Human Rights in Europe, Past and Present PDF

Class 1 EXERCISE: MY DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1), AND WHY I THINK IT IS LIKE THAT (2) 1.​ Human rights pertain to the definitions and protections defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes the basic rights and protections that each human being is en...

Class 1 EXERCISE: MY DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1), AND WHY I THINK IT IS LIKE THAT (2) 1.​ Human rights pertain to the definitions and protections defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes the basic rights and protections that each human being is entitled to have granted by their states, societies, law systems, other people, etc. 2.​ I believe the UDHR comes to mind as it is the first comprehensive and dedicated document widely recognized by most nations worldwide. Therefore, our understanding of human rights stems from the definitions, values, and guaranteed protections granted by this document as binding societal rules. Human Rights is an ever-expanding and very hard-to-define concept. It changes from time to time. For example: 50 years ago, the right to a healthy environment was never considered, as now we understand the impacts of climate change, it is now a human right. Defining human rights finds disagreements over their meaning, nature & scope, four aspects in particular. Basic rights are not the same as human rights. Basic rights cover basic immediate necessities, while human rights continue to expand and include more factors. Basic rights pertain to the basic conditions under which human life is sustained, such as sustenance, water, warmth, etc. Controversies of human rights: ​ Special interest vs common interest ​ Political tools of elites ​ Stalking horse for the Western economic imperialism The Council of Europe is an international organization that upholds human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Europe. Class 2 Ancient Greece ​ The tragic play of Sophocles, “Antigone”, is the first indication of human rights. ​ According to some, the idea of rights attached to the individual just because they are human (human rights), expressed in Antigone’s tragic story through her moral belief to grant her dead brother a proper burial even though King Creon (state authority/law) was denied, is the first representation of Human Rights. In Antigone, the title character defies King Creon’s decree by burying her brother, Polynices, who was denied a proper burial. She believes in obeying a higher moral law, leading to her punishment and a tragic series of deaths. The play highlights the conflict between state authority and individual rights, emphasizing themes of human dignity and civil disobedience. The Importance of this tragedy is the conflict between Human laws vs Religious laws Positive law vs Natural laws State Laws vs Ethical Laws Politics vs Ethics Justice vs Rights Ancient Rome: Ius vs Fas (Law vs Religion/Morality) Human dignity (homo sum, nihil humani a me alienum puto - Terentius) I am human (man), I think that nothing human is foreign to me Only traces of human rights, because slaves were not granted the same rights and protections. Christianity: Natural rights (moral rights) vs Positive rights (institutionalized rights - you need to act upon it). Universal values are put into practice by political authorities. Christianity was so powerful in Europe that it managed to institutionalize its moral laws into institutional laws. ​ Edict of Milan of 313: Moral laws of Christianity are turned into the laws of the Roman Empire. Middle Ages The Magna Carta was agreed upon by King John of England in 1215. Certain rights were granted to a few people in relation to their condition as humans, However, note that it was only granted to them as free men who possessed significant wealth. Middle Ages (472 a.d. - fall of the Western Roman Empire – 1492 a.d. - Columbus setting sail for the Americas) Humanism: The rediscovery of what is human during the Renaissance. Inter Caetera: Papal Bull by Pope Alexander Sixtus granting the Portuguese and the Spanish, the rights to colonize the natives populations of the Americas and Africas, as well as giving them a soulless status, therefore if the colonizers need to kill them or enslave them, it is not against God’s Laws because they are not “human” (soulless) Jean Hamburger - French biologist: Human rights can only be valid when they represent the homo societatis over the homo biologicus. There is a necessity to have laws that fall into the nature of humans, which is inherently evil. Class 3 Class Three - History of Human Rights ​ The 17th century, was a turning point because the idea that positive rights are better than natural rights started to emerge thanks to Thomas Hobbes ​ Similar ideas that came before Hobbes though… Plato, every human being is a wolf to every other human being Machiavelli ​ Niccolo Machiavelli, the Prince - security comes before human rights, and laws are then needed ​ Machiavelli reverse the common thinking of morality at the time, particularly Christian ways of thinking ​ Long seen as the theorist of dictatorship… but this is contested by his core idea of the stability of a state ​ The concept that human beings are evil emerged ​ The end justifies the means… he didn’t say this, but its the core of Machiavelli’s teachings ​ Machiavelli actually advised in Chapter XVII that it is best to be both loved and feared ​ We need to only consider reality as it is, we need to act based on virtue (to contrast fortune, some decisions may even go beyond reality) ​Machiavelli's definition of fortune is critically important to a ruler's effectiveness. This version of fortune is most closely translated to "luck": a ruler should be able to recognize situations where factors are out of his control and make necessary provisions for these cases ​ According to Machiavelli, an effective ruler limits fortune as much as possible. All rulers are mortal (illness is always possible) and predisposed to unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, the ruler must account for fortune whenever possible ​ It is ok to go against morality and values because the