Human Rights Europe

Neil's diary: A human rights youth worker in Albania - Day 2

2011-11-24T18:14:00.000+01:00

I sit with new people today and we discuss the situation of youth work in Romania, France, Scotland and Albania and found common practices and issues. We shared some ideas about changes to practice that we all found useful.

Morning Sessions

We speak as a group about the different terms used in youth work and how the definitions differ in each country.

I take part in an activity involving Hart’s Ladder of Participation and heard how Camille (French (French national who works in Germany) works for an organisation which allows young people and adult to share decision-making. Many of the group were surprised to see this as many felt that the desire in youth work was for young people to be in charge. We debate this point and agree with Hart’s Ladder in that many adults have knowledge and life experiences that can add to the value of youth work.

Sadly many of the group say they experienced being tokenised and manipulated in the past. There was concern that this puts off many young people from participating and this should be addressed in our work.

After a coffee break and some Albanian donuts, we settle back in to a discussion on the participation of young people, focussing on whether participation is a human right. In smaller groups we discuss this concept and were in agreement with the view that “participation and active citizenship is having the rights, the means and the support to participate and influence decisions… so as to contribute to building a better society.”

Afternoon Sessions

After another exceptional four course lunch, we work in smaller groups and examine a topic that young people may be able to influence and how they can do this. My group looks at how young people can tackle crime and violence within their communities and the actions which could be taken.

Albana (Albanian participant) works as a teacher and informed us that at present, young people do not have much influence in this area. We suggest to the plenary group that young people can take action to raise awareness of crime, encourage young people to report if they are a victim of crime and to create crime prevention councils with their local authorities, community and police so that all stakeholders are involved. We feel that work should be done using peer educators so that trained young people are able to give consistent messages to their peers about crime and steps they can take to prevent it.

In the final session, we discuss different styles of leadership. We watch short video clips which show different leaders speaking to their followers/employees. My favourite one was the Scottish national hero Sir William Wallace. Naturally he was defined as an inspirational leader.

We took on the task of producing a drama with one of the leadership styles and we all presented these to the plenary group. It was brilliant. We used real life situations and although it was very funny, it was also very serious.

NGO Market

At 9pm we set up a market with stalls that highlighted our work or good practice in our communities. It was very interesting to discuss the projects. I learn about the work of Save the Children in Romania and Bledar informs me about the work of the Institute of Romani Culture in Albani. I respond with what I believe are difficulties faced by the travelling community in Scotland and the United Kingdom. It was clear from this why the Council of Europe has taken action to involve the Roma people with its work to ensure better representation.

That is it for today Europe – I am off to bed very tired but full of new information that will inform my practice.

Neil Wotherspoon is a Scottish youth worker who successfully applied to the Council of Europe for human rights training.

Diary of a human rights youth worker - Day 1

2011-11-22T09:33:00.002+01:00

Neil Wotherspoon is a Scottish youth worker who successfully applied to the Council of Europe for human rights training.

I woke up today and headed down to breakfast for 8h. Lovely! I had some salad, meat and an omelette was made fresh before me.

Official Opening

The session began in the plenary room and it was translated into Albanian and English. Aldo Bumçi (Albanian Minister for Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sport) addressed the meeting and spoke about democracy being part of the new society in Albanian. He made clear that with democracy comes rights and responsibilities and that as citizens, we must involve ourselves in debates about youth work, health, education and other issues. He said that there is a moral crisis due to a movement of values and that this can be seen in former Communist countries and also in countries with debt crises.

He was positive about the Council of Europe training course and that this was important for sharing ideas with other European organisations. Bumçi, a young man himself, spoke about young people in Albania having access the government and wanted to work to strengthen this practice.

Marco Leidekker, the Head of the Albanian Office of the Council of Europe (CoE), spoke about it being an all purpose organisation. He told the session that the CoE primarily promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law, so it was natural that it should have a focus on youth work.

He spoke of the pan-European challenge of young people accessing the labour market and stated clearly that the labour market and society to should be inclusive of young people. He made clear that young people should participate more in the decision-making process and should not just be observers.

The CoE Albanian Office is working with young people to educate them about democracy to ensure that it becomes natural for future generations of Albanians to vote, stand for elections and take part in democratic processes.

He finished his address by sharing his hope that all those in attendance would build relationships that would benefit the organisations we represent and therefore benefit the young people with whom we work.

We then heard from the United Nations FPA that Albania is the pilot nation of the One United Nations programme and that the new programme cycle will run until 2016 with reproductive health and gender issues being the focus.

At coffee break, I had the opportunity to speak with the Minister (that's me on the right of the photo!) about what his hopes are for the youth sector in Albania. These are very similar to the ones we have in Scotland. He wanted a more structured approach to participation and said that Albania is fortunate to have many younger people in the government. We discussed our cultures and he suggested places of interest in Albania. The Official Representatives left and we continued with the plenary session.

Aims and Objectives

We discussed the purpose of the training course and what our individual contribution will be. We then discussed our fears and expectations which involved moving around the room and placing our written notes onto the wall for everyone to see.

The exercise showed, once again, that we all had many things in common. We discussed the methodology that will be used and about how we all learn differently and should be respectful of this. We made an agreement to mix with each other and sit beside someone knew at every meal to share experiences and noted that our diversity is our strength. Respect, empathy, openness, trust and a sense of humour were all considered to be important traits of a good working relationship and we agreed we would work to this.

Lunch

Oh my, what a feast! A four course lunch full of Albanian flavours and foods and this helped with our initial discussions as the women spoke about how there was a lot of food and then men said it was a good amount – many things cross cultures! We discussed volunteering within Albanian culture and that it is viewed by most as a positive activity but that it required a more formal structure including recognition of its value.

Reality in Albania

Everyone was really eager to return to the agenda to discuss the current situation in Albania. In smaller groups we examined a section of the CoE document ‘Youth Policy in Albania’ and I learned a lot about the Albanian Higher Education system.

My group agreed with the conclusions of the CoE document and I shared suggestions of how the Scottish system of education is monitored and shared experiences of student life in our universities. We gave suggestions to the plenary session about improving student equipment, libraries, student associations and so on. We also felt there should be an independent body that scrutinises educational establishments and makes the findings public to encourage good practices and quality in teaching.

Who is the Youth Worker

Everyone wanted to get to know new people and so we were put into groups in silence with others of the same coloured sticker on our backs. This got our energy levels back up as it was now 16h and we were getting tired. The CoE allowed provided a self-assessment tool to examine what we do well and what we need to improve on as youth workers. It created a good discussion within our small groups.

Time to Reflect

After the plenary session listened to the different roles of each youth worker, we were able to identify what practices we had in common and we agreed to use this to create discussions later in the week. We held our small reflection group to discuss more personally how we felt the course was going and if we were happy with the current arrangements.

Where has the time gone?

Diary of a human rights youth worker

2011-11-21T11:53:00.000+01:00

Neil Wotherspoon is a Scottish youth worker who successfully applied to the Council of Europe for human rights training.

20 November: Day of Arrival

Today, I set off for a Council of Europe training course in the Albanian capital of Tirana. The course will cover youth participation and policy and I am quite excited.

Last night was my engagement party so I am very tired as I head towards Glasgow Airport. A 29 year old Scotsman in Albania… this is going to be so much fun.

After landing at a foggy Gatwick airport and a brisk walk through to the flight for Tirana, I settled down to catch up on some very important sleep. As we began our descent in Tirana I was taking in the sites: hill top villas; large blocks of flats; beautiful scenery. It is sunny!

I took an airport taxi and asked to be taken to Chateau Linza. I do not speak Albanian and the driver did not speak English but we did manage to communicate. We were two Europeans, connected by a common heritage and both excited to be in a car with someone from a different country.

We found that we both knew a small amount of Russian and the driver was able to tell me about the museums and statues of famous people. It is amazing how we were able to communicate using a language of which we both knew little.

I arrived in Chateau Linza and met my roommate – a Macedonian called Viktor. We get on very well so far and have been sharing stories about our countries and our work.

People were arriving from all over the Council of Europe region and so today, we did not have a full work programme.

To break us in gently, there was a lovely dinner of Italian meatballs – Albanian style! and a 'welcome session' at 21h.

The welcome session was really good and we had a few ice breakers. The age range is mixed but we are all motivated for the same reasons – to learn more from our European family to improve the way that younger citizens are involved in society.

We finished and said goodnight to each other and I headed to bed – oh how I need it. Viktor is already sleeping as I type so I am signing off for now Europe and I will fill you in with how the official 'Day One' goes.

We will be looking at young people and how they are a part of society followed by mapping the Youth Sector. It will be hard work and I am looking forward to it!

More information

Listen to Neil Wotherspoon in the podcast 'Europe's Youth Crisis'

Europe's migration debate needs facts not emotion

2011-11-03T15:01:00.002+01:00

In a speech at Leiden University earlier today, Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland called for the debate on immigration in Europe to move from emotion to facts.

“The challenge for politicians and leaders in all walks of life is to move the debate on migration from emotions to facts,” Jagland declared during his visit to the Netherlands.

“We cannot escape demography,” he added. “As the stabilisation of the Euro is surely the most acute short-term challenge in Europe right now, our biggest long-term challenge is how to manage migration, not only from a legal viewpoint, but especially from a political and cultural viewpoint."

More information
Human Rights and Migration

Speech by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland,
Secretary General of the Council of Europe,
at the Leiden University,
3 November 2011

Check against delivery / embargo until delivery

Your excellencies,
Distinguished academics,
Scholars and students at Leiden University,

When I look at Europe these days I am reminded of my favourite British TV-series, “Yes Minister” where the civil servant, Sir Humphrey explains to his minister why Britain had to become a member of the European Union. As he said: “We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work”.

“Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.”

And when the minister calls it appalling cynicism, Sir Humphrey replies: “Yes Minister, we call it diplomacy”.

Dear friends,

Europe needs diplomacy and Europe needs clear and daring leadership to take on the worst crisis in Europe since the second World War. The crisis is economic, but its implications are much broader. They oblige us to look at some very important questions in a new light. Migration is one of these questions.

Let me start be reminding you of a fundamental fact – that Europe has always been a place of diversity. Europe has never been static in a cultural or demographical sense. The French historian, Jacques Le Goff, once defined Europe as a continuingly changing place, a place always in motion, never a closed circuit.

And this is what we must remember: that Europe is a place where nations, cultures and people meet and mix and that this constitutes our true identity. Properly managed, this diversity gives us great strength. Mismanaged it risks to weaken us greatly.

What is the driving force behind migration? I believe it to be the same force that is behind the Arab Spring. The universal desire for human dignity. The quest for freedom and for life worth living.

Europe is keen to help our neighbours. The Arab Spring can result in a friendly southern neighbourhood which shares universal values and civilizational goals. At the Council of Europe we are currently
co-operating with both Morocco and Tunisia in an effort to help them to establish democratic institutions.

Many speak about Europe’s decline, and against this background of the present crisis, criticism is not surprising, and often well-deserved. Europe remains a factor. In spite of the current difficulties, we represent the most successful model of regional integration, innovation and solidarity.

We represent an attractive model of combining economic performance with social welfare, and we can be proud of the balance between the individual and collective rights of the members of the society we have established. The crisis is putting this model to the test, but this is a test we cannot afford, and will not afford to fail.

This achievement can be attributed in many respects to the European Convention on Human Rights which provides every citizen with the unique right to seek justice against their own government. The Court of Human Rights is the centre-piece of the European system of human rights protection.

Human rights are universal, but Europe is the only place where we have mechanisms which member states are legally committed to, and where these rights are enforced through an international Court.

For a discussion on migration this is especially important. A large proportion of the European Court of Human Rights' case-law concerns asylum issues.

The situation of the most vulnerable groups of asylum-seekers, and notably unaccompanied minors, is of key importance to our democracies and human rights standards.

Due to their ‘irregular’ status, these people rarely seek assistance from the authorities and often become victims of traffickers, criminals and unscrupulous employers.

A very telling example is the recent case of M.S.S. against Belgium and Greece. This is a case which highlights the prominence of this topic in the work of the Court, and the relevance of the convention and the Court’s case-law for the member states’ asylum policies and practices.

This case concerned the expulsion of an asylum seeker to Greece by the Belgian authorities in application of the EU Dublin II Regulation.

The Court condemned both Greece and Belgium. It condemned Greece because of the applicant's detention conditions and because of the deficiencies in the asylum procedure followed in the applicant's case.

The Court also condemned Belgium for having exposed the applicant to risks linked to the deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Greece and of having exposed him to detention and living conditions which amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Another important case which I would like to share with you is the Rahimi against Greece case. The Court held that the conditions in which a minor migrant from Afghanistan was held in a detention centre and subsequently released with a view to his expulsion was contrary to the Convention.

These cases illustrate the importance of ensuring that, in spite of their status, irregular migrants are treated in a humane and dignified manner, especially when detained and deported.

But how do we know that the detention conditions are inhuman and degrading? We know this because we have another very important mechanism of the Council of Europe, namely the Convention on Prevention of Torture.

The CPT is a unique monitoring mechanism which enables officials to visit any prison or detention centre in Europe to identify cases of non-compliance with human rights standards. Because of this, and because of the work of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, we know that the situation in Greece is alarming and needs to be greatly improved.

Yes, these cases remind us of how much still needs to be done to achieve a common European asylum system which is fully respectful of human rights.

But these cases also demonstrate the unique instruments which we have to hand at the Council of Europe to address these issues and to advance our human rights standards. It is an illustration of human rights at work.

Dear friends,

The rules for managing globalisation can only be based on the fundamental principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

In Europe we have made these principles into legally-binding commitments, and this way of implementing human rights will ensure that Europe remains a global leader for decades to come.

But there is no place for complacency. As the stabilisation of the Euro is surely the most acute short-term challenge in Europe right now, our biggest long-term challenge is how to manage migration, not only from a legal viewpoint, but especially from a political and cultural viewpoint.

So let us add some more facts: Migration has brought millions of new people to our countries. In 2010, 9.4% of the total EU population was born outside their resident country. Of these, 6.3% - that is 31.4 million – were born outside the EU. The largest absolute numbers of people born outside the EU was in Germany with 6.4 million. For the Netherlands it stands at 1.4 million people.

But not only the EU countries have been affected. In Russia the migrant population exceeds 13 million. In my own country – Norway - the number of immigrants in 2010 was calculated to be 11.4% of the total population. Indeed there are already a dozen European States where the population with foreign roots exceeds 10 percent of the overall number of residents.

At the same time the other facts are clear. Europe needs between 40 and 60 million immigrant workers by 2050. Without them there will be simply no chance of sustaining Europe’s level of prosperity and welfare.
We cannot escape demography. Europe's population is ageing.

In some countries the choices are very dramatic: Italy will need to raise its retirement age to 77 (seventy seven!) or admit 2.2 million immigrants annually to maintain its worker to retiree ratio.

No aging developed country in the world can do without migration. Even Japan with all its history of isolationism and homogeneity had to negotiate agreements with other nations to import the labour force.

In many ways you could say that migration has been Europe’s destiny and need, but we must also recognize that it has changed our societies.

In recent months, political leaders, including Prime Minister Cameron, Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, have said - more or less explicitly - that multiculturalism has failed.

These leaders are not against cultural diversity, but their statements reflect that something has gone wrong; that traditional policies have not worked.

We are seeing the emergence of so-called parallel societies, which in their most extreme form have led to home-grown terrorism.
We are also seeing increased discrimination in Europe. Minorities like Roma, as well as Muslims, are being marginalized and stigmatized. Anti-Semitism is also on the rise in several countries.

Even before the current refugee crisis, xenophobic parties had been gaining popularity in many European countries. As a result of extremism – in all camps – our societies are becoming increasingly polarized. If this trend continues, it will soon present a very real and concrete danger to stability and security in Europe.

This is why last year I asked a group of nine experts, academics and former politicians under the leadership of Joschka Fischer to identify the threats to open societies and to put forward recommendations about how we can truly live together.

The conclusion of the report is very clear on two points.

One, that our societies are very diverse; and two, that we are not very successful in managing that diversity.

The report is a first attempt to establish a fundamental debate on how to transform diversity from a potential threat to a real benefit for our societies.

For me personally, the most urgent priority is to deal with the parallel societies. What we need to do is to create societies in which people can live with each other. We have to harmonise our concept of open societies against the background of growing diversity.

We should remember that immigrants bring creativity and strive for success in life like everyone else. They are a source of new energy which Europe needs to embrace in order to stay competitive in the world.

If we want to achieve this goal, we must also allow everyone to maintain his or her identity. How many of you would want to abandon your identity should you settle down outside the Netherlands? Not many I suspect.

Our identity is an integral part of our richness, of our strength. But – and I underline this – identity must never come at the expense of what holds us together as a society: our common values.

The economic crisis has exposed the fact that the public debates in many countries are mostly driven by emotions and not by reason. We know from history that when times are difficult, the other is often identified as the root cause of the misery.

Already in 2007 a Euro barometer survey found that only 4 out of 10 EU citizens felt that immigrants contribute positively to their country.
Also in the Netherlands, many Dutch people do not see the ethnic and cultural diversity of the Netherlands as an enrichment, but as a threat. Reports say that as much as 61% of the population feel there are tensions between ethnic minorities and the ethnic Dutch.

In 2009 between 35% and 40% of people agreed that the Netherlands would be a more pleasant country if there were fewer immigrants living here.

The only area where the contribution of migrants is probably well appreciated is sport. If you play well for your national football team, your place of birth, colour or religion do not matter.

Of course we have to discuss how integration works or, on the contrary, does not work. Some 15% and 20% respectively of first-generation people of Turkish and Moroccan origin consider themselves Dutch. The proportion is considerably higher for the second generation.

This shows clear progress, but there is cause for concern: half of younger people of Turkish and Moroccan origin do not feel wholly or predominantly Dutch.
The emotional picture is however – that migrants take our jobs, cheat on social benefits, monopolise social housing, generate criminality and practice alien values.

These prejudices would not hold if there was nothing true in them.
It is for instance true that no less than 54.7% of young men of Moroccan origin in Rotterdam have had at least one brush with the law compared with 18.4% of ethnically Dutch young men. But that is only the face of the problem. The real one is social exclusion.

Dear friends,

The challenge for politicians and leaders in all walks of life is to move the debate on migration from emotions to facts!

The Report on “living together” is a first attempt in this direction. Its main message is that if Europe wants to remain a region of peace and relative prosperity, we have no other choice than to embrace diversity, and to embrace it fully.

The Report underlines the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights, especially individual freedoms and equality before the law.

From there we must start with common standards and policies concerning asylum seekers and irregular migrants. One fact is that in Europe there are more than 10 million irregular migrants without any rights whatsoever. This is inacceptable.

And we must recognise that identities are a voluntary matter for the individuals concerned.

People want to have multiple identities. European societies need to embrace diversity, and accept that one can be a “hyphenated European” – for instance a Turkish-German, a North African-Frenchwoman or an Asian-Brit – just as one can be an African- or Italian-American.

But this can only work if all long-term residents are accepted as citizens and if each individual, regardless of their faith, culture or ethnicity, is treated equally by the law, the authorities and their fellow citizens.

Like all other citizens in a democracy they should have a say in law-making, but neither religion nor culture can be accepted as an excuse for breaking it.

Dear friends,

Freedom is nothing but a chance to do better, the writer Albert Camus once wrote. Most of us want that chance.

The quest for freedom is the strongest force in the world. Man’s will to overcome tyranny and injustice has changed the world over and again. It has brought people together, it has encouraged innovation and it has marked our humanity.

Freedom by way of a democratic society has made man free and able to manage himself. It has become a life worth living.

Also migrants are looking for this. A life worth living. A life in dignity.
Today globalization exposes us to diversity with an unprecedented speed and scope. The increasingly-free movement of ideas, cultures and individuals is confronting our identity with different, sometimes conflicting ideas, views, habits and customs.

For many, a reaction is to protect our national identity. Nationalism is our refuge.

But I say to you that nationalism has always come from something bad and nationalism has always led to something bad.

The current crisis in Europe has unveiled a trend of re-nationalisation. It should be stopped and reversed.

Europe has become a place to build and to strengthen our common identity. To respect our values and to exchange ideas, cultures and criticisms which are necessary to advance together.

We have established an alternative to nationalism and terrible wars based on our common heritage, with our common values firmly anchored in a unique institutional structure.

The way forward should be shaped by upholding the common European standards and enforcing the international instruments which protect them.

To this end I will close with the words of one of Europe’s most prominent political leaders, the German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer who once said that “European unity was a dream of a few, it became the hope for many, today it is a necessity for us all”. Words that are more true now than ever.

Thank you for your attention.

Jagland sets Europe's "social" agenda

2011-10-19T15:28:00.001+02:00

"Necessary and understandable" austerity measures should not undermine Europe's social contract, Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland declared today

He told the 21st Congress session that: “Europe’s financial and fiscal crisis is starting to have an impact on social cohesion as well as on public trust in our democratic institutions.

"In such challenging times, exposed citizens living in economically fragile regions, youth and elderly people, migrants and Roma are affected the most.

"Radical measures are being taken in many countries to balance public budgets. This is both necessary and understandable. But at the same time, countries are running a high risk of undermining the European model of social cohesion."

More information

Speech by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland,

Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Congress session

Strasbourg, 19 October 2011

Distinguished members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today.

The groundwork of my reform of the Council of Europe has been completed. A new budget and programme structure has been adopted and more resources have been freed to address our priorities. To reflect these changes, a new organisational structure has been in place since the beginning of October.

The reform of the Congress is also on its way with the third and last part of the rules of procedure to be adopted next year. I should like to thank you for your timely reaction.

Reform is only the intellectual reflection of a time of change. Hard work remains in manifold for us all, but especially for local politicians and authorities.

It is said that “all politics is local”, and I believe this to be more true now than ever. Few have better experience of the current economical and political crisis in Europe than you as local politicians.

While national leaders and politicians certainly have to make hard choices about cost savings, you are the ones who have to face the daily consequences of these decisions. You are the ones who have to make things work in a time of more demand but less resources.

Dear friends,

In a time of unprecedented crisis, let us remember why this unique organisation was established. It came as a consequence of the fundamental moral and political breakdown in Europe.

Peace as Winston Churchill said, had to built on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Where law ends, tyranny begins.

Europe had to move from nationalism to internationalism. Binding commitments to secure the rights of the individual were adopted and guaranteed by the state.

65 years on, after having anchored this principle in a number of historical conventions and ensuring a peaceful reconstruction of Europe, we are confronted with new challenges to our freedom.

Europe’s financial and fiscal crisis is starting to have an impact on social cohesion as well as on public trust in our democratic institutions.

In such challenging times, exposed citizens living in economically fragile regions, youth and elderly people, migrants and Roma are affected the most.

And let me add a word on Roma in particular.

Their situation, in a number of European countries, is a test of how civilized and how humane our societies are. But it is a test we by far have passed.

If we allow the current economic circumstances to slow down the social integration of Roma, the consequences would be disastrous, not only for Roma, but for societies as a whole.

I therefore warmly welcome the Congress’ reaction to the Strasbourg Declaration on Roma by organising the Summit of Mayors on Roma last September.

The Summit established a European Alliance of Cities and Regions for Roma Inclusion, and a core group of municipalities and regions ready and willing to build this Alliance.

This is a practical and effective step to bring together local and regional elected representatives, civil society and institutional partners to work on the issue of Roma inclusion. And let me add – there is no better way to show how we can be relevant!

Dear friends,

The present financial crisis is unprecedented in its scope. Radical measures are being taken in many countries to balance public budgets. This is both necessary and understandable. But at the same time, countries are running a high risk of undermining the European model of social cohesion.

One only has to look at the staggeringly high figures of youth unemployment in most European countries to realize the extent of the disconnection.

We need to take these manifestations of young people’s frustration very seriously indeed.

It is worthwhile taking a close look at the different expressions of discontent.

They feature a varied mix of new and alternative forms of democratic practice. To take one example, young people are extremely active in promoting new forms of democracy – such as the ‘network society’, which can be seen in the recent youth protests in Europe and also in the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

The Arab Spring demonstrated again how strong the quest for freedom is. There is no freedom without democracy. There is no democracy without the confidence that it can change people’s lives for the better.

Such confidence starts at the local level. If local communities unravel, then national stability is challenged. You are therefore at the frontline in addressing needs and identifying the right solutions to keep your communities alive and vibrant.

Europe needs a comprehensive political strategy to protect social cohesion. If we want to preserve the model of the society which we have built over the past sixty years, preserving social cohesion during an economic downturn is a political necessity.

Youth, ageing, inter-generational solidarity, migration, education and the fight against extremism and hate speech are issues which affect everyone of our member states.

We must bring our experiences and ideas together – as you are doing here today, to share what works and what does not. Only then can we achieve the ‘deep security’ which
I have suggested should be an objective for the entire Council of Europe space.

This is also why I strongly support the Congress’ reaction to the report by the Group of Eminent Persons on “Living Together” with themes during this session debating “Living Together in Dignity” and focusing on new forms of urban activism.

I would like to share with you two very clear points from the Eminent Persons report.

The first is that our societies are very diverse; and the second is that we are not very successful in managing that diversity.

The report contains very specific recommendations on how to do better, on how to transform diversity from a potential threat to a real benefit for our societies.

For me personally, the most urgent priority is to deal with the parallel societies. What we need to do is to create societies in which people will live with each other.

Everyone is entitled to maintain his or her identity, but this should not happen without or even at the expense of what holds us together as a society; of our common values which are embodied in and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Again, you are best placed to address this issue at local level. Political action is only meaningful if it leads to real results with a real meaning for real people. Results people can see, touch, feel and from which they can benefit.

The report is a first step, a point of departure for debate, and then for action. When this does not happen the road to conflict is entered.

Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends,

The grand question of Max Weber, the German sociologist was: Why Europe?

The answer to that question is on display here today at the Congress of the Council of Europe.

