|
|
3 October 1994
Doc. 7166
OPINION
on the enlargement of the Council of Europe
(Rapporteur: Mrs HALLER,
Switzerland, Socialist Group)
Introduction
The Political Affairs Committee's report on the enlargement of the Council of Europe was on the Assembly's order of the day on 26 January 1994. After numerous amendments had been tabled, the Political Affairs Committee itself moved that the report be referred back to it but that, at the same time, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries be requested to submit an opinion. The Assembly decided accordingly on the same day and the Bureau asked the two committees for their opinions.
The present opinion follows on from the comments made at that time by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on the Political Affairs Committee's report of 16 June 1992 dealing with the same issue (Doc 6629), but also takes account of developments that have occurred in the meantime.
Explanatory memorandum
1. What are the geographical limits of Europe?
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights holds the view that the geographical limits of Europe are difficult to determine. Various criteria that have been traditionally applied are still important today but they are no longer sufficient.
The criterion of a religious-philosophical community of shared values should not be applied as the only criterion, particularly because it would ignore the development of multicultural societies in Europe. However, in the past few years it has become apparent that human rights can no longer be considered separately from the issue of minorities. The idea that in certain cases a state can only exist when its population is homogeneous ethnically, culturally or with respect to religion — the very idea that confronts Europe today in its most awful manifestation in the former Yugoslavia — is in itself at variance with human rights. The fundamental legal concept of human rights by definition contains the notion of a multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society.
The historical criterion may no longer be applied today as the only criterion, especially as it contains an element of neocolonialism.
The purely geographical criterion cannot be applied as the only criterion because individual member states of the Council of Europe (for example, Turkey) and possible future member states (for example, Russia) obviously extend beyond the geographical boundaries of Europe.
The geographical boundaries of Europe may change in the future. They may expand or they may contract again, not as a result of violent conflicts but of cultural developments. The Council of Europe should be able to take account of this.
These three criteria (religion, history and geography) remain elements for consideration but are not sufficient in themselves.
2. The Council of Europe as a concept involving fundamental values
The Europe of the CSCE or the Europe of the European Union are not identical to the Europe of the Council of Europe, and this is a perfectly satisfactory state of affairs. The Europe of the Council of Europe extends as far as those countries in which the organisation's principles — pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights — can be implemented. If these principles radiate beyond the boundaries of this Europe, then that is a positive thing and certainly worth striving for.
The global discussion on human rights in the last few years must be taken into account: whilst the tradition of human rights demands that these rights should meet an absolute yardstick of validity and apply worldwide in the same form and with the same inviolability, some developing countries in particular are introducing a different approach to them that permits allowance to be made for the special cultural features of the region concerned. In other words, they believe that the standard which has become established in Europe cannot be applied worldwide.
It is essential that Europe should adhere to its tradition of the absolute validity of, and absolute protection for, human rights. This categorical stance is also of extremely great importance in connection with central Europe. However, this means that Europe has a great interest in introducing its fundamental values and ideas on human rights into other cultures in particular, but without seeking in any way to question, let alone destroy, those cultures. All the world's cultures embody the idea of human dignity in some way or other. In particular, this idea is also to be found in religions, extended to include the notion of consideration for one's fellow human beings.
The fundamental values to which the Council of Europe subscribes include the three criteria listed in Chapter 1 and could be considered as the general criteria for the enlargement of the organisation.
3. Practical limits to the enlargement of the Council of Europe
The above considerations could give the impression that the Council of Europe should, as it were, develop into a global organisation. There can, of course, be no question of this. Obviously there are many countries in the world that cannot be admitted to the Council of Europe and, as a result of their geographical situation, never will be admitted. North or South American countries are equally implausible candidates for membership of the Council of Europe as the states of Central Africa or the Pacific, to mention just a few examples.
However, it is also an undisputed fact that there is a group of states that would like to be aligned with certain politico-cultural elements in Europe. For this reason we should strive to bring about a kind of co-operation with states that, although they cannot become members of the Council of Europe, would like to follow its ideals in certain areas.
