Proposal for a second summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (1)

 

Doc. 7637 Corrigendum (English only)

11 September 1996

 

Report

Rapporteurs: M. MART�NEZ, Spain, Socialist Group and M. SEITLINGER, France, Group of the European People's Party

Summary

Major developments have taken place since the Council of Europe's 1993 Vienna Summit.

The Organisation's current challenges require new political impetus by Heads of State and Government, in particular as regards:

a clear definition of the place and role of the Council of Europe in Europe's institutional landscape,

A second Council of Europe summit, to be held in Strasbourg in the second half of 1997, is therefore called for.

I. Draft recommendation

1. The Assembly recalls the major developments which have taken place since the Vienna Summit (8-9 October 1993): expanded membership of the Council of Europe to cover the entire continent, including Russia; ever more rapid globalisation of exchanges through the spread of telecommunications, to the point of placing strains on the cohesion of European societies; revision of the institutions of the European Union.

2.The Council of Europe faces great challenges today which require fresh thinking on resources and long-term goals for the role it should play in promoting a model of society for Europe in the 21st century.

3.Summit meetings of Heads of State and Government are the sole means of renewing the political impetus of international institutions.

4.The Assembly requests that a second Council of Europe summit be held in Strasbourg in the second half of 1997.

5.The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers include the following items in the Draft Declaration for consideration by Heads of State and Government:

i.clear definition and decision at the highest political level of the place and role of the Council of Europe in Europe's institutional landscape;

ii.review of actions undertaken since the Vienna Summit: protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities; plan of action against racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance; reform of the European Court of Human Rights; political dialogue;

iii.a stronger political role for the Council of Europe, in particular

a. through the quadripartite meetings with the European Union and the OSCE (which should have a parliamentary dimension through the participation of the Presidents of each Assembly),

b. through reform of the 1949 Statute to give a stronger role to the Committee of Ministers (to be renamed "Council of Ministers") and to the Secretary General, and to guarantee the budgetary autonomy of the Parliamentary Assembly, and

c. stronger co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union on the basis of proposals already made by the Parliamentary Assembly;

iv.development of "partnership for democracy", as a key element in the shaping of European societies: introduction of new programmes of aid and assistance, notably for Russia and Ukraine, with a view to the firmer establishment of pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law; consolidation of the reform of the European Court of Human Rights, and clarification of the respective responsibilities of the Council of Europe and European Union in the field of human rights; more effective distribution of tasks between the Council of Europe and the OSCE;

v.ever firmer establishment of a European "legal area", for drawing up minimum standards for civil society, for drafting new instruments to respond to progress in

information technology and medical science, and for harmonising environmental standards throughout Europe;

vi.new initiatives to promote a model for European society:

a. further development of the Council of Europe's Social Charter for the safeguarding of employment, for the guaranteeing of social welfare systems, for professional training for young people, and for partnership between the State and the various economic and social actors;

b. drawing-up of legal instruments to address the challenges arising from new developments in information technology, such as the Internet, as well as from the increased influence and responsibility of the electronic media;

c. drawing up of a European public service charter with standards for equal and free access to basic public services: education, health, transport, telecommunications;

d. drawing-up of a European convention on the civil service, with standards relating to ethics and job security;

e. setting-up, in liaison with the European Union, of a special programme for youth training in Europe, designed to enhance the adaptability of education systems;

f. expansion of support programmes for democratic reform, notably by providing expert advice in the institutional, educational and social fields;

g. strengthening of the Organisation's analytical and predictive role ("fonction prospective") in the field of legal norms and social trends, prompted by and with the participation of the Parliamentary Assembly, and with contributions from qualified personalities - economists, philosophers and sociologists renowned for their work on the new patterns of social life likely to emerge in the next century;

h. new budgetary means permitting the Council of Europe to address these goals in the new context set by its expanded membership: development of programmes funded jointly with the European Union; partnership with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and redefinition of the tasks of the Council of Europe Social Development Fund; partnership for certain major programmes with the G7 member states now having observer status with the Council of Europe; recourse to private foundations;

vii..recognition that adoption by Heads of State and Government at summit meetings of proposals for policies and programmes, especially those which affect the role of the Parliamentary Assembly, are of symbolic value only unless additional finance is made available.