Europe is an opportunity to forge a common identity, based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

This European identity does not come at the expense of our national or individual identity. To the contrary. It gives us the strength to protect and promote our national cultural heritages, local diversities and to develop a larger European community.

There are two transforming forces in today’s world: one is economic, the other is the quest for freedom. Granting people the freedom to live in dignity is the best way to avoid clashes and conflicts, between ethnic groups, nations and religions.

Freedom is a demanding gift – whether in newly born or in long-established democracies. It can only be real if the state commits itself to legally-binding rights and freedoms. And if we as citizens commit ourselves to the responsibilities which accompany these rights.

In North Africa people are struggling to gain freedom as we speak. In Europe, we are struggling to safeguard the freedoms which we gained over 65 years ago.

The future of the world’s civilization will not be based on a single model. But it will be based on freedom – and the dignity we bring to freedom, making it real and enriching for the future of Europe.

“Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better” said the writer Albert Camus.

We are in a time of change. Let us work together to make this change a better freedom.

Thank you for your attention.

Jagland: Europe's 'Prince Charles Syndrome' Alienates Young People

2011-10-13T15:31:00.001+02:00

Governments must resist the ‘Prince Charles syndrome’ and listen seriously to young people’s frustration if they are to maintain social cohesion, Thorbjørn Jagland warned today.

Speaking at the opening of the Forum For Democracy in Limassol Cyprus, the Secretary General pointed to the “staggeringly high” youth unemployment as fuel for discontent. He said that young people have expectations all too often ignored because they are considered “citizens in the making” who can wait their turn.

More information

Speech by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland,

Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Opening of the Forum for the Future of Democracy 2011

Limassol, 13 October 2011

The theme of this year’s Forum for the Future of Democracy, “The Interdependence of Democracy and Social Cohesion” could not be more timely. Right now Europe is not only facing a very serious financial and fiscal crisis. We are starting to see the impact of this crisis on social cohesion as well as on public trust in our democratic institutions.

The impact of economic crises is always most acute for people who are already in vulnerable situations and at risk of exclusion.

I am thinking here in particular of those in precarious employment situations or living in economically fragile regions, or elderly people, migrants and Roma.

And let me add a word on Roma in particular. Their situation, in a number of European countries, is a test of how civilised and how humane our societies are. And it is a test in which we have not yet deserved a passing note, to say the least. If we allow that the current economic circumstances slow down the efforts to improve the social integration of Roma, the consequences would be disastrous, not only for Roma, but for societies as a whole.

The present financial crisis is unprecedented in its scope. Radical measures are being taken in many countries to try to balance public budgets. This is both necessary and understandable. But at the same time, countries are running a high risk of seriously undermining the European model of social cohesion.

There is a widespread perception that social and economic justice is being neglected in an effort to safeguard the interests and profits of the financial sector. Our democracy is undermined by the growing incidence of poverty. Young people especially are reacting to the different forms of exclusion and discrimination which they encounter in political and economic life. One only has to look at the staggeringly high figures of youth unemployment in most European countries to realise the extent of the disconnection.

(June 2011: Spain: 44.3%; Greece: 36%; Italy and Ireland 28.6%; Portugal: 27.8%; UK and France: 20%).

We need to take these manifestations of young people’s frustration very seriously indeed. It is a common misconception to consider children and young people as “the future”, or as “citizens in the making”, who can wait until their turn comes. More and more of them complain about the “Prince Charles syndrome”. But young people are citizens now, with rights and with responsibilities as well as with expectations and competences.

It is worthwhile taking a close look at the different expressions of discontent. They feature a varied mix of new and alternative forms of democratic practice. To take one example, young people are extremely active behind new forms of democracy to be found in the ‘network society’, as can be seen in the recent youth protests in Europe and also in the uprisings of the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring demonstrated again how strong the quest for freedom is.

There is no freedom without democracy. There is no democracy without the confidence that it can change people’s lives for the better.

And democracy and human rights are also necessary for sustainable economic development. The Indian Nobel prize winner for economy Amartya Sen claimed that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any country with a relatively free press. It is not difficult to prove this argument.

While the freedom of expression may be irritating to some, its absence is always harmful to all in the society. Without critical voices, there are no safeguards and no defence against blunder and abuse in the exercise of power, with inevitable negative political, economic, and social consequences.

I am pleased to see that this Forum will be an occasion for an open dialogue between political representatives and young people who are active in peaceful youth protests, be they called “Indignados” or “Génération précaire”.

When we think about ways to fight the crisis, we must reject policies which weaken social cohesion and fight the crisis through social cohesion, by investing in social rights and in intercultural dialogue.

The Intercultural Cities programme, jointly run by the Council of Europe and the European Union, has found that successful interculturality has tangible economic benefits. Cities with successful policies of intercultural dialogue seem to enjoy higher levels of economic growth than other cities.

It is not the remit of the Council of Europe to solve the economic dimension of the present crisis. But in addition to balancing budgets, Europe needs a comprehensive political strategy to protect social cohesion:

Preserving social cohesion during an economic downturn is a political choice. In fact, it is not a choice, but a necessity, if we want to preserve the model of the society which we have built over the past sixty years.

The Council of Europe can make an important contribution to issues of social cohesion in a social rights and human rights perspective, in particular relating to youth, ageing, inter-generational solidarity, migration, education and the fight against extremism and hate speech. All this will help us to achieve the ‘deep security’ which I have suggested should be an objective for the entire Council of Europe space.

The social and intercultural implications of the crisis that we are witnessing at this time underline the pertinence of the analysis and recommendations contained in the report by the Group of Eminent Persons on “Living Together”.

The conclusion of the report is very clear on two points. One, that our societies are very diverse; and two, that we are not very successful in managing that diversity. The report contains very specific recommendations on how to do better, on how to transform diversity from a potential threat to a real benefit for our societies.

For me personally, the most urgent priority is to deal with the parallel societies. People who live beside each other are always at risk of living against each other.

What we need to do is to create societies in which people will live with each other. Everyone is entitled to maintain his or her identity, this is a part of our richness, of our strength, but this should not happen without or even at the expense of what holds us together as a society; of our common values which are embodied in and protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

And let me add another thought. When we speak about parallel societies we usually think of ethnic or religious communities, but in fact, such parallel societies are much more diverse.

Look at the financial oligarchs for example. People who seem to be the least affected by the current economic crisis, even if they are not completely without responsibility for its emergence, to put it very mildly. One very often has the impression that they operate in accordance with their own rules and principles and that “solidarity” within that group is much stronger than solidarity between the group and the rest of the society.

And that, in my book, is the definition of a parallel society. But let me reassure you, I am not advocating any revolutionary action. I simply suggest that these people should accept their part of responsibility, for the crisis we face and for what needs to be done to overcome it.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The location of this conference in Cyprus, at the historical crossroads between the Western and the Arab parts of the world, is an appropriate setting for me to renew the Council of Europe’s commitment to the reform countries of the Arab Spring, to share its experiences at the request of their authorities.

I wish this 7th Forum for the Future of Democracy every success and expect its conclusions to be taken up by the statutory bodies of the Council of Europe and to inspire the preparation of next year’s Second Conference of Ministers responsible for Social Cohesion in Istanbul and the first edition of the Council of Europe’s International Strasbourg Forum for Democracy in October of next year.

Interview: Ivana Alessandro on biodiversity and human rights

2011-09-19T10:28:00.003+02:00

In this interview, the Council of Europe’s Ivana D’Alessandro discusses the quickening pace of biodiversity degradation in Europe.

She also outlines the work of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, better known as the Bern Convention, which over the past 32 years has become a pillar of the international legal architecture.

It is the first international treaty to bring countries together on nature and conservation issues in order to protect both species and habitats.

More on this story

1) The Bern Convention has been an active part of Europe’s legal framework for some 29 years, yet the Council of Europe admits that the pace of biodiversity decline is quickening. How do you account for this situation?

ID: Biodiversity is declining fast, particularly because of economic growth and development of our societies which transform key natural habitats thus affecting a high number of species. However the question is: wouldn’t biodiversity decline faster without instruments like the Bern Convention?

Institutional and policy responses in favour of biodiversity conservation have undoubtedly increased thanks to the legal framework provided by the Bern Convention, which obliges Contracting Parties – among other things - to promote national policies for the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats. The same applies to research and scientific investigation, which the Bern Convention has encouraged and promoted over 30 years.

Invertebrates can be taken as an example here: there are 1 200 000 species of invertebrates which account for nearly 95% of the animal kingdom and occupy a primordial position in biological cycles.

These species started to appear in national legislations shortly after they were included in Appendices II and III of the convention in 1988. Their status then suddenly changed: ceasing to be disregarded, they became the target of very effective protection measures and tools for enhancement and thus protection of certain habitats.

The protection of invertebrates would not be where it is today without the Bern Convention and the efforts of the many people who have worked, under its umbrella, to demonstrate the importance of invertebrates in terms of biodiversity.

2) What in your view keeps this treaty, conceived more than 32 years ago, relevant to today’s biodiversity issues?

ID: The Bern Convention is Europe’s treaty on nature conservation and the only regional convention of this kind worldwide. One of its strengths, is its large and diverse membership, extending from Iceland to Azerbaijan, and including 50 contracting parties, among which the European Community (EC) and four African States (Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal and Burkina Faso).

It protects both species and habitats and recongnises the intrinsic value of wild flora and fauna, which needs to be preserved and passed to future generations. It has also proven to be an important instrument for achieving sustainability as it takes account of the role that people play in the wider environment and their interactions with nature.

It is a living treaty because it is flexible. It takes into account that the species which it protects are rarely present in all European countries and that their status can be different in different States. It allows for flexibility of action and it makes it possible to vary the provisions of the convention to meet changing circumstances.

For example, the lists of species and habitats to be protected can be easily amended according to changes in nature conservation priorities.

Finally, the Bern Convention provides a forum of discussion for the promotion of a coherent and effective approach to the protection of environment and, as all Council of Europe’s instruments, it fosters the co-operation between Member States and the harmonisation of the legal framework and current practices.

3) At a recent conference in Cyprus, the Council of Europe pointed to the threat to birdlife in southern Europe and the Mediterranean area. What is the scale of the threat and how will the problem be tackled in future?

A survey targeting 40 European countries, realised by BirdLife International as a contribution to the conference organised by the Council of Europe, shows that Illegal killing of birds is a widespread phenomenon and is not primarily restricted to the Mediterranean countries, as often speculated. The review confirms that such activities occur on a regular basis in most European countries, although their intensity in the Mediterranean countries is indeed higher.

The conference pointed out that there is no single solution but a combination of techniques, actions, measures and strategies is urgently required to halt the illegal killing of birds. The key message from the participants is “zero tolerance toward illegal killing of birds.”

Under the Bern Convention, the conference started a long-term process aimed at systematic monitoring, promoting a shared reporting system as well as exchanges of good practices, improving investigation techniques and capacity building for enforcement agencies.

4) You are organising a meeting of experts on 19 September to discuss the setting up of the Emerald Network. What are the main aims of this project?

ID:The Emerald Network is an ecological network of protected areas which provides a model for conserving biodiversity, while allowing a degree of human exploitation of the landscape. It was set-up by the Council of Europe in 1989 and its implementation started in 1996 under the Bern Convention. Both Contracting Parties and Observers can set-up the network.

In this framework, the European Community, in its capacity of Contracting Party to the Bern Convention established a representative system of legally protected areas throughout the EU, known as Natura 2000. At a pan-European level, the Council of Europe is currently working to assist other Bern Convention Parties outside the EU to respect their obligation related to the setting-up the Emerald Network.

The Group of Experts which is meeting next week will review the calendar for the setting-up of the Emerald Network; ensure coordination with the EU for the future harmonization of the Emerald and the Natura 2000 networks; assess the sufficiency of the sites proposed by the Contracting Parties to integrate the network following very strict and precise criteria.

Once accepted to become part of the Network, the Emerald sites will be properly managed in order to achieve their primary objective - to ensure the long term survival of species and habitats listed as threatened throughout Europe.

5) In your view, what more should governments be doing to ensure stronger protection of Europe's biodiversity?

ID:Increase integration of biodiversity issues into the cross-sectoral policy and economic agenda. It is essential to continue bringing economic and social requirements into harmony with the ecological and cultural functions of our environment.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity clearly contributes to maintaining ecosystem services and to mitigate and adapt to the negative effects of climate change. National governments already show their understanding of the urgency of the situation, in particular when recognising the frightening pace of biodiversity loss in spite of the increasing efforts at national and international level during the last two decades.

At the last COP 10 of the CBD, national governments set many and ambitious targets for the next 10 years. At the end, these targets aim to contribute to the protection of our right to a healthy environment - to the protection of life on earth. The challenge today is to achieve these objectives. The Bern Convention will continue to work towards contributing to the achievement of these ambitious targets set at world level.

6) What are the economic and social costs of decreasing biodiversity?

ID: The major cost is that we are loosing many ‘ecosystem services’ that are essential to the sustainability of our standard of living and to our survival. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB ) study is a major international initiative to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity, to highlight the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions.

7) In your view, is it easier now to persuade others of the arguments in favour of conservation and the protection of biodiversity?

ID:It is but much needs to be done. A survey carried-out by the European Union last year revealed only 35% of European citizens know what biodiversity means. However, once the concept is explained, it is difficult to argue against nature conservation. A shift in attitudes is certainly needed to understand that applying a few constraints to our way of living can do a lot for ensuring a healthy life to our children.

8) What is your message to those who fear that 'real world' economics and 'man’s needs' will inevitably triumph over the protection of biodiversity?

ID:My message is that the real world is for human beings. Biodiversity is life on earth. Protecting nature means protecting our future.

More on this story

Jagland urges Europe to 'practice what it preaches' in the Mediterranean region

2011-09-12T16:00:00.001+02:00

Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland has challenged Europe to practice what it preaches in its relations with neighbouring countries in the Mediterranean region.

In his 9 September speech to the Bled Strategic Forum, Jagland expressed his fear that Europe’s neighbours might not heed calls for more tolerant and inclusive politics if it could not cope with its own multicultural societies.

Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

'Search for a New "World Order" in the Mediterranean'
Bled Strategic Forum
9 September 2011

Distinguished participants, Ladies and Gentlemen, I always prepare for my participation at events such as this one. When I was asked to speak at the panel devoted to the search for a New World Order in the Mediterranean, I started by googling the title. This was only partially helpful.

According to Wikipedia, a broadly used yet seldom quoted source of facts, the term New World Order stands for:

Firstly, a system of teachings in Bahá'í Faith, believing in a God's divinely appointed scheme for the unification of mankind through the establishment of a world commonwealth based on principles of equity and justice.

Secondly, a conspiracy theory claiming that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an ongoing plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes. This is indeed worrisome. I can just imagine what a bona fidae conspiracy theorist would think of our little gathering here in Bled.

Finally, and more reassuringly, the term New World Order has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power.
I would assume that it was this last notion our hosts had in mind for this panel, even if, upon reflexion, the two others are not as different as it may seem at first glance. The differences are more a matter of ideological perspective than substance.
Be it as it may, what started on 18 December last year in the streets of Tunis, and quickly spread to many countries across the region, clearly qualifies as a new period of history and a dramatic change.

But if history is in the making, it has not been made yet. The violence and destruction caused by the Gaddafi regime is only one example, the dramatic situation in Syria is another, showing us how volatile and dangerous the situation still is.

For all the countries in question the challenges which remain, including economic and social ones, are enormous. The key to the long-term sustainability of changes is the way in which these challenges are met.
We should support the development of a system of government based on accountability, free elections, human rights and the rule of law. These are not European values, even if we often label them as such. They are universal values, originating from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are also a prerequisite for a progressive and successful society which can guarantee security, stability and prosperity to its people.

I often use the example of the freedom of expression which may be irritating to some, but its absence is harmful to all. Without critical voices, our societies have no effective protection against errors and abuse in the exercise of power.

The experience of the democratic transition in Central and Eastern Europe can provide a wealth of very interesting and valuable lessons. But we must take into account not only similarities, but also political, economic, social, institutional and cultural differences which exist between the two situations.

These differences cannot affect the ultimate objectives – the respect for universal values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law – but they have implications on how these objectives can and should most appropriately and effectively be pursued.

It was against this background that the Committee of Ministers at its meeting in Istanbul in May approved a new Council of Europe neighbourhood policy.
The underlying principle of the policy is based on the fact that the political changes which are taking place in several countries in the region are home-grown and spontaneous. This is a very important element of legitimacy and lasting popular support. Our relations with the countries concerned and our action should be perceived and accepted as genuine co-operation and assistance, not interference. The key to the success of our endeavour is respect. Respect for the people in the region, for their courage, for their ability and their right to decide about their own future.

But ultimately, the shape and the quality of the “New World Order” in the Mediterranean will not only depend on the developments at its southern shores, but equally so on the way Europe will be able to meet its own challenges.

People IN the region are listening to our message on democracy and human rights, but they also watch television and read newspapers about the way we apply these values when it comes to people coming FROM the region, be they recent migrants, long-term residents, or nationals in European countries.

Later this afternoon, a round table hosted by the President of Slovenia Danilo Türk will debate a report entitled “Living Together – Combining Diversity and Freedom in the 21 century”. This is a challenging, even provocative analysis of the way Europe handles, or mishandles, the issue of diversity in our societies.

The group which prepared the report was led by Joschka Fischer. Several of its prominent members, including our moderator, Edward Mortimer, are here in Bled to take part in the round table. I invite you all to read the report, but for now, I would like to quote one sentence from its executive summary.

Here is what it says: ”discrimination and intolerance are widespread in Europe today, particularly against Roma and immigrants, as well as people of recent migrant background, who are often treated as foreigners even in countries where they are both natives and citizens”.

These types of observations are not often a part of our discussions on Europe’s relations with its neighbours. But they should be. They are directly relevant to our credibility and image. How can we expect our neighbours to follow the European liberal and tolerant model if we cannot cope with the issue of interculturalism ourselves?

In conclusion, I should like to return to Wikipedia and its definitions of today’s theme. I do not know much about the rest of their beliefs, but when it comes to the definition of the New World Order, I would say that the Bahai’ans got it about right. It should be about equity, justice and respect.

The challenge – and the message to my fellow Europeans - is to practice what you preach.
Thank you.

Jagland: 'Moralpolitik' in Europe

2011-06-27T09:58:00.002+02:00

In his address today at the start of the three-day Summer University, Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland said Europe’s progress beyond ideological division was the result of “a historic moment in which realpolitik was defeated by moralpolitik.”

That spirit is still needed now, he declared, as the region confronts the impact of globalisation and grapples with the corruption, the abuses of power and the increasing movement of ideas, cultures and individuals.
(More Information)

Thorbjørn Jagland
Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Opening session of the Summer University for Democracy
Strasbourg, 27 June 2011

Dear friends,

Outside my office I have a memorable picture of Winston Churchill speaking to 100, 000 people at the Place Kléber here in Strasbourg in 1949 saying: “Be aware, I’m going to speak in French”!

I do not have Churchill’s linguistic skills, but I would like to thank the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie together with the City of Strasbourg, the Conseil Régional of Alsace, the French Government and the University of Strasbourg for their commitment to the Summer University of Strasbourg.

Let me also warmly welcome the many participants from Tunisia, Western Africa and Kazakhstan, representatives of the cities, members of the Club de Strasbourg, and honored experts from Europe, the US and Japan to the 6th Summer University for Democracy!

And be aware, one day I’ll speak in French!

When Churchill spoke – in French – at Place Kléber in 1949 he did so as an advocate of the European Movement celebrating the establishment of the Council of Europe.

The European Movement wanted a united Europe based on peace, democracy, liberty, solidarity, and respect for basic human rights. Before their aspiration became a reality, Europe had to endure decades of ideological division. It was reconciled through a sudden and sweeping change, a historic moment in which realpolitik was defeated by moralpolitik.

The new Europe was built on the politics of ethics. It is now a reality. We have a continent united around common values, but does this mean we no longer need to talk about ethics and politics today? The answer is that we must, more than ever. Let me point out two reasons why:

In Europe we find the forces of globalisation rapidly changing our societies. Citizens are requesting new ways to run society in order to bring the right answers. But as part of this, commonly accepted ideas and values are being questioned as pillars of society.

In North Africa and the Middle East we see citizens bravely struggling to establish free societies based on the same principles and values upon which we once built Europe, but this is now being challenged more and more.

The people of Europe and the people of our neighbourhoods have different points of departure, but all of us cherish freedom and most of us cherish the values that make freedom possible: Democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

We should remember that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – of which the European Convention on Human Rights is a direct consequence – states that human rights are innate and unchangeable because they come from our human dignity and not as a result of political decisions. These rights are natural rights.

Freedom of speech is a timeless right because human dignity means that we can speak and write freely. We have freedom of speech because we are people.

That is also why human rights should not be subject to political power or pressure. Human rights are a safeguard against political power. They are a right of the minority to be protected by – and from – the majority.

Human rights have been the most transformative forces in changing the world. When people scaled the Berlin wall they wanted freedom. When people in North Africa recently took to the streets they did the same. They wanted freedom.

But freedom cannot exist without high ethical standards by those in power. Where there are no ethics in politics, there will most certainly be corruption, misuse of power and violence which defy basic human rights. Without ethics, human rights become empty phrases.

Globalisation is a another transformative force changing our times. But globalisation has no aim of it’s own, it has no leader and it has no ethics. It is a raw non-human force that the politicians, the media, and you must seek to steer in the right direction to make it a tool for prosperity of and solidarity between citizens.

This is important because globalisation is exposing us to diversity with an unprecedented speed and scope. The increasingly free movement of ideas, cultures and individuals is now confronting our identity with different, sometimes conflicting ideas, views, habits and customs.

Recently, a report to the Council of Europe, prepared by a high-level Group led by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, looked into the challenges arising from the ever increasing multicultural composition of Europe. The report found that discrimination and intolerance were widespread.

The report recommends that European societies should embrace diversity. We must all obey the law, but no one should not be “expected to renounce their faith, culture or identity”. This is a basic right. But we must also embrace our common values. This is a basic responsibility.

Public statements which tend to build or reinforce public prejudice against members of any group – and particularly members of minorities, immigrants or people of recent migrant origin – should not be left unanswered.

That is why ethics should always guide politicians when governing their countries and communities. We have too often seen that political leaders follow their people instead of leading them.

And we have also seen politicians misuse their authority and power with the result that they loose the trust of those who brought them to power in the first place.

So I say that we need courageous political leaders who hold high ethical standards to balance and give direction in the public debate.

And we need a courageous press with equally high standards which can provide checks and balance, can report on mismanagement, analyse the public debate and provide understanding to the reader of the changes within the society he or she lives in.

Let us therefore remember that for the citizens where democracy has been in place for years, for the citizens where democracy is still in its youth, and for the citizens struggling to achieve democracy, we have all one single thing in common: that democracy must be won, it must be maintained and it must be developed.

Dear participants of the Summer University for Democracy,

The British statesman Benjamin Disraeli used to say that “almost everything that is great has been done by youth”. Looking back at my own actions during my younger years, I feel tempted to say he was right .

But I believe even more that Disraeli pointed to a crucial fact: that youth has the ability to regard the rules of society differently from the established norms. Everyone who has fought for freedom of speech – and most of these people have been or are among the youth – have regarded society differently than existing authorities.

Therefore, in a time of continuing change, bringing together the aspiring youth here in Strasbourg, I hope the theme of this year’s Summer University will give grounds for solid discussions.

Facing the challenges of today’s world, each and everyone of us are responsible for the future of our democracies. Human rights are the single most important common ground for Europeans to take on the ongoing changes of our societies. But to do so we must all place ethics at the centre of our acts.

Mesdames et Messieurs, chers étudiants,

Je vous remercie pour votre attention. Je vous souhaite la bienvenue à Strasbourg et à cette édition de l'Université d'été pour la démocratie.

Jagland: Europe Must Seize Historic Opportunity To Prevent Violence Against Women

2011-04-11T15:35:00.001+02:00

Seven women are beaten to death everyday in Europe, Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland declared today on the opening day of the organisation’s Parliamentary Assembly.

“Many more are hurt, physically and psychologically and marked for life,” he said. (News)

Communication by Thorbjørn Jagland

Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the

2nd Part Session of the Parliamentary Assembly

of the Council of Europe

Monday, 11 April 2011

Mr President, distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly,

In my speech in January I promised to keep the Assembly regularly informed on the progress of the Council of Europe reform.

But before I do so, I should like to recall what I have been saying from the outset; that this is not an administrative reform, it is a political one.

The objective is to enable the Council of Europe to make a difference when it comes to the real challenges Europe faces today. And there are many.

The world is changing rapidly – some of these changes have taken place since you last met in January - and Europe is changing with it. Some of these changes are coming from outside, some are internal, but they all require a Council of Europe response.

And this response is there. It is more rapid, more focused and more concrete than has been the case before – also thanks to the changes which have been brought about by the reform so far.

Look at our action in the Mediterranean.

In the recent weeks, we have all witnessed a historic change taking place in Europe’s immediate neighbourhood.

What is remarkable about these developments is that people have taken, and continue to take, to the streets of Tunis and Cairo and other cities across the region to demand the same values and freedoms which form the cornerstone of our societies.

For all of us this is not only a source of great hope and pride, but also a source of humility and great respect. And an opportunity for Europe which we should not miss. The Council of Europe has its own responsibility in that respect. We have already taken this responsibility.

And we have done it with a great deal of humility and respect. We must acknowledge – and pay tribute to – the fact that what has happened was spontaneous and home-grown.

When building new relations between Europe and this region we must remember that our purpose can only be to support the free will of the people.

In the past, the attitude has far too often been to protect our own interests at the expense of universal values. As the American satirist Tom Lehrer once said :

“They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.”

Our reaction has been immediate, pertinent and aimed at producing concrete results on the ground. Therefore, Foreign Minister Davutoglu and I went to Tunis to offer our expertise in making a new electoral code and writing a new constitution.