As regards co-operation with states which might qualify for membership as a result of their geographical proximity to Europe, it is necessary to differentiate between full membership and other forms of co-operation. A model for this differentiation that remains valid is that of "concentric circles". There is a core group of countries that are full members of the Council of Europe. For reasons that have already been explained, this innermost circle is primarily defined by the politico-cultural development of the states that belong to it and are, after all, geographically close to the continent of Europe, and in particular must have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right of individual petition. Round about this circle various forms of looser co-operation are conceivable. It should be mentioned in passing that NATO, with its concept of "partnership for peace", has followed a similar path.
As a result of reports produced by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the Assembly has recommended the Committee of Ministers, on a number of occasions, to make a mechanism for the protection of human rights available to non-member states:
—Re commendation 1183 (1992) on access by European non-member states to institutions operating under certain Council of Europe conventions relating to human rights (Doc 6585);—
—Re commendation 1204 (1993) on the creation of a transitional mechanism for the protection of human rights for European non-member states of the Council of Europe (Doc 6743);—
—Re commendation 1219 (1993) on establishing a mechanism for the protection of human rights in European states not members of the Council of Europe (Doc 6902).Th
These recommendations are in keeping with the above concept of concentric circles: states that cannot become full members should nevertheless be able to play a part in the idea of implementing human rights as developed by the Council of Europe.
In the last few months this idea has faded into the background, mainly because the swift enlargement of the circle of full members has become the main subject for discussion within the Council of Europe. This enlargement imposes such a heavy burden on the machinery for the protection of human rights established under the Convention that, given the limited resources available, consideration cannot be given at the same time to the creation of a wider concentric circle for this machinery. The model of concentric circles should, however, not be forgotten. It plays an important role in connection with the enlargement of the Council of Europe.
Conclusions
— It is obvious that there are many countries in the world which cannot and never will be admitted as full members of the Council of Europe by means of their geographical situation. North or South American countries are just as unlikely to become members of the Council of Europe as the states of Central Africa or the Pacific, to mention just a few examples.On
On the other hand, there is a group of states that are obviously not "European" but would like to be aligned with certain politico-cultural elements in Europe. The "concentric circles" model remains valid in this connection.
The admission of new states as full members of the Council of Europe must not mean it should lower its standards with respect to the implementation of Europe's fundamental values such as the rule of law, democracy and human rights.
Three elements must be taken into account: religion (philosophy), hist ory and geography, but these criteria are not sufficient in themselves. There is a general criteria which includes all other elements, ie the fundamental values on which the Council of Europe in based.
******
During the discussions in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on 12 September 1994 several of its members expressed views which differ from those of the majority of its members as set out in this opinion. Some of them felt that the report of the Political Affairs Committee was clear-cut, basing itself on historical, cultural and geographical data.
Some Committee members underlined that the matter at hand was the enlargement of the Council of Europe, not of Europe itself. After having clearly established the inner structure and identity of the Council it would not be difficult to determine which states might adhere.
******
When the Committee discussed and approved this opinion, at its meeting of 12 September 1994, it also adopted the following amendments:
In the draft recommendation,
- at the end of paragraph 1 add a new sentence to read as follows:
"It is in Europe's interest that its basic values and ideas on human rights permeate neighbouring cultures, but without seeking in any way to question, let alone destroy, those cultures."
- at the end of paragraph 2 add the following sentence:
"However traditional and cultural links and adherence to the fundamental values of the Council of Europe might justify a suitable cooperation with other states neighbouring the "geographical" boundaries."
- at the end of paragraph 8 add a new sentence to read as follows:
"However a new iron curtain should not be drawn behind these states as this would run the risk of preventing the spread of the Council of Europe's basic values to other countries. Neighbouring countries of "geographical" Europe should, if they so wish, be viewed as possible candidates for suitable cooperation."
*
* *
Reporting committee: Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 7103)
Committee for opinion: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Reference to committee: Doc. 6975 and Reference No. 1920 of 28 January 1994
Opinion approved by the committee on 12 September 1994
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate and Mme Kleinsorge