II. Explanatory Memorandum by the Rapporteurs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

PART A - Heritage and Philosophy of the Vienna Summit 1 - 42

I.Introduction 1 - 4

II.Follow-up to the 1993 Summit 5 - 27

A. The Vienna Declaration 5 - 20

B. Specific decisions 20 - 27

a. Reform of the control mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights 20

b. Protection of national minorities 21

c. Plan of action to combat rascisim, xenophobia, antisemitism and tolerance 22 - 24

d. The creation of a consultative organ generally representing local and regional authorities in Europe 25

e. Development of European cultural schemes 26

f. The revision of the Organisation's statute 27

III.Conclusions and proposals28 - 42

PART B - A Model for Society in 21st Century Europe 43 - 94

I.Introduction43 - 49

II.New Challenges 50 - 67

III.Reasons for a second summit 68 - 76

IV.Proposals 77 - 86

A. The summit must strengthen the political role of the Council of Europe77 - 80

B. Promoting a model society for twenty-first century Europe 81 - 83

C. New budget resources for the Council of Europe 84

D. Date and place of the second summit 86

V.Conclusion 87 - 94

Annex 1 Vienna Declaration

PART A: Heritage and Philosophy of the Vienna SummitSee footnote 2

I. Introduction

In his address to the Parliamentary Assembly on 4 May 1992, French President Mitterrand proposed that a Council of Europe Summit be held. This proposal, made fifteen years after the Assembly had done so in Recommendation 803 (1977), was taken up by the Austrian Government which invited the Heads of States and Governments to Vienna on 8 and 9 October 1993.

The Assembly took an active part in the preparation of the Summit and four of its Recommendations were included in the Summit filesSee footnote 3

The Summit resulted in the Vienna Declaration (see appendix 1) and a number of concrete decisions set out in three appendices. Many, though not all, of the Assembly's proposals were followed.

An evaluation of the follow-up given to the Vienna Declaration, and to the specific decisions taken, is set out below. Although much progress has been made, a number of important issues have remained deadlocked. Moreover, the consequences of the Council of Europe's nearly completed enlargement, the growing interest in its activities by non-European states and its relationships with other institutions, especially within the European construction process, need to be addressed at the highest political level. The holding of a second Summit, as proposed by the President of our Assembly, Mrs. Fischer, is therefore most timely.

II. Follow-up to the 1993 Summit

A.The Vienna Declaration

The Vienna Declaration interprets the Council of Europe's Statute in the light of the challenges following the end of the division of Europe. The political role of the Organisation is clearly reaffirmed : "the Council of Europe is the pre-eminent European political institution capable of welcoming, on an equal footing and in permanent structures, the democracies of Europe freed from communist oppression". The criteria for accession are also explicitly listed. They have been the basis for the Assembly's opinions, and the Committee of Ministers' decisions on membership applications.

Since the Vienna Summit, seven new member states have joined the Organisation, bringing the present total to 39. Croatia has in principle been invited to join as the 40th member. Membership application for Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Armenia, [Azerbaijan and Georgia] are currently being examined by the Assembly.

The Vienna Declaration affirms the resolve "to ensure full-compliance with the commitments accepted by all Member States within the Council of Europe." The Committee of Ministers, on 10 November 1994, adopted a Declaration on Compliance with Commitments. The procedure set out in this Declaration is currently undergoing a trial period. The Assembly already had its monitoring procedure under Order 488 (1993) at the time of the Summit. Since then, this order was up-dated by Order 508 (1995) extending the procedure to all Member States. Further improvements to the procedure are currently being examined by the Assembly's Bureau.

With regard to assistance and co-operation, the Vienna Declaration called for the Council of Europe programmes to be developed and constantly adapted to the needs of its new partners. At various levels, twenty-one countries in Central and Eastern Europe benefit from these programmes. Soon, they should no longer be required by the older member states from this area. Indeed, they are increasingly assisting the later arrivals.

Furthermore, the Secretary General has launched a new initiative, in particular to help Ukraine and Russia solve institutional and legislative problems. These programmes are co-financed by the Council of Europe and the European Union.

The Vienna Declaration supports "intensifying functional co-operation in the human dimension sphere between the Council of Europe and the CSCE". Since then, the CSCE has become the OSCE and has become increasingly active in central and Eastern Europe. Its role was, most notably, recognised by the Stability Pact in Europe and the Dayton Agreement - both of which only set subsidiary tasks for the Council of Europe.

As a result, a certain overlap has become manifest, in particular as regards monitoring and assistance regarding Human Rights. Furthermore, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (although not formally an OSCE organ) virtually duplicates the work of our Assembly in a number of fields and issues.

There are frequent contacts and high level meetings between the Council of Europe and the OSCE with a view to establishing pragmatic co-operation. The Secretary General and the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE participate regularly in the bi-annual sessions of the Committee of Ministers, while our Secretary General has attended several OSCE ministerial meetings and the Budapest Summit. Moreover, "tri-partite" meetings between the Council of Europe, the OSCE and the United Nations Geneva Office as well as "2 + 2" meetings between the Secretary General and the Chairmen-in-Office of both the Council of Europe and the OSCE are held regularly. In practical terms, expert assistance is offered by the Council of Europe staff seconded to the OSCE Ombudsperson in Sarejevo. Moreover, Council of Europe experts and officials have, on an ad hoc basis, participated in certain OSCE missions. Ways of ensuring a more regular participation are currently being examined.

The similarity in the objectives of institutions, their increasingly similar membership and the overlapping activities have also led to calls for a formal division of labour between them. 'Combination of efforts' and 'complementarity' are the key words. Common sense and rational use of available resources should be our guidelines.