As a consequence, the Venice Commission is working with the Tunisian authorities. The Venice Commission is also working in Morocco, and we are in contact with the Egyptian authorities.

Another priority and another example of being politically relevant has been to respond to the humanitarian consequences of the situation, especially the most dramatic one which is still unfolding in Libya. On this, I am in continued contact with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon as well as with other key international partners.

The Committee of Ministers has already discussed my proposals on the action to be taken in respect of the possible massive arrival of asylum seekers and migrants in our member States.

These proposals are aimed to help our member States to deal with this situation in strict compliance with Council of Europe standards.

Needless to say, these activities will be implemented in close co-operation with our international partners and are to be seen as complementary to the outstanding work of other international organisations.

A more detailed document outlining these proposals is under preparation and will be presented to our governments next week.

While our attention is at this moment focused towards the Mediterranean, we should bear in mind that we also have neighbours in the East, in Central Asia.

It is against this background that I have prepared a detailed proposal for the Council Neighbourhood policy, which will be discussed at the Ministerial meeting in Istanbul next month.

The objectives of the policy are to facilitate democratic political transition.

Secondly, to promote good governance in the countries in our neighbourhood.

And finally, to reinforce Council of Europe regional action in combating trans-border and global threats such as trafficking in human beings, cybercrime, organised crime and terrorism.

The Parliamentary Assembly should play a prominent role in this respect, notably through the Partnership for Democracy as well as your involvement in election observation.

But changes are not only taking place in our neighbourhood. Europe too, is changing, and there are challenges which clearly require our vigilance and action. And again, it is about being relevant.

In recent months political leaders, including Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy, have said that multiculturalism has failed.

Does this mean that these leaders are against cultural diversity? Surely not.

Being against cultural and religious diversity means that somebody has to leave our continent. This is not a responsible demand and even less so a feasible perspective.

Our leaders are well aware that people of many different cultural backgrounds live in close proximity in Europe, that they will continue to do so, and that this can be a source of strength and prosperity.

European societies are culturally diverse. They have always been, and it is to this that Europe owes many of its greatest achievements.

But there is a growing feeling - reflected in the statements of Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy – that something has gone wrong; a realisation that traditional policies have not worked.

Instead, we are seeing the emergence of
so-called parallel societies. People are living next to each other in our societies, but not living together.

Unfortunately, minorities are still being marginalised and stigmatised, such as the Roma. Even before the current refugee crisis, xenophobic parties have been on the rise in several countries.

I would like to maintain that xenophobic forces are the ones that are living in the most isolated reality. They constitute parallel societies.

But we have also seen the emergence of home-grown Islamist terrorism rooted in religious extremism that are also forming parallel societies. These extremes are feeding each other.

All this goes against our fundamental rights and values. It is not helping our societies to prosper, and potentially poses a threat to our stability and security.

This is why last year I asked the Group of Eminent Persons, chaired by Joschka Fischer, to assess the situation from a pan-European perspective.

Their mandate has not been to “shame and blame” individual member States, but to make constructive proposals to help our societies grow together on the basis of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

We need to appreciate diversity, but also to focus more on what holds us together.

I expect the report of the Eminent Persons to give us important indications about how we can find a common ground and how all of us can contribute to responsible political leadership. This is how we can be relevant.

And now, against the background of the ongoing political developments, I should like to quickly update you on the progress of the reform itself.

First of all, I must stress the critical importance of the reform of the European Court of Human Rights. This is a make-or-break point in the whole process.

It is absolutely essential that we bring about changes allowing the Court to function without the backlog we are facing today. This is not only indispensable for the authority and sustainability of the Court, but for the credibility of the Council of Europe and for the survival of the system which has helped to uphold human rights and democratic stability in Europe for more than six decades.

The conference next week in Izmir is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. We need concrete results and I am confident that we shall be able to do so.

In parallel, the second stage of the reform is in full swing. It is aimed at concentrating our resources on programmes and activities which can have a stronger impact.

As part of this process we have to rationalize the intergovernmental committees. We have, all in all, 60 of them. I doubt that what has been built up over the past 60 years is the best machinery to face the realities of the 21st Century.

I have now forwarded a two-year budget to the Committee of Ministers. This proposal is the starting point for concentrating the resources on the main issues. Some programmes are being sunset to make way for new priorities.

The main priorities are: combating new threats such as trafficking in human beings, terrorism, cybercrime, internet security and money laundering.

And indeed, we must combat corruption, which has become a cancer threatening democracy in many of our member States. We also need to do more in the field of migration and for Roma.

And it has always been my belief that the Council of Europe must be the pioneering organisation against domestic violence. Every day, seven women in Europe are beaten to death! Many more are hurt, physically and psychologically and marked for life.

This is why the adoption of the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence is a historic opportunity. We now have an international instrument allowing us to make a difference.

The Convention will be opened for signature in Istanbul and I expect you to call on your government to be among the first to sign it.

This is another example where you, as the Assembly, and the rest of the Council of Europe, must work as a team. And the same is true for the reform itself.

I have always said that a strong Council of Europe needs a strong Assembly. And vice versa.

This is why I expect you to work hard for the reform. Not only the reform of the Assembly, but for the reform of the Council of Europe as a whole – because a politically relevant, effective and influential Council of Europe is a condition to your own relevance and influence.

It is against this background that I use every opportunity to consult and to listen to the Assembly, not only during the part sessions, but also on the occasion of the meetings of the Bureau, the Standing Committee and other Assembly bodies.

Let me also inform you that I am following up an initiative from this Assembly to establish an annual Strasbourg Forum for Democracy.

This will be a partnership with the city of Strasbourg, the regional authorities of Alsace and the French government. It gives us an opportunity to interact more closely with all the NGOs and to highlight the challenges which our democracies are facing today.

A Davos for economy is convened every winter, and the Council of Europe should take a lead in convening a Strasbourg for Democracy every summer.

Dear friends,

Lao Tzu, the ancient Chinese philosopher once said that “if you do not change direction, you may end up where you’re heading”.

The Council of Europe was heading for more and more irrelevance.

We had to change direction. We are now heading for more relevance with lesser activities, but with far more real action.

Mr President, dear friends,

The Council of Europe was created to rebuild Europe. To create a community based on universal values. Our achievements have been great, but history has no end. Let us join forces to find a consensus on how to live together in the future and to halt the polarizing development we are now witnessing.

Thank you.

Jagland’s Challenge to Roma Forum

2011-03-31T09:47:00.001+02:00

Secretary General has challenged the European Roma and Travellers Forum to be less critical and adopt a more constructive approach to the development of Roma policies. (News)

Keynote address by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Opening Ceremony of the 2010/2011 Plenary Assembly of the European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF)

Mr President,
Delegates,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Ten years ago in this same building, the Finnish President Tarja Halonen gave a landmark address to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in which she highlighted the need to provide “the Roma population with a voice and with the possibility of participating in decision-making processes at the European level”.

It was this speech that set in motion a dynamic that led to the creation of the European Roma and Travellers Forum in 2004. The Council of Europe was actively involved in this process and very soon a partnership agreement with the Forum was signed.

Under this agreement, the Forum has been given privileged access to a number of intergovernmental committees of the Council of Europe.

This status is an important opportunity for doing what the Finnish President had called for - participating in European decision-making processes – because it allows the Forum to contribute, to comment and to make proposals to those bodies that prepare the decisions, policies and legal instruments adopted by the Committee of Ministers which in turn guide the practices and policies of our 47 member states.

It is no news to you that the situation of most Roma in Europe is still very difficult, both in terms of their social integration and their full enjoyment of fundamental human rights, without discrimination.

Some progress has been made, but mostly at a modest level and at a very slow pace. We all can do better, we must do better to improve the situation. When I say “we”, I mean: the governments, regional and local authorities, international organisations like the Council of Europe, but also the Roma themselves.

From local Roma communities, national Roma organisations, to European organisations, not least the European Roma and Travellers Forum itself.

Six years after your Forum was established, I invite you to ask yourself some critical questions: have we done enough, have we been an effective and dynamic force for change, have we lived up to our ambition to be an example of Roma empowerment by being truly representative, transparent and democratic in our functioning?

Such critical self-analysis is important, not for the sake of criticising, but in order to do better in the future. We all must do better.

For the Forum, doing better means: being more proactive, forward-looking, making proposals to member states and international organisations for policies that will actually improve the situation, ensuring full representativeness of all different Roma groups and strands within your structures, becoming less dependent, in terms of human and financial resources, on Council of Europe support.

I am not alone in encouraging you to engage firmly in these directions: similar points were made by representatives of governments during the exchange of views they had with your President last November and they are also heard within Roma civil society.

This is why I welcome your efforts to develop your interventions and to become financially self-sustainable, notably through a donors conference in the near future.

Today more than ever before, there is political momentum for taking decisive steps forward. At the High Level Meeting of last October, the governments of Council of Europe member states adopted the Strasbourg Declaration on Roma in which they strongly reaffirmed their commitment to work for social inclusion of Roma and to promote, respect and protect their human rights.

They agreed on a list of priorities which should serve to guide more focused and more consistent efforts at pan-European, national, regional and local levels, in close co-operation with Roma communities at all levels.

The Declaration also highlights specific tasks for the Council of Europe itself. Let me say a few words about where we stand with the implementation of the Declaration. Within weeks after the High Level Meeting, a new Roma programme with increased financial resources was adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the budget year 2011. Entitled “Roma: Promoting social inclusion and Respect for Human Rights”, it forms part of the Human Rights pillar of the Programme-Budget.
I decided to re-organise Secretariat resources in a transversal manner and appointed Mr Jeroen Schokkenbroek as my Special Representative for Roma Issues to steer the Secretariat's action.

Our follow-up action to the Strasbourg Declaration concerns three main strands.

The first action aims at building capacity and providing training at a much larger scale than before.

The European Roma Mediators Training Programme (ROMED) is now being launched in 15 countries in the area of the thematic priorities, namely education, health and employment.

More than 9 million Roma live in the 15 countries concerned. A new curriculum for this Training Programme was developed in order to promote real and effective intercultural mediation. At least 400 mediators will be trained by the end of 2011 by a group of experienced trainers, most of the mediators and trainers being Roma.

I should like to thank the ERTF for its support and assistance in providing contacts and spreading information about the mediators’ training programme.

A second aspect of capacity-building is our reinforced training programme for lawyers that will help Roma in seeking remedies in domestic courts for alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter.

A European web-based resource tool (database) for collecting and accessing policies and good practices concerning Roma in the member states is being currently developed and will be gradually filled with content thereafter, in close cooperation with member states and other European organisations that have collected relevant information.

This will be a valuable resource for authorities and NGOs alike and I encourage the ERTF to contribute by identifying positive initiatives in the various countries.

The Strasbourg Declaration also places strong emphasis on the need for more exchange and analysis of policies and good practice between member states. In this context, I draw your attention to the important role to be played by the intergovernmental Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) which was set up in February and will report directly to the Committee of Ministers. This Committee holds its first meeting this week.

As was the case for its predecessor, the MG-S-ROM, the ERTF has been given observer status to the CAHROM and I encourage you to make an active use of it.

Last but not least, internal and external coordination play a crucial role in the whole process of reinforcing and refocusing our action regarding Roma. To give you one example, a consultation meeting with partner organisations about the new ROMED Programme, to which the ERTF was also invited, was held in Strasbourg on 25 January 2011.

My Special Representative (SRSG) for Roma issues is actively developing such co-operation and co-ordination, also within the Council of Europe itself, with different institutions and sectors such as the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, several operational directorates and monitoring bodies, the Commissioner for Human Rights, etc.

The Special Representative will explain our ongoing efforts in greater detail in his own statement to you later on.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are at an important juncture: the Strasbourg Declaration is a political commitment from ministers and high governmental representatives of our 47 member states. Roma issues are a priority on the agenda of European Union institutions and the Council of Europe alike. This is why, more than ever before, eyes are also turning to your institution, the Forum, and expect it to rise to the occasion.

I see the role of the Forum as being one of the main actors to encourage and help member states to put in place effective strategies for the implementation of the Strasbourg Declaration on Roma.

The Forum should not only criticise and react where a policy fails, but also act constructively. Without action, nothing is going to change. Your organisation should be a driving force for change.

To conclude let me refer back to one of the points I started my address with: the Forum was created to give a voice to Roma to make them heard at international level. In my view, there is no reason why the Forum could not equally transmit messages from the international level to grassroots Roma communities.

One of the messages I would like you to convey from this Plenary Meeting concerns universal human rights. These are fundamental rights that belong to everyone, young and old, women and men, Roma and non-Roma. I would ask you to explain within your own communities how these rights also apply within the community.

Explain that for a child, education is primarily a right and for parents a responsibility.

Explain that early or forced marriages are not compatible with the personal autonomy and dignity of each human being.

Explain that these human rights demands do not mean that Roma should give up their identities, customs or traditions, as long as such traditions respect the human rights of others, Roma or non-Roma.

Explain that it is in the name of these very same human rights that the Roma are rightfully demanding a better life for themselves and for their children, with a real exercise of social and political rights, preservation of their identity and bringing an end to stigmatisation and discrimination.

If you do explain all this to the members of your communities, I am convinced you will have made an important step towards better respect for human rights of and within Roma communities. I also trust such important questions will find their way unto the Forum's agenda.

Thank you.

Women's Day 2011: Interview with Anke Trischler

2011-03-07T15:16:00.001+01:00

To mark Women's Day 2011, humanrightseurope talked to Anke Trischler, a German banker turned business adviser.

Ms Trischler was a guest on the Council of Europe talkshow 'Viewpoint' which celebrated women's progress. One year on, she gives her views on how women can close the gender gap.

1.   A year on from the Viewpoint programme, do you believe that women in Germany are closer to reducing the gender gap?

No. Even though we have a female chancellor – maybe even because we have a female chancellor – we are still far away from closing the gap.

Some bigger companies want a quota but it seems more like a vanity thing or the idea of political correctness to me.

Mrs Merkel explicitly does not support a quota for women. It certainly is not a recipe but it could give the impulse to delivering diversity in teams and leadership.

2.   What are the main obstacles which block the movement of German society towards greater fairness in the distribution of power, responsibility and opportunity?

The main obstacles are
-   a different awareness of what success means: female attributes of success (variable working hours, sense in what they are doing, challenges) differ very much from male attributes (company car, bonus, staff, i.pad, titles). Women themselves tend not to long for the same male attributes of success;
-   women who give up fighting a useless and senseless fight within stupid hierarchies;
-   women who do not want to take on responsibility ;
-   conservative teachers at universities,
-   conservative families and their expectations;
-   conservative government paying mothers to stay at home;
-   very few and inflexible childcare programmes;
-   Many women in responsible jobs copy male behavior and become bad examples for younger women;
-   The fact that men and women hardly mix in business networks.

3.   During the Viewpoint programme, you quoted research which cited women as the “agents of change.” Is this still your view?

Yes, this is still my view. Women have a broader view on certain subjects and consider the consequences, the relationship between tasks and people. They long more often for sustainability as they do have to think further ahead. They go for more than just the quick win.

4.   Is feminism still a relevant force for you and the women that you know?

I don’t think so. Feminism sounds quite old-fashioned. We rather need to go for power, responsibility, teamwork, professional partnerships. We should work out new opportunities, like setting up our own companies. The discussion should be more businesslike - less about where someone comes from and one’s gender etc.

5.   Why do you believe that the German birth rate is among the lowest in Europe?

There are several reasons - Bad childcare, no support from government, conservatism in society to name but three.

Baby boomers who were born in the 1960s, had nearly unlimited access to academic education and the early chance to live their self-destined lives. They often decided to lead a different life to their parents and decided not to have as many children, if at all.

6.   Child-rearing is a personal choice. Should it be actively encouraged by the state?

Yes, it should be encouraged but not the German way. Here, we pay mothers for staying at home rather than encouraging them to support children by becoming self-confident and remaining active in the workplace.

7.   How easy is it in Germany for working women to combine their professional lives with bringing up children?

I do not have children and so cannot answer this question from my own experience. I do know from some other women – self-employed and in responsible jobs – that it is nearly impossible to combine working and bringing up children.

One woman in a very good position with a high income has to spend nearly all her pay on a baby sitter. Another has to organise herself around the official childcare timetable which is not always compatible with professional responsibilities.

Why have children and then try to organize them away or out of the way? These women are always made to feel guilty, being a bad mother etc.

Employers also consider it risky giving a woman a responsible job if she is younger than 45 years of age because she could still become pregnant and being protected by law, face no risk of losing the job. However, from 45 onwards, women are often considered too old for the job.

8.   The Council of Europe is bringing forward a treaty to fight violence against women. What is your impression of the way this issue is treated in Germany?

I cannot remember hearing or reading much about it in Germany. Violence against women seems to be a hidden topic in Germany. It happens behind the curtains. I know of smaller, regional campaigns: Stickers/posters with “Don’t close your eyes. You then protect the committer.” on it.

9.   Women’s Day is a tribute to female achievement and the desire for progress. How can a human rights organisation such as the Council of Europe help German women in their efforts to achieve gender parity?

A good way would be to advance common legislation across the Council of Europe member states with a short time frame. A plan to increase the number of women on boards of directors, like in Norway, would be a good start.

10.   Women are overtaking men academically. They are entering the professions in ever greater numbers. Is the celebration of Women’s Day still relevant at a time of ever more impressive statistics on female empowerment?

Female empowerment does not mean equality in responsibility, pay etc. Unfortunately, often less qualified males are favored by the people in charge – sometimes because of a better network and recommendation.

A study by IBM showed that qualifications count for about 10 per cent. Image comes up to 30 per cent and level of awareness up to 60 per cent.

Women need more professional marketing for themselves. They often come along too shy, small, invisible, less aiming for “male” success. They hardly talk about their achievements. Rather, they work silently and go for good results.

Therefore, Women’s Day should change the old image of “yes, you are great and we are proud of you” to one focussing on key questions: “Where do you want to be in 10/20/50 years of time? In which direction do we want to see our society go and how do we want to change the society in the next decades?”

Women's Day should become a “Development/Innovation/Future Day”

Women's Day 2011: Tomorrow's People

2011-03-07T15:14:00.002+01:00

Sara Paz (l) and Artemis Konstantinidi

To celebrate Women's Day 2011, humanrightseurope called on two young women at the start of their professional lives, Sara Paz, from Spain and Artemis Konstantinidi, from Greece, to find out how 21st century Europe looks to them.

1.      Do you think that male dominance is more and more a relic of the past?

Sara (SP) Yes. Maybe not in every part of the world and not amongst all people but worldwide the concept of 'male' as superior is becoming a notion of the past, related to ideas of roles which are no longer conceived as they were during history.

Even though my generation tends to think women's rights were achieved long ago, the truth is women have been enjoying basic rights for only a few decades. Nowadays these rights are supported by law in some countries whereas in others they are still ignored.

Artemis (AK): Unfortunately, male dominance complex traits can still be found around us. This is a question of education and mentality, since sexism can even be faced in higher working structures. Nevertheless, modern society is more aware of gender rights than it was 40 and 50 years ago.

2.   How is your life different to that of your mother?

(SP): My mother was born during the sixties, when Spain was governed by a dictatorship where women could not even open a bank account or have a passport without men’s permission. I can now say both boys and girls have the same opportunities. It is incredible to think about how things have changed so quickly.

(AK): Women who grew up in Greece during the 70’s saw important Greek women participating actively in social and working life, highlighting the importance of gender equality in society. However, they had a huge fight against sexist mentalities, and for their labour rights and pay parity.

Nowadays, women’s role in the Greek society has advanced, and women enjoy working rights and social life more than ever. Once they are married, they do not have to change their last name into their husband’s name.

Greek society promoted women’s emancipation, and women now represent 60% of university students, boosting female employment percentage as well. New career options such as the police and the army are now possible for women, too.

3.   Do you think that girls are still brought up differently to boys?

(SP): Yes, and this is an important issue to bear in mind because education is the base of future behavior. Traditionally, girls and boys have been conditioned by an environment aimed at reinforcing stereotypes. When you are a child you are taught the bases of you future personality which can be changed by socialising, studying or being able to develop a rational judgment but would be always conditioned by a primary education. The solution would not be making girls play just with trucks and boys with little kitchens but let both experiment and choose, and make sure stereotypes are not strengthened.

(AK) The majority of families are still based on the traditional model, so I believe there will always be a certain difference between the education of a girl and a boy. Even if parents are highly aware of gender equality, girls are brought up developing in their minds that a woman’s real fulfillment comes with the creation of a family, which allows them, especially in small communities, to feel socially correct.

On the other hand, as today’s parents both work, children develop a higher awareness of the importance of both men and women contributing at home.

4.   Did gender influence your academic studies?

(SP): I don’t think it did but it’s true that in my journalism class there was one man out of 10 women. We can’t deny that we are biologically different which means we are more likely to develop certain natural talents given by our gender, like communication in women or competitiveness in men. That does not imply, however, in some hypothetically perfect society not conditioned by heritage and culture, that women and men would be able to develop the same qualities. Even nowadays being part of on or the other gender does not psychologically exclude you from any professional activity.

(AK): No, gender issues did not influence my studies

5.   Do you think your gender will influence the job opportunities you will have in the future?

(SP): I hope it won’t. However, I am really optimistic about the situation of my gender when trying to achieve professional goals. In my opinion, women are more intellectually prepared, as we are still trying to demonstrate we are able to do things as well as men. It is a long process which sometimes can include finding yourself in difficult situations where, as a woman, you have to prove something which men have already proved just by the fact of being men. Sometimes this special effort makes us desire to be better and consequently we can achieve our goals.

(AK): I hope gender issues will not influence my career.

6.   How is violence towards women treated in your country?

(SP): This is a very delicate issue. In 2010, 73 women died due to domestic violence. Spain has legislation regarding violence against women, including special courts but legislation is strong on the paper and not effective in reducing the number of victims. This is a complex problem that should be treated not just legally but from the bases of education. Public awareness is already raised but in my opinion, it is still necessary to empower women in more traditional or disadvantaged sectors and to combat the lack of information in schools and other educational centers.

(AK): Despite the important steps made in Greece during the last 30 years, concerning the protection of women’s rights, this is still an important and everyday debate.

7.   Is feminism a relevant viewpoint for you and the young women that you know?

(SP): It is. We should not forget what we owe to some brave women (and also men) years ago - the ones who dared to fight for women’s rights and freedom. At least we owe them respect and the consciousness that unfair things can be changed and passivity just leads to conformism. Inequality should not be tolerated in any sector.

We are not talking, of course, about the same kind of feminism. This conception will be anachronistic as we now have different objectives and also different tools. First feminists fight for essential rights and they might have been right on being radical so that their voices could be heard. Now we fight against different problems.

(AK): Traits of feminism can be found in every woman’s action, since today, women's lives are based on feminist principles. What feminism wanted was gender equality and universal recognition of women’s freedom and active participation in life. The more women are allowed to choose for a better life based on their needs and choices, the more people can speak of real modern societies and help others.

8.   Women’s Day is a tribute to female achievement and the desire for progress. How can a human rights organisation such as the Council of Europe help women in their efforts to achieve gender parity?

(SP): Efforts to fight inequality are never wasted. Awareness and education are two important factors which may, in the long term, make the situation better. This can be done by forcing some countries to follow advice on what they should do to protect women but also by promoting projects and campaigns aimed at the younger generations who have grown up in a free environment with equal opportunities.

(AK): The Council of Europe’s campaigns are, in fact, an important tool to make states evolve their strategies and move on from theory to action. Actually, human rights issues require states to be monitored even more closely.

9. In western countries, women are overtaking men academically. They are entering the professions in ever greater numbers. Is Women’s Day still necessary at a time of ever more impressive statistics on female empowerment?

(SP): It is important because it is not only a symbol of recent achievements but a way of not forgetting there are still places where women don’t have fundamental rights. And even around us there are always things to improve.

(AK): Women’s Day is an annual campaign to remind people of the importance of women’s active participation in life, their strong will and unique contribution as wives, partners, mothers and professionals.

10. As a young woman, are you optimistic that the gender gap, in terms of opportunities and expectations, will be narrowed in your lifetime?

(SP): Absolutely!

(AK): The prosperity of a country can be examined from the position of women in society and specifically their position at work. Modern societies have yet more work to do, starting by increasing women’s participation in decision-making and creating stronger structures for gender equality.

Maybe today’s youth, who now study and travel even more than their parents did, will become more sensitive to human rights issues and will be able to work better to ensure equality for both sexes. The gender gap has to be narrowed and women’s participation should be more highlighted, for an equal society.

Schokkenbroek: Roma are citizens, neighbours and Europeans

2011-02-03T16:24:00.002+01:00

Statement by Mr Jeroen SCHOKKENBROEK,
Council of Europe, Special Representative of the Secretary General for Roma Issues
DOSTA ! Launch event, Athens, 3 February 2011

Κυρία Υπουργέ, αγαπητοί φίλοι, κυρίες και κύριοι

First of all, and on behalf of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I should like to thank all of you who have contributed to the launch of the Dosta! Campaign in Greece, starting with the Ministry of Education and in particular you, Mrs Genimata, in your capacity as alternate Minister of Education.

Our thanks go not only to those who have prepared this round table on Roma and prejudices but also to the contributors to the cultural event that will follow, with the participation of Mr Chatzis, whose songs spread the message of tolerance and brotherhood. I should also like to express my appreciation for the work of the NGOs, Roma and non Roma, which have worked hand in hand to prepare this wonderful event

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In democratic societies, there is an important human rights principle that a person shall be presumed innocent until he or she is proven guilty. However, in our democratic European societies the Roma are most often presumed guilty and given no chance to prove themselves innocent. They are suspected and feared not for what they do but for what they are - Roma. Hence the generally perceived need to keep away from them, to retain them in distant settlements, to deny them contacts with the majority in education, housing, employment – in other words, ignore their very existence.

This is not ordinary racism linked to colour or religion – it is the total rejection of a community of 12 million people that has been in Europe for nearly a thousand years and whose members are full citizens of the country in which they live. This rejection is largely based on ignorance.

