The Council of Europe voted unanimously in favour of Kerstin Lundgren's report on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, but behind the scenes the picture is fractured
In early October, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe voted unanimously in favour of Kerstin Lundgren's report on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, but behind the scenes the picture is more fractured and contentious. Lisbon gives the European Union "legal personality" and invites it to subscribe to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the key legal function of the CoE. Negotiations between the EU and the CoE had almost been concluded and observers expected a signature possibly before the end of the year, soon after the UK takes over the presidency of the CoE - in November.
But out of the blue, the UK delegation tabled a "non-paper" raising a number of larger questions. Delegations now consider these will require much more work, possibly postponing the signing ceremony well beyond the end of the UK presidency next May. All this plays out against the background of serious debate inside the ruling coalition in London. The prime minister and the home secretary have declared that they are personally in favour of the UK denouncing the ECHR, while the deputy prime minister, the Conservative justice minister and the lone Liberal-Democrat junior minister at the Home Office insist the UK will not leave the convention. Continental governments are not used to the UK failing to come to a coherent and unified position, and are duly shocked. Welcome to coalition government.
Lundgren's report starts from the assumption that, after mature reflection, no member state would be against the EU subscribing to the ECHR. After all, they agreed the Lisbon Treaty, so why hesitate now? The union joining would extend the ECHR to cover acts of the bloc and of the member states when acting for the EU, filling a judicial black hole and extending the protection of human rights across the whole range of supranational policies. Her report goes on to invite the European Commission, on behalf of the EU, to sign up to 10 more core CoE conventions: against torture, against trafficking in human beings, protecting children against sexual exploitation and abuse, combating domestic violence, protecting personal data, preventing terrorism, strengthening the criminal and the civil law on corruption and preventing cybercrime as well as promoting social rights by signing the revised European Social Charter. Of these conventions, only one – the Convention for the Prevention of Torture – has been signed and ratified by all 47 member states of the CoE.
In several cases, the commission signing these conventions might well pressure some member states, who have not done so yet, to sign at the same time. The impact of a consistent bloc of member states enforcing respect for the values protected by these conventions would be considerable. It would impact immediately on the other members of the CoE – the 20 states not in the EU which include big payers such as Turkey, Ukraine and Russia. It would drive up standards across the whole region. It would also allow the EU to offer practical and financial support for capacity-building programmes in those states and to expand that offer to the wider European neighbourhood, including the southern littoral of the Mediterranean. It would create a homogenous area of protected human rights across Europe's "near abroad".
These capacity-building measures are the counterpart of monitoring mechanisms, which already ensure that all members of the CoE are informed regularly about the application of convention standards across the continent. Council missions visit and check on the practical application of standards in other member states, often making reports public and always applying pressure to bring practice up to convention norms. For all its integrative potential, the EU's influence is currently weakened because in none of the conventions recommended in the Lundgren report do member states act as one, since not all countries have yet ratified the conventions in question.
There are a number of procedural and administrative questions that the negotiations to date have largely settled. What is the relation between the authority of the European Court of Justice, in Luxembourg, and the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg? How to select an EU judge to sit on the Court of Human Rights? Will this mean enhanced relations between the parliamentary assembly of the CoE and the European Parliament? The legal experts, the parliamentarians and even the non-governmental organisations consulted as "civil society" all agree. Only the UK thinks that what appeared to have been agreed needs to be reviewed again.
Although, one more fundamental issue that the negotiations have not really tackled was endorsed by the Lundgren report with cautious optimism: the perspective of the EU going much further than signing the ECHR and a number of conventions by acceding to the CoE as a full member.
That opens the perspective of a united approach to CoE matters by member states, offering a dominant view within the CoE where they make up a majority of members. The report invites the committee of ministers - the CoE's decision-making body - and the parliamentary assembly to consider this issue further. The report was approved with 58 votes in favour, with none against and only one abstention - by a Russian MP from the Group of European Democrats. The committee of ministers will need to find very good reasons to postpone this discussion, and that could add to the difficulties for the UK presidency.