Although the Summit referred to the "specific and open-ended institutional relationship" between the Council of Europe and the European Union, and recommended "fuller co-ordination of the Council of Europe's activities with those of other organisations involved in the construction of a democratic and secure Europe", no specific decisions were taken. The Parliamentary Assembly has made proposals for the European Union's

Intergovernmental Conference, contained in Recommendation 1279 (1995) and Resolution 1067 (1995). These were transmitted by the Committee of Ministers to the European Union but, significantly, the Committee of Ministers refrained from making any substantive proposals.

Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union is based on a 1987 arrangement and decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers and the Council of the European Community in 1989, setting up quadri-partite meetings. This practice was relaunched in 1995, with meetings in Paris and Madrid. A revision of this 1987 arrangement is currently being prepared both within the Council of Europe and the competent bodies within the European Union institutions. An important element in the co-operation between the two institutions is the Union's participation in the Council of Europe's programmes for co-operation and assistance to Central and Eastern European countries. Joint programmes are under way for Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Russia. These programmes should be further developed. The Council of Europe, through its extensive network of national experts, can provide extremely cost-effective assistance. Greater use should be made of this potential by the Union.

In addition, many subjects in the fields of justice and home affairs, now discussed by the European Union, are also traditionally dealt with - indeed as a major activity -by the Council of Europe. It is therefore necessary to increase co-operation in these areas.

The Lisbon-based North-South Centre of the Council of Europe (European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity) co-operates closely with the European Union, which is represented on the Centre's Executive Council by a representative of the European Commission and two members of the European Parliament. The Centre has also been particularly active with regard to the Mediterranean. However, regrettably - and perhaps significantly - the Council of Europe was not invited to participate in the Euro-Mediterranean Conference organised by the European Commission and the Council of the European Union in November 1995. Recognition of the Council of Europe's efforts and achievements in the field of trans-Mediterranean co-operation by the Union institutions is necessary.

The Assembly's call for the European Union to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights has been supported by the European Parliament and the Commission. On 28 March 1996, the Court of Justice of the European Community delivered an opinion concluding that, at present, no treaty provision conferred the power on a community institution to enact rules on Human Rights or to conclude an international convention in that field. It will thus depend on the European Union's on-going Intergovernmental Conference to decide on a possible amendment to the Rome Treaty enabling accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

As regards the relationships with Non-European States sharing the same values, these have since been developed by the granting of observer status to the United States and Canada. A similar status for Japan, on whose request the Assembly gave a favourable opinion, is currently pending. Other non-European states - such as those who are members of the OECD, but also from adjacent geographical areas, notably the Mediterranean - may well follow these examples. At the Assembly's level, a formal request for observer status was recently received from Canada. A major question is therefore to what extent the Council of Europe is willing to let other states benefit from its considerable achievements. The Council of Europe has set standards in the fields of human rights, including social and minority rights, local autonomy, cultural co-operation, the environment and youth matters. These standards have in many cases been laid down

in binding legal instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, and the European Cultural Convention to name but a few. It should be greatly welcomed if they were to be followed also outside Europe.

B.Specific decisions

a.Reform of the control mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights

This was a major concern of the Assembly, taken up at the Summit. A New Protocol establishing a single Court of Human Rights was adopted and opened for signature by the Committee of Ministers on 11 May 1994. All the 39 Member States have signed it and 22 have already ratified the text.

b.Protection of national minorities

This, too, was an Assembly priority, where the Summit proved decisive in obtaining a result. The Framework Convention for Protection of National Minorities was opened for signature on 1 February 1995. It has now been signed by 32 members but only ratified by Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. It needs 8 more ratifications to enter into force. Regrettably there has been little progress on the drafting of Protocol complementing the European Convention on Human Rights in the cultural field by provisions guarantying individual rights in particular for persons belonging to national minorities. There appears to be insufficient political will to complete the work on such a Protocol.

c.Plan of action to combat racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and tolerance

Yet again, this was a decision which had been called for by the Assembly following an initiative of Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Under the plan, a European Youth Campaign was launched in December 1994. It was implemented in almost 40 European countries with over 2,000 activities. It officially ended in May 1996 with the declaration of the Committee of Ministers stressing the importance of continuing efforts to combat racism and xenophobia.

As a second pillar of the action plan, a Committee of governmental experts, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) was set up. It is examining the possibility of strengthening the non-discrimination provision (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights). It further identified a range of measures and guiding principles to deal with problems of racism and xenophobia. A country-by-country study on the situation in each Member State is under way.