The DOSTA! Campaign - Dosta in Romani means ‘enough’ - is tailored to combat this rejection, to end the ignorance. The campaign wants to go beyond the traditional format of combating stereotypes and prejudices. It wants to show that the Roma are our neighbours, our fellow citizens, our fellow Europeans. It shows Roma as they are, in their daily routines, in their family, with their friends, at work, in school, at home, with their hopes and with their problems. It shows the richness of their culture and the harshness of their daily lives.

The Council of Europe has been working to defend and promote the rights of the Roma populations in Europe for over forty years now. We act in many different areas and in many different ways. We help our member States to adapt their laws and put in place adequate policies in the field of education, health, social services, housing and others, with the objective of successful integration and socialisation of Roma. We organise workshops for teachers, roma mediators, lawyers and seminars for public officials.

Our legally-binding mechanisms, starting, of course, with the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court, to the European Social Charter and the Framework Convention on National Minorities, to mention only the most important ones, are offering legal protection and legal remedies against human rights violations. The European Court of Human Rights, for one, has delivered a number of important judgments which have helpedand are helping to advance the protection of the human rights of Roma in several Council of Europe member States.

Our other human rights institutions, such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and, of course, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammerberg, have been devoting much attention to the Roma situation, which they have identified as perhaps the most vulnerable minority in Europe. A minority, I repeat, of 12 million people.

Within that vulnerable minority, there are subgroups which are even more at risk. There are women, often disadvantaged not only as Roma, but also within the Roma community itself. And there are of course children, who must be – and are – an absolute priority of our work related to Roma.

In recent years, concern over the deplorable rejection of the Roma has increased in our member states and in international organisations, both governmental and non-governmental. During the last two decades, and particularly after the political changes in the early nineties, the Roma have become more visible, and within the European Union thousands of Roma have taken advantage of the freedom of movement to seek better living conditions abroad - only to find the same rejection. The issue has now transcended national frontiers and become a European political question.

At this stage the Secretary General of the Council of Europe moved into action. He felt that an organisation dedicated to human rights which had worked for forty years on Roma inclusion had to take decisive action to tip the balance in favour of the Roma once and for all. He called a High Level Meeting of all member States on Roma in October 2010.

In a Declaration adopted on 20 October, 2010, the Council of Europe member states recognised that “the primary responsibility for promoting inclusion lies with the member states of which Roma are nationals or long-term legal residents”. They state, however, that “recent developments concerning Roma in Europe have demonstrated that some of the challenges we face have cross-border implications and therefore require a pan-European response”.

The member states agreed on a list of priorities for more consistent efforts by member States, ranging from non-discrimination, women’s and children’s rights, empowerment, and access to justice to social inclusion through education, employment, housing and health care.

The High-Level Meeting also agreed on activities that should be implemented in the short term by the Council of Europe. I should like to mention two key priorities:

- the training of Roma mediators in different fields –school, health, jobs/employment; developing a common philosophy on the role of mediators in the different areas and providing common guidelines on the practice of this occupation. As the Strasbourg Declaration says, the aim is “to streamline, codify and consolidate the existing training programmes »

- develop an easily accessible database/resource tool of the collection, exchange and dissemination of good practices and policies regarding Roma in the member states.

The Strasbourg Declaration instructs the Council of Europe to provide “advice and support upon the request of national, regional and local authorities as well as practical assistance in the implementation of new policy initiatives, especially at the local level, and providing access to training, capacity-building and educational material.”

Of particular relevance to our meeting today is that the Secretary General, on the occasion of the High-Level Meeting, called upon the member states to “adhere to the Dosta! Campaign.”

For the Council of Europe to better contribute to the implementation of these priorities, the Secretary General decided to re-organise resources within the Organisation’s Secretariat in a transversal manner. This ensures better coordination both within the Organisation and with national and regional authorities and international organisations, pooling of expertise in the various sectors and more effective use of human and financial resources. The Secretary General has appointed me as his Special Representative for Roma issues to ensure that the decisions of the Declaration are efficiently implemented.

Human rights are not a luxury to be accorded at leisure. They are rights to be accorded here and now. They are rights that belong to each and every human being. Those individuals and authorities that deny the Roma the right to a decent living, should be aware that they are denying their own humanity. The Dosta! Campaign wants to bring home this truth. The Roma in Greece are Greek citizens, having the same rights as any other Greek. They have the same aspirations to proper education, decent housing and a job as any other Greek. They are no different from any of us in their loves, hopes and desires.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I sincerely hope that the Dosta! Campaign will help to make a breach in the wall of rejection, and lead the majority population to a better understanding of our common humanity.

Once again, I should like to congratulate the Greek authorities for joining in this Campaign. I take their commitment as encouraging evidence of their determination to respond to the many challenges in this area in a way which will be effective and consistent with Council of Europe standards. I can assure you that in this endeavour, they can count on the Council of Europe’s full support and contribution.

My last remark is in fact a plea to you all. I should like to invite all of you to say Dosta ! ως Εδώ-Αρκετά - learn about Roma. Opening your eyes is the first step towards opening your hearts and minds.

Σας ευχαριστώ

Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu: "All forms of intolerance are on the rise again"

2011-02-01T17:28:00.001+01:00

Speech by Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu,
President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), in memory of the victims of the Holocaust

(Auschwitz, 1st February 2011, 5.00 pm)

Dear friends,

No words can describe the despicable horror that happened here 70 years ago, in the same way as no deeds can repair the destruction of human life and dignity.

And yet both words and deeds are necessary to build strong democratic safeguards in our societies; safeguards which can make sure that the Holocaust remains a fact of history, and never a prospect for the future.

This was the main drive of European integration, doing everything possible to ensure that the horrors of the war will “never again” be repeated.

In 1949 one had to be a visionary, almost a dreamer, to believe that a day would come when all nations and peoples in Europe would be able to unite around shared values and build their common future on the basis of peace, dialogue, tolerance and understanding. Yet the Council of Europe, which I represent here, unites today practically all the European countries, with one single exception, that of Belarus.

All the diversity of political ideas, cultures, languages and religions are represented in it. What used to be the basis of division and conflict has become the source of strength. Symbolically, the headquarters of our Organisation is in Strasbourg, a city on the border between France and Germany and a symbol of reconciliation between two war enemies.

Over the last six decades, we have been able to prove that long-lasting peace and stability are only possible on the basis of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These are the three solid pillars on which the Council of Europe has been built; they are at the core of the European Convention on Human Rights. They are equally the basis of an impressive corpus of legal instruments, standards, monitoring mechanisms, good practices and means of international cooperation which have been put in place in order to allow European countries to face challenges together, in concertation and dialogue, rather than in conflict.

However, the safeguards I am referring to should not only be in legal texts; first and foremost they should be in our minds.

The starting-point for building such safeguards is education. Let me give you just a few examples of what we have tried to achieve in this respect, mostly through the European Cultural Convention:

- we have developed programmes for the teaching of history;

- we have initiated a “Day of Holocaust remembrance and of prevention of crimes against humanity” in schools;

- we have issued a book, in cooperation with the Polish Ministry of Education and the memorial museum of Auschwitz Birkenau, with guidelines for teachers and educators on visiting Auschwitz.

The sittings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I chair, make a priceless contribution towards a hate-free and phobia-free Europe, as it is a place where we can discuss peacefully and freely any matters that unite us or where we differ. Next April we are going to have a major debate on the religious dimension of inter-cultural dialogue, which would also be a way of commemorating all the victims of intolerance.

Dear friends, If the horrors of the past have given Europe the determination to make the strongest political progress ever in its history, the dark sides have nevertheless not really disappeared. All forms of intolerance towards those considered “different” are on the rise again – be it anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or racism and xenophobia in general. Ethnic, religious or cultural differences between people are being artificially exacerbated and manipulated in the political discourse, to divert attention from the real problems and real solutions. Politicians and parties reverting to such discourse have now been democratically elected in many national parliaments.

We should realise that when human hatred and the concept that “might is right” start setting the rules of the game, nobody is really safe. Anyone can become a victim at any time. This is why it is so important that we all unite, as we are doing here. Let us continue together.

Thank you for your attention.

Video: 2011 International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust

Theme: Europe And Remembrance

News

Proposals for international cooperation on cross-border Internet

2011-01-28T14:57:00.001+01:00

Interim Report of the Ad-hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet

to the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services incorporating analysis of proposals for international and multi-stakeholder cooperation on cross-border Internet

Strasbourg, December 2010

The members of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet are:

Mr Bertrand de la Chapelle, Mr Wolfgang Kleinwächter,
Mr Christian Singer, Mr Rolf H. Weber, Mr Michael V. Yakushev

I. Introduction

1. The Ad-hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet (MC-S-CI) was set up following the 11th meeting of the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Service (CDMC), which took place on 20-23 October 2009. Its Terms of Reference were approved by the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC) on 27 May 2009 and adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 July 2009 and revised on 9 November 2009. The Ministers’ Deputies decided at their 1099th meeting on 23 November 2010 to renew the Terms of Reference of the MC-S-CI for 2011.

2. The Group is instructed under its Terms of Reference to:

“i. continue to examine the shared or mutual responsibilities of states in ensuring that critical Internet resources are managed in the public interest and as a public asset, ensuring delivery of the public service value to which all persons under their jurisdiction are entitled. Make proposals, in particular, relating to the prevention and management of events, including malicious acts, falling within member states’ jurisdictions or territories, which could block or significantly impede Internet access to or within fellow members of the international community with the objective of guaranteeing the ongoing functioning and universal nature and integrity of the Internet;

ii. explore the feasibility of drafting an instrument designed to preserve or reinforce the protection of cross-border flow of Internet traffic openness and neutrality.”

3. The Group has taken note of the decision of the Ministers’ Deputies, at their 1068th meeting, on 20 and 21 October 2009 in which they “invited, in particular, the CDMC to seek to ensure multistakeholder participation in the implementation of relevant parts of its terms of reference and to give priority attention in that work to the elaboration of legal instruments designed (i) to preserve or reinforce the protection of the cross-border flow of Internet traffic and (ii) to protect resources which are critical for the ongoing functioning and borderless nature and integrity of the Internet (i.e. critical internet resources). ”

4. The MC-S-CI started consideration of issues pertinent to its Terms of Reference and of working methods at two telephone conferences in January 2010. It had its first formal meeting on 1 and 2 March 2010 in Paris where it decided to prepare a paper for the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG, 29 and 30 April 2010, Madrid) and agreed on the elaboration of draft Committee of Ministers declarations on (i) member states’ active participation in the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of ICANN and (ii) the management of IP address resources in the public interest .

5. The draft Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on enhanced participation of member states in Internet governance matters – Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the draft Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the management of Internet protocol address resources in the public interest were elaborated and finalised by the MC-S-CI and the CDMC through online communication. They were subsequently adopted by the Committee of Ministers.

6. At the EuroDIG meeting (Madrid, 29 and 20 April 2010), the MC-S-CI organised a workshop where it presented and discussed with participants its discussion paper “A conceptual approach for setting a standard of care for cross-border Internet” . This was based on input papers which were elaborated by the members of the Group. The Group had a first informal meeting on the margins of EuroDIG where it agreed to structure its analysis in two major parts, respectively Internet governance principles (Part I) and responsibilities of states (Part II). It also agreed to update the discussion paper accordingly and to submit to discussion of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Vilnius (14-17 September 2010).

In addition, the Group decided to elaborate elements for a possible draft declaration of the Committee of Ministers in connection with the Granada Ministerial Declaration. The draft Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the Digital Agenda for Europe was elaborated and finalised by the Group through online communication. The draft was subsequently endorsed by the CDMC and adopted by the Committee of Ministers . During this time, one of the members of the MC-S-CI Mr. Mark Kelly had resigned.

7. Some of the members of the Group met on the margins of the 38th meeting of the Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers (ICANN) which took place in Brussels from 20-25 June 2010. There was discussion of preparations for participation in the IGF and an exchange of views with external experts. In Vilnius the MC-S-CI organised a workshop where representatives from European and non-European governments, private sector organisations, lawyers, academics, technologists and other stakeholder groups participated.

The MC-S-CI submitted a discussion paper “Draft Elements for a Framework of General Principles of Internet Governance and Duties of States with Respect to the Protection of Critical Internet Resources in a Cross-border Context”. On the 15th of September 2010 the Group had a second informal meeting where it agreed to elaborate explanatory notes to its proposals which are largely reflected in the analysis included in this report. The Group has exchanged views with external experts on a number of occasions including formal and informal meetings as well as events in the framework of the EuroDIG and IGF.

8. At its second formal meeting, which took place on 8 and 9 November 2010 in Strasbourg the MC-S-CI members and other participants took stock of findings and conclusions reached at its meetings (formal and informal) as well as of feedback received during and after discussions with participants in EuroDIG and IGF. The Group explored prospects and options for future standard-setting action in relation to its Terms of Reference and decided:

- to submit to the CDMC a report on the work and activities carried out during 2010 which incorporates its analysis of legal aspects of cross-border Internet as well as proposals for standard-setting action;

- in respect of item (i) of its Terms of Reference, to invite the CDMC to consider further action aimed at drawing up new international legal instruments on cross-border Internet, in the first place, by instructing the Group to prepare a draft Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on the general principles of Internet governance and a draft Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation on international cooperation in respect of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet, on the basis of the analysis included respectively in Parts III and IV of this report, also by taking into account the multistakeholder nature of the governance of the Internet and the need for innovative approaches for the development of policy regulatory frameworks;

- in respect of item (ii) of its Terms of Reference, to invite the CMDC to consider a decision to instruct the Group to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or reinforce the protection of cross-border flow of Internet traffic openness and neutrality;

- to recommend to the CMDC to organise a dedicated event to discuss with stakeholders the feasibility of international law responses to issues related to international cooperation in respect of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet.

9. This report presents the state of examination and analysis of the MC-S-CI of items (i) and (ii) of its Terms of Reference as of the end of the second meeting of the MC-S-CI and as submitted to the CDMC at its 13th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-19 November 2010). It also includes changes made to prepare the report for sharing with a wider group of readers as well as up-to date information further to the CDMC meeting. The CDMC took note of the ongoing work of the MC-S-CI and supported its proposals for standard-setting action as well the organisation of a conference with government representatives, including states which are not members of the Council of Europe, key industry actors and relevant academics the content of those proposals and explore possible further action to be taken on the subject.

It also agreed to appoint Mr Bertrand de La Chapelle Program Director at the International Diplomatic Academy as member of the Group. Part II of the report provides an assessment of the need for international and multi-stakeholder cooperation on cross-border Internet issues. Parts III and IV provide a frame of reference for the standard-setting action proposed by the MC-S-CI to the CDMC.

II. Challenges affecting the Internet – threats to fundamental rights and freedoms

10. Internet’s openness and accessibility have become preconditions for the enjoyment of fundamental rights, notably the right to freedom of expression and access to information which in accordance with Article 10 should be guaranteed “regardless of frontiers”. There are examples of access to broadband Internet connection being recognised as a legal right in some European countries such as Finland and Switzerland. Universal broadband access is also a formally adopted policy, albeit not articulated as an enforceable right, in other countries such as Iceland.

11. Because of the cross-border interconnectedness and interdependencies of the Internet infrastructure, restrictions placed on different types of information, content, services and applications on the Internet may affect the free flow of information across borders. The stability and resilience of the Internet depend on critical resources which are distributed in different jurisdictions and are managed by various entities, without a common governance approach.

12. Users’ capacity to access the Internet is exposed to risks of disruptions of the stable and continuous functioning of the network and is vulnerable to technical failure or other acts of interference with the infrastructure of the Internet.

13. Decisions made in the framework of the technical coordination and management of critical Internet resources, such as the IP addresses resources and the domain name space, may have a direct bearing on access to information and respect for privacy. A noteworthy example is a recent decision of the French Constitutional Council which acknowledged that freedom of expression can be at stake in the context of management of the French domain name system and that the relevant regulatory framework should include safeguards on freedom of expression.

14. The principle of global public interest in the management of the Internet and the importance of sustaining its stability, robustness and resilience can be derived from the affirmation of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which emerged from the   second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (hereinafter the Tunis Agenda) that the Internet has developed into “a global facility available to the public”. Critical infrastructure located within specific jurisdictions should be regarded as part of this global facility and its uses should take full account of the common interest. Similarly, the use of critical resources which are managed beyond the boundaries of national jurisdictions should be open to every nation and every user. Critical Internet resources should be regarded as global commons under the stewardship of the international Internet community as a whole. Their management must be done in full respect for international law, including human rights law.

15. The borderless nature of the Internet infrastructure raises the need to address the challenges to its stability and robustness on a multilateral basis and through international cooperation. The threats affecting the Internet and the integral threats to freedom of expression and access to information can be addressed by internationally co-ordinated preventive, management and response policies.

16. Against this background, it is necessary that there be a common understanding of the fundamental principles and best practices for the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet by all stakeholders. States can play a key role in structuring action to achieve this goal by promoting and facilitating the development and implementation of common practices, rules and standards of resilience, regular cross-border exchange of knowledge and expertise, experience and technology sharing, exchange of personnel, consultation, participation in joint exercises and mutual assistance in case of need.

17. There are examples of international coordination and cooperation in the area of Internet stability and resilience. Mention can be made of the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, an international confederation of computer emergency teams which co-operatively deal with cyber security incidents and promote incident prevention programmes. Also, the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) of the European Union (EU) functions on the basis of a model of cooperation amongst national computer emergency teams which builds confidence in its system of technical advise by virtue of its independence, quality of advice and transparency of procedures.

18. However, these interactions are based on technical and operational trust rather than on legal commitments. Their sustainability should be guaranteed by means of a higher level of commitment. International law lacks a basic framework for preventive, management and response action in situations of disruptions of or interferences with the Internet’s ongoing functioning, one that includes requirements on timely and effective exchange of information, disclosure of transboundary risks to critical Internet resources, coordination of incident response measures and aid in cases of technical failure or interference with the network.

19. The MC-S-CI considers that a framework of commitments for international and multi-stakeholder cooperation is needed in order to preserve and reinforce the protection of cross-border flow of Internet traffic and the stability and ongoing functioning of the Internet as a means to safeguard freedom of expression and information regardless of frontiers. General principles of Internet governance, on the one hand, and shared responsibilities of states with respect to the preservation of critical Internet resources and the cross-border flow of Internet traffic, on the other hand, should be the two main pillars of such commitments.

20. The topic of protection of critical Internet resources is complex due to its inherent features of decentralised management, interconnectedness, interdependencies and control by multiple actors (mainly private) and encompasses diverse types of arrangements. The complexity of an exercise leading to setting legal standards that bring together all actors calls for some caution at this stage in the normative realm. The MC-S-CI has analysed a variety of issues and has developed a frame of reference for the proposals it is expected to make to the CDMC under its Terms of Reference. Although the content of these proposals needs further elaboration, the basic elements and the legal analysis that supports them, have been identified and are explained below. The desirability of reinforcing standard-setting action in relation to cross-border Internet should be considered in due course.

III. General principles of Internet governance

21. This part contains the frame of reference for developing a Committee of Minister’s draft Declaration on general principles of Internet governance as proposed in paragraph 8 of this report.

22. The heads of states and governments participating in the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society adopted the following definition of Internet governance as part of the Tunis Agenda:

“[…] Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.”

23. The relationship between, on the one hand, local Internet-related policies and Internet management action and the global Internet, on the other hand, should be guided by a set of governance principles that are accepted globally. In the Tunis Agenda the governments commit to “the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources” and “[i]n this regard, […] call[s] upon the organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles.”

24. The principles formulated below set out the general context in which the topic of prevention and management of and response to Internet interferences and disruptions is elaborated. They draw from those which are generally recognised by the Internet community. Initiatives in different parts of the world have advanced a common understanding of the Internet governance principles. For example, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee has developed a set of Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet . The EU promotes a set of Internet governance principles which it considers as enablers of the success of the Internet .

1. Protection of and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms

Human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are guaranteed in international law, are non-derogable and core values of Internet governance. They apply equally to offline and online activities and regardless of frontiers. The right to security of persons, privacy, the right to freedom of thought and religion, the right to freedom of expression and access to information, the right to freedom of assembly, the right to the protection of property, the right to education as well as respect for human dignity must be guaranteed in all Internet governance processes. All stakeholders should be aware of developments leading to enhancement of fundamental rights and freedoms and fully participate in efforts aimed at recognising new emerging rights.

25. This principle draws inspiration from key instruments of international human rights law such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council of Europe member states have affirmed that “[f]undamental rights and Council of Europe standards and values apply to online information and communication services as much as they do to the offline world. This stems, inter alia, from Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights which lays out the obligation of the contracting parties to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction” the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (without the online/offline distinction). This approach has been affirmed by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.”

26. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has acknowledged that the Internet and other ICT services have high public service value in that they serve to promote the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all who use them, and that their protection should be a priority with regard to the governance of the Internet. Every citizen should benefit from the public service value of the Internet. The Committee of Ministers has recommended that member states adopt and develop policies to preserve and, whenever possible, enhance the protection of human rights and respect for rule of law in the information society.

27. There are discussions in academic and other fora on new emerging rights such as the right to anonymity, the right to be forgotten, the right to virtual identity. The Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet that is being drafted by the Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition, a group of stakeholders’ representatives which was created within the framework of IGF, states that everyone has a right to digital identity and that the virtual personality of human persons needs to be respected. Although there is no world-wide recognition of these rights in international law yet, the general principles of Internet governance should be looking forward to the future and call on all stakeholders to participate in the development of new emerging rights.

2. Multistakeholderism

Internet governance needs the participation of governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, for the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Internet Governance is a multi-layer and multi-player mechanism in which a broad range of entities participate in a collaborative way.

28. This principle reflects the understanding of the “Declaration of Principles: Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium” adopted at the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society, which took place in Geneva from 10 to 12 December 2003 (hereinafter the Geneva Declaration of Principles) underlining the need to ensure a multi-stakeholder approach in Internet governance processes. The “[i]nternational management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations” . It also builds on the working definition of Internet Governance which is included in the Tunis Agenda (see paragraph 22 above).

29. A similar reflection can be found in the EU context. The European Commission has stated that “[t]he multi-stakeholder process on Internet governance continues to provide an inclusive and effective mechanism for promoting global cooperation and needs to be further encouraged.”
30. It should be noted that the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), a group of stakeholders’ representatives has analysed in certain details the principle of multistakeholderism. The WGIG “came to the conclusion that from an operational point of view, the WSIS criteria of multilateralism, transparency, democracy and full involvement of all stakeholder groups have somewhat different meanings, possibilities, and limits in relation to different types of governance mechanisms. They may therefore be regarded as having different shades of meaning in different contexts. For example, the WGIG recognised that “full involvement of all stakeholders” would not necessarily mean that every stakeholder group should have the same role in the development of policies, the preparation of decisions, the actual decisions and then the implementation of decisions.”
3. Universality of the Internet

The Internet has developed into a global space of freedom for the Internet community worldwide and has become one of the driving forces for economic growth and innovation in our societies as well as a key promoter of education, culture and dissemination of knowledge. The Internet network is part of every nation’s most crucial infrastructures as well as of the transnational communication network. In this regard, without prejudice to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in full respect of international human rights law, all stakeholders have the responsibility to ensure that Internet related policies are developed in a manner that recognises the universal nature of the Internet.

31. This principle is the basic premise for global free flow of information over the Internet. Several countries have recognised that the free flow of information is essential to democracy, freedom and economic growth. While acknowledging the public service value of the Internet, the Committee of Ministers called on its member states to “affirm freedom of expression and the free circulation of information on the Internet, balancing them, where necessary, with other legitimate rights and interests, in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights [inter alia] by promoting freedom of communication and creation on the Internet, regardless of frontiers .

32. The Seoul Declaration on the Future of the Internet Economy adopted at the OECD Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy, 17 and 18 June 2008 incorporates a commitment of the 39 signatory states and the European Community to “[f]oster creativity in the development, use and application of the Internet, through policies that, inter alia, maintain an open environment that supports the free flow of information, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and business transformation”. Also, The EU has also acknowledged that the Internet is part of the critical information infrastructure.

33. The topic of universality of the Internet is related to discussions on the topic of state jurisdiction on the Internet. International private law provides basic principles that offer guidance on the exercise of jurisdiction. The principle of universality as proposed to be stated in a declaration of the Committee of Ministers should not be interpreted as attempting to construct a jurisdictional regime or as an effort to answer questions of jurisdiction in cyberspace. Moreover, it is understood that the concept of sovereignty in cyberspace is currently being reviewed in modern literature.

4. Stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet

Internet’s stability, robustness and resilience are pre-conditions for the full enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms and key objectives of Internet governance. In order to preserve the integrity and ongoing functioning of the Internet’s infrastructure as well as users’ trust and reliance on the Internet, it is necessary to promote international and multi-stakeholder cooperation.

34. The Tunis Agenda “recognize[d] that all governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet” as well as “the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.”

35. One of the main considerations included in the EU’s statement of Internet governance principles is that “[t]he Commission believes in maintaining a strong emphasis on the need for security and stability of the global Internet, the respect for human rights, freedom of expression, privacy, protection of personal data and the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity.” The European Commission has also emphasised the need to identify principles and guidelines for Internet resilience and stability (at a European level) and to promote them at a global level.

36. As mentioned above, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has recognised the public service value of the Internet. People rely on the Internet for their every day activities and have a legitimate expectation that Internet services should be accessible and affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing . States have a key role to play in preserving peoples’ trust and reliance on the Internet stability and ongoing functioning and have a duty to live up to their legitimate expectation that Internet policy will reflect the public interest.

5. Empowerment of Internet users

Users should be fully empowered to exercise their freedom of expression and access to information, design their privacy, make their political, commercial or other decisions and participate in online environments, including through the development of user-centred governance mechanisms, according to their own values and preferences and in full respect of fundamental rights and freedoms. Awareness raising and empowerment of Internet users is integral to a free and open Internet and promotes innovation.

