1. Sources of the obligation to promote and protect human rights in foreign policy
a) International human rights law
b) The Constitution
c) Political and moral obligations
2. Taming Leviathan - why should the State respect international human rights law?
a) The doctrines of legalism and realism
b) Enlightened self-interest
c) Multilateral relations
3. Promoting human rights in foreign policy: leadership in intergovernmental organisations
a) Case study: Ireland’s Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
b) Assessment of Ireland’s Presidency of the Committee of Ministers
c) Ireland’s membership of the United Nations Security Council
4. Recommendations: monitoring the conduct of foreign policy
Legal obligations, emanating from international treaties freely entered into by the State provide the primary source of the State’s obligation to promote and protect human rights in foreign policy.[1] As a member of the United Nations, Ireland undertook a commitment to pursue the purposes of that organisation, as defined in the UN Charter, including “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all”.[2] Since the elaboration of the Charter in the post World War II period, international agreements have expanded upon the obligation of states to protect and promote human rights in their foreign policy. The Vienna Declaration - adopted by consensus at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 – underlined the universality of all human rights and stated “it is the duty of the States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.
As to the enforcement of the obligation to promote and protect human rights in foreign policy, there is no monitoring body equivalent to the European Court of Human Rights or the UN Human Rights Committee, which operate in respect of domestic compliance with international obligations. However, in the context of their participation in intergovernmental organisations, states have elected to “police themselves” and have undertaken specific obligations regarding the conduct of their foreign policy, including the monitoring of compliance by other states with their human rights commitments.
In the European context, the member states of the Council of Europe[3] have committed themselves to ensuring the collective enforcement of the aims of that organisation, which include the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.[4] Furthermore, at the Second Summit the Council of Europe in 1997, the member states adopted an Action Plan which went beyond declarations of bona fides regarding the promotion of human rights in foreign policy; states committed themselves to the active monitoring of the protection of human rights in all 43 member states of the Council of Europe.[5]
On a global scale, by virtue of their membership of the United Nations, states have undertaken the aforementioned commitment to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. In addition, the member states have established arrangements for the collective enforcement of international peace and security, including entrusting the fifteen members of the Security Council with “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”.[6] Ireland will serve as a member of the Security Council from 2001 to 2003.
Article 29 of the Constitution set out principles for the conduct of international relations. It states that:
(1) “Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
(2) Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.
(3) Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States”.
The State is therefore under a constitutional obligation to accept generally recognised principles of international law as its “rule of conduct” in its international relations. These generally recognised principles today include international human rights standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties and human rights norms of customary international law.
The Government has set out its commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights in the conduct of its foreign policy in numerous documents including: the White Paper on Foreign Policy published in 1996; the Strategy Statement of the Department of Foreign Affairs 1998-2000 and the publication “Ireland: Security Council Candidate 2000”. The content of these documents is discussed in the Introduction of this audit. In order to avoid paying lip service to human rights, the Government must act and must be seen to be acting on foot of its publicly-declared commitment to human rights. Expressions of political commitment to human rights cultivate political obligations to transform rhetoric into action.
The general relevance of morality in this context was alluded to in the aforementioned Strategy Statement of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Amongst the goals which the Strategy Statement set out was the pursuit of “Ireland’s foreign policy in accordance with the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality…”. In addition, it could be submitted that the Government might consider itself under a moral obligation to promote human rights in its foreign policy in accordance with the wishes of the citizens of the State, as per the White Paper on Foreign Policy, which noted: “Ireland’s foreign policy is about much more than self-interest. For many of us it is a statement of the kind of people we are. Irish people are committed to the principles set out in the Constitution for the conduct of international relations”.[7]
2 Taming Leviathan - why should the State respect international human rights law?
a) The doctrines of
legalism and realism
Too often, states refrain from taking action to uphold human rights standards because of competing national interests or other political realities. In response, pressure groups and international organisations call upon states to comply with their legal human rights obligations. This familiar scenario essentially involves an argument between two doctrines, the doctrine of realism and the doctrine of legalism.
According to realism, states pursue self-interest and security in an anarchic world without enforceable rules or much regard to law and morality. Realists would contend that the history of the 20th century; two World Wars, genocides and gross violations of human rights provide evidence of the reality that the interests of large states, and the competing self interest of sovereign nation states were, and will always be, the determining factors in the formulation of foreign policy.