It has also been proposed to set up a permanent body for monitoring, evaluating and proposing measures to combat racism and xenophobia. As the EU also planned to set up such an observatory, a joint initiative was proposed by the Council of Europe. However, the European Union appears to favour its own institutions with a mandate limited to its Member States.

d.The creation of a consultative organ generally representing local and regional authorities in Europe

In 1994, the Committee of Ministers upgraded and transformed the Conference of Local and Regional Authorities into the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities.

e.Development of European cultural schemes

Efforts to ensure the accession of the European Community to the European Cultural Convention have so far been unsuccessful. On the other hand, there is progress and co-operation, in particular, in the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC). The Assembly recently adopted Recommendation 1299 (1996) on European Cultural Co-operation : activities of the EU and relations with the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers has agreed to include education and cultural co-operation on the agenda of the "quadri-partite" meeting, likely to take place in Autumn 1996.

f.The revision of the Organisation's statute

Though the Committee of Ministers was specifically instructed to adapt the Organisation's statute, having regard to proposals put forward by the Parliamentary Assembly (notably in Recommendation 1212 (1993) which contains a proposed new statute), the Committee of Ministers has not given any further follow-up to this proposal. Therefore, our Organisation continues to operate on the basis of a Treaty clearly designed for another time and age. Other institutions, such as the OSCE and the European Union have been, and continue to be, adapted, also at institutional level, to the new Europe.

III.Conclusions and proposals

The 1993 Vienna Summit provided a major impetus to the Organisation's activities. It demonstrated that breakthroughs can be obtained at the highest political level, also on controversial issues, which had remained deadlocked or watered down at lower level. In addition, new ideas were launched. Most of the decisions taken have been followed-up. However, there has been no progress on some important issues, such as the Additional Protocol on cultural rights for persons belonging to national minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights and the revision of the statute.

The process of enlargement of the Council of Europe is drawing to a close. Croatia will in principle join the Organisation in October. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have formally submitted the request for membership which will be examined in conformity with the established procedure by the Assembly. Belarus and Bosnia-Herzegovina have also submitted the request for membership, although their internal situation makes short-term accession unlikely. In the Council of Europe geographical area, as defined by the Assembly, only the Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) remain outside the Council of Europe framework. Implementation, in good faith, of the Dayton Agreement, an acceptable solution for Kosova and respect for, and implementation of, Council of Europe values, principles and standards, would pave the way for a normalisation of relations and the establishment of links with the Council of Europe in due course.

As a result the Council of Europe will, within the next few years, have welcomed the newly established democracies and be a truly pan-European organisation. The Vienna Declaration specifically affirms that the Council of Europe is a political institution. This means that it should not be merely used as a human rights agency but that real political dialogue, addressing the political problems of our continent, should take place. There seems little point in establishing a forum only to refrain from using it.

The political problems facing the continent also include several conflicts: Cyprus, the Aegean, Transnistria, Chechnya, to name but a few. One cannot understand nor accept why the Member States of our Organisation have preferred to deal with these conflicts almost exclusively through other institutions, such as the United Nations and the

OSCE. The Assembly has made, and continues to make, efforts to address these matters at political level. Visits on the spot by the Assembly rapporteurs and ad hoc committees are taking place, resulting in discussion at the highest political level. Based on information thus obtained, the Assembly continues to take formal positions through its resolutions and recommendations. Such political activity regrettably is virtually absent in the Committee of Ministers, which, moreover, frequently does not provide substantial replies to the Assembly's recommendations. It would seem that the Committee prefers to leave controversial issues aside.

Monitoring of commitments, the need for which was already recognised at the Vienna Summit, has now become imperative. Many new Member States have joined the Council of Europe on a 'credit of confidence', granted on the basis of explicit commitments undertaken. Quite rightly, the new Member States insist that the older Member States, too, strictly comply with their obligations. The legal obligations of Member States are of course already subject to the banning control-mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and the European Social Charter. But they only relate to specific legal instruments. If the Council of Europe is to retain its credibility as the guardian of Human Rights and democracy in Europe, political monitoring must be further developed.

Monitoring should, of course, be linked to co-operation and assistance. If certain states have difficulties in maintaining, or reaching the standards set by the Council of Europe, appropriate assistance must be offered. So far, however that means put at the Organisation's disposal, have not been commensurate with the needs. Moreover, if monitoring is to be effective, a system of sanctions must also be introduced.

In this respect, a noticeable shortcoming of the Organisation is its lack of visibility. Because the Committee of Ministers shies away from political action, it is left to the President of the Assembly to react, and represent the Organisation as such in the public eye, when crises emerge. Organisations are inevitably identified with their leaders. In this respect it is clear that the present statutory position of the Secretary General is a great handicap. Increasing the Secretary General's prerogatives would certainly improve visibility. In addition, it would increase the Organisation's operational capabilities and give the Secretary General more possibilities for direct political action. The Secretary General is already elected by the Parliamentary Assembly, and, as a quid pro quo for his increased powers, he should also be made accountable to the Assembly for his actions. This would insert a further element of democratic control that at present is lacking.

The above modifications require, of course, a revision of the Council of Europe's statute. Such a revision is now long overdue. The structure of the Organisation should be made much clearer. Its three main component parts, executive, parliamentary and judiciary branches should be distinguished more clearly. In particular, it is unacceptable that the Parliamentary Assembly is still financially dependent on the Committee of Ministers. Instead, the Assembly should be given its own budgetary means. Such a step would demonstrate more respect for national parliaments and also do justice to the leading role the Assembly is playing within the Organisation.