37. Internet users’ trust on the Internet relies on the stability of the network, the security of online activities, in the way personal information is processed by state authorities and private entities and on the availability of content in diverse languages and formats. The Geneva Declaration of Principles underlined that “[s]trengthening the trust framework, including information security and network security, authentication, privacy and consumer protection, is a prerequisite for the development of the Information Society and for building confidence among users of ICTs.”

38. Users should have the information necessary to make informed decisions and the tools and knowledge to participate in the online environment as well as to interact with new technologies. These tools and methods should give them the possibility not only to find the information they wish but also to block contents they do not wish to have access to and to disconnect from the online world. Enhancement of users’ capabilities such as computer and information literacy and the development and promotion of technologies of user empowerment should be key objectives of Internet-related policies.

39. Everyone is entitled to take advatange of the public service value of the Internet. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has recommended to member states to develop, in cooperation with the private sector and civil society, strategies which promote the integration of ICTs into education, media and information literacy and training in formal and non-formal education sectors for children and adults in order to empower them to use media technologies, to encourage them to exercise their democratic rights and civic responsibilities effectively and to encourage them to make informed choices when using the Internet and other ICTs . In addition, the Council of Europe has developed a number of standards on media literacy, ongoing and life long education as well as on the protection and empowerment of children in online environments.

6. Architectural principles of the Internet

Openness, interoperability, the end-to-end nature of the Internet as well as the principle of network neutrality, understood as non-discriminatory and universal access to Internet resources and choice of content, applications and services by the end users, should be normative guides to international policy making on the Internet.

40. Internet is based on a stable, secure and efficient operation of its core architecture. Sustaining its integrity and performance and ensuring interoperability of the Internet with the support of all members of the Internet community is an important normative goal. The inter-networking layer which enables global connectivity over diverse hardware is best exploited by preserving the end-to-end nature that characterises the Internet’s architecture. The end-to-end nature of the Internet is described as a function of the network in which the intelligence is at the endpoints rather than hidden in the network.

41. Global, open and non-proprietary core Internet standards and protocols are fundamental features of the Internet design. They allow for the development of applications, content and technological innovations independently. The Internet community shares ownership over the core architecture of the Internet. Protocols and standards should continue to be developed in the framework of pluralistic, transparent and coordinated collaborative processes as well as with multiple public and private stakeholders according to the principle of subsidiarity, which calls for decisions to be made at the most appropriate and efficient level with efficient coordination. Open standards should apply to all layers of the Internet architecture to guarantee the interoperability of networks in terms of infrastructures, services and contents.

42. Internet architecture and its governance evolve as technological innovation continues to emerge, the number of mobile Internet uses increases, more diverse terminals are connected and the peer-to-peer system develops. The development of knowledge of these technologies should be promoted in order to allow for the progress of Internet uses in society. Innovation should be a key objective of Internet-related public policy.

43. Network neutrality has generated value for society as it has been the driving force behind technological innovations, network growth and market competition, and has encouraged the diversification of information available online by means of lowering the thresholds for the dissemination of knowledge.

44. The Committee of Ministers Declaration on network neutrality states that “users should have the greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services of their choice, whether or not they are offered free of charge, using suitable devices of their choice. Such a general principle, commonly referred to as network neutrality, should apply irrespective of the infrastructure or the network used for Internet connectivity. Access to infrastructure is a prerequisite for the realisation of this objective.”
The Declaration adds that “traffic management should not be seen as a departure from the principle of network neutrality. However, exceptions to this principle should be considered with great circumspection and need to be justified by overriding public interests. In this context, member states should pay due attention to the provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights.”

45. The Brazilian Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet give the following formulation in respect of the principle of neutrality of the network “[f]iltering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. A related principle, namely unaccountability of the network is formulated as “ [a]ll action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at those directly responsible for such activities, no at the means of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights.

7. Inclusive participation

International Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should ensure full and equal participation of all countries.

46. The Tunis Agenda “recognize[d] as fundamental elements to bridge the digital divide in developing countries, in a sustainable way, poverty reduction, enhanced national capacity building and the promotion of national technological development.” It also committed governments “to review and follow up progress in bridging the digital divide, taking into account the different levels of development among nations, so as to achieve the internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals, assessing the effectiveness of investment and international cooperation efforts in building the Information Society, identifying gaps as well as deficits in investment and devising strategies to address them.”

47. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers has recommended to member states to develop, in cooperation with the private sector and civil society, strategies which promote affordable access to the Internet for individuals, irrespective of their age, gender, ethnic or social origin, including persons and groups of persons on low incomes, those in rural and geographically remote areas and those with special needs (for example, disabled persons) bearing in mind the importance of design and application, affordability, the need to raise awareness among these persons and groups, the appropriateness and attractiveness of Internet access and services as well as their adaptability and compatibility.
8. Cultural and linguistic diversity

Cultural and linguistic diversity and the development of local content, regardless of language or script, should be key objectives of Internet related policy, international cooperation and development of new technologies.

48. The protection of cultural heritage as well as intercultural dialogue is part of Council of Europe conventional standards such as the European Cultural Convention (ETS No.018) and the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (ETS No. 199) . The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ETS No. 148), the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ETS No.157), the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (ETS No.106) and the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No.144) promote and protect diversity in a spirit of tolerance.

The Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly have also adopted a panoply of recommendations on different aspect of intercultural dialogue. Notably, in the 1999 Declaration on a European policy for new information technologies, the Committee of Ministers urged member states to promote the full use by all, including minorities, of the opportunities for exchange of opinion and self-expression offered by the new information technologies as well as to encourage the provision of cultural, educational and other products and services in an appropriate variety of languages.

49. The utilisation of a website by users in their own language is an important element of access to the Internet and of user empowerment. Multilingualism in cyberspace is a key concept to ensure cultural diversity and participation of all linguistic groups in the information society. The Internet has developed into a space for expression, exchange and interaction of all cultures and languages. The introduction of the first four internationalised domain names (IDNs) in the domain name system by ICANN in May 2010 has enabled the creation of spaces for local language content and contributed to the global nature of the Internet. Meanwhile 13 more IDNs country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) have passed the process of string evaluation in ICANN.

50. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions of 20 October 2005 provides guidance on the protection of multilingualism and cultural diversity. The promotion and preservation of diverse cultural identities and languages should be a key objective of international Internet related policy, which should provide instruments to enable support for capacity building for the production of local language content and availability of translation technology in order to promote knowledge diversity.

9. Decentralised management responsibility

The decentralised nature of the responsibility for the management of the Internet should be preserved. The private sector should retain its leading role in the technical and operational matters while ensuring transparency and being accountable to the Internet community for its actions that have an impact on public policy.

51. Internet infrastructure, software and services are owned and administered by private entities, which in turn leads to decentralised network operation and policies. The private sector has contributed to promote the universality of the Internet, unleash economic potential and develop democratic processes and is on the frontlines of action aimed at, ensuring the robustness and resilience of Internet’s infrastructure.

52. The EU promotes a similar principle which states that “[p]rivate-sector leadership of day-to-day Internet management needs to be maintained but private bodies responsible for the coordination of global Internet resources need to be accountable to the international community for their actions. The role of governments should be mainly focused on principle issues of public policy, excluding any involvement in the day-to-day operations.”

53. Transparency is a central feature of many of the affirmations of the Tunis Agenda. It is described as a basic premise of the governance of the Internet in general and is embodied in a number of other affirmations on specific topics and issues such as the development of strategies for global connectivity and equitable access , multilingualisation and development of regulatory frameworks . Transparency enables verification of whether the management decisions guarantee the protection of the public interest in an adequate manner. Hence, the need for accountability for private sector actions and decisions that have an impact on public policy.

10. Responsibilities of states for Internet-related public policy

States have rights and responsibilities for developing and implementing international Internet-related public policy and, in this regard, they should ensure full participation of the private sector and civil society. They have legitimate expectations vis-à-vis fellow members of the international community and mutual responsibilities to take reasonable measures to ensure the ongoing functioning, stability and universality of the Internet. International cooperation and new relationships should build on existing mechanisms or arrangements on Internet governance in a spirit of complementarity and cooperation.

54. Council of Europe member states have recognised that fundamental rights and freedoms apply equally to offline and online activities. As bearers of the duty to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, states should ensure that international Internet-related policy incorporates adequate safeguards for fundamental rights and freedoms.

Citizens’ legitimate expectation that Internet services be accessible and affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing (public service value of the Internet) and the corollary expectation that Internet-related policy and governance arrangements reflect the public interest of the Internet community as a whole, raise the need for effective public policies as well as private sector accountability.

The Council of Europe ministers responsible for media and new communication services have affirmed that “Council of Europe member states share the responsibility to take reasonable measures to ensure the ongoing functioning of the Internet and, in consequence, of the delivery of the public service value to which all persons under their jurisdiction are entitled. Interstate cooperation and solidarity is of paramount importance to the proper functioning, stability and universality of the Internet.”

55. The Tunis Agenda recognised that “[p]olicy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues.” It also recognised “the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders.” The EU promotes the principle that “[g]overnments need to fully interact with […] multi-stakeholder processes, with stakeholders accepting that it is governments alone who are ultimately responsible for the definition and implementation of public policies.”

56. This principle should be read together with Part IV in which the MC-S-CI elaborates more on the rights, responsibilities and duties of states in respect of critical Internet resources in a cross-border context as well as on different ways to construct international and multistakeholder cooperation.

IV. Rights, responsibilities and duties of states in respect of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet in a cross-border context

57. This part provides the frame of reference for the MC-S-CI proposal to the CDMC in respect of developing a Committee of Ministers’ draft Recommendation (see paragraph 8 above).

A. General principles of international cooperation

A.1. Multistakeholder participation

States acknowledge and are guided by the general principles of Internet governance in processes of developing public policy on the Internet. In particular, states acknowledge the role and the efforts of the private sector to address risks and vulnerabilities of the Internet infrastructure as well as the fundamental role of civil society in developing and monitoring policies and arrangements in relation to the preservation of the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet. States should create an enabling and collaborative environment for the private sector and civil society to play their roles and should forge partnerships among all actors.

58. This principle affirms the general principles of Internet governance as normative guides for policy making on the Internet, with a special emphasis on the principle of multistakeholdersim. It acknowledges that the private sector, as administrator of Internet’s infrastructure, is on the frontlines of action taken to address vulnerabilities and risks of the infrastructure, in different ways, such as by taking precautions, adopting recovery measures and developing market solutions. States also affirm the watchdog role of civil society on public policy on the Internet.

59. As bearers of the duty to ensure respect for the public interest, states should undertake a commitment to create an enabling environment for all stakeholders to play their roles. States can facilitate dialogue, information and knowledge sharing, coordinated action and cooperative activities among private sector actors. They can act as conveners of meetings or promoters of structured dialogue among stakeholders including the industry, the civil society and governmental agencies. They can help institutionalise these partnerships by creating or facilitating the operation of institutional collaborative and transparent arrangements.

A.2. Prevention and management of and response to Internet disruptions and interferences

States should, in cooperation with each other and with all relevant stakeholders, take all reasonable measures to prevent, manage and respond to significant transboundary disruption of and interference with the stability, robustness, resilience and openness of the Internet, or at any event minimise the risk and consequences thereof.

60. This principle is based on the principle of prevention of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities which reads:

“The State of origin shall take all appropriate measures to prevent significant transboundary harm or at any event to minimize the risk thereof.”

61. In customary international law, the principle of prevention has been derived from the application of general principles of law such as the principle sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, affirming that “one should use his own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another”. The duty of a state to ensure that activities within its territory or under its jurisdiction do not cause damage to other states has been affirmed in the 1938 Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada) ; in the 1949 Corfu Channel case (UK v. Albania) in which the International Court of Justice stated the obligation of a state not to knowingly allow its territory to be used contrary to the rights of other states; as well as in the 1957 Lac Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain) which stated the obligation of a state to take all necessary measures to prevent transboundary damage.

62. The principle of prevention served as the basis for the development of the no-harm rule that was integrated in international law. The most notable example is Principle 21 of the 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on Human Environment (Stockholm 5-16 June 1972) which affirms, on the one hand, states' sovereign rights relating to the exploitation of resources pursuant to their national environmental policies and, on the other hand, the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development affirms that “[s]tates have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”

63. The principle of prevention has been adopted in international treaty law concerning the protection of the environment (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ; the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter ; the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer ; the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context ), concerning international watercourse (the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes ), as well as nuclear accidents (the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution ).

64. Principle A.2, together with principle A.3 on cooperation, is intended to provide the basic foundation for the other proposed commitments of states in respect of the preservation of the ongoing functioning of the Internet and the protection of cross-border flow of the Internet traffic. A.2 is a statement of principle. The phrase “all appropriate measures” refers to all those specific actions and steps that are identified in the subsequent proposed commitments of states (Section B including exchange of information, consultation and mutual assistance). The reason for the formulation of principle A.2 is to underline the primary nature of the proposed commitments of a state to prevent, manage and respond to significant transboundary disruption of or interference with the stability, robustness, resilience and openness of the Internet. Only in case this is not fully possible a state should exert its best efforts to minimise the risk or consequences thereof.

65. The proposed commitments of prevention and management of disruptions of and interferences with the Internet apply to policies and measures adopted by states to deal with situations which involve a risk of causing or as a consequence of which there is significant transboundary disruption of or interference with the stability, robustness, resilience and openness of the Internet. Different situations could be envisaged under this category such as technical failures or malicious activities on the Internet. Such events happened in the case of the submarine cable system failure in the Mediterranean Sea on 30 January 2008 which affected 70 % of Egypt’s online traffic and half of the India’s Internet capacity or in the case of the most noteworthy European hacking attack through distributed denial of service attacks on Estonia in April/ May 2007.

66. Suggestions have been made at different stages of discussion of the MC-S-CI analysis and proposals to specify the instances which involve risk of causing or as a consequence of which there is significant disruption of or interference with the Internet’s stability, robustness and resilience. Also, it has been suggested to give consideration to cases when the Internet does not necessarily suffer disruption or there is no interference with the Internet itself but instead the Internet infrastructure is used as a “vector” for interference with other critical infrastructure.

67. In respect of the latter suggestion, the understanding of the Group is that these cases do not fall within the scope of examination that is expected under its Terms of Reference . The current examination of issues related to the protection of the integrity, ongoing functioning and openness of the Internet in a cross-border context is justified by the fact that the protection of freedom of expression and right to access to information is dependant on a stable, robust and resilient Internet. The Group recalls that the Council of Europe ministers responsible for media and new communication services stated in Resolution on Internet governance and critical Internet resources that “Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [freedom of expression] is especially relevant in […] respect [of cross-border nature of the Internet] given that the rights and freedoms protected therein are guaranteed “regardless of frontiers ”.

68. Against this background, it is understood that risks of disruption or interference with the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet should have the potential to have a major impact on a significant number of users’ ability to access information, services and applications available online across borders. A specification of a list of cases or activities that would fall under this category does not seem to be essential in terms of making the primary commitments on prevention, management and response operational. Any such list is likely to become quickly obsolete in the light of fast evolving technology.

Also, the risks of disruption or interference which flow from a certain activity are primarily related to specific contexts and a matter of technical operation. Furthermore, a generic list could not capture all these factors. It may be further noted that states have the possibility to provide guidance in respect of specific activities coming within the scope of the primary commitments in the context of measures taken to implement them.

69. The most important element that would determine whether certain situations would fall within the scope of the proposed commitments is the transboundary effect on the Internet’s stability, robustness and resilience to which preventive and response measures and policies should be applicable. Activities leading to such situations would be carried out or would take place within the jurisdiction or territory of a state and would involve the risk of having or would actually have negative consequences in another jurisdiction.

70. The proposed commitments to prevent, manage and respond to the risks mentioned above are intended to allow a state likely to be affected or actually affected by significant transboundary disruption of or interference with Internet to demand from the state, within the jurisdiction of which activities leading to this situation take place, compliance with the latter’s commitments. These are concerned with the management of risk and consequences of Internet disruptions or interferences and emphasise the duty of cooperation among the states concerned.

71. A commitment to prevent Internet disruptions and interferences would naturally include reasonable measures to prevent cyber attacks which use resources located in a specific territory or jurisdiction as well as to combat cybercrime. In this context, states should take appropriate measures to prevent Internet users’ involvement in cyber-attacks and other forms of malicious use of the Internet which may have significant transboundary consequences for the stability, robustness and resilience of network resources as well as the freedom of Internet users in other states.

Examples could include accession to relevant international law instruments such as the Budapest Convention , and participation in their follow up arrangements including the Convention’s Committee (T-CY), the Octopus conference which brings together representatives from different countries who are professionally involved in cybercrime matters and the 22/7 network which facilitates international cooperation on investigations or proceedings concerning cybercrime. States should also participate in the development and implementation of Internet user education and public awareness programmes, promotion and facilitation of dialogue with stakeholders as well as other appropriate measures.

72. The commitment of a state in respect of taking measures to prevent, manage and respond to transboundary disruptions or interferences would be one of due diligence. It is the conduct of the state in question that would determine whether it has complied with its duty of due diligence. This duty is the standard in international treaty law in respect of the protection of the environment (see paragraph 61 above). Acting with due care imposes on a state a duty to do all it can, or in other words, to take all appropriate measures at its disposal to prevent and minimise foreseeable significant transboundary harm.

73. In the context of the Internet stability, robustness and resilience, due diligence would be manifested in reasonable efforts by a state to inform itself of factual and legal components that relate to transboundary disruptions or interferences with the Internet infrastructure and to take appropriate measures in a timely fashion to address them. Such measures would include firstly, formulating policies designed to prevent and respond to disruptions or interferences, or to minimise risk or consequences thereof and secondly implementing these policies.

74. The required degree of care should be proportional to the degree of risks involved or consequences incurred. The disruption and interference should be foreseeable and the state concerned must know or should have known under the circumstances that the given activity involved a risk of significant consequences.

A state should not bear the risk of unforeseeable consequences to states likely to be affected by activities taking place within its jurisdiction. However, the commitment “to take all reasonable measures” to prevent and respond to disruptions or interference, or to minimise risks and consequences thereof, would be of a continuous nature. An efficient observance of a due diligence commitment is understood as the implementation of those measures which would be commensurate with the overall capabilities of the concerned country to address the risks.

A.3. Cooperation

States should co-operate mutually, in good faith and in consultation with each other and with concerned stakeholders at all stages of designing and implementing policies in relation to the Internet.

75. This principle sets forth a general requirement of cooperation among states and stakeholders at all stages of policy design and implementation. The modalities of cooperation are stated more specifically in the subsequent principles under section B. They envisage participation of states within whose jurisdiction disruptions or interferences with the Internet stability, robustness and resilience may originate, and states likely to be affected or actually affected, in action aimed at prevention of, preparedness for and response to risks and threats to critical Internet resources.

A multi-stakeholder approach is crucial in the success of such action. States concerned would be required to co-operate in good faith. The principle of cooperation is generally accepted in international law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, 23 May 1969, declares that the principle of good faith is universally recognised and affirms its central importance in respect of the observance, application and interpretation of the treaties.

76. In particular, states should cooperate in the creation of public awareness about the risks and opportunities of cross border Internet traffic and the development of educational tools to enable citizens to share responsibilities for a safer Internet.

A.4. Implementation

States should develop, within the limits of non-involvement in the operational issues and ordinary administration of Internet activities, reasonable legislative, administrative or other measures as appropriate, including the establishment of suitable monitoring mechanisms, to implement their commitments.

77. This principle describes some of the modalities according to which a state within whose jurisdiction disruptions of or interference with the Internet originate could discharge its due diligence commitments of prevention, management and response. These may include legislative, administrative or other action necessary to implement these commitments.

It is understood that this action should be subject to the capabilities of the state concerned. At first sight, it may seem that this paragraph is redundant as it states in general terms the specific requirements contained in the subsequent principles, namely that states should take necessary implementation measures. It is felt, however, that a statement of the requirement of implementation is necessary in order to stress the continuous character of the commitment which requires action to prevent and respond to disruptions of or interferences with the Internet.

78. This principle should not be interpreted as an assertion of exclusive competence by state authorities in respect of the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet. The reasonable and appropriate measures referred to in this principle should be understood in the context of public-private partnerships. The principle of subsidiarity or non-involvement of states in the ordinary administration of the network or operational issues sets the limit of such measures (see principles 9 and 10 in Part III).

It should be applicable to the extent that the state is not the actual operator or manager of critical Internet resources. It builds on the Tunis Agenda which affirms that the private sector takes the lead in the day-to-day operations of the Internet and “recognise[s] the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues.”

79. Legislative action may be necessary in order to overcome barriers to international cooperation which may arise as a consequence of differences in legal environments, levels of organisational, political or financial support for computer emergency teams or in operational standards and practices. Other measures may involve other positive action such as developing and implementing national strategies for proactive management of risks pertinent to or inherent in Internet infrastructure.

80. Although it is not the purpose of the proposed commitment of cooperation states may establish mechanisms that are suitable for monitoring the implementation of their preparedness and prevention commitments in respect of disruptions and interference with the infrastructure of the Internet. The role of the private sector and that of the civil society would be of great importance in this connection.

A.5. Responsibility

With the objective of ensuring accountability in respect of adverse consequences on the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet, states should engage in dialogue and cooperate to the further development of international law relating to the responsibility and liability for the assessment of and compensation for damage as well as the settlement of related disputes.

81. This principle is inspired by and modelled after the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 which in article 235 on Responsibility and Liability states:

“With the objective of assuring prompt and adequate compensation in respect of all damage caused by pollution of the marine environment, States shall cooperate in the implementation of existing international law and the further development of international law relating to responsibility and liability for the assessment of and compensation for damage and the settlement of related disputes, as well as, where appropriate, development of criteria and procedures for payment of adequate compensation, such as compulsory insurance or compensation funds.”

82. Principle A.5 affirms that the set of international commitments proposed by the MC-S-CI does not address the issues of legal consequences for failure to deliver on the commitments of cooperation contained in A.2 and A.3 and more specifically those under section B. It does not attempt to establish a legal regime of liability and reparation in respect of adverse consequences or damages on the stability, security and resilience of the Internet or to address the issue of settlement of disputes arising from the interpretation or application of the commitments on international cooperation.

83. The Group’s endeavour is to define viable legal structures, which in the context of preservation of the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet, support specific commitments and therefore may be considered as primary in nature. The proposed approach is not concerned with determining the legal consequences for failure to fulfil any of these primary commitments or any other existing obligations in international law.
In particular, this approach is not concerned with determining whether activities which involve disruption or interference with the Internet’s infrastructure constitute breaches of obligations recognised in international law, particularly those in respect of the maintenance of peace which are set forth in the United Nations Charter. It is also understood, that commitments on prevention, management and response to Internet disruptions or interferences should not have any bearing upon international cooperation to fight cybercrime in accordance with the Budapest Convention.

84. According to the International Law Commission the protection against risks or threats associated with activities that are not prohibited by international law is quite a distinct topic from that of state responsibility for failure to fulfil international obligations (internationally wrongful acts). The presence of conduct (action or omission) attributable to a state under international law and the fact that such conduct constitutes a breach of international obligations are essential conditions to establish the existence of internationally wrongful acts and to give rise to state responsibility. Article 3 of the draft articles on state responsibility as elaborated by the International Law Commission states:

   “There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when:

(a)   Conduct consisting of an action or omission is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b)   That conduct constitutes a breach of an international obligation.”

85. The MC-S-CI examination focuses on the determination of international commitments which would help create a system of prevention, management and response to disruption and interference with Internet’s infrastructure through international cooperation. The Group considers that it is necessary to maintain a strict distinction between this task and any endeavour to determine the rules that govern the responsibility for non-fulfilment of these commitments. Thus, it is understood that commitments to prevent and manage cross-border disruptions of or interferences with the Internet, which would be primary in nature, are different from existing international law rules governing responsibility for internationally wrongful acts.

86. While the principle of liability and the related arrangements on reparation may have a deterrent effect on disruptions of or interferences with the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet, it is considered that preventive and mitigating measures can have an even more direct and effective deterrent effect.
Consequently the focus is on cooperation in the prevention of and response to disruptions of and interference with the Internet. This thinking is inspired by legal concepts contained in international law on the protection of the environment. Because of inherent limitations of compensatory liability regimes (mostly related to litigation and dispute settlement), international regulation on marine pollution, pollution of international rivers and lakes, atmospheric pollution and protection and conservation of fauna and flora places emphasis on preventive, management and mitigation measures rather than reparation.

87. That said, states may already wish to undertake to engage in dialogue to develop further international law relating to the responsibility and liability for the assessment of and compensation for damage as well as the settlement of related disputes. This may be seen as a separate exercise which states may explore at a later stage.

B. Standards, information exchange and coordinated action

B.1. Standards and best practices

States should co-operate with a view to support the development and implementation of common standards, rules or practices as well as the establishment of cooperation and dialogue platforms aimed at preserving and strengthening the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet.

88. This paragraph sets forth a commitment of cooperation with specific reference to the development of common rules and practices aimed at ensuring the stability robustness and resilience of the Internet infrastructure. These are considered as the first of a series of measures to preserve the ongoing functioning of the Internet.

89. Different forms of cooperation can give effect to this commitment. States can participate in and facilitate the development of common standards or good practices for information sharing and incident reporting as well as promote their implementation in the public and private sector. In conjunction with the private sector, states can promote and facilitate the development of common standards or practices for deploying Internet resilience technologies (e.g. Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) or resilient routing technologies). They should also provide market incentives for wide take-up of security technologies as well as promote research in this context.

90. States may fulfil this commitment in the context of promoting the creation and facilitating the operation of cooperation platforms, such as public-private cooperation platforms or other mechanisms on awareness raising, information sharing, incident management and reporting and engaging in international exercises. Measures in respect of standardisation deserve nevertheless to be supported by a stand alone commitment rather than being implicit under a general requirement to promote cooperation platforms.