only way to guarantee stability in human rights is to put in the process some actions that would normally go against common ideas of human rights as values  ​ According to Machiavelli, human beings are always evil. That is why to secure their lives, laws are needed, also to implement something close to the idea of human rights that we have today ​ Machiavelli… 1469 - 1527 (Renaissance), political realism = politics does not have to follow any good, but it has only to pursue the power and the way to maintain it. Pessimistic anthropology = human beings are evil. A ruler should be able to act by LAW, as humans do, but he should also be able to act by FORCE, as animals do ​ What makes a good leader… ‘The Prince’ is a person who ​ So his advice was based on empirical evidence of successful rulers, so it can be argued that it properly defines how to run a country. The controversy lies with the idea, supported by some, that to rule effectively does not mean ruling benevolently Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) ​ Leviathan ​ Every animal can be a wolf… ​ Men are inherently evil… which means they live in a state of nature, a realm in which every human being is always ready to act like an animal in regard to other human beings ​ One has to renounce natural rights in order to live… rights are guaranteed by the King (Leviathan) through laws… liberty is given up for security… ​ Liberty is given up for security… in order to live peacefully and with stability… we must give up certain natural rights ​ it's impossible to live together in the state of nature because humans are inclined to take power from other human beings through the use of force ​ To create a civil state… human beings needed to accept that there is an absolute king who governs everything. Liberty, in this case, is given up for security to avoid living in a state of nature… Summary of Hobbes and Machiavelli ​ Human rights do not exist without laws, humans are inherently evil and need to avoid a state of nature where we will kill each other ​ Epicuro was a philosopher who said we should not fear nature, God, etc, because things appear to be comprehensible ​ Lucretius similarly argued we should not fear Gods, religion, nature, etc. ​ Machiavelli read Lucretus’s main book… essentially, we should not fear these things that ‘aren’t real’ but the things happening right in front of us John Locke (1632 - 1704) ​ How to guarantee individual rights against the political power ​ If we give up all of our rights to the King etc., we lose our individual rights ​ Therefore individuals should create a state ruled by a king ​ Individuals decide to create a state ruled by a King, yet they do not give up all their rights ​ There must be a distinction between natural rights (life, liberty and property) and citizens rights (that come after natural rights) ​ He is the first one to create a division between individual and citizen (group) rights… only citizen/group rights should be given to the power Natural rights - John Locke 1689 ​ Who should have these rights? ​ Locke opposed absolute monarchy and the Divine right of Kings ​ To understand government… it must be understood that man is born with natural rights, to preserve his life, liberty, and property ​ No government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it ​ The people can withdraw the consent of the government if it's not guaranteed (the social contract) ​ Who should have power? The people 17th-century Recap ​ Laws are preferable to nature when it comes to human rights. According to Machiavelli and Hobbes yes. According to Locke, no ​ The ruler of a new entity/ state has to find a balance between natural rights and individual rights; this needs turns out as a prominence of positive rights over natural rights ​ This tendency opens up the way to the 18th century and its revolutions Reading presentation by Juliette (Introduction, the Revolutionary Origin of Human Rights) ​ What are the origins of human rights? The meaning of human rights shifts depending on the century ​ She uses the UN Declaration of 1948… but she says you need to go back in time to where it originated… for her that was the 1790s revolutionary period in France ​ But was happened in the 1790s?  ​ In the 18th century we think about humans and human rights, new conceptions of individual autonomy and governments… specific to this time was the idea that human rights should be universal ​ John Locke etc. links natural law and universal rights ​ Jean Jacques Rosseau - society and gov could only be based on rational principles… but the rights granted to the people should be granted to everyone, including the poor (a step further than Locke who was focusing on property owners) ​ Although a time of ideas it was also a time of economic and social upheaval which led to the French Revolution which was partly inspired by the American War of Independence ​ The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, 1789 was borne out of this ​ A revolutionary declaration for the time as the monarchy ended and legitimacy was given to the government to take into account the individuals and their human rights… revolutionary because the monarchy had a hierarchy of protection (i.e. noble men -> peasant) ​ Debates over citizenship and rights continued over the revolution still, as these rights needed to be applied 18th century ​ The age of revolutions/ the age of rights ​ Why the age of rights? ​ Cesare Beccaria - Crime and Punishment (1738 - 1794) ​ Cesare specifically affirms that positive rights (i.e. laws) are needed to protect citizens against the power (here, you can see Locke) ​ We can call this century the Age of Rights because more than before it is important to protect individual rights in the face of power ​ He was a lawyer and saw how punishments were given, and how prisoners were treated according to him individual rights must be protected through laws even in those cases in which individuals are brought before the power ​ Beccaria specifically looks at the penal system: it should not turn into tyranny ​ Torture, secret proceedings, capital punishment, etc. are not the best way to protect citizens. These are useless. They