In recent times, and in particular since the Vienna Summit there have been extraordinary developments in communication technology, as demonstrated, for instance, by Internet. These contain both great opportunities and great challenges. In addition, the influence and responsibility of especially the electronic media in a democratic society with respect to the rule of law, has increased enormously. The Council of Europe should address these issues, which are so closely linked to its mandate, as a matter of priority.

There have been major developments in other institutions. The CSCE became the OSCE and its activities increasingly risk overlapping with those of the Council of Europe. The OSCE will, no doubt, receive another boost this December with the Lisbon Summit. Increasingly, it is given operational tasks, in areas which are traditionally covered by the Council of Europe. A reason for this "encroachment" is no doubt that the Council of Europe has not been sufficiently active in the field. While the OSCE has established missions in many countries, and in particular in problem areas, the Council of Europe has continued, with the provisional exception of Sarajevo, to operate exclusively from its Strasbourg base and has relied on occasional visits only.

At the same time the Council of Europe has been very cost-effective by employing, in addition to its own limited staff, people from various levels of national administration as well as from universities and NGOs. The OSCE, on the other hand, relies strongly on diplomatic staff. The Council of Europe, according to the Vienna Declaration, is to deal with democratic security: that is commitment to pluralistic and parliamentary democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the common cultural patrimony. The OSCE's focus has been more on the military aspects of security. Finally, while the Council of Europe has been operating on the basis of legally binding standards, the OSCE's standards are of political nature.

Much attention is focused these days on the concept of interlocking institutions. The European Union, WEU, NATO, OSCE, UN and the Council of Europe are all referred to in this context. However, it would appear that further rationalisation between certain organisations is now called for. Resources for international co-operation remain very limited. Overlapping and duplication should therefore be eliminated as far as possible. Membership of OSCE and the Council of Europe, whose standards and objectives are already very close, has become more similar. However, the presence of non-European states in the OSCE remains an essential difference. Therefore the question of a more drastic rationalisation and co-ordination of their activities must be considered.

The European Union Inter-Governmental Conference is under way. Its outcome will directly affect Council of Europe. The IGC, too, will be concluded by a Summit meeting. The question of new institutional links, the increased Union activities in fields traditionally left to the Council of Europe and proper co-ordination of activities, also with regard to third countries, notably the Mediterranean, must be examined by the Council of Europe at the same level.

It is high time to clearly define and decide at the highest political level the place and role of the Council of Europe in the European institutional landscape. In recent years, there have been many reports and debates on the subject, but the Organisation's achievements and potential are now sufficiently well known for decisions to be taken.

President Fischer's initiative, supported by President Chirac and since also by the President of Portugal, Mr Sampaio, is therefore extremely timely. Only Heads of State and Government can break persisting deadlocks and provide the political guidance and impetus necessary to adapt the Council of Europe to its changing environment.

PART B: A Model for Society in 21st Century EuropeSee footnote 4

I.Introduction

Almost seven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the new European architecture on which the Paris Charter of 21 November 1990 set its sights is still in the making.

The effects of sweeping changes in the East continue to make themselves felt, but there is still no clear idea of what form the Europe of the next millennium might take. The consequences of the continent's political reunification are of great interest to Europe's institutions, which, with the exception of the OSCE, whose geographical basis was established by the time of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, all have to cope with enlargement.

The European Union has to gear its institutions to the future accession of the countries of central and eastern Europe. That is the main purpose of the Intergovernmental Conference which opened on 29 March in Turin. In increasing its membership from fifteen to twenty-five or twenty-seven, the Union will reach a watershed and will have to consider its further development from a radically new angle.

The single currency, accessible only to a few countries for what will certainly be a long period, might well create a Europe operating at several speeds, which would be a very far cry from the Community of the 1950s, brought into being in a Europe devastated by the second world war and under threat from Soviet power.

The Western European Union, Nato and the OSCE remain the building blocks of a European security system yet to be constructed.

It is in this context of institutional uncertainties, overlapping between the different organisations, regional initiatives designed to revive historical identities in central Europe, be it in the Baltic or Black Sea area, as demonstrated by the summit held in Poland, that the Council of Europe is pursuing its enlargement to include the entire continent. Russia's accession marked a crucial point in this process, which will take the organisation's membership from thirty-nine to forty-five in the near future.

The Council of Europe has become a truly pan-European organisation, encompassing virtually all the geographical continent's states. It has played a considerable role in anchoring central and east European countries to democratic, free Europe. The debates held since 1989 in the Parliamentary Assembly have thrown up new issues: pluralist democracy and rule of law, transition to a market economy, minorities, democratic security.

II.New challenges

It is clear to everyone today that the enthusiasm of the early post-communist period now belongs to the past and that some fundamental thinking is required to find solutions to the new challenges at hand.