B.2. Information sharing and notification

States should create an environment that facilitates information sharing among stakeholders in respect of activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruption to or interferences with the stability and resilience of Internet resources. In particular states should take all reasonable measures to provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to states that may be potentially affected.

91. This principle deals with information sharing as one in a series of anticipatory actions in respect of prevention of significant transboundary disruption of or interference with the stability, robustness or resilience of the Internet. It affirms the enabling role of states in respect of promoting and facilitating identification, assessment of vulnerabilities or risks originating within their jurisdiction as well as in respect of sharing of information among private sector actors.

A major obstacle in creating resilient networks is the reluctance of certain operators to disclose and share data about vulnerabilities of information systems due to concerns on protection of reputation or competitive advantage reasons. As ENISA states “[t]here remains a lack of a clear framework for effective and timely exchange of information on critical infrastructure protection including responsible and timely disclosure of vulnerabilities.”

92. There are different ways how states can exercise an enabling role in respect of information sharing. Examples of reasonable measures to perform this role may include positive action such as developing and implementing national strategies for proactive management of risks pertinent to information infrastructures and risks inherent in technology, applications and their use.

It may also include participation, within the framework of private-public partnerships in the identification, collection and sharing of information on network vulnerabilities, risks to infrastructures or risks emerging from technologies and applications, identification of critical sectors benefiting from such infrastructures (e.g. energy, health, security), determination of risk management responsibilities for each stakeholder, development of good practices for risk assessments as well as other coordination activities.

93. The requirement of notification of transboundary risks and vulnerabilities is an indispensable part of any system of preparedness, prevention of and response to transboundary harm. Notification duties are embodied in a number of international agreements, decision of international courts and tribunals, declarations and resolutions adopted by intergovernmental organisations (the Convention on the Law of the Sea ,; Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in an Transboundary Context ; Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents ; the Rio Declaration ; OECD Council Recommendation of 14 November 1974 on “Some principles concerning transfrontier pollution” ).

94. It should be emphasised that reasonable measures to provide timely notification of risks of transboundary disruption or interference with the Internet’s infrastructure to potentially affected states are concerned with preparedness and management of risk or consequences and are aimed at cooperation and consultation among states concerned. The first principle proposed in the list of general principles of Internet governance, namely protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of Internet users as well as principle A.1 sets the limits for taking measures by states. This would be the response to concerns about surveillance measures expressed at different stage of discussions of the MC-S-CI analysis and proposals.

95. In addition, to identification of risks of causing significant transboundary disruption or interference with the Internet a requirement of notification of such risk should involve an assessment of the possible or actual adverse transboundary effects on the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet’s infrastructure. This is considered necessary in order to enable a state to determine the nature of the risk or consequences involved and the type of prevention and response measures it should take.

A requirement of assessment incorporates a precautionary approach. As it is foreseen to be discharged in the framework of public-private partnerships, it allows for participation the private sector and of the general public through their political representatives and civil society monitoring organisations and movements.

B.3. Coordinated management and response

States should co-ordinate their emergency and incident response policies, provide notification of an emergency and exchange relevant information without delay as well as engage in consultations with a view to achieving mutually acceptable solutions regarding measures to be adopted to respond to significant transboundary disruption of or interference with the stability, robustness and resilience of Internet.

96. This principle aims at dealing with the management of a significant disruption of or interference with the stability, robustness and interference of the Internet through providing a set of steps which are essential to respond to events. It draws from article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses:

“When necessary, watercourse States shall jointly develop contingency plans for responding to emergencies, in cooperation where appropriate, with other potentially affected States and competent international organizations.”

97. Nevertheless, a requirement of coordination of emergency and incident response policies would call for anticipatory rather than responsive action and is intended to enable a state to fulfil its due diligence commitment of prevention of transboundary disruption or interference with the Internet’s infrastructure.

Although the primary responsibility for developing response policies lies with each state individually, it is felt that these policies and the ensuing response efforts will be more effective if they are developed in cooperation with other states. Emergency and incident response policies could include the establishment of early warning systems, development of common standards (e.g. good practices) on emergency preparedness and recovery as well as promoting their implementation by relevant stakeholders, exchange of knowledge and personnel.

98. The steps of notification and exchange of information and that of engaging in consultations regarding measures to be adopted to respond to technical failures, disruptions or other significant interferences pertain to the action expected by a state in response to actual emergency situations. This action is justified by the significance or seriousness of adverse effects on the Internet’s normal functioning and is key to the commitment of prevention based on the concept of due diligence which is not a one-time effort but requires continuous efforts.

99. States would be expected to act ‘without delay’ in providing notification of an emergency which means immediately upon a state becomes aware of the situation of emergency so that there will be sufficient time for the states concerned to consult on appropriate management measures and to take proper action. The word ‘relevant’ is intended to emphasise the link between information and the situation and not any information. The information that is required to be exchanged is whatever would be useful for the purpose of management or prevention of the situation of significant disruption or interference with Internet’s infrastructure. States would be free to choose or construct in the spirit of cooperation the means of communication.

100. States would also be expected to enter into mutual consultation in order to agree on measures to manage or respond to situations of disruption or interference with Internet’s infrastructure. Such consultations are needed in order to maintain a balance of the legitimate interests of concerned states in respect of utilisation of critical Internet resources located in their jurisdictions. Their purpose is to enable the states concerned to achieve mutually acceptable solutions regarding management measures, which means those measures that are accepted by these states and based on an equitable balance of interests.

B.4. Mutual assistance

As appropriate and with due regard to their capabilities, states should in good faith, offer their assistance to other affected states with a view to mitigate the adverse effects or consequences of disruptions of or interferences with the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet.

101. The principle of aid which is aimed at mitigating adverse consequences on the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet is set out here. Principles of prevention, management and mitigation work together in the international regulation of pollution or environmental harm. In the context of the Internet, they are considered to be mutually reinforcing for the preservation of the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet. The principle of prevention aims to avoid harms to the Internet’s ongoing functioning e.g. interference with peoples’ access to the Internet or interference with legitimate uses of Internet resources. The principle of aid, on the other hand, aims to mitigate the occurrence of such harms.

102. The level or degree of care that is expected in providing aid to countries affected by disruptions of or interferences with Internet’s stability is proportional to and commensurate with the mitigation capabilities of each country. The requirement of solidarity and good faith is an integral part of any international cooperation procedure.

C. Transnational management of resources that are critical for functioning of the Internet
States should take all appropriate measures to ensure that the development and application of standards, policies, procedures or practices in connection with the management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet incorporate protections for human rights and fundamental freedoms of Internet users in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law. In particular, states should engage in a structured dialogue (methodology) with a view to identify appropriate responses to specific issues that may arise in respect of the management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet.

103. Freedom of speech on the Internet can be affected by decisions made in connection with the management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet such as domain name addresses and Internet protocol addresses.

104. Domain name registration policies do not provide adequate protections for anonymous speech as anyone who wishes to register a domain name is required to disclose personal information . Policies on resolving disputes between trademark owners and holders of domain names that convey political or cultural criticism of commercial activities involve consideration of nature and content of speech embodied in domain names and contained in websites and has therefore a bearing on the ability of Internet users to engage in critical speech.

A recent academic analysis has shown that more than 6 000 domain name proceedings demonstrates that in cases where domain name holders used their domain names to criticise or comment upon certain trademarks or business, companies successfully invoked the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to respond to such criticism or commentary in a large number of cases. The developing policy on new generic Top Level Domains, which involves, among others, evaluation of geographical, cultural and political sensitivities, is not constrained by specific protections or safeguards for freedom of expression (and the related freedom of association) or due process.

105. Similarly management policies over ccTLDs do not always include constraints stemming from considerations related to freedom of expression. This was exemplified in a recent case before the French Constitutional Council found unconstitutional the relevant provisions of French law, considering that in the context of the French domain name system, a domain name attribution, renewal, transfer or cancellation process must not only respect intellectual property rights but also freedom of expression and freedom of entrepreneurship .

106. Management and coordination of the Internet protocol addresses by private, non-profit and transnational governance entities, may, in respect of certain situations amount to “operational control over what is routed and (therefore what information is accessible) over the Internet” .

As matters stand, management policies over IP addresses have no constraints stemming from considerations related to fundamental rights and freedoms. Private entities responsible for technical coordination have the potential to centralise power over the Internet which may affect freedom of expression of Internet users. Although their policies are developed in bottom-up processes and by multi-stakeholder decision making structures such system of representation embodies the procedural democratic norm of political equality but does not impose checks on decision making that is adverse to fundamental rights. Their foundational documents fail to embody substantive democratic norms such as special protections for fundamental rights, notably freedom of expression.

107. It is, therefore, necessary that states promote the principle that policymaking in relation to the allocation and management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet should articulate the public policy interest that it seeks to advance and formulate the policy in such a way that restrictions to fundamental rights and freedoms are made only in the public interest and in compliance with the principle of proportionality.

In this connection, Article 4 of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation should be recalled which states that “The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations.”

108. The proposed section C affirms also that not all issues that are pertinent to the preservation of the public interesting in the context of the management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet are addressed here. It is felt that, a framework of international cooperation in this area should have in-built flexibility for action in the future while constructing only a general commitment to cooperate at this stage.

For example, one of the issues that may be mentioned in this context is the identification of appropriate confidence building measures in the root server system. While some of the general principles that were mentioned in the context of internet disruptions could apply here (for instance, promoting enhanced interaction and cooperation among stakeholders, formal and informal meetings, exchange of information and consultation) other more appropriate measures may be identified as a result of a structured dialogue and cooperation.

V. Protection of cross-border flow of the Internet traffic

States should take all appropriate measures to ensure that activities taking place within their effective jurisdiction do not interfere with the cross-border flow of Internet content, services and applications in other states. In this context, states should exchange information and engage in consultation and dialogue. In particular, states should co-operate with each other and with relevant stakeholders to ensure that Internet users receive information about restrictions to their access to Internet content, services and applications which may occur as a consequence of decisions taken in another jurisdiction and, where possible and applicable, should be granted effective remedies.

109. This section is based on the premise that the free flow of information is crucial to the exercise of freedom of expression as well as to the promotion of democratic values regardless of frontiers. There are, however, restrictions imposed on the traffic flow in different jurisdictions. Such restrictions are based on different grounds varying from consumer protection to public safety. As a result access to certain types of information that may contain objectionable political or social content in one jurisdiction may be limited with spill over effects in other jurisdictions.

110. The content of this section is articulated in the form of a policy objective – national policies on access to information should be designed in a manner that recognises the global nature of the Internet and seek solutions that enable users’ access to content, services and applications of their choice. This section does not yet identify the measures to implement the stated policy objective. This should be part of further examination of item (ii) of the Terms of Reference of the MC-S-CI as proposed in paragraph 8 of this report.

VI. Conclusions and recommendations

111. The MC-S-CI concludes that international and multi-stakeholder cooperation is needed in order to preserve and reinforce the protection of cross-border flow of Internet traffic and the stability and ongoing functioning of the Internet as a means to safeguard freedom of expression and information regardless of frontiers.

112. On that basis, the MC-S-CI recommends to the CDMC:

- to continue action aimed at drawing up new international legal instruments on cross-border Internet, which may include the development of mechanisms to identify issues where commitments or regulation are needed and for clarifying what the "respective role of governments" is in the development of such commitments and regulations;

- to prepare, as a first step, a draft Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on the general principles of Internet governance and a draft Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation on international cooperation in respect of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet, on the basis of the analysis included respectively in Parts III and IV of this report;

- to continue the examination of the feasibility of drafting instruments designed to preserve or reinforce the protection of cross-border flow of Internet traffic, openness and neutrality;

- to organise a dedicated event to discuss with stakeholders the feasibility of international law responses to issues related to international cooperation in respect of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet.

Data Protection Day - Speech by Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland

2011-01-28T11:02:00.000+01:00

Speech of Mr Thorbjørn Jagland
Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Data Protection Day (30th Anniversary)
Brussels, 28 January 2011

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Does privacy still matter?

A few weeks ago, the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, said in a live webcast that the age of privacy was over. I hope this is not true. I hope privacy is not dead. It still matters, because privacy is a fundamental human right.
Do not get me wrong, information technology and especially the internet with tools like Google, YouTube, and Facebook have revolutionised freedom of expression in ways nobody could have dreamed. They are connecting people across all boundaries of time, distance, culture, and experience.

Online we share ideas, we build knowledge and understanding, we challenge conventional wisdom, and we create networks for positive change. But it has changed our understanding of privacy.

Let me tell you a little story. When Milan Kundera left Prague where every single, most intimate aspect of his life had been under a constant and close scrutiny of the secret police, he arrived in Paris, just to discover tabloid headlines with the most private details about a famous singer’s battle with cancer. He left his country to escape a degrading intrusion in privacy, just to discover that things were not much better in the West. And that was thirty years ago.

The fact is that the line between public life and private life is on the move, and if we do not act, this line will disappear.

But the question is: who is to regulate cyberspace? You, me, the government, which government? How can anything be decided concerning a space nobody owns, but everybody joins?

30 years ago – about the time Milan Kundera has arrived in Paris - the Council of Europe put together a legally-binding text on how to protect against unfair collection and processing of personal data.

This was the childhood of modern data technology. The Council of Europe Convention 108 on the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data was a ground breaking legal instrument at the time IBM was launching its first Personal Computer.

This was a time without Internet, without Facebook, with no Twitter, no laptops and the only mobile phones which existed weighed a tonne and were mobile in theory more than in practice.

However, it was a time when huge computers used by public administrations and big enterprises became a way of doing business. Extensive data banks could collect and process personal data, challenging the individual’s right to privacy. And it became clear that someone had to regulate on this.

What was needed was a framework of specific standards to prevent unfair collection and processing of personal data. That is what the Convention - the first legally-binding international instrument with worldwide significance on data protection – provided for.

It drew inspiration directly from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, from Article 8 of this Convention which states that “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.

30 years on, the Data Protection Convention has become a benchmark for more than 40 countries in Europe, and has influenced legislation far beyond the European borders.

Today, thirty years later, Commissioner Reding and I decided to join forces celebrating this important anniversary here in Brussels. A fundamental human right has been secured for 30 years, but rapid technological developments have made it necessary to revise our instruments – the Convention and the European Union’s 1995 Directive.

Article 1 of the Convention says that its purpose is to secure for every individual, whatever his nationality or residence, respect for his rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular his right to privacy.

It is a purpose as valid today as it was 30 years ago.

Today, privacy is challenged, more than ever before in the history of mankind.

Information and Communication Technologies have developed in such a way that information about us is constantly being recorded, communicated, stored and analysed, often without our knowledge, let alone our consent.

We easily overlook the fact that every action involving technology is recorded somewhere. People in George Orwell’s famous novel ‘1984’ were constantly reminded that they were under complete surveillance by the authorities. We should remind ourselves that our way of life interferes with privacy. There is a “Big Brother” watching you almost everywhere you go!

The estimated amount of digital information that was created in 2010 in blogs, tweets and social networks is 1.2 zettabytes. A number so great I cannot spell it out – it is even bigger than the numbers of the Norwegian Pension Fund.

1.2 zettabytes is the equivalent to a television series being broadcast continuously for 125 million years. And that is without commercials!

But, all of this information is stored somewhere. It can be used. And it can also be abused.

Reflecting on this phenomenon, a statement from the Ministers of Justice from the 47 member states of the Council of Europe last year concluded that: “Modern information and communication technologies enable observation, storage and analysis of most day-to-day human activities, more easily, rapidly and invisibly than ever before”, but it also warned that this potentially creates a feeling of being permanently watched, which may impair the free exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

This says it very clearly. We are facing a huge challenge. 1.2 zettabytes of a challenge.

In Norway we have a saying that in a hundred years time everything is forgotten, unless – and I speak from experience – you have been a Prime Minister. Today, nothing is forgotten about anyone anywhere!

Every user of the internet is marked by an irremovable electronic tattoo which is growing bigger - and potentially embarrassing and damaging - with virtually every click of the mouse, every photo we share, every message we send.

Too alarming? Think again. How can we be sure that the electronic jests of our children, the innocent - or meant to be innocent - jokes and provocations exchanged on social networks in the belief that they will stay within a close circle of friends, will not resurface and be used against them ten, twenty, thirty years from now, when they will be entering serious relationships, looking for jobs or running for office?

How can we balance between the right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the fundamental right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10?

This very demanding task reflects the diversity and complexity of the 21st century.

Let me give you an example: if posted on a web site or re-published on a site managed by a newspaper, a radio or a TV station, an article can be read anywhere for an unlimited amount of time. There is no right to oblivion.

What I am saying applies to both true and false statements, which may cause terrible havoc. A search engine will be enough to retrieve an old news item you would like to have forgotten.

There is therefore a need to determine, in an international binding document, the right balance between two fundamental rights: the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

The American comedian, Bill Cosby once said that “A new father quickly learns that his child will come to the bathroom at precisely the times when he's in there, as if he needed company. The only way for this father to be certain of bathroom privacy is to shave at the gas station”.

Maybe you can still shave in peace at the gas station, but there will be surveillance cameras, and electronic trace of your purchases. You will have company even if you don’t want it.

30 years of experience with data protection allow us to make one clear conclusion: the only way to strike the balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy in data collection is having an international, legally-binding treaty.

We have now started to modernise the Convention. But a thorough and balanced instrument can only emerge if we are willing to learn from each others experiences, bringing closer together the various normative frameworks that have developed in different regions of the world.

That is why European Ministers of Justice have encouraged states from all over the world, NGOs and the private sector to actively participate in the modernisation process of Convention 108.

I am pleased to welcome so many speakers and participants here today, representing governments, civil society and the private sector, not only from our observer states such as Mexico and the United States of America, but also from Africa and Asia.

We must all join forces in participating actively in the modernisation process of Convention 108. It must be as international and inclusive as possible.

Today, we will start by launching the public consultation aimed at hearing your concerns, concerns of the general public, of the father shaving in the gas station, of the civil society, of the private sector, and of anyone else committed to a cyberspace which opens limitless opportunities, but never at the expense of human dignity and never at the expense of human rights.

Thank you for your attention.

(NB: Check against delivery)

Jagland - “When the rule of law stops, tyranny begins"

2011-01-27T15:13:00.001+01:00

Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland,
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
International Holocaust Remembrance Day
Strasbourg, 27 January 2011

66 years is a long time, but then again, it is not. It is less than a lifetime. If the Holocaust had not happened, if one and a half million children would not have lost their lives in the most horrible circumstances, there would have been a million and a half more grandfathers and grandmothers in Europe, enjoying their retirement, spending time with their grandchildren. But they were murdered.

One and a half million children and millions more adults, Jews, Roma, homosexuals, disabled people, political dissidents, religious minorities and others, singled out for their race, religion, political beliefs, or their sexual orientation. Murdered.

Every time I think of what has happened, here, in Europe, I feel like shouting my outrage, yet I am at a loss for words.

Everything has been said about what happened. Everything has been said about how it should not happen again.

I wish to say: enough talking. We must remember, and we must act.

And when we remember, let us think of individual victims. They all had a name, they all had families, hopes and fears, and plans for the future. A future which ended in the death camps and mass graves across our Continent.

And we must act because a cold wind of intolerance, of prejudice and hate is blowing again across Europe. Is there a threat of another Holocaust? Perhaps not. But can we afford to take any risks? I do not think so.

This is why we need to work on creating a social model in which we will not only tolerate each other, but will open up, accept, and respect each other. A Europe where people and communities will live with each other, not only beside each other, or even against each other.

This is not yet the Europe of today, but it must become the Europe of tomorrow. And the Council of Europe will make its contribution.

Video: Roma Mediators Training Programme - Day 1

2011-01-27T11:59:00.000+01:00

On the first day of the Council of Europe's Roma mediators training programme, Ana Oprisan, 35, a Romanian living in Istanbul, Turkey, talks about the project, her experience and her expectations.

Background

Jagland: "Europe Torn Apart By Globalisation, Xenophobia And Social Exclusion"

2011-01-24T16:41:00.003+01:00

Speech by Thorbjorn Jagland
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
To the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Monday, 24 January 2011

Main News Report

All great projects in history combine vision with pragmatism. Believing in something, even very enthusiastically, is not enough. It is what we do about it which makes a difference between great ideas and great illusions.

This was true sixty years ago when our organisation was created, and it is very much true today.

In 1949 Europe had not yet healed from a devastating war, its economies had not recovered while ominous signs of a possible new conflict had already begun to appear. It was time of uncertainty and fear. The response of European governments was the Council of Europe, an organisation embodying the vision of European unity combined with very practical ways to implement this vision in practice.

Afterwards the European project developed step by step; economic and later political integration in the framework of the EU, and cooperation in the field of security in the framework of OSCE. This could not have taken place without the legal framework which was created by the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe also helped to foster a culture of tolerance, cooperation and humanism at the grass root level which was also a precondition for the broader European project.

It is a matter of fact that the great European project cannot go forward without the Council of Europe.

I say this because I strongly feel that Europe is being torn apart again by the centrifugal forces of economic globalisation, by xenophobic tendencies, by social exclusion. Basic values like freedom of the media and freedom of religion are being relativised. Terrorism is spreading fear and is being used as an argument by those who claim that Islam is a violent religion. Listen to what a member of the British government – Baroness Warsi - rightly said recently: “Islamophobia has been widely accepted in Europe”. I agree. And violence against Christians is increasing in our neighbourhood. Extreme forces in Europe and in Europe’s neighbourhood are feeding on each other.

Many of our citizens feel that our societies are under threat from the multitude of social, political, cultural, religious and other tensions which foment mistrust and fear. There is a growing distrust in political institutions at national and European level. People feel that the political institutions are ineffective with regard to their concerns.

This is fertile ground for nationalist and populist forces.

We are witnessing a process that weakens the culture of togetherness that we helped build after the war.

A cold wind is blowing over Europe.

The way to respond is not to tell our citizens that they have nothing to fear, that the economic crisis will eventually pass and that we should all simply calm down a bit and weather this out.

What we need is to restore the ability of political institutions to solve problems – to act and produce results which our citizens need and have the right to expect. Yes, national political institutions have to take their share of responsibility. EU must take on its responsibility as well. I am glad to see that the EU is moving slowly towards a more active role to sort out the economic problems that the global markets have caused in Europe. I am confident that the EU once more will prove how great this project is in creating stability and peace on our continent.

But the EU cannot do it alone. 20 countries are outside the EU, including big countries like the Russian Federation and Turkey.

Dealing with the most urgent challenges today must be a pan-European project which includes everyone.

Therefore: We must rebuild a common sense of togetherness through common legal standards and continue to build a culture of living together as a basis for concrete political action. After the war we built togetherness among democracies in the western part of Europe. Today we have to build togetherness for the entire continent. To pave the way for pan-European action.

The Council of Europe has a pivotal role to play in this. Our mandate is to safeguard the moral and legal ground for European unity, not only between states. But more importantly between peoples, cultures, religions. Our task is to see to it that Europe is not a fertile ground for extremism, but a fertile ground for political action on a pan-European level.

The great European project after the war started with the recognition deep down in society that everyone was in the same boat, that they had the same rights and shared the same values.

We have to start from this point once again.

We have to build on the lesson learned. Namely that there is a strong interrelationship between our ability to uphold basic standards and public moral. If tagging on the underground is not removed, tagging will increase. If nothing is being done against corruption, corruption will continue to spread. If political leaders violate the law, people will do it. If there is not justice for all, there will not be justice for anybody at the end of the day.

This is why we have to sharpen over ability to uphold the basic values enshrined in European Convention on Human Rights.

And I would like to say this: we need to have a geographic scope that includes our neighbourhood. I have already indicated why; what happens there will affect us. And we need to exploit the full potential of cooperation with our partners, the European Union and the OSCE. What they do help us. What we do helps them.

This is what the reform is about;

-    to sharpen our tools so that we can implement the rule of law, based on democratic and human right standards, throughout the entire continent;
-    to build a culture of living together;
-    to broaden our interaction with our neighbourhood;
-    to exploit the full potential of cooperation with our partners;

Let me put the reform into a historic perspective.

The Council of Europe has developed in different phases. Until the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was an organisation of democracies on the western side of the east-west divide. The task was to develop common standards with regard to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to establish mechanisms to ensure that member states comply with their obligations. This was the phase of construction.

The comprehensive system for protection of human rights and democracy that was established, represents the only real follow up and implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After the fall of the Berlin wall, this made the Council of Europe very attractive for the countries seeking to establish their European identity and determined to develop societies based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This was the phase of expansion. It enabled us to play a crucial role in the emergence of a new Europe. Without the Council of Europe, for example, the European Union would never have been able to expand so rapidly.

During the period of expansion standard-setting continued along with an increasing number of programmes and activities.

But after expansion must come consolidation. In my view, the third phase of the Council of Europe– the one we have now entered – must be the phase of implementation of our standards and principles – across Europe and in each and every one of our member states. This is the underlying philosophy of the reform. We need to sharpen our instruments and focus our resources.

And as I said, this work has already begun. Let me briefly recall the achievements of 2010.

The year started with the ratification of Protocol 14 by the Russian Federation, continued with the Interlaken Conference on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights and with the opening of talks on EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The year behind us also saw an unprecedented intensification of cooperation with our main institutional partners, the United Nations – let me only mention my three meetings with the UN Secretary General Ban Ki moon - the OSCE but most of all a new quality in relations with the European Union.

We have now established the basis for close and regular policy coordination and consultation with the European Union at the highest level, and we have also recently signed the first “facility” envelope of 4 million Euros in the framework of the EU Eastern partnership. A shift to an envelope financing – providing a lump sum instead of a large number of small amounts for individual projects - reflects a qualitative improvement in our relationship, allowing for strengthened partnership and long-term, strategic planning of our joint activities.

In 2010 we have succeeded in mobilising a group of personalities with outstanding experience, knowledge and authority on European affairs to examine and report on some of the key challenges our societies face today and will face in the future. The report of the Group of Eminent Persons, led by Joschka Fischer, should help us to plan and act, rather than react in our work to defend and promote freedom on our continent.