are not legitimate or useful. The end goal of a punishment is not to create other crimes against citizens ​ One of the first theorists expressing an opinion against capital punishment ​ He believed a certainty of punishment >>> severity ​ It is fundamental not to be severe in punishment, but certain ​ He is the main example of why we call this century the age of rights Age of Revolutions ​ Without a doubt the Age of Revolutions because of the American Revolution which led to the US Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution ​ US Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…’ ​ Jeremy Bentham: there are no fundamental principles, and there are no natural rights…  natural rights are simple nonsense: natural and impresctibile rights, rhetorical nonsense ​ French Declaration: “The natural, unalienable and sacred rights of man… their rights and their duties… Rights of Man and the Citizen” ​ Interesting elements in these declarations however… man can be considered a man only if there are certain rights attached… idea of society… no alternative… myths… Focus on Marie Gouze Declaration of the Rights of Women and Female Citizens (1791) Preamble: “Man, are you capable of being fair? A woman is asking: at least you will allow her that right. Tell me. What gave you the sovereign right to oppress my sex?” ​ Essentially, what gave you the sovereign right to oppress my sex… 19th Century ​ Individual rights (Geneva Conventions (1864), to protect victims in conflicts and the Red Cross ​ Group rights (the Hague Conventions (1899), states in conflicts, international relations slavery, Anti-Slavery Society, first NGO, workers industrial revolution ​ Not just individuals in conflict, but states in conflict ​ We see the emergence for the first time in history against slavery ​ This movement created the first NGO, UK based NGO, aiming to abolish slavery in British controlled area ​ They then advocated for the abolition of slavery worldwide Conclusion ​ Natural v positive ​ To have rights recognized in front of power or in front of a state, we need to have laws ​ But if we need laws, do human rights exist? ​ If we take for granted that voting is a right, why do we need laws that voting is a right? ​ If we say that being treated/ carried to a hospital when wounded is a right, why do we need conventions expressing that? Class 4 Human Rights in Europe, Past and Present - Class 4 Recap:  ​ Individual v group rights = ​ The 19th century was not the most interesting regarding human rights, however, it was when group rights started to emerge ​ The 18th century, was a moment in which there was a strong opposition between the individual and the power ​ From the 19th century, group rights started to emerge, during this century rights something both civil and political ​ Human rights starting from the 18th century are seen as something in place only when protected by the laws ​ Human rights were not seen as something that needed to be protected by law ​ In the 18th century, human rights needed to be written somewhere to be protected ​ Are human rights only there when protected by the laws? Can they only be recognized when a law protects them? - Why do we need to stress there is a human right to life? Why do we need to write it somewhere? This is the question we left open… because the 20th century is the most important century when it comes to the definition of human rights First Half of the 20th Century ​ No doubt the most important one ​ A definition is finally given to ‘human rights’ (the French declaration and US declarations don’t define it) by an international organization ​ 1914 - First World War and human rights - two aspects extremely interesting - the first being: ​ during this conflict, pacifism emerged as a right. Peace was seen as a human right, both an individual human right as well as for groups to live a life in peace ​ Pacifism was seen for the first time in history as something to be considered as a right for every person as well as for nations ​ A continuation of what we witnessed during the previous century, rights being something attached both to the individual and groups ​ After WWI, came the League of Nations (1919), protection of minorities (the individual is protected as part of a group), self-determination, and promoting peace worldwide. A utopian vision to build a Europe on rights, not wars ​ The idea of protecting self-determination ​ All these concepts might be considered in the frame of human rights, although the treaty founding the League of Nations did not explicitly mention ‘human rights’ - Why does the League have no reference to human rights at all, but in 1945 at the San Francisco conference, human rights seemed to be the main point to be discussed? When did human rights emerge? Before or after WWII? - Did they emerge thanks to the League? ​ Before WWI? ​ Between the two world wars? ​ After WWII?  ​ Nazi Germany is not enough to explain why human rights attracted so much attention Discussion of Burgers ​ ‘Return’ of human rights ​ Came out again after the 17th and 18th centuries Discussion of the Mazower ​ The concept of civilisation… - Stress of the use of ‘rise’ of human rights ​ Only after WWII did human rights rise ​ 1945 represented a break with this past, not in the sense of a revival, but it was the end of the so-called ‘European era’, because that was the era in which Europeans experienced the erosion of European dominance and world affairs ​ Only with the Second World War did Europeans discover human rights in his opinion, because they found themselves in the position of subjects, and therefore found it necessary for a piece of paper protecting their rights ​ It also sheds light on the role of NGOs Summary ​ This time represented a break/ turning point in the human rights conversation Second World War and Human Rights ​ Further violations of what started to be considered human rights ​ G.H. Wells’ campaign + Roosevelt’s four freedoms - After WWI: Human Rights at International Level ​ San Francisco and the UN Charter ​ 1945 was the year in which the UN Charter was adopted ​ The UDHR - 1946 - the Commission works on a list of human rights - Those in the Commission