The legalist school of thought would contend that liberal states do respond to a set of higher rules and values and have exported these rules in the context of foreign policy. Legalists might cite as examples the establishment of the post World War II war-crimes tribunals and the recent finalisation of the Statute for the International Criminal Court. The legalist claim is that law and morality are also forces at play in world affairs.
What is the position of the Irish State in this debate? According to the White Paper on Foreign Policy “Ireland has a strong moral and legal commitment to human rights”,[8] and, in its publication “Ireland: Security Council Candidate 2000”, the Government stated that “Ireland , in its approach to assuring the security of peoples at home and abroad, is committed to the rule of law”. Indeed, there are many examples of Ireland’s commitment to legalism in foreign policy. Ireland was the first member state of the Council of Europe to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and was the first state to bring another country before the Court when it successfully challenged certain inhuman interrogation techniques applied to detainees in Northern Ireland. More recently, Ireland has supported the preparatory work for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has signed the Statute of the ICC.
b) Enlightened
self-interest
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Brian Cowen T.D., recently expressed his views in a speech to the Royal Irish Academy,[9] stating that “Ireland, like most small nations, has always known that a multilateral, rules-based international order is in our national interest.” The Minister described this position as one of enlightened self-interest, which he qualified as “the acknowledgement that whether we like it or not our security is indivisible and ‘we the people of the United Nations’ share a common destiny. A commitment to multilateralism and the rule of law in international relations is not just common decency, it is also common sense”. Ireland’s attachment to this concept was highlighted in its election brochure, “Ireland: Security Council Candidate 2000” which expressed the view that nations and societies would be more effective if they acted together to meet global challenges.[10]
c) Multilateral relations
In the aforementioned speech to the Royal Irish Academy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined what he saw as the greatest challenges to the achievement of an era of enlightened multilateralism. The first and most important challenge, he said, was one of political will. “Those States and those who advocate an international order based on the rule of law, human rights, development and justice across the globe, have to give concrete, active and ongoing expression to these beliefs”.
The Minster cited Ireland’s strong commitment to the United Nations, including the State’s recent election to the UN Security Council, as an example of the State’s political will to give practical and concrete support to the “international order”. However, he also referred to the difficult policy choices which will face Ireland during its two-year term on the Security Council. He expressed the determination of the Government to make an effective contribution to the work of the Security Council, based on the State’s commitment to the realisation of the goals and ideals of the UN Charter.
But how will Ireland maintain a legalistic approach, and a commitment to enlightened multilateralism in the face of pressures which will come to bear during its tenure on the Security Council? The Minister offered two assurances in his speech to the Royal Irish Academy; the allocation of the necessary resources to Ireland’s Security Council team and an undertaking that Ireland’s approach “will be constructive and engaged and will be guided by the principles and concerns that have always informed our policy”. Amnesty International believes that these assurances, while welcome, are insufficient to ensure the protection and promotion of human rights in Ireland’s foreign policy. Full and consistent political support backed up by robust human rights policy mechanisms within the Department of Foreign Affairs will be required.
As a small nation, Ireland has sought to exercise influence in its foreign policy through the State’s participation in intergovernmental organisations. For example: Ireland was a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights from 1997 to 1999 and acted as Chair of the 55th Session of the Commission in 1999; Ireland held the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for six months in 1999 and 2000 and Ireland sits on the Security Council of the United Nations until 2003.
Multilateral fora present the State with an opportunity to exercise leverage which it would not otherwise enjoy in the context of its bilateral relations. This audit will focus on an assessment of the policy and action taken by the State to promote human rights in the context of participation in intergovernmental organisations. Due to the limitations of time and resources, neither an audit of the conduct of the State’s bilateral relations, nor a complete audit of the States multilateral relations can be attempted here. Instead, the audit focuses on a case study of one of the recent tenures of Ireland; the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is hoped, however, that the “selective” audit carried out in this chapter will highlight issues of concern, and demonstrate the merit of such auditing activities. In particular, it is hoped that, in the context of Ireland’s current tenure on the Security Council, this audit of recent experience will provide a useful lessons-learned exercise.
The recommendations proposed in this chapter are focused upon the existing mechanisms charged with implementing human rights policy and apply equally to bilateral and multilateral relations.
i) Background
Ireland held the Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe from 4 November 1999 to 11 May 2000. The tenure as President gave Ireland a formal role in co-ordinating the work of the Committee of Ministers, which has a powerful mandate regarding the protection of human rights throughout the 43 member states of the Council of Europe. The role of the Presidency is to oversee the work of the Committee and to give political direction to its work, including, through the publication of a Presidency programme at the beginning of its tenure, identifying the political and other priorities for its term in office.