Martyn Bond is visiting professor of European politics at Royal Holloway University, in the UK, and deputy chairman of the London Press Club
In early October, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe voted unanimously in favour of Kerstin Lundgren's report on the impact of the Lisbon Treaty, but behind the scenes the picture is more fractured and contentious. Lisbon gives the European Union "legal personality" and invites it to subscribe to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the key legal function of the CoE. Negotiations between the EU and the CoE had almost been concluded and observers expected a signature possibly before the end of the year, soon after the UK takes over the presidency of the CoE - in November.
But out of the blue, the UK delegation tabled a "non-paper" raising a number of larger questions. Delegations now consider these will require much more work, possibly postponing the signing ceremony well beyond the end of the UK presidency next May. All this plays out against the background of serious debate inside the ruling coalition in London. The prime minister and the home secretary have declared that they are personally in favour of the UK denouncing the ECHR, while the deputy prime minister, the Conservative justice minister and the lone Liberal-Democrat junior minister at the Home Office insist the UK will not leave the convention. Continental governments are not used to the UK failing to come to a coherent and unified position, and are duly shocked. Welcome to coalition government.
Lundgren's report starts from the assumption that, after mature reflection, no member state would be against the EU subscribing to the ECHR. After all, they agreed the Lisbon Treaty, so why hesitate now? The union joining would extend the ECHR to cover acts of the bloc and of the member states when acting for the EU, filling a judicial black hole and extending the protection of human rights across the whole range of supranational policies. Her report goes on to invite the European Commission, on behalf of the EU, to sign up to 10 more core CoE conventions: against torture, against trafficking in human beings, protecting children against sexual exploitation and abuse, combating domestic violence, protecting personal data, preventing terrorism, strengthening the criminal and the civil law on corruption and preventing cybercrime as well as promoting social rights by signing the revised European Social Charter. Of these conventions, only one – the Convention for the Prevention of Torture – has been signed and ratified by all 47 member states of the CoE.
In several cases, the commission signing these conventions might well pressure some member states, who have not done so yet, to sign at the same time. The impact of a consistent bloc of member states enforcing respect for the values protected by these conventions would be considerable. It would impact immediately on the other members of the CoE – the 20 states not in the EU which include big payers such as Turkey, Ukraine and Russia. It would drive up standards across the whole region. It would also allow the EU to offer practical and financial support for capacity-building programmes in those states and to expand that offer to the wider European neighbourhood, including the southern littoral of the Mediterranean. It would create a homogenous area of protected human rights across Europe's "near abroad".
These capacity-building measures are the counterpart of monitoring mechanisms, which already ensure that all members of the CoE are informed regularly about the application of convention standards across the continent. Council missions visit and check on the practical application of standards in other member states, often making reports public and always applying pressure to bring practice up to convention norms. For all its integrative potential, the EU's influence is currently weakened because in none of the conventions recommended in the Lundgren report do member states act as one, since not all countries have yet ratified the conventions in question.
There are a number of procedural and administrative questions that the negotiations to date have largely settled. What is the relation between the authority of the European Court of Justice, in Luxembourg, and the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg? How to select an EU judge to sit on the Court of Human Rights? Will this mean enhanced relations between the parliamentary assembly of the CoE and the European Parliament? The legal experts, the parliamentarians and even the non-governmental organisations consulted as "civil society" all agree. Only the UK thinks that what appeared to have been agreed needs to be reviewed again.
Although, one more fundamental issue that the negotiations have not really tackled was endorsed by the Lundgren report with cautious optimism: the perspective of the EU going much further than signing the ECHR and a number of conventions by acceding to the CoE as a full member.
That opens the perspective of a united approach to CoE matters by member states, offering a dominant view within the CoE where they make up a majority of members. The report invites the committee of ministers - the CoE's decision-making body - and the parliamentary assembly to consider this issue further. The report was approved with 58 votes in favour, with none against and only one abstention - by a Russian MP from the Group of European Democrats. The committee of ministers will need to find very good reasons to postpone this discussion, and that could add to the difficulties for the UK presidency.
Martyn Bond is visiting professor of European politics at Royal Holloway University, in the UK, and deputy chairman of the London Press Club