The High Level Meeting on Roma last October, as well as our mediating role in overcoming the political deadlock in Moldova, demonstrated that the Council of Europe can provide quick, concrete political responses to situations related to our mandate, which is of course a precondition for political relevance and impact.

All the achievements above are reflecting a growing political relevance and impact of the Council of Europe in European affairs.

In parallel with these political achievements we have also undertaken the first stage of the reform. We have reformed our external presence by reducing the number of offices and reinforced those we really need, namely where we are conducting assistance programmes. If we did not do that we would have lost our credibility and relevance as partners to important donors starting with the EU.

We have established a policy planning cell in the Secretariat for being able to anticipate new developments. We have reached an agreement for a biannual budget. And the budget and the programme of activities are now concise, clear and easy to understand contrary to the seven hundred pages document we have had. We can now set priorities on the basis of a longer-term perspective and intelligible figures.

We have started to reform our interaction with the civil society. The existing Conference of International NGOs does not include important organisations such as the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. When we needed to consult with the Roma society, INGO Conference was not able to facilitate such consultation with the largest minority in Europe.

These are only a few examples why the INGO Conference in its present form cannot monopolise our interaction with the civil society. Our contacts must go broader and further with what is a cornerstone in our democracies, namely a pluralistic civil society.

We have also undertaken measures to contain staff cost. Without this, mechanical increase of staff costs would have threatened the entire organisation.

The second stage of the reform goes deeper.

And it also involves a clarification of the strategic goals for the organisation which I hope can be concluded at the ministerial meeting in Istanbul in May.

I have already started consultations with member states on what should be our political objectives for the next decade.

In my view, the first strategic priority comes from what I have already explained: That at the end of this decade we have consolidated and implemented the rule of law in all our member states. And that we have created a genuine common European legal space with a fully functioning, backlog-free European Court of Human Rights at its core.
Why?
- Because this is the only way of securing popular confidence in the national political institutions and in the European institutions as well. People do not trust institutions that are not able to uphold laws.
- Because new threats like corruption, money laundering, human trafficking, terrorism, cybercrime can only be combated through the rule of law. If we do not do that, these threats will grow.

- Because we once again have to highlight the interrelationship between rule of law and democratic and human rights principles. First of all, for a Council of Europe member state, the rule of law also means full compliance with the European Convention of Human Rights other legally binding instruments and of course the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

This relationship is of course not only formal. An example: Corruption cannot be contained without a free press. There has to be checks and balances to avoid a misuse of power. Therefore the Council of Europe has to strengthen its role in securing freedom of expression.

Consequently, the focus on the rule of law does not come at the expense of the work on democracy and human rights, to the contrary. The Council of Europe approach must combine all three aspects into effective and comprehensive responses to the problems faced by the member states.

Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to eleven years in prison based on China’s criminal law. It was the rule of law. The verdict said that he had tried to undermine “the people’s democratic dictatorship”, which means the power monopoly of the communist party. For us rule of law means upholding the sovereignty of the people. The sovereignty to elect the government, the sovereignty to control the government by an elected parliament and the sovereignty to replace the government.

We must put this emphasis on rule of law also in the context of security. History shows clearly that lasting peace has been achieved only in regions where rule of law and human rights have been safeguarded. Nowadays, there are tendencies to relativise universal values in many places. This is a creeping threat to our security. The Council of Europe must therefore be an uncompromising guardian of these values as a part of a broader security strategy for Europe. As the only convention based pan-European organisation Council of Europe should be part of a security concept that goes deeper than the one we have today.

This is why another strategic goal should be to use our enormous machinery of monitoring bodies, our expertise in the office of the Human Rights Commissioner, in the Parliamentary Assembly, in our field offices for action. We have to establish a system in which the countries are being confronted with their weaknesses and thus made more accountable in the field of rule of law.

And dear friends, keep in mind that if the accession negotiations with the EU goes well, we will also have the responsibility to oversee that this global power runs its business in accordance with the rule of law.

Can you see the historic perspective: Everybody under the same rules and the same court. Once again I would like to salute the EU. Because if the EU joins the European Convention on Human Rights and become a party to the Court, it will be the first time in history that a global power decides voluntarily to be under an international court. No, I am wrong. The Russian Federation was the first. Actually, Turkey which is increasingly becoming a global power, demonstrates every day that might does not need to come at the expense of accountability.

We must understand thoroughly what kind of historic project we are carrying out. Therefore we have to be serious and credible in our core businesses, namely to uphold rule of law.

Another strategic priority must be to find solutions for multi-cultural interactions which will actually work, and allow individuals and communities to live with each other, not only beside each other, or even against each other.

The geographic expansion of the Council of Europe resulted in greater cultural diversity. It can never be a goal to reduce the importance of national cultures and identities. But it is all the more important to define clearly what unites us, namely our values.

We need to reach a higher degree of understanding on how to live together in a multicultural and multi-religious reality. It is not sufficient to say that we tolerate each other. Living together should mean that we accept cultures as living entities which evolve and prosper through encounters with other cultures. This means that cultures will thrive and command respect not when they are ghettoized and marginalized, but when they openly express themselves and mix with other cultures.

We should strive for something that goes beyond multiculturalism as we know it today.

This is part of the study by the "Eminent Persons Group” led by Joschka Fischer. It should be a priority for the Council to be a leading institution in this field.

At the same time, the Council of Europe should contribute to more social cohesion. In our day and age it is not difficult to see the connections between democracy, human rights and social rights. When poverty, unemployment and other kinds of social exclusion increases, political extremism and democratic values are under pressure. Achieving more social cohesion should be seen as part of a security concept for Europe that goes deeper than traditional tools including military tools can provide.

The Council of Europe should devote special attention to specific categories of persons who are particularly exposed to social, legal, economic, and professional or any other form of inequality, discrimination and marginalization. There should be no second class citizens.

This is why we have paid special attention to the Roma people. The Council of Europe now has a decisive role in transforming decades of speeches into concrete action.

Now, to another strategic goal for this decade. We need to look at the map of Europe and fill the gaps. We also need to reach out to our neighbours and decide on whether and how we could work closer together.

When it comes to the first aspect, the key priority is of course Belarus. After the recent elections and the crackdown on the protesters which followed, I said that, unfortunately, another opportunity to end the self-imposed isolation of Belarus in Europe has been missed. However, we should be able to continue to pursue any genuine opportunity to bring Belarus closer to Council of Europe values and closer to Council of Europe standards. Without Belarus the Council of Europe is not complete.

But I would like to make it clear: Those people imprisoned after the elections must be released.

We have to reflect together with our partners on what should be the next step from our side. We need a pan-European strategy that also includes the Russian Federation. Belarus has to make a choice: not between Russia and the EU. But between Europe and isolation from Europe.

When it comes to our neighbours, I also think we should pay special attention to Kazakhstan. In the geographical sense, Kazakhstan is both a European and an Asian country. Shouldn’t it be in our interest to define Kazakhstan a country with a significant stabilising role in Central Asia - as an important partner?

Security policy and economic interests suggest that Europe should strengthen its commitment in its neighbouring area. This includes Central Asia as well as the Middle East and North Africa where the Council of Europe can play a greater role.

Our first strategic objectives in this respect should be to get countries from our neighbourhood to adhere to Council of Europe conventions, in particular those which are dealing with new and emerging threats.

Furthermore, we could discuss whether the Assembly’s Partnership for Democracy could not serve as a model for future relations of our neighbours with the organisation as a whole. The formula, in my view, could be a framework for meaningful, practical cooperation in areas of strategic interest, conditioned upon a benchmark based on Council of Europe values and standards.

Finally, this decade must be the decade of European partnerships. Ever closer cooperation with our European and international partners must be our strategic priority. We should make sure that we fully exploit the potential of cooperation with other international institutions in particular with the European Union, but also with the OSCE and the United Nations.

Now, what are the concrete measures in the second stage of the reform?

First of all to focus our resources to the most important issues. We need to restructure the Programme of Activities.

Let me explain what the challenge is. Currently, leaving aside legally-binding, committed activities, the available amount for our operational programmes is limited to around 40 million Euros. Today, we have spread our work to over 130 programmes with these limited financial resources.

We are doing too many things with too little money. With very poor prospects for budgetary increase in a foreseeable future, we are obliged to concentrate our resources and reduce the number of programmes. Their size and design will be determined by the expected impact. Programmes which are below a minimum threshold for meaningful evaluation of impact should be dropped.

As a consequence of the new Programme, we need to review the intergovernmental structures. Today we have around 60 steering committees. Do we need all these?

We have also started a review of the conventions. How many are active, which ones are dormant?

What I am saying, is that we need to streamline and rationalise.

In the process of reform, there will be no sacred cows. We shall look at every aspect of our work, critically, but with one objective only – to make us stronger and more effective in the conduct of our mission to defend and extend democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Restructuring of the secretariat is unavoidable. But it should not be seen as a threat to the staff. To the contrary. It is not satisfying to be employed on activities that do not have a real impact. The staff deserves being on a winning team.

I should like to express my admiration for the competence and commitment of the staff and thank them for their support to the reform effort.

I understand their concerns and I am extremely attentive to all suggestions and criticisms, but I also understand that concerns and criticisms do not reflect an opposition to reform and that a vast majority among the Council of Europe staff but of course also the governments, parliamentarians, the NGO community and others who know and care about this organisation, expect and want a change.

We want that change not because we have doubts about the Council of Europe, but because we believe in it – and in the values it stands for.

Benjamin Disraeli said that “action may not always bring happiness, but there is no happiness without action.”

Thank you very much.

Hearing On Education And Training: Tools For Roma Integration

2011-01-14T12:25:00.002+01:00

Brussels, 14 January 2011
Contribution by Olöf Olafsdottir, Director of Education and Languages, Council of Europe

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Participants,

May I begin by thanking the organisers for inviting the Council of Europe to participate in this Hearing. It is a pleasure for me to be here and to be able to inform you about our work for improving Roma education.

As many of you will know, the Council of Europe has a longstanding experience and expertise regarding Roma issues. Our work over the years is set out in a recently published [available in French – soon in English] book, “The Council of Europe and Roma : 40 years of action”. This book, written by Jean-Pierre Liégeois, recalls the various texts adopted by the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

It also recalls the monitoring work through bodies such as ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance), Human Rights Commissioner, the Framework Convention on minorities, the Charter on Minority or Regional Languages) and Roma related case law (ECtHR, collective complaints under the Revised Social Charter). It also describes concrete projects undertaken by the CoE to assist member States in implementing the adopted provisions and recommendations.

I can only recommend to Roma themselves, as well as to those who work for and with Roma to read this book, it is full of useful information on the various projects carried out in the Coe on this issue.

The Project “Education for Roma children in Europe” implemented between 2002 and 2009 is a good example. It has produced several concrete tools to improve the schooling of children, the quality of teaching, and to avoid early drop outs. Among those tools let me mention:

* the collection of pedagogical fact sheets on Roma history (available on line in English, French, Romani, Albanian, German, Serbian and Swedish). This tool has started to be included in national school curricula in some member states so that all children can learn about Roma history;

* the preschool teaching kit, which is an education programme designed to prepare children for entry into school (as many Roma, Sinti, Traveller children do not attend pre-primary school);

* the guide for Roma school mediators or assistants;

* teachers’ training on the need to take diversity into account (within our Pestalozzi programme on teacher training);

* the reference framework for educational policies in favour of Roma, Sinti and Travellers;

* a website and an interactive map about Samudaripen (Roma genocide).

* the framework curriculum for the Romani language;

* the toolkit for combating prejudices and stereotypes that was produced in the framework of the Dosta! awareness-raising campaign (www.dosta.org).

This campaign called Dosta! (Enough! in Romani) is aimed at improving the image of Roma, establishing stronger ties between Roma and the rest of the population and fighting anti-Gypsyism. It has already been launched in 15 CoE member states by national authorities, regions and/or municipalities (including several EU countries such as Bulgaria, France, Italy, Romania and Slovenia and soon in Greece, Germany and Spain – and countries waiting for accession countries, i.e. Western Balkans and Turkey).

Some of the Dosta! activities specifically relate to education, such as drawing school competitions and other awareness-raising activities involving children, parents and teachers. A child-friendly toolkit for combating stereotypes and prejudices to be developed jointly with UNICEF is under consideration.

More recently, our Secretary General called for an informal Ministerial meeting on Roma in Strasbourg on 20 October 2010. Indeed, far from considering that enough had been done in this field, the Council of Europe and its member states decided, in the presence of Commissioner Reding, to send a strong and clear message against any discrimination and stigmatisation of Roma, which regrettably persist in our societies.

Ministers and heads of delegations present adopted a Declaration which also fixes a set of specific, short term priority actions to improve the economic and social integration of Roma in Europe. This includes the setting-up of a European database on good practices and policies in the field of Roma integration, the extension and further promotion of the Dosta! campaign, as well as a training programme for Roma education, health and employment mediators.

Implementation of this latter priority started immediately under the authority of Mr Jeroen Schokkenbroek, appointed by the Secretary General as his Special Representative for Roma Issues. Mid-December 2010 a preparatory meeting between experts on (Roma) mediation took place in Strasbourg to discuss the methodology, the timeframe and materials available for the Council of Europe training programme for mediators.

The first trainers’ training will be held in Strasbourg on 26-29 January 2011. The trainers will be selected among those who responded to a call for applications launched late December 2010 for 16 countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Czech republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and Ukraine).

The mediators’ training programme will start in February with a first series of training sessions run at national level in national language. Most of the Roma mediators will be Roma (100% for school and health mediators; for employment mediators, there might be also non-Roma trained). A list of 13 beneficiary countries (Bulgaria, Czech republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and Ukraine) has already been established but more countries might be included in the future pending human and financial resources made available.

The Council of Europe pays particular attention to ensure coordination with other international partners and EU institutions in particular. In order to present its new 2011 priorities, the Council of Europe will hold a meeting with international partners (OSCE, EC, FRA, UNDP, UNHCR, WB, Roma Decade, REF, ERIO, ERTF, ERRC, OSI, CEB, etc.) in Strasbourg on 25 January 2011.

As concerns international cooperation in the specific field of Roma education, I would like to recall the first meeting of the International Task Force on the Education of Roma in Strasbourg on 28-29 October 2010. This Task Force aims at ensuring better coordination among international partners in the field of Roma education. It includes the Council of Europe, the European Commission, OSCE-ODIHR, UNESCO, UNICEF, REF, ISSA, OSI and hopefully soon the Fundamental Rights Agency of the EU.

By way of conclusion, I would like to propose to the EESC and its members to refer to the above-mentioned CoE initiatives in the EESC future working documents and request that EU member states - wherever necessary - translate and disseminate the above-mentioned material, join the Dosta! Campaign, provide examples of good practice for the database or support the enrolment of local Roma mediators in the CoE’s training programme.

Podcast : An American View Of Europe's Integration Of Roma Communities

2010-12-28T17:20:00.001+01:00

Gwendolyn Albert

This end of year podcast reviews one of Europe's major news stories of 2010 - the social inclusion of Roma communities.

In the programme, the American human rights activist Gwendolyn Albert explains her shock at the extent of Romaphobia, analyses the origins of anti-Roma prejudice and the rise of extremism and offers a thought-provoking international perspective of Europe's treatment of Roma communities.

She also discusses the possibility of the "Palestinisation" of the Roma question and the Sisyphian task of registering Roma people to vote.

"The discrimination of Roma can not be tolerated," Albert says. "We need a rejuvenation of that concept in Europe."

"It's not an option to become a continent of great extremes - people living in total poverty and others with great wealth.

"To a great extent, the way that Roma are treated is a litmus test for Europe."

Part 1

Part 2

Venice Commission To Approve UK Election Practice Overhaul

2010-12-14T10:34:00.005+01:00

Constitutional experts from the Council of Europe are set to give their approval to an overhaul of the United Kingdom’s code of practice for election observers.

The Venice Commission will rubberstamp its positive assessment of the updated code at its meeting in Venice, Italy, on 18 December.

Although the commission’s experts see the United Kingdom as being in the forefront of election observation, they will urge that the code becomes more user-friendly.

They will also recommend clarification of the conditions for the observation of the local government elections in Scotland and request greater police involvement in the issuance, receipt and transport of postal ballots.

Venice Comission's Agenda

Reference texts:

- Venice Commission assessment of the UK electoral law (2007)

- Venice Commission Code for elections observation

Committee Of Ministers Paves Way For Global 'Medicrime' Treaty

2010-12-09T14:49:00.001+01:00

Governments across the world will be urged to sign up to a new Council of Europe treaty criminalizing the manufacture and supply of counterfeit medical products.

The organisation announced today the adoption by its Committee of Ministers of the ‘Medicrime’ Convention.

It could have a “potentially universal dimension” due to the global scale of the threat posed to health care systems by fake drugs. Experts claim the manufacture and sale of counterfeit medical products is now 15 times more lucrative than heroin smuggling.

The Convention
Medicrime Website
News Background

ECHR: Croatian Authorities Discriminated Against Reformist Churches

2010-12-09T11:52:00.000+01:00

A complaint of religious discrimination by Reformist churches in Croatia has been upheld by judges at the European Court of Human Rights.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Savez Crkava Riječ Života and Others v. Croatia (application no. 7798/08), which is not final , the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

A violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights

The case concerned the complaint of a number of Reformist churches that, unlike other religious communities in Croatia, they could not provide religious education in public schools and nurseries or obtain official recognition of their religious marriages as the domestic authorities refused to conclude an agreement with them regulating their legal status.

Principal facts

The applicants are Savez crkava “Riječ života” (Union of Churches “The Word of Life”), Crkva cjelovitog evanđelja (Church of the Full Gospel) and Protestantska reformirana kršćanska crkva u Republici Hrvatskoj (Protestant Reformed Christian Church in the Republic of Croatia). Based in Zagreb and Tenja, they are churches of a Reformist denomination and have been registered as religious communities under Croatian law since 2003.

In June 2004, they submitted a request to the Commission for Relations with Religious Communities in order to conclude an agreement with the Government which would regulate their relations with the State, stating that without it they were unable to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries, to perform religious marriages with the effects of a civil marriage, or to provide pastoral care to their members in medical and social-welfare institutions and in prisons.

In January 2005, the Commission informed the churches that they did not satisfy the criteria required from religious communities in order to conclude such an agreement, as set out in an instruction adopted by the Government in December 2004, in particular that that they had not been present in the territory of Croatia on 6 April 1941 and that the number of their adherents did not exceed 6,000. The Commission also pointed out that members of religious communities which had not concluded such an agreement with the Government had a right to receive pastoral care in medical and social-welfare institutions and prisons.

A second request by the churches was also rejected, and they lodged a request for the protection of a constitutionally-guaranteed right with the administrative court against the Commission’s decision. After the court had declared the action inadmissible, the churches lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging a violation of their constitutional right to equality of all religious communities before the law. The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. The churches also filed petition with the Constitutional Court, asking for a review of the constitutionality and legality of the instruction of December 2004. The petition was declared inadmissible in June 2007.

Decision of the Court

Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9

The Court first found that the applicant churches’ complaints concerning pastoral care in medical and social-welfare institutions and prisons were inadmissible. It noted that the relevant provisions of the Croatian Religious Communities Act guaranteed to all religious communities the right to provide pastoral care to their members in those institutions. According to the Government’s explanations, this right applied irrespective of whether the community in question had concluded an agreement with the Government regulating their legal status. The churches had not provided examples to prove that the right to provide pastoral care had been denied to them.

As regards the complaints concerning religious education in public schools and nurseries and the official recognition of religious marriages, the Court noted that it was not disputed between the parties that the applicant churches were treated differently from those religious communities which had concluded agreements with the Government. In another case concerning a religious community in a similar situation as the applicant churches , the Court had found that the imposition of criteria which a religious community had to satisfy in order to obtain a status entitling it to a number of privileges called for particular scrutiny, as the State had a duty to remain neutral in exercising its regulatory power in its relations with different religions and denominations.

The applicant churches, which already had a legal personality, were refused the agreement with the Government entitling it to provide the religious services at issue while other religious communities, whose number of adherents did not exceed 6,000 either and which thus did not fulfil the numerical criterion set out in the relevant instruction, were granted such agreements.

The Court did not see why the Government’s argument that those other religious communities satisfied the alternative criterion of being “historical religious communities of the European cultural circle” could not equally be applied to the applicant churches, being of a Reformist denomination. The Court concluded that the criteria were not applied on an equal basis to all religious communities, and that this difference in treatment did not have an objective and reasonable justification, in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9.

Other articles

The Court considered that in view of those findings it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. It further rejected the applicant churches’ complaints under Article 9 alone, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 as inadmissible.

Article 41

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Croatia was to pay to each applicant church 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,570 in respect of costs and expenses.

Thorbjørn Jagland Issues Challenge To Member States

2010-12-09T11:31:00.000+01:00

A respect for human rights should lie at the heart of decisions taken by Council of Europe member states on the right of entry, residence and expulsion of foreigners according to Thorbjørn Jagland.

The Secretary General’s view was expressed during an interview with the European Council on Refugees and Exiles.

ECRE interview

Human Rights Commissioner Wants Germany To Stop 'Forced Returns' To Kosovo

2010-12-09T10:51:00.000+01:00

Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg has written to Germany’s Interior Minister urging him to "avoid" further ‘forced returns’ to Kosovo.

“The infrastructure and resources available there are in fact not adequate for the sustainable integration of returnees,” the Commissioner said following the publication today of his letter to the German Federal Minister of the Interior, Thomas De Maizière.

"Many of them, in particular Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian families with children, have been severely affected, not least because of discrimination, marginalisation and fear for their safety.

“The German government should avoid any further forced returns to Kosovo.”

More Information
Hammarberg's letter [en]

Human Rights At The Heart Of Christmas

2010-12-09T10:20:00.001+01:00

Lilian Thuram

As the European Convention on Human Rights celebrates its 60th anniversary, the Council of Europe and the City of Strasbourg have placed the spotlight on human rights at this year's internationally famous Christmas Market.

A 'Wear Your Rights' poster campaign is just one highlight of this year's human rights-themed shopping bonanza which runs from 27 November to 31 December.

More Information

European Convention of Human Rights at 60

Celebrity Wear Your Rights

New Report On Germany's Treatment Of National Minorities

2010-12-08T15:30:00.002+01:00

A new Council of Europe report on Germany shows no decrease in the number of racist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic offences, despite efforts made by the authorities.

The Council of Europe Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities published today its Third Opinion on Germany, and the government’s comments.

The report says German authorities have "continued to support the development of the languages and cultures of persons belonging to national minorities."

It also raises concerns about the threats to the linguistic, cultural and historical heritage of the Sorbian minority and the particpation in public life of Roma and Sinti people.

More Information

Protection Of National Minorities Report On Croatia

2010-12-07T15:25:00.001+01:00

A new report on Croatia shows ethnically-motivated incidents against Serbs and Roma "continue to be a serious problem” despite improvements in the protection offered to national minorities.

The report, published today by the Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, also highlights the “plague” of racism and anti-Semitism at Croatian football stadiums.

The authors of the report declared that the “functioning of the councils of national minorities is unsatisfactory in many self-government units,” and calls for “their legal provisions and administrative practice should be revised to improve their representativity, funding and cooperation with local authorities."

More Information

Judges Back Portuguese Newspaper After Football Dispute With Sporting

2010-12-07T14:55:00.000+01:00

A judgement ordering the newspaper Público and four staff to pay 75,000 euros to Sporting Clube de Portugal for defamation breached the right of free expression, European judges have declared.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Público - Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v. Portugal (application no. 39324/07), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been:

A violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

More Information

Judges Back Polish Buddhist In Prison Human Rights Breach

2010-12-07T11:18:00.000+01:00

A Buddhist has won €3000 after European Court of Human Rights judges ruled that Polish prison authorities violated his human rights.

In a Chamber judgment today in the case Jakóbski v. Poland (application no. 18429/06), which is not final , the Court held, unanimously, that there had been

A violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the authorities’ refusal to provide a detainee with a meat-free diet in prison, contrary to the dietary rules of his faith.

Principal facts

The applicant, Janusz Jakóbski, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in Nowogród Prison (Poland) for rape, of which he was convicted in 2003.

A Buddhist, he repeatedly requested to be served meat-free meals in Goleniów Prison where he was held for a number of years, stating that he adhered strictly to the Mahayana Buddhist dietary rules which required refraining from eating meat. His requests were refused. For some time he was granted a diet which did not include pork, but other meats and fish.

In April 2006, Mr Jakóbski brought criminal proceedings against the prison employees, complaining that, despite his requests, he was receiving meals containing meat products and that he could not refuse them as this would have been regarded as a decision to start a hunger strike and would have entailed disciplinary punishment.

The criminal proceedings were discontinued. Subsequently, the Buddhist Mission in Poland sent a letter to the prison authorities in support of Mr Jakóbski, and he made another unsuccessful request, addressed to the prison director, noting that the pork-free diet contained meat and thus did not satisfy his needs.

Mr Jakóbski again asked the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the prison employees, arguing that his religious convictions had not been respected. The prosecutor refused to institute proceedings. Mr Jakóbski’s appeals against the prosecutor’s decisions were dismissed by the District Court in October and December 2006 respectively. In the meantime, in reply to further complaints by Mr Jakóbski, the Regional Prisons Inspector informed him that the only special diet available in the prison was the pork-free diet he had received earlier.

The prisons inspector also underlined that the prison authorities were not obliged to provide an individual with special food in order to meet the specific requirements of his or her faith. Mr Jakóbski’s subsequent complaint to the Regional Court concerning the matter was dismissed in December 2007. The court held in particular that in view of the technical conditions and understaffing in prison kitchens it was not possible to provide each prisoner individually with food in conformity with his or her religious dietary requirements.

In 2009, Mr Jakóbski was transferred to the Nowogród prison, where his requests for meat-free meals were also refused.