As regards the powers of the Committee of Ministers, the Committee is mandated, inter alia, to ensure that human rights are protected within all member states and can take action to expel a member state if it fails to meet its human rights obligations.[11] The obligations of member states have been clearly defined in the Statute of the Council of Europe,[12] the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture (ECPT) and by the findings of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) which feature among the human rights instruments and mechanisms of the Council of Europe.
In its Presidency Programme,[13] presented to the Committee of Ministers on 4 November 1999, Ireland gave priority to human rights issues and identified a number of aims and objectives in the areas of human rights, democratic stability, enlargement and the situation in South-East Europe. In particular, it identified the need for increased political commitment by all states to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and stated that full respect at national level for the provisions and mechanisms of the ECHR was essential.
Ensuring a successful Presidency was, according to the programme, “a foreign policy priority for Ireland”. In this connection, Ireland welcomed the opportunity presented by the Presidency tenure to support the Council in responding to new challenges, including the challenge of “maintaining the validity of the basic principles of the Council through respect by all the membership for their obligations”.[14]
Regrettably, there is at present no governmental mechanism charged with the evaluation and assessment of high profile foreign policy activities such as Ireland’s Presidency of the Committee of Ministers. The lack of such a mechanism is addressed in Amnesty International’s recommendations below. However, many of the documents relating to Ireland’s Presidency are available to the public and Amnesty International bases its assessment on these documents and other publicly available information.
In preparation for Ireland’s Presidency of the Committee of Ministers, consultations were held with NGOs in the framework of the Joint Department of Foreign Affairs/NGO Standing Committee on Human Rights. Amnesty International welcomed both this opportunity to contribute to the formulation of policy for the Presidency and the general receptiveness of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the concerns and suggestions of NGOs throughout the period of the Presidency.
The Irish Government undertook a number of significant initiatives aimed at promoting human rights during its Presidency of the Committee of Ministers.[15]
conferences
In March 2000, the Irish Presidency hosted a major human rights conference attended by senior officials from the UN, EU, OSCE, the Council of Europe and Ministers from many of the member states of the Council of Europe. The conference examined how intergovernmental organisations could better work together to enhance human rights protection in Europe. It successfully dealt with this important issue of institutional co-operation and Amnesty International welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the proceedings of the conference. Selected papers from the conference were published in the November 2000 edition of the Human Rights Law Journal.[16]
The Irish Presidency also hosted the European Conference on Social Development in January 2000. As a follow-up to the conference, the Committee of Ministers adopted a political declaration which was delivered to the UN Special Session on Social Development in June 2000.
Amnesty International welcomed the efforts undertaken by the Irish Presidency to disseminate information concerning the work of the Council of Europe within Ireland. “Ireland and the Council of Europe Today”, a public information booklet outlining Ireland’s involvement with the Council of Europe was published and presented to Irish NGOs, academics, politicians and the media. The booklet was also made available on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In the field of human rights education, the Irish Presidency arranged for the distribution of the Council of Europe educational pack “Europe is more than you think” to primary schools in the State.
additional financial contributions to the
Council of Europe
In the context of the Presidency, Ireland made a number of financial contributions – in addition to the State’s annual budgetary contribution[17] to the organisation – to activities in the following areas: assistance programmes in the field of democracy and human rights in the newer member states of the organisation, the European Anti-Racism Conference, the Police and Human Rights Programme 1997-2000 (see section II A 1) and funding for the Council of Europe experts working in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation.
human rights initiatives
At the initiative of the Irish Presidency, a special liaison committee was established between the Committee of Ministers and the European Court of Human Rights to examine ways to enhance the work of the Court and to discuss the challenges facing the future of human rights protection in Europe. This Committee is chaired by Ireland’s Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe.
During the Presidency, Ireland also ratified a number of Council of Europe conventions, including the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and contributed to work in progress concerning the signature and ratification by Ireland of additional human rights instruments.
In addition to hosting the human rights conference in March 2000 (see above), the Irish Presidency promoted more effective interaction between the Council of Europe, the EU, UN and the OSCE through co-ordination meetings, some of which took place at ministerial level. New co-operation agreements were reached with the OSCE and the EU and, at Ireland’s initiative, a special report was commissioned on relations with the UN, which led to improvements in inter-institutional arrangements.