were representatives of the state, the President of the Commission was Roosevelt’s wife, Eleanor. He was already dead at this point. Wasn’t very acceptable to have her as president of this commission, the goal was to create a universal declaration, but having her as the head of this commission was not well perceived. But because the UNDHR wasn’t a treaty, just a list of rights, it wasn’t so bad. Meant to proclaim a common standard of achievement… but still, they’re not quite universal. The representatives weren’t truly representative… but still… it was several cultures in agreement (therefore universal, not international) ​ Although it was only a list, it was the first time we had a definition ​ it represented at least the effort to speak to humanity and respect the differences in languages, cultures, etc. ​ But since it's only a list… who protects these rights? Are they natural rights or do we list them because we need to stress that they be respected… and who will control whether they be respected or not? ​ in Europe… ​ There was an attempt to protect human rights too ​ Evidenced through the Council of Europe (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights) and the European Court of Human Rights… both based in Strasbourg ​ The Council of Europe was clever compared to the UN because they created something directly linked to human rights to protect them… the European Court of Human Rights to ensure human rights would be protected… based in Strasbourg ​ European Coal and Steel Community (the European Union) ​ Article 34 of the European Convention states the court may receive ​ Criteria to have the case heard at ECHR: Exhaustion of domestic remedies in Local Courts… apply within six months of the last domestic decision…the complaint is to be based on the European Convention of Human Rights… the fourth criterion is a significant disadvantage of the applicant. 95 percent of applications are considered inadmissible. Only 5 percent are considered to be admissible, the judges (7), normally consider that there is a violation in 95 percent of those cases ​ If judges decide that there is a violation, there can be a request for re-examination, in that case, 17 judges look after the case ​ Re-examination can either be accepted or not ​ When judges decide on a sentence (when they say there is a violation), the execution of the judgment is an obligation of the state ​ Some cases are extremely different… Italy… was found guilty by judges of the ECHR because of the shipwreck that happened in 2013 in the Mediterranean Sea… some of the survivors applied to the ECHR… Italy was considered guilty of not doing enough to protect their lives ​ Berlusconi… applied to the ECHR because he thought that the domestic decisions of judges against him violated his human rights… his case was considered not admissible ​ In 1950, the same year the European Convention on Human Rights was created… the European Coal and Steel Community was created (first with the Schuman Declaration then the Treaty of Paris), there was no reference to human rights at all ​ When the EEC was created in ’57, human rights were also not included ​ These institutions were not concerned with human rights, only with economics ​ Why didn’t reference human rights in the Treaty of Rome… in 1954 was the failure of the creation of the European Defence Community. This was the first political idea put forward after many ideas. So possibly, they had very fresh in mind they saw the collapse of another political idea (the EDC) Class 5 I.​ Human Rights during the long 1970s ​ What does “long 1970s” mean? The period from 1968 to the end of the 1970s/ early 1980s ​ According to M. Ignatie: Human rights as the LINGUA FRANCA of global moral thought. A.​ 1966: UN Covenants International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CPR) covering individual rights (ref. To the UDHR), and freedom from International Covenant on Economic, social, and Cultural Rights (ECSR) covering group rights (e.g. self-determination), and freedom to Goal: Better specify the ideal definition given to human rights in the 1948 UDHR Problems: West/CPR vs East/ECSR. B.​ 1968 movements Civil movement for human rights and fundamental freedoms (global social movements) South: independence of former colonies East: dissidence vs Soviet authorities West: student movements vs nationalism [Moyn: HRs give substance to the voice of minorities, political dissidents, and social groups + Bradley: the decline of the state-based political/economic structures] 1968: International Year for Human Rights (UN - Tehran Conference) Iran, pre-revolution, was still an ally of the West, and it was believed that a bridge could have been built through Iran between the West/East/South divide. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/l2ptichr.htm C.​ US and EEC reflecting on the topic within their respective political debate Main actors reflecting on the HR concept during the 1970s US: Civil liberties/Vietnam EEC: NO HRs in 1957 Treaty of Rome, BUT 1969 Stauder vs City of Ulm ​Stauder v. City of Ulm (1969) was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which clarified the role of fundamental human rights within the European Economic Community (EEC), now the European Union (EU). The case involved Mr. Stauder, a German national, who challenged a requirement for EEC welfare recipients to  disclose their identity to receive butter at a reduced price. Mr. Stauder claimed this requirement violated his fundamental rights by infringing on his dignity and privacy. Key Points of the Decision: Protection of Fundamental Rights: The ECJ ruled that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of EU law. This case was the first where the ECJ explicitly recognized the protection of fundamental human rights within the EU's legal framework, even though the EEC Treaty itself did not explicitly address these rights. Interpretation of Community Law: The ECJ interpreted the relevant EEC legislation in a way that respected fundamental rights, suggesting that EU law should always be construed in line with these principles. This meant that the requirement to disclose identity could be adjusted to prevent the infringement of personal rights. The Stauder ruling set the foundation for the EU to incorporate fundamental human rights into its law. This principle was expanded in later cases and culminated in the establishment of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. ​ Recognition of the rights of the individual within the territory of the 6 member states. II. Transatlantic Relations in the 1970s​ This topic is important because it leads us to understand why the EEC took certain positions with regard to HRs during the 1975 Helsinki Accords. ​ Timeline of transatlantic relations 1950s Marshall Plan + NATO 1957 EEC 1960 tensions 1970s divorce What role did the US and the EEC play during the Helsinki negotiations and why did human rights divide them? ​ Divorce between the US and the European Community a.