Like the other institutions, the Council of Europe cannot escape the consequences of the technological revolution and the major questions it raises.

The process of globalisation, spurred on by the breathtaking progress of information technologies and telecommunications, has far-reaching consequences for the economy (supremacy of financial markets, delocalisations, etc).

Globalisation also raises the issue of the functioning of democracy within the new global communications area. The Parliamentary Assembly has already broached the questions of democracy and the media and democracy and new information technologies. There is a pressing need to delve more deeply into this fundamental issue, which is of interest not only to parliaments but also to governments, whose control is increasingly undermined by the emergence of international stock exchange circuits not subject to any regulation.

The governments of Council of Europe member states can draw on the Organisation's experience and pioneering ability.

The Council of Europe is also the best placed body to draw up a European convention to ensure compliance with ethical rules on the Internet and fill the present legal vacuum.

Social cohesion is threatened not only in the countries of central and eastern Europe, reeling from the aftershock of reform, in particular privatisation, but also in European Union states, where there are some 20 million unemployed and tough austerity drives are being introduced.

Today, challenges in East and West are merging, making it more necessary than ever for us all to join forces. The European Union cannot do everything on its own. The Council of Europe is capable of making a vital contribution to the consolidation of societies in central and eastern Europe, in the same way that it is helping to consolidate democracy and the rule of law.

Since 1950, the Council of Europe, through its European Convention on Human Rights, has carved out a legal area and deployed powerful instruments whose effectiveness is now undisputed.

The image of the Council of Europe is one of an institutional reference for democracy and human rights protection. But now the Council, while maintaining its excellent performance in those areas, must further develop its work in the social field. Indeed, Article 1 of its 1949 Statute expressly authorises it to do so, stating that "the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress".

The Council of Europe does have a role, therefore, in fostering social progress. In fact it has done so by drawing up the European Social Charter, but it must go further and lay down new standards with a view to guaranteeing social cohesion and social welfare systems, particularly pensions, and combating exclusion.

A powerful social dimension must be given to the work of the Council of Europe in the legal field.

The Council of Europe, as a forum for pan-European political dialogue and a reference body for democracy and human rights, must broaden its traditional activities

and take the lead in considering means of reinforcing solidarity and social guarantees, to counter the excesses of ultra-liberalism and the consequences of globalisation.

As early as the Vienna Summit of October 1993, our President, Mr Mart�nez, was already drawing the attention of heads of state and government to the importance of promoting social rights.

Regarded for too long as an organisation of legal expertise, the Council of Europe must bring about a genuine cultural revolution and become the institutional driving force in creating a model for European society, particularly as regards its social aspects.

In the same way that the countries of central and eastern Europe needed and still need the Council of Europe while establishing pluralist democracy, the Council's help in consolidating reforms and preparing new social legislation is just as necessary today.

Today, it is a matter of making those reforms last and giving substance to the eastward enlargement, which is entering its final phase. Enlargement will not provide a permanent focal point for Council of Europe or, for that matter, for European Union policy. The day will come when enlargement is complete and further development will have to be considered.

European cultural identity must also be asserted, notably within the framework of the Council of Europe's Cultural Convention.

III.Reasons for a second summit

Now is the time, therefore, for us to launch a great construction project of the future, the creation of a model for European society.

Considering what is at stake, the qualms expressed in some quarters as to the very principle of a second Council of Europe summit are really surprising.

It is astonishing, to say the least, that summits of heads of state and government can be held at regular intervals without any problem by the other institutions, such as the OSCE, while the prospect of a Council of Europe summit gives rise to debate and queries.

For it is surely in the interest of states, as the sole guarantors of social cohesion, to make use of the Council of Europe's wealth of standard-setting experience and ask it to carry out the expert appraisals the countries of central and eastern Europe need to help resolve the huge social problems inherent in the transition to a market economy.

There are many other good reasons for holding a second summit:

a.the Council of Europe faces major challenges. The accession of Russia obliges it to implement substantial programmes to support democracy and the rule of law and to strengthen political dialogue. Since the Vienna Summit, the Council of Europe has continued its transformation, and we should now draw conclusions, particularly in budgetary terms, review the progress of measures adopted at that first summit and make proposals for the future.

b.the Intergovernmental Conference of the European Union will be required to take a number of decisions on eastward enlargement, which will not be without

implications for the future of the Council of Europe. Indeed, the Council put forward proposals at that conference with a view to strengthening the partnership between the Council of Europe and European Union. A great many questions could be debated, therefore, within the framework of the summit, particularly as regards the maintenance of a common legal area for human rights.

The opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Communities that, given the present state of the treaties, the Community cannot accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, must not result in the drawing up of a rival text in Brussels.