Decision of the Court

Article 9

In response to the Government’s argument that vegetarianism could not be considered an essential aspect of the practice of Mr Jakóbski’s religion, the Court underlined that the refusal of the prison authorities to provide him with a vegetarian diet did fall within the scope of Article 9. His decision to adhere to that diet could be regarded as motivated or inspired by a religion. In other cases, the Court had already held that observing dietary rules could be considered a direct expression of beliefs.

While the Court was prepared to accept that a decision to make special arrangements for one prisoner within the system could have financial implications for the custodial institution, it had to consider whether the State had struck a fair balance between the different interests involved. The Court noted that Mr Jakóbski only asked to be granted a diet without meat products; his meals did not have to be prepared, cooked and served in a prescribed manner, nor did he require any special products.

The Court was not convinced that the provision of a vegetarian diet would have entailed any disruption to the management of the prison or a decline in the standards of meals served to other prisoners. It further underlined that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its recommendation on the European Prison Rules, had advised that prisoners should be provided with food that took into account their religion.

The Court concluded that the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the prison authorities and those of Mr Jakóbski, in violation of his rights under Article 9.

Article 14

In view of these findings, the Court did not see the need for a separate examination of the facts from the standpoint of Article 14.

Article 41

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Poland was to pay Mr Jakóbski 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Data Protection, Citizens' Rights And The Council Of Europe

2010-12-07T11:06:00.000+01:00

Personal data protection is emerging as a key concern for Europeans as everyday life becomes increasingly intertwined with social networks and cloud computing.

Here below is the Council of Europe’s response and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

CoE Recommendation On Profiling And Data Protection
ECHR: Protection Of Personal Data
File: Personal Data Protection And Privacy

Anti-Corruption Unit Reports On Serbia

2010-12-06T14:15:00.000+01:00

Greater efforts are needed to fight corruption and strengthen the supervision of party funding in Serbia, according to a new Council of Europe report.

In the Third Round Evaluation Report published today by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), the countries authorities´ efforts to comply with Council of Europe standards are recognized.

However, the report’s authors call on Serbia to “address a few limited deficiencies, regarding, in particular, the legal framework applicable to the bribery of foreign jurors and arbitrators, as well as the possibilities to prosecute corruption abroad.

"Serbia also needs to be more proactive in detecting, investigating and prosecuting corruption cases. More must be done to secure convictions not only for petty bribery, but also high-level corruption in the public sector. The authorities also need to remain alert to related problems, other than traditional bribery, such as trading in influence and corruption in the private sector. So far, very few investigations have been launched in respect of these offences.”

More Information

Happy Hanukkah From Strasbourg

2010-12-03T11:08:00.001+01:00

Daniel Holtgen

Communications director Daniel Holtgen was the Council of Europe’s representative at a 2 December ceremony marking Hanukkah.

In his speech, the director said Hanukkah was an opportunity to remember the “courage and resistance of the Jewish people." The event had a “wider message for all humanity,” he added.

Simon Samama (l), Daniel Holtgen and Mendel Samama (r)

Speech

Mesdames, Messieurs,

Tout d’abord je vous remercie d’avoir accepté ma présence aujourd’hui au nom du Secrétaire Général du Conseil de l’Europe. C’est un honneur et un plaisir de représenter le Conseil de l’Europe devant la communauté juive de Strasbourg.

Personnellement c’est une occasion que je ne vais jamais oublier.

Nous sommes ici aujourd’hui pour célébrer en événement religieux et historique.

Il ne faut jamais oublier l’histoire, et pour moi qui suis Allemand, je suis conscient que ma génération comme la prochaine ne devrait jamais oublier l’Holocauste et ses conséquences historiques et politiques.

‘Hanoucca est en même temps un symbole fort d’espoir. C’est tout d’abord l’occasion de se rappeler l’espoir, le courage et la résistance du peuple juif.

Mais je pense que le message de ‘Hanoucca est plus large car il s’adresse en effet à toute l’humanité.

C’est le message que dans ce monde, il y a toujours un espoir que l’opprimé peut gagner contre l’oppresseur, le juste contre l’arbitraire.

Et que nous avons une obligation dans notre société d’aujourd’hui de protéger les minorités contre la majorité, les faibles contre les forts.

Depuis ses origines, le Conseil de l’Europe a pour but de promouvoir cette obligation et de défendre les droits de l’homme.

Le fait que nous célébrons ‘Hanoucca ensemble aujourd’hui à Strasbourg, à Paris, à Berlin et dans toute l’Europe est sans doute un symbole de paix et d’espoir.

Et c’est dans cet esprit que je partage avec grand bonheur, cette fête avec vous.

Conference In Ukraine: Local Government's Response To The Financial Crisis

2010-12-03T09:53:00.002+01:00

Alina Tatarenko

A conference discussing the impact of the financial crisis on Ukraine and the response of the country's local government officials starts today (3 December) in Kyiv.

In a video interview, Council of Europe expert Alina Tatarenko gives the background to the event

More Information

Warning on local government cutbacks

Maud de Boer-Buquicchio: End Disabled People's "Double Discrimination"

2010-12-02T17:50:00.000+01:00

Governments must do more to prevent the “double discrimination” faced by Europe’s most vulnerable people with disabilities, said Council of Europe Deputy Secretary General Maud de Boer-Buquicchio.

She urged governments to use the International Day of Persons with Disabilities (3 December) to make a firm commitment to those most in need.

The Deputy Secretary General made the appeal as the 47-nation organisation prepares to launch a mid term review of its Disability Action Plan 2006 – 2015 in Istanbul on 9 and 10 December

Early indications suggest that it will show overall progress on access to jobs, education and mobility, but gaps in care for the most vulnerable – such as women, children, the elderly, migrants, minorities and refugees with disabilities.

“It is a shame to mar the good general progress on important issues by failing to respond to the needs of those who face double discrimination," she said. "Let us use the next five years to ensure that disability action is truly inclusive for all.

CoE Action Plan
File: Disability
News: Media, Business And NGO's Called To Action

ECHR Backs French Company In Property Row With Armed And Violent Man

2010-12-02T17:36:00.000+01:00

A French company denied police assistance to evict the armed and violent former owner of one of its properties has been awarded more than €11,500 in costs and damages.

The decision by judges at the European Court of Human Rights was made known on 2 December.

The Facts: Sud Est Réalisations v. France (no. 6722/05)

The applicant, Sud Est Réalisations, is a limited liability French property company based in Pertuis (France). Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained of the refusal, over a period of more than 16 years, to provide police assistance for the eviction from its property of the former owner, a farmer, who was armed and violent and whose wife was seriously ill.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 8,588 (costs and expenses)

Parliamentary Assembly: Albania's Court Defiance "Unacceptable"

2010-12-02T14:36:00.000+01:00

A decision by Albania to defy the European Court of Human Rights on an extradition case is “unacceptable” to the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.

Its Rapporteur David Darchiashvili has expressed deep concern at the extradition of Almir Rrapo to the United States last week (24 November) which ignored a binding interim measure from the Court.

“The growing number of member states that have recently ignored interim measures ordered by the Court under Rule 39 is a major concern of the Assembly," he said.

"Member states ought to fully comply with the letter and spirit of the binding measures indicated under Rule 39. Such practices are irresponsible and undermine the authority of the Court."

"The Parliamentary Assembly will debate this issue at its January session and will certainly take a clear stand strongly condemning the unacceptable disregard of European Convention on Human Rights requirements."

Assembly report on Rule 39 indications by the European Court of Human Rights (PDF)

ECHR Says Russia Responsible for Disappearance and Presumed Death A Chechen Man

2010-12-02T12:18:00.000+01:00

In a 2 December Chamber judgment in the case Dzhabirailova and Dzhabrailova v. Russia (application no. 15563/06), which is not final , the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been human rights violations.

The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that Isa Aytamirov was abducted and killed by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation in February 2003 in Grozny.

Principal facts

The applicants are Amynt Dzhabirailova and Zaynab Dzhabrailova, the mother and aunt of Isa Aytamirov, born in 1983. They lived in Grozny (the Chechen Republic) at the relevant time.

The applicants claimed that Isa was abducted in the early hours of 19 February 2003 while sleeping at his aunt’s home in Novy Tsentoroy - when the village was under curfew - wearing only his underwear and barefoot, by masked intruders in camouflage uniforms. They have had no news of him since. They maintained that the abductors were part of a group of around 30 Russian servicemen travelling in armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and UAZ vehicles. Isa’s aunt stated that she saw him being taken away in an APC, before she was knocked unconscious by a soldier with a rifle butt. She was injured and her leg was subsequently put in a splint.

The applicants reported the incident to various official bodies, including the local Department of the Interior and the Grozny District Prosector’s Office, and requested help and information to enable them to find Isa.

On 15 June 2005 the applicants were informed that an investigation had been opened on 20 February 2003 into Isa’s abduction. In a letter dated 25 September 2008 the relevant investigating department of the Prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic notified Isa’s aunt that the investigation had been suspended as of that day on the ground that the perpetrators had not been identified.

The Russian Government submitted that on 19 February 2003 Isa Aytamirov was kidnapped and his aunt injured by unidentified armed men travelling in three APCs and two UAZ vehicles. They maintained that there was no proof that servicemen were responsible. Also, the investigation had been adequate, prompt and conducted by an independent authority.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13, the applicants complained about: the abduction, unlawful detention and ultimate disappearance of their close relative; having themselves suffered as a result; the lack of an effective investigation into his disappearance (including no inspection of the crime scene or questioning of State agents); and, having no effective remedy to complain effectively about his disappearance.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 April 2006.

Decision of the Court

Article 2

Noting that the Russian Government had refused to produce most of the documents from the case file, the Court judged their vague reference to “legally protected interests” of unspecified subjects utterly unconvincing and reiterated that Article 161 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code could not justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court.

The Court considered that the applicants presented a coherent, convincing and consistent account of Isa Aytamirov’s abduction, supported by witness statements.

The fact that a large group of armed men in uniforms, driving in a convoy of military vehicles, including three APCs, were able to pass freely through checkpoints during curfew hours and that they proceeded to arrest the applicants’ relative in a manner similar to that of State agents, strongly supported the applicants’ allegation that they were State servicemen and that they were conducting a special operation in Novy Tsentoroy on the night of Isa Aytamirov’s abduction.

The applicants had made a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by State servicemen. Drawing inferences from the Government’s failure to submit necessary documents, which were in their exclusive possession, or to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court found that Isa Aytamirov was arrested on 19 February 2003 by State servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation.

Also, there had been no news of him since, no record of any detention and no explanation from the Russian Government concerning what had happened to him after his arrest. The Court reiterated that the detention of a person, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, could be regarded as life-threatening. The absence of Isa Aytamirov or of any news of him for more than seven years supported that assumption. Isa Aytamirov had therefore to be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by State servicemen, in violation of

Article 2.

The Court also found that there had been a further violation of Article 2 on account of the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances of his disappearance.

Article 3

Isa’s aunt provided a consistent account of her ill-treatment, confirmed by witnesses. Drawing inferences from the Government’s refusal to provide the medical documents attesting to those injuries, which were in their exclusive possession, the Court concluded that she had been beaten and injured by Isa’s abductors, in a way that was “inhuman” and “degrading”, in violation of Article 3.

In addition, the investigation into her allegations of ill-treatment was not thorough, adequate or effective, in a further violation of Article 3.

The Court further noted that the applicants were close relatives of a person who had disappeared and that Isa’s aunt had witnessed his abduction. For more than seven years they had not had any news of their missing relative. During that period, and despite their efforts, they had never received any plausible explanation or information about the fate of their relative. There had therefore been a third violation of Article 3 concerning the inhuman treatment of both applicants.

Article 5

The Court found that Isa Aytamirov was held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article 5, in a particularly serious violation of Article 5.

Article 13

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 because the criminal investigation into Isa’s disappearance had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed had consequently been undermined. (No separate issue arose in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3.)

Article 41

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Russia was to pay 5,000 euros (EUR) to Isa Aytamirov’s mother, and EUR 5,000 to his aunt, in respect of pecuniary damage; and, EUR 40,000 to his mother, and EUR 25,000 to his aunt, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 5,500, jointly, in respect of costs and expenses.

Greece Ordered To Pay 4.2 million Euros For Property Rights Infringements

2010-12-02T12:09:00.000+01:00

In 2 December Chamber judgments in the cases of Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis v. Greece (application no. 35332/05) and Theodoraki and Others v. Greece (no. 9368/06), which are not final, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously awarded a total of 4,220,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, plus sums for costs and expenses.
The cases were decided on the merits in 2008.

The cases concerned the impossibility of developing large expanses of land in tourist areas, on account of restrictions or prohibitions on building resulting from the classification of the land as part of an environmental protection area, with no payment of compensation.

Principal facts, complaints and procedure

In the first case the applicant, Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis, is a company based in Agios Nikolaos (Crete). In the early 1970s it purchased a plot of land with a view to building a hotel complex. In 1984 the Ministry of Culture classified the region in question as “zone A – full protection” – that is, as an area in which construction was completely prohibited, although when the land had been purchased, the relevant legislation had not prohibited the construction of a hotel complex.

After various unsuccessful applications to the relevant authorities for renewal of the initial planning permission, the applicant company applied to the Ministry of Culture, seeking to have the property expropriated. A subsequent application by the company for judicial review of the authorities’ refusal to expropriate the land was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2005.

In the second case the applicants are Georgia Theodoraki, Olga Kladi and Anastasios Kladis, three Greek nationals from the same family who live in Athens, and Limni Makri SA, a tourism and hotel company based in Laganas (Greece) and owned by Georgia Theodoraki. The applicants are the owners of a total of 307,000 sq. m of land that has belonged to their family for many years on the island of Zante (one of the Ionian Islands in western Greece).

From 1984 onwards their land, on which construction had previously been permitted, was gradually subjected to restrictions and prohibitions on building, for environmental protection purposes. Work was halted on the fourth applicant’s building of a 102-room hotel complex.

The applicants applied for judicial review of the relevant administrative decisions but were unsuccessful. In 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged that the applicants were entitled to seek compensation from the administrative authorities, but no action was taken when they applied for compensation on that account.

The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 September 2005 and 27 February 2006 respectively.

In Chamber judgments of 21 February 2008 (Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis v. Greece) and 11 December 2008 (Theodoraki and others v. Greece) the Court held that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (Article 6 § 1). In Theodoraki and Others it also found that no effective remedy (Article 13) had been available in respect of the violation of the right of property.

In both cases the Court considered that the question of the possible award of just satisfaction (Article 41), to compensate for any damage resulting from the violations found, was not ready for decision and reserved it.

Decision of the Court (just satisfaction)

Pecuniary damage

The Court reiterated that its findings of violations in the judgments on the merits concerned the applicants’ inability to develop their property and their lack of compensation on that account. It therefore considered that a pecuniary award would be liable to compensate for the damage they had sustained.

However, the circumstances of the case did not lend themselves to a precise assessment of pecuniary damage, since the facts concerned a very lengthy period (from 1985 – when Greece had recognised the right of individual application to the Court – to the present) and there were substantial divergences between the claims and calculation methods submitted by the parties to the proceedings.

Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considered it reasonable to award EUR 500,000 to the Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis company (in the first case) and EUR 3,600 000 jointly to Georgia Theodoraki, Olga Kladi and Anastasios Kladis and EUR 120,000 to Limni Makri SA (in the second case) in respect of pecuniary damage.

Non-pecuniary damage

The Court considered that its findings of violations on the merits constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

Costs and expenses

In respect of costs and expenses, the Court awarded EUR 22,000 to the Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis company (in the first case) and EUR 18,550 jointly to the other applicants (in the second case).

Bulgarians Win Court Backing After Brewery Nationalisation

2010-12-02T11:59:00.000+01:00

Three Bulgarian men have won the support of the European Court of Human Rights in their claims to shares from a Plovdiv brewery nationalised in 1947.

The case (Putter v. Bulgaria - no. 38780/02) was brought by Paul, Victor and Johannes Putter, are successors to shareholders of the brewery.

It stemmed from a dispute about the determination of the applicants’ entitlement to shares in the brewery following restitution and privatisation legislation introduced in 1992. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) of the Convention, the applicants complained in particular that the domestic courts had dismissed their claims without undertaking an independent review of the Government’s valuation of their properties.

The Decision

Violation of Article 6 § 1

Just satisfaction:

- non-pecuniary damage: 4,000 euros (EUR) to the heirs of the first applicant, and EUR 2,000, each to the second and third applicants

- costs and expenses: EUR 1,460, jointly

Thomas Hammarberg: Time To Overcome Ethnic Divisions In Bosnia And Herzegovina

2010-12-02T10:17:00.000+01:00

At the end of his three-day visit to Bosnia Herzegovina, Thomas Hammarberg has called for an end to the discrimination of national minorities in the country.

The Council of Europe’s Human rights Commissioner said: “Authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina should end discrimination towards members of national minorities by bringing law and practice fully into line with human rights standards including the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

“The right to equality should be ensured for members of all ethnic groups.”

The Commissioner noted with serious concern a persisting polarisation between the different ethnic groups.

He encouraged the authorities to step up their efforts to ensure the effective implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and to raise public awareness of this law.

More Information

Thorbjørn Jagland Calls For Death Penalty Global Moratorium

2010-12-01T17:36:00.000+01:00

Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland has called for a global moratorium on capital punishment.

His declaration followed this morning's death by hanging of Shahla Jahed in Tehran.

Jagland said: ''I am dismayed by this latest execution in Iran and also by the inhumane way in which it was carried out. Once again we see that the regime in Iran has little respect for fundamental human rights.

"But Iran is not alone in carrying out executions and this underlines the urgent need for a global moratorium on capital punishment. I believe that democracies should lead by example, abolish the death penalty if they have not yet done so, and support our joint effort to bring an end to capital punishment worldwide,'' said Jagland

Court Rules On Austrian Refusal To Allow Gay Marriage

2010-11-29T16:55:00.001+01:00

A five-judge panel of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has rejected the referral request relating to the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (application no. 30141/04) submitted by the applicants.

The Court’s Chamber judgment of 24 June 2010 has thereby become final (Article 44 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

The case concerned the complaint by a same-sex couple that they were not allowed to contract marriage and did not have any other possibility to have their relationship recognised by law before the entry into force of the Registered Partnership Act in Austria in January 2010.

In its Chamber judgment of 24 June 2010, the Court found that Article 12 of the Convention (right to marry) did not impose an obligation on the Austrian Government to grant a same-sex couple access to marriage. It therefore held that there had been no violation of that Article. The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)

Background Information

Review Of Conduct of Moldovan Parliamentary Elections

2010-11-29T15:21:00.001+01:00

Parliamentary elections in Moldova on 28 November met most Council of Europe and OSCE commitments, international observers have concluded.

The observers noted that the elections were administered in a transparent and impartial manner and a diverse field of candidates provided voters with a genuine choice. Election day was assessed positively although some procedural errors were observed. Civil and political rights were respected during the election campaign. A lively and diverse media covered the campaign actively and provided voters with varied information. A number of amendments to the electoral code improved the electoral framework overall.

However, the introduction of a new mandate allocation system – shortly before the elections and without public consultations – was problematic. The quality of voter lists remained a weak point and led to diminished public confidence. Further efforts are needed to remedy remaining deficiencies and strengthen public confidence.

More Information

Rome launch for new Council of Europe anti-child sexual abuse campaign

2010-11-29T10:51:00.000+01:00

A new Council of Europe campaign aimed at fighting the sexual abuse of children has been welcomed by leading Italian experts ahead of its launch in Rome today.

“We need a large prevention strategy,” said Roberta Angellilli, EU Vice president and spokesman for the Rome municipal authority on children’s issues, in an interview with the Council of Europe. “Institutions must speak out and be on the citizen’s side, especially if the citizen is vulnerable.

“The campaign is really well done, well conceived. There is a need to change the way of thinking about women and children first of all à give positive messages. We must consider women and children’s body, their image, not as a merchandise, not like something that can be sold, used. We need more respect and awareness.”

The Council of Europe (CoE) campaign, featuring a television video and a city poster scheme, highlights the need to combat the sexual abuse of children which, according to estimates, affects one in five children living in Europe.

Child rights experts hope the campaign will succeed in breaking the “circle of trust” which often protects predators and encourage more children to feel able to talk openly about the abuse they have suffered.

“This is a practical example of how we can probably decrease in a sensitive way the rate, if we can say so, of abuses and sexual violence committed towards children,” said CoE expert Carlo Chiaromonte.

Yasmin Abo Loha, programs’ coordinator of the child rights organisation ECPAT-Italy hoped the campaign would have a broader impact.

“We talk of sexual violence towards children, or sexual use of children, the fundamental thing we fight for is introducing a culture of childhood,” she said

“Unfortunately the biggest part of the problem is set inside the house, because there is incapacity of talking about those problems and in informing our own children, or to protect them.

“It is very significant the factor according to which minors are still not completely integrated in our society from a cultural point of view. I cannot deny we still live in an adult based society.”

The campaign also highlights the abuse of children outside of Europe by holidaymakers, a crime often referred to as sex tourism. This sparked the fury of Roberto Corbella, President of ASTORI (Italian association of tour operators).

“We reject the word “tourism” connected to this kind of activity, because there is nothing that can be defined touristic in exploiting children around the world,” he declared.

“This is something that must be condemned whether is committed by our neighbors or faraway from us. It has nothing to do with tourism that is discovering other cultures and populations and enjoying new experiences.”

More Information

Campaign Website
Video: The Underwear Rule
Podcast: Fighting The Sexual Abuse Of Children [it]

Italy And Faroe Islands Scoop Song Contest Awards

2010-11-28T13:11:00.001+01:00

R.esistance in dub, from Frioul, Italy and Orka, from the Faroe Islands, have won the Public and Jury prizes at the Liet International minority languages music festival in Brittany, France.

The festival - know as the European Minority song contest - promotes contemporary songs in languages such as Asturian, Breton, Corsican, Faroese, Frisian, Friulian, Gaelic, Galician, Irish, Sami, and Veps.

It is sponsored by the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the only world-wide agreement designed to protect minority languages.

More Information

New Venice Commission Visit To Ukraine

2010-11-26T16:04:00.001+01:00

Constitutional experts from the Council of Europe will visit Ukraine next week for more talks with the country’s authorities.

The Venice Commission’s team will examine the consequences of a decision by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine which declared unconstitutional the Law on Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine adopted on 8 December 2004 .

The Court required that laws subsequently adopted be brought into line with the 1996 Constitution.

The Venice Commission wants to obtain more information on this decision and and on the future constitutional developments in the country during its two-days of meetings with Ukrainian authorities which begin on 29 November.

The Venice Commission’s team will hold talks with the Speaker of the Parliament, representatives of the Presidential Administration, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Constitutional Court, with the Head of the National Commission for Strengthening Democracy and representatives of the opposition.

A press conference will be held at the premises of the news agency “Ukrinform” at 12h00 on Tuesday 30 November.

Human Rights Europe

Neil's diary: A human rights youth worker in Albania - Day 2

Diary of a human rights youth worker - Day 1

Diary of a human rights youth worker

Europe's migration debate needs facts not emotion

Jagland sets Europe's "social" agenda

Jagland: Europe's 'Prince Charles Syndrome' Alienates Young People

Interview: Ivana Alessandro on biodiversity and human rights

Related articles

Jagland urges Europe to 'practice what it preaches' in the Mediterranean region

Jagland: 'Moralpolitik' in Europe

Jagland: Europe Must Seize Historic Opportunity To Prevent Violence Against Women

Jagland’s Challenge to Roma Forum

Women's Day 2011: Interview with Anke Trischler

Women's Day 2011: Tomorrow's People

Schokkenbroek: Roma are citizens, neighbours and Europeans

Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu: "All forms of intolerance are on the rise again"

Proposals for international cooperation on cross-border Internet

Data Protection Day - Speech by Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland

Jagland - “When the rule of law stops, tyranny begins"

Related articles

Video: Roma Mediators Training Programme - Day 1

Jagland: "Europe Torn Apart By Globalisation, Xenophobia And Social Exclusion"

Hearing On Education And Training: Tools For Roma Integration

Podcast : An American View Of Europe's Integration Of Roma Communities

Related articles

Venice Commission To Approve UK Election Practice Overhaul

Committee Of Ministers Paves Way For Global 'Medicrime' Treaty

Related articles

ECHR: Croatian Authorities Discriminated Against Reformist Churches

Thorbjørn Jagland Issues Challenge To Member States

Human Rights Commissioner Wants Germany To Stop 'Forced Returns' To Kosovo

Human Rights At The Heart Of Christmas

New Report On Germany's Treatment Of National Minorities

Protection Of National Minorities Report On Croatia

Judges Back Portuguese Newspaper After Football Dispute With Sporting

Judges Back Polish Buddhist In Prison Human Rights Breach

Data Protection, Citizens' Rights And The Council Of Europe

Anti-Corruption Unit Reports On Serbia

Happy Hanukkah From Strasbourg

Conference In Ukraine: Local Government's Response To The Financial Crisis

Maud de Boer-Buquicchio: End Disabled People's "Double Discrimination"

ECHR Backs French Company In Property Row With Armed And Violent Man

Parliamentary Assembly: Albania's Court Defiance "Unacceptable"

Related articles

ECHR Says Russia Responsible for Disappearance and Presumed Death A Chechen Man

Greece Ordered To Pay 4.2 million Euros For Property Rights Infringements

Bulgarians Win Court Backing After Brewery Nationalisation

Thomas Hammarberg: Time To Overcome Ethnic Divisions In Bosnia And Herzegovina

Thorbjørn Jagland Calls For Death Penalty Global Moratorium

Court Rules On Austrian Refusal To Allow Gay Marriage

Related articles

Review Of Conduct of Moldovan Parliamentary Elections

Rome launch for new Council of Europe anti-child sexual abuse campaign

Related articles

Italy And Faroe Islands Scoop Song Contest Awards

New Venice Commission Visit To Ukraine