​ US-Soviet Relations in 1970s: Dètente b.​ Nixon/Kissinger - Kissinger believed there was a need for an easing of the tension and a treaty was signed between the US and the USSR (SALT - Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) c.​ Vietnam War Protests (Strong opposition against the war in Europe) d.​ Fall of the Bretton Woods Agreement (Threatening the stability of European monetary security by Nixon’s devaluation of the dollar) e.​ Year of Europe (by Kissinger)  f.​ Copenhagen Declaration of 1973 The Copenhagen Declaration of 1973 was a pivotal statement by the European Community (EC) member states affirming their commitment to democratic principles, including respect for fundamental human rights as essential to European integration. This declaration laid the groundwork for embedding human rights into EC policy, influencing the later formalization of human rights protections within the EU framework. III. Human rights and transatlantic relations: the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Accords (1975), the role of NGOs CSCE/Helsinki Accords: Conference for security and cooperation in Europe -> Helsinki Final Act Helsinki, Finland A.​ Before the Negotiations (1969-1972) United States EEC ​ No interest in the conference ​ High interest in the conference ​ Need to dialogue with the USSR ​ Need to lessen division in Europe ​ Themes: Security only ​ Themes: Human Rights Henry Kissinger: Saw the need to maintain an open dialogue with Europe, but only wanted to go to Helsinki to talk about security issues. The EEC wanted to talk about Human Rights. EPC (European Political Cooperation): Unity in foreign policy B.​ During the Negotiations (1972-1975) Multilateral Preparatory Talks Agenda: 3 phases + 4 baskets Helsinki Final Act: Human Rights 3rd Basket: Cooperation in humanitarian issues (human rights) United States EEC Need to talk to the Soviet Union (because Vs. Soviet Union of Jackson-Vanik) Low interest in Human Rights Total commitment to human rights Partial turning point with new President Why? (Gfeller) Ford  The why: The EP, in order to gain an agency role and a more relevant role within the European institutions and the Western world, saw an opportunity to use HRs as a platform and a banner to carry. C.​ After the Negotiations (1975-1979) ​ Division of Europe ​ Human Rights clause, yet no legal value Carter’s inaugural address (1977): “ [...] Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights. [...]” (Individual human rights as a shared moral pillar referring to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ) https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/carter.asp Millicent Fenwick: US Congresswoman who worked intensely on Soviet dissidents in the Soviet Union and how they were being treated by the USSR in terms of respect for human rights. She helped create the Helsinki Watch ->Human Rights Watch (NGO) ​ Belgrade follow-up (1977) US Attention to HRs Why? Individuals (Carter & Fenwick + NGOs EEC Less attention to Human Wish to close the follow-up Rights in Belgrade asap ​ The Belgrade follow-up managed to achieve NOTHING to improve human rights. ​ European countries wanted relations with the Soviet Union, and the way to do so was not to mention human rights. The exact opposite of what happened during the Helsinki Accords with the US. ​ It is safe to assess that Human Rights then, became part of the ideological identity of Human Rights, as the US under Carter gave great importance to Human Rights 1969-1972 1972-1975 1975-1979 US: dialogue with USSR US: dialogue with USSR US: no more dialogue with the USSR CE: Identity CE: International image CE: less attention to Human rights in order to maintain  international role Conclusion ​ A true innovative element of the Helsinki negotiations: Human Rights ​ Yet Human Rights are not treated as a goal, but rather as a tool to rule international relations ​ Sole actors who have a true interest in: NGOs - from this time onwards Class 6 - 07/11 Human Rights in the North-South relations in the 1970s 1.​ Insight on EEC development policy: 2.​ What room for human rights within EEC development in the long 1970s? 3.​ Three periods as such ​ Period 1: 1968-1969 and 1970-1972 ​ Period 2: 1973-1975 ​ Period 3: 1975-1977 and 1978-1979 Definitions: ESCR = Economic social and cultural rights include the rights to adequate food, to adequate housing, to education, to health, to social security, to take part in cultural life, to water and sanitation, and to work. 1.​ Insight on EEC development policy: Definition of development assistance policy: aid given to certain countries to foster their development At the beginning: NO common foreign policy, YES international action on 4 lines -> relations with the US, commercial policy, agricultural policy, development assistance policy (recognized by the Treaty of Rome) NO MENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AT THIS POINT Timeline of EEC development policies 1957: Association with former colonies. The main target, i.e.: African countries 1963: Yaoundé Convention: EEC+ 18 AASM countries (Former French colonies) 1969: Yaoundé Convention: Renewal, notwithstanding the need to approve a new strategy (regionalism + association) 1975: Lomé Convention: EEC + ACP countries (renewal every 5 years until 2000 with ACP (globalism + partnership: why? True innovation?) 