education is difficult. Consequently, all models prescribe that interaction should increase, but when it comes to drafting regulations, and this cannot be avoided, the patterns of formal and informal communication pose particular problems for jurists. Two reasons:

• regulations are intrinsically meant to reduce and standardise communication, making patterns for it; not primarily to intensify interaction or to make it flexible;
• regulation based on public law is traditionally top-down communication.

These weaknesses can be repaired by another type of legal drafting. lt is possible to stimulate cooperation by regulations, and to create rules that enhance bottom-up communication. Instruments of public law are necessary, but not enough. A complementary set of juridical instruments should be based on equality between partners. Contract law is better adjusted to handle complex communication patterns. Neave and Van Vught (1 99 1) have dealt with 'conditional contracting' to improve flexible response and move the university from an institute for service to society, to an agency for public enterprise. They had only the relation between State and institution in mind, and did not develop the juridical implications of their idea any further. Van Vughts' cybernetic governance resembles governance through communication and mutual agreements. It complies with the concepts of steering by process-design and regulating by contracts.

3.3 Internationalisation

Higher education institutions all over the world have much in common; at a closer look there are many more differences. National features, cultural, political and legal traditions and local institutional habits are strong. Nonetheless, the numerous international contacts have made gateways from universities to other countries and cultures; learning from each other. The policy of internationalisation of universities was only followed by their ministries much later. Internationalisation provides an escape from overly regulating governments and protects academic freedom and institutional independence. A precondition is that supranational organisations only simulate co-operation and do not slide into administrative or regulatory functions. Internationalisation harmonises structures and it self co-ordinates developments, thus facilitating the advancement of teaching and research. lt has to be recognised that internationalisation makes government control less easy. This is a minor inconvenience; only undemocratic regimes profit from division and isolation of their academia. However, universities should not be allowed to build up a position as some multinationals have tried to create for themselves: one of 'praeter legem'. For example: international scientific networks create external pressure on the institution, even on the national budget, when it becomes very expensive to belong to them as in high tech and high-energy research. Links to specialised research as in space technology, require not only high investments hut also managerial and political attention way beyond the usual institutional structures. When the total budget is not increasing, other disciplines have to pay the price for what they easily regard as riding hobby horses. This creates additional tensions.
The academic mission and international openness are the most visible common characteristics of higher education. It is important that they share more, so as better to facilitate an open society in the terms of Popper (1966). Mismatches of the national systems and a terminology that is not internationally shared cause major obstacles for cooperation. Subsequently: regulating should have two vectors: tailor-made to serve institutional, national as well as international structures; harmonised to serve mobility without intensive administrative effort as is necessary now.