Was it really necessary for the European Union to suggest setting up a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia as action was taken in this field at the Vienna Summit? Would the curtailing of such regrettable and deliberate overlapping of activities between the Council of Europe and the European Union not be a good subject of discussion for the heads of state and government?

c.finally, it must be pointed out that summits of heads of state are the real political driving force behind the institutions. This is the case for European Council meetings within the Union framework and also for OSCE summits, which give essential political impetus. In fact it was agreed at the Vienna Summit that Council of Europe summits would be held every two years, in alternation with OSCE summits. Only a summit meeting of heads of state would give the Council of Europe's activities and projects the political dimension needed to face the new challenges.

A summit held in 1999, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Council of Europe, would not have the same political impact, as it would certainly come across as a largely ceremonial event.

Recent events, such as the Moscow Summit on nuclear safety, have shown that the relevant decision-making level is now that of heads of state.

The Assembly will have to be highly active during preparations for the second summit. The political role of the Parliamentary Assembly has constantly expanded as the Council of Europe has grown. Of the three organs instituted under the 1949 Statute _ the Committee of Ministers, the Secretariat and the Assembly _ it is the last-named which has undergone the most radical transformation.

The Parliamentary Assembly will therefore be a determined and vigilant political partner for the summit of heads of state.

IV.Proposals

A.The summit must strengthen the political role of the Council of Europe

Fostering ongoing political dialogue with Russia is a priority task. Furthermore, efforts must concerted with the decisions to be taken by the European Union in connection with Common Foreign and Security Policy. The circumstances in which the Fifteen decided to defer the accession of Croatia, without consulting the Council of Europe authorities, highlight the need to improve consultation procedures.

Strengthening the role of the quadripartite meetings between the Council of Europe and the European Union and OSCE. These meetings must be given a parliamentary dimension through the participation of the presidents of the respective assemblies. As for the 1987 Arrangement between the Council of Europe and the European Union, the joint decision of the Council of Europe Secretary General and the President of the Commission of the European Union to update the text is most welcome.

Beginning work to reform the 1949 Statute in the light of the sweeping changes experienced by the Council as a result of its eastward enlargement.

The main thrusts of this reform might be as follows:

i.strengthening of the political role of the Committee of Ministers, which might be renamed "Council of Ministers", as the term "Committee" is far too technical in its connotations. To give its work a higher profile, the ministerial troika could take an active role, inter alia by ensuring co-ordination with the troikas of the OSCE and European Union;

ii.increased powers for the Secretary General, who should be answerable to the Parliamentary Assembly which elected him or her;

iii.strengthening of the role of the Joint Committee, a key organ of communication between the Parliamentary Assembly and the intergovernmental sector. The separation of these two sectors and the inadequate communication and information exchange between them constitute an area of weakness of the Council of Europe and should be remedied;

iv.guarantees of the budgetary autonomy of the Parliamentary Assembly. It is not normal that Parliamentary Assembly representatives, who are national MPs and vote on state budgets in their own parliaments, are subject to close supervision by the Ministers' Deputies.

B.Promoting a model society for twenty-first century Europe

Consolidation of the building blocks of a model society already widely fostered by the Council of Europe: partnership for democracy -

i.pluralist democracy and the rule of law: setting up of large-scale programmes of aid and assistance, directed inter alia at Russia, in conjunction with the European Union, as part of a strengthened partnership already demonstrated by the funds granted for the Secretary General's initiative concerning aimed Russia;

ii.continuation and consolidation of the reform of the European Court of Human Rights, clarification of the respective prerogatives of the Council of Europe and European Union in the human rights field, better distribution of tasks between the Council of Europe and OSCE in the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law;

iii.The Council of Europe must rethink the problem of minorities in the light inter alia of the pragmatic approach taken by the Pact on Stability, given the difficulties encountered by the Framework Convention for the protection of national minorities (only four countries have ratified it to date);

iv.consolidation of the European legal area, with which are drawn up minimum standards for civil society. New instruments must be drafted to combat new forms of crime, to meet the challenges arising from computerisation and progress in

medical science and to harmonise environmental standards in western Europe and the countries of central and eastern Europe;

v.assertion of European cultural identity by developing Council of Europe programmes within the framework of the European Cultural Convention, which must also be opened up to dialogue with other cultures, particularly in the Mediterranean area.

Implementation of new initiatives to foster a model for European society -

i.further development of the Council of Europe's Social Charter in areas concerning the safeguarding of employment, the guaranteeing of social welfare systems, particularly pensions, the combating of social exclusion and the fostering of the new partnership to be encouraged between the state and the different economic and social protagonists.

ii.drawing up of a European public service charter laying down standards guaranteeing equal and free access to basic public services: education, health, transport, telecommunications.

iii.drawing up of a European convention on the civil service, incorporating standards relating to ethics and job security.

iv.setting up, in conjunction with the European Union, of a special programme for youth training in Europe, geared in particular to the adaptation of education systems.

v.creation, within the Council of Europe framework, of a support agency for democratic reform in central and eastern Europe, with the task of carrying out expert appraisals to help countries in transition settle the tremendous problems facing them in the institutional, educational and social fields. Such an agency might secure the assistance of bodies such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

vi.strengthening of the forward-looking role of the Council of Europe in the field of legal rules and social trends, pursued in a flexible manner, with the involvement and impetus of the Parliamentary Assembly and contributions from qualified eminent members of civil society, economists, philosophers and sociologists renowned for their work on the new forms of life in society likely to emerge in the next century.