1st Period: 1968-1969 ​ Terminology: No ​ Values: No - This is quite strange because of Bandung ​ Duties: Duty for the developing countries to respect human rights? NO Duty for the EEC to promote human rights? NO, if we look at PCR, but partly YES if we look at ECSR - Right to development ​ 1968: Teheran: Idea that promoting development equals promoting the right to Human Rights ​ 1969: UN Declaration on Social Progress and Development https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/202280?ln=en&v=pdf 1st Period: 1970-1972 ​ Is it possible to state that EEC’s attention to development equals attention to the right to development to the right to development, and to human rights more in general? ​ No! There is an overall re-thinking about EEC development policy, but Human Rights are never considered ​ The answer is to be found in the justification given to development assistance: RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP ​ What does responsibility mean? Sum Up: 1968-1972 ​ 1968-1969: Development assistance can be seen as a way, though implicit and non-intentional, to foster human rights as a right to development. ​ 1970-1972: Development assistance is not a way to foster human rights; the main reason behind delivering aid is not helping developing countries, but gaining an international role! 2nd period: 1973-1975 ​ International role of the EEEC is reinforced through the 1973 Copenhagen Declaration on European Identity - presence on the international stage “1. The Nine wish to ensure that the cherished values of their legal, political and moral order are respected, and to preserve the rich variety of their national cultures. Sharing as they do the same attitudes to life, based on a determination to build a society which measures up to the needs of the individual, they are determined to defend the principles of representative democracy, of the rule of law, of social justice — which is the ultimate goal of economic progress — and of respect for human rights. All of these are fundamental elements of the European Identity. The Nine believe that this enterprise corresponds to the deepest aspirations of their peoples who should participate in its realization, particularly through their elected representatives.” 1973 Copenhagen Declaration on European Identity (https://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/1999/1/1/02798dc9-9c69-4b7d-b2c9-f03a8db7d a32/publishable_en.pdf) ​ Values at the core: Human Rights and Development ​ Human Rights: Helsinki Accords ​ Development: Lomé Convention The Lomé Convention focused on providing development aid to African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries to promote economic growth and reduce dependency on former colonial powers. Through European Development Fund (EDF) contributions, the EU offered financial and technical assistance aimed at sectors like agriculture, infrastructure, and education, targeting sustainable development. This aid was intended to empower ACP countries by supporting local industries and reducing trade imbalances, fostering a foundation for economic self-sufficiency rather than dependency on imports. The Lomé Convention established a partnership model prioritizing aid effectiveness and long-term cooperation over short-term economic gains. Sum-Up (1973-1975) ​ Human rights only when it comes to the relations with the East and with reference to the CSCE (Helsinki) ​ Development is an important element of EEC external policy, but NO room is given to human rights: ​ no terminology, no value, no duty – no reference to right to development ​ human rights and development as parallel lines ​ only meaning of HRs in this period: PCR / no ECSR! 3rd Period (1976-1977) ​ 1976: Turning Point ​ After the entrance into force of Lomé, EP starts considering the problem of delivering aid to ACP countries violating Human Rights (e.g. Uganda, Ethiopia) ​ Responsabilty not to help! What to do? Eliminate aid? Interrupt aid? Sanctions? But… on which bases? How? ​ 1977: Decision to slow down aid given to Uganda ​ What room for which human rights? When the Lomé Convention is to be renewed, there is the possibility to insert a clause about the respect of human rights (this is what the public opinion wants) ​ Which human rights, though? Only basic human rights! Why? ACP countries do not agree + they relaunch the idea of ECSR such as migrant workers’ rights + disagreement among EEC member states. ​ Responsibility not to intervene.  Claude Cheysson - President of ACP: Suggests that only Article 3 and Article 5 of the UDHR to be included in the renewal of the Lomé Convention, in the preamble (because they didn’t want to add a specific article about it) The European Community feared intervening and imposing a clause of Human Rights in the Lomé Convention, because it could become a problem for the EC. In the sense that the ACP countries could use that to claim such aid in the shape of free movement of migrant workers into Europe, etc. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN-UDHR) Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Sum-Up (1976-1979) ​ There seems to be the willingness to include human rights within EEC development policies but in the end, no human rights clause is added within the renewal of Lomé: not even basic human rights Nov 14 - Class 7 EU Internal Policy with regards to Human Rights External Policy with regards to Human Rights ​ 1957: European Community with an economic scope of action (no need to express HRs + 1950 ECHR) ​ ​Stauder v. City of Ulm (1969) was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which clarified the role of fundamental human rights within the European Economic Community (EEC), now the European Union (EU). The case involved Mr. Stauder, a German national, who challenged a requirement for EEC welfare recipients to disclose their identity to receive butter at a reduced price. Mr. Stauder claimed this requirement violated his fundamental rights by infringing on his dignity and privacy. ​ Internal Policy with regards to Human Rights: 1986: Single European Act - Economic (internal market) and political (EPC) reforms 1992: Maastricht Treaty - Founding of the EU and establishment of the TEU and TFEU 1997: Amsterdam Treaty - Reform of the EU 2000: Nice Treaty: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (EU-CFHR) 2004: Failed Constitution of Europe  2009: Lisbon Treaty Internal Policy: Maastricht Treaty (1992) Reference to the ECHR (founded in 1950 by the Council of Europe) and the common constitutional traditions of member states as general principles of EU law. Preamble: “... CONFIRMING their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law…” Article F: The EU Treaty states that "[t]he Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law" (Article 6(2), ex Article F.2). The use of traditions can bring the image and the principle of Antigone in shaping the philosophical reasoning of Human rights. By traditions, meaning our natural rights to uphold certain values as the highest standard, and their right to pursue them. Accession to the European Convention of Human Rights ​ 1950: ECHR (Council of Europe COE - 1950): all member states have acceded >> idea of accession to the ECHR for the EC as a whole: logical solution to link EC policy to fundamental rights ​ 1978-1990: Proposal of the Commission in 1978 ​ 1990-1993 >> The Court of Justice says NO in 1996 (The ECJ said NO because it was a document not issued by the European Union). Internal Policy: Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) ​ Amendment of Article 9 Maastricht: “The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law which are common to the Member States.” +​ Procedure to suspend the rights foreseen by the Treaties in case of serious violation of HRs by a member-state (sanction mechanism) Wording change: FROM ATTACHMENT (Maastricht) to FOUNDED (Amsterdam) to demonstrate a strengthening of these values as fundamental values. Internal Policy: Treaty of Nice (2000) ​ The preventative phase is added to the Amsterdam sanction mechanism + While there are roubles approving accession to the ECHR, the European Council decides to draft a Charter of Fundamental Rights EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf PREAMBLE The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality, and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security, and justice. The Union contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as the national identities of the Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional, and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and the freedom of establishment. To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress, and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in a Charter. This Charter reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of the Community and the Union and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States, the Treaty on European Union, the Community Treaties, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Social Charters adopted by the Community and by the Council of Europe and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the European Court of Human Rights. Enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the human community, and to future generations. The Union therefore recognises the rights, freedoms, and principles set out hereafter. To note from the preamble: ​ Wording FROM PRINCIPLES TO VALUES. ​ Use of “Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage”, “the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity” Both phrases contradict each other. ​ “It places the individual at the heart of its activities”, the choice of the term individual reflects a Western approach to rights that comes from the Enlightenment focusing on individual rights vs Eastern and Southern principles focusing on the commonwealth. Internal Policy: Charter of F.R. of the EU Innovative: ​ Prohibited grounds of discrimination (disability, age, sexual orientation) ​ Access to documents, data protection, good administration ​ FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) (2007) But, ​ Limited scope: institutions and EU law ​ The Charter did become a binding source of primary only with the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009 Internal Policy: Treaty of Lisbon (2009) Art. 2 (TEU) The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity, and equality between women and men prevail. Art. 7 (TEU) “[...] may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.” (e.g. Comm -> Poland - EP -> Hungary) Sanctioning mechanism: In case of the “existence of a serious and persistent breach of EU values”. Art. 6(1) TEU: Entry into force of the Charter Art 6 (2) TEU of the Treaty of Lisbon: the EU shall accede to the ECHR (COE) ​ The EU is subject to review by a legal body external to itself, i.e. the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. ​ EU Citizens can ideally bring the EU before the ECtHR But 2010: negotiations with the COE ​ 2014: The Court of Justice of the EU says that the Accession Agreement is not compatible with the Treaties as it affects the autonomy of EU Law ​ No accession yet! External Policy with regards to Human Rights External Policy Treaties ​ Lomé Convention (1979): Promotion of HRs is integrated with the renewal of the Convention in 1989 ​ Cotonou Agreement: Art 8 “regular assessment of the developments concerning the developing for human rights” ​ Maastricht Treat (1992) - Article 130 (U) Development Cooperation: 1. Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation, which shall be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States, shall foster: ○​ the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries, and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them, ○​ the smooth and gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy, ○​ the campaign against poverty in the developing countries.  ​ Lisbon (2009) ○​ Article 3(5) TEU: In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter. ○​ Article 21(1) TEU: The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles that have inspired its own creation, development, and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. ○​ More on: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2008/art_21/o ​ External Policy Problems: The debate is not on the value of human rights per se, but on the opportunity of promoting them through foreign policy and the way in which this competes with other priorities ​ Only the members of the European club should respect human rights?! ​ Critical Aspects of EU Human Rights: ○​ What is the meaning of Human Rights? ○​ Principles vs. values ○​ Negative vs. positive enactment ○​ Legal vs political: is the commitment of the treaties matched by political practice ○​ Diversity of cultures ○​ Identity ○​ Protection vs. Promotion Nov 21 - Class 9 External Relations What do we mean by EU FP/External Relations? ​ Enlargement ​ European Neighborhood Policy (ENP): Eastern, Southern, Cross-Border, Neighborhood Wide ​ Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) ​ Common Commercial Policy and Trade Relations ​ Humanitarian and Development Aid  1.​ Human Rights in the Context of ENLARGEMENT: human rights are one of the main rules determining whether a state can join the EU or not. 2.​ Human Rights in the context of RELATIONS with NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES. Enlargement Legal Framework General Conditions ​ Complying with all the EU’s standards and rules ​ Having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states ​ Having the consent of their citizens - as expressed through approval in their national parliament Art 49 TEU Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Copenhagen Criteria (1993) The Treaty on European Union sets out the conditions (Article 49) and principles (Article 6(1)) to which any country wishing to become a member of the European Union (EU) must conform. Certain criteria must be met for accession. These criteria (known as the Copenhagen criteria) were established by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and strengthened by the Madrid European Council in 1995. They are: ​ stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; ​ a functioning market economy and the ability to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU; ​ the ability to take on the obligations of membership, including the capacity to effectively implement the rules, standards, and policies that make up the body of EU law (the ‘ acquis ’), and adherence to the aims of political, economic, and monetary union. Enlargement: What Room for Human Rights? ​ Human Rights as one of the conditions that each applicant country must respect if it wants to enter the EU ​ In case of human rights violations, the EU can ask for the deeper engagement and/or suspend negotiations. ​ Human Rights: Prime importance within the negotiations? ​ Let’s observe the membership negotiations of Turkey and Romania (two cases) Turkey and its membership: 1959: Accession request 1970s and 1980s: No relations because of Turkey’s political situation 1987: New accession request 1989: The Commission says NO 1993: Copenhagen criteria met with harsh criticism by Turkey (because of their being in retrospect) 1999: Officially candidate country 2003-2004: Many positive steps to promote human rights 2005: Membership process launched 2012: Relations are frozen when Cyprus takes presidency of the EU Council 2013: Gezi park protests- EU condemns Turkey 2015: Relaunch of dialogue, but no accession date as of yet. Romania ​ Reports of NGOs: Freedom House, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch ​ Both Turkey and Romania presented problems concerning the respect of HRs, but Turkey in the end did not get to the negotiations with the EU ​ EU Funding programmes: MEDA for Turkey & PHARE for Romania ​ Support for the two countries’ human rights implementation was not equal. More money was sent to Romania vs the money sent to Turkey. Proportional to GDP. ​ If not human rights, what was the main goal behind negotiations? ○​ Security considerations ○​ Demography considerations ○​ Identity considerations Neighborhood Policies Human Rights and Egypt: The Case of Giulio Regeni Giulio Regeni, an Italian PhD student at the University of Cambridge, disappeared in Cairo, Egypt, in January 2016 while researching independent trade unions. His body was found days later, showing signs of severe torture. His death is widely believed to involve Egyptian security forces, though Egyptian authorities deny responsibility. The case has caused significant diplomatic tensions between Italy and Egypt and remains unresolved, symbolizing issues of repression and human rights violations in Egypt. ​ Egypt as one of the Southern Neighborhood countries ​ Concern of the European Parliament ​ Yet, no support from individual countries Internal Relations Where we can find a commitment from the EU? Where we cannot find commitment from the EU, but where we ought to?  ​ Art 7 TEU: Breach of Art. 2, sanctioning mechanism ​ European Parliament vs. Hungary: On Sept 12, 2018. EP launched Art 7. TEU vs the Hungarian Government (first time ever) ​ Sargentini’s Report: “[...] while the Hungarian authorities have consistently been ready to discuss the legality of any specific measure, the situation has not been addressed and many concerns remain, having a negative impact on the image of the Union, as well as its effectiveness and credibility in the defence of fundamental rights, human rights, and democracy globally, and revealing the need to address them by a concerted action of the Union;” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0250_EN.html ​ Sargentini’s Report as problematic: ○​ Minority’s opinion at the European Parliament ○​ Orban’s Speech in front of the European Parliament ○​ Article 7 TEU procedure itself MY NEW DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Human Rights are an ever expanding concept which encompasses protections, rights and universally recognized consensus on guarantees for human dignity. Human Rights, on a more specific definition, pertains the consensus of protection for basic human rights in documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more specific and advanced protections covered by other documents such as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Human Rights as an ever expanding definition evolves with time to adding issues that become more relevant.