This work would make it possible:

_on the one hand, to assess progress in establishing standards for the different components of the model for European society and to make proposals,

_on the other hand, to make forecasts based inter alia on the progress of new technologies and its impact in the social, ethical and cultural fields.

C.New budget resources for the Council of Europe

The Council of Europe budget is less than 850MF, despite the pressing needs which have emerged since enlargement: financing programmes of aid and assistance, greater staff requirements, etc. An increase in mandatory contributions is indispensable and, in any case, the summit will have to reiterate that the overall budget awarded to the Council should not be reduced by the amount of the contributions paid by new member states.

The Council of Europe's funding sources could be diversified in various ways:

i.development of initiatives and programmes jointly funded by the Council of Europe and European Union;

ii.partnership with the EBRD and redefinition of the tasks of the Council of Europe Social Development Fund so that it may help to finance socially-oriented expert appraisals in the East;

iii.proposed partnership with the G7 member states granted observer status at the Council of Europe for certain costly programmes for countries such as Russia;

iv.requests to private foundations to help fund certain programmes, such as those for young people and cultural exchanges.

D.Date and place of the second summit

We propose that the second summit of heads of state and government of Council of Europe member states be held in Strasbourg, symbol of European unity, during the second half of 1997, with France in the Chair.

IV.Conclusion

Founded in 1949, in the immediate post-war period, the Council of Europe has been the crucible for all the initiatives which have sought to make the European continent an area of peace, freedom and security.

The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has provided the framework for all the landmark debates of European construction since the 1950s.

The political reunification of the continent and the democratic ambitions of the countries of central and eastern Europe after the upheavals of 1989-90 have naturally led the Council of Europe, in keeping with its mission, to play an active role in fostering human rights and creating a vast area of democratic security.

By taking in the new eastern democracies, the Council of Europe has rendered a tremendous service to the European cause.

As the next millennium dawns, the Council of Europe must pursue and consolidate its efforts by reinforcing the fundamental rights under threat at present, such as the right to employment, the right to social welfare protection and the right to a guaranteed retirement pension.

In keeping with its pioneering role, the Council of Europe must blaze the trail for the new standards which will become necessary as the information society progresses.

The Council of Europe is an irreplaceable framework for fostering the kind of society which will enable Europe to assert its original features and creative talents in the new multifocal world.

With a view to the fulfilment of these ambitions, we urge that a summit meeting be held marking the renewed unity of the European continent.

Appendix 1

            Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee.

            Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.

            Reference to committee: Doc. 7537 and Reference No. 2073 of 26 April 1996

            Draft recommendation adopted by the committee on 4 September 1996 by 36 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

            Members of the committee: Mr B�rsony (Chairman), Lord Finsberg (Vice-Chairman), MM. van der Linden (Vice-Chairman), Antretter, Baumel, Mrs Belohorska, MM. Bergqvist, Bernardini, Bj�rck, Bloetzer, Bokov, B�chel, B�hler, Caputo, Cem, Cerqueda Pascuet, Chornovil, Deasy, Demiralp, Desyatnikov, Diacov, E�rsi, Fassino (Alternate: Benvenuti), Gjellerod (Alternate: Severinsen), Gotzev, Gricius, Hardy, Irmer, Iwi_ski, Kalus, Kaspereit, Kyprianou (Alternate: Christodoulides), Mrs Lentz-Cornette, MM. Lopez Henares (Alternate: Martinez), Masseret (Alternate: Seitlinger), Medeiros Ferreira, Mota Amaral, Muehlemann, Mrs Ojuland, MM. Oliynik, Paasilinna, Pahor, Pavlidis, Popovski, Pottakis, Pozzo, de Puig, Radulescu Botica, Mrs Ragnarsd�ttir, MM. Schieder, Schwimmer, Severin, Sinka, Sir Dudley Smith (Alternate: Mr Atkinson), MM. �pa_ek, Spahia, Mrs Suchocka, MM. Thoresen, Urbain, Vella, Woltjer, Zhirinovsky, Ziuganov.

N.B. The names of those members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries of the committee : Mr Hartland, Mr Kleijssen, Mr Gruden.

Footnote: 1by the Political Affairs Committee.

Footnote: 2 by Mr. Mart�nez (Spain, SOC)

Footnote: 3 Recommendation 1201 (1993) on an additional protocol on the rights of national minorities to the European Convention on Human Rights

Recommendation 1214 (1993) on the Vienna Summit

Recommendation 1220 (1993) on recent political events (related to the Vienna Summit)

Recommendation 1222 (1993) on the fights against racism, xenophobia and intolerance

Footnote: 4 by Mr. Seitlinger (France, EPP)