The Irish Presidency also undertook efforts to improve the work of the Council of Europe and, in particular, initiated a review of the Committee of Ministers procedure for the monitoring of compliance by member states with the obligations of membership of the Council of Europe.
political developments
The Irish Presidency co-ordinated the
Committee of Ministers preparation of the Council of Europe’s
contribution to the Stability Pact for South-East Europe. During the
Presidency, the Irish Prime Minister, Mr Bertie Ahern T.D., visited
the region and, in January 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr
David Andrews T.D., visited Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.
Amongst other political initiatives undertaken
during its term in office, the Irish Presidency supported the Council
of Europe’s efforts to assist constitutional reform in Moldova
and coordinated the response of the Committee of Ministers to
constitutional developments in the Ukraine during the Irish
Presidency.
Amnesty International welcomed many of the important human rights initiatives undertaken by Ireland during its Presidency of the Committee of Ministers as described above. However, the organisation is concerned that the response of the Committee of Ministers to the most pressing human rights situation of the Irish Presidency – the conflict in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation – was inadequate. The organisation presents its analysis in this regard below.
background
During the period of the Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers, the Council of Europe faced a very serious challenge to the validity of its basic principles. From September 1999, reports alleging the failure of one of its member states, the Russian Federation, to comply with the obligations of membership of the Council were published by NGOs and widely reported by the media. This assessment reviews the response of the Committee of Ministers under Ireland’s Presidency to the conflict in the Chechen Republic and identifies the opportunities for action which were available to the Committee of Ministers. Firstly, it may be useful to recall the information which was publicly available from the outset of the Irish Presidency (November 1999) concerning the situation in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation.
On 1 October 1999, Amnesty International expressed its deep concern at reports that bombing carried out by the Russian military in the Chechen Republic had resulted in civilian deaths.[18] At that time, Amnesty International called on the Russian Government to comply with its commitment to respect human rights undertaken upon its accession to the Council of Europe in 1996 and to refrain from the disproportionate or indiscriminate use of force prohibited under international humanitarian law.
Later, on 2 November, Amnesty International reported that nearly 190,000 internally displaced persons were fleeing the Chechen Republic to escape air raids and artillery attacks carried out by the Russian military. The organisation stated that “the unfolding catastrophe in the Northern Caucasus and the international community’s muted response to the situation is further evidence of the selectivity of response to human rights violations when it comes to action”.[19]
In the months to follow, Amnesty International and other NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, published reports detailing alleged human rights abuses including indiscriminate killings of civilians and ill-treatment of persons detained in detention facilities in the Chechen Republic.[20] These reports alleged that serious violations of human rights were being perpetrated by the Russian authorities with impunity and urged that the international community take action to prevent further violations of human rights.
The response of the Committee of Ministers
under Ireland’s Presidency
The Programme for the Irish Presidency, presented to the Committee of Ministers on 4 November 2000 made no reference to the situation in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. This was a notable omission, considering that the programme made mention of a number of other countries manifesting less pressing human rights concerns, including the Ukraine and Moldova. It did not bode well that the very document in which Ireland stressed the need for increased political commitment by all states to the ECHR failed to include some mention of the Russian Federation in its agenda for the coming six months. From the outset it appeared that the political will to capitalise on the opportunities presented by the Presidency was lacking.
In a report to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in January 2000,[21] the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland (in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers) outlined the action taken by the Committee of Ministers regarding the situation in the Chechen Republic since the commencement of the Irish Presidency. These were:
· a discussion of the situation at the Ministerial meeting of the Committee in November 1999;
· the receipt by the Committee of Ministers of a report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on his visit to the Northern Caucasus;
· a decision to review proposals by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in co-operation with the Russian Federation and the Commissioner for Human Rights for the future contribution of the Council of Europe towards the restoration of the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy in Chechnya;
· a visit by the Chair of the Committee of Ministers to Moscow in January 2000.
Apart from the visit of the Chairman to Moscow, the Committee of Ministers had, therefore, initiated no action of its own volition during the first three months of Ireland’s Presidency.
The Parliamentary Assembly reacted to this perceived inaction and passed Recommendation 1444[22] in January 2000 which called on the Committee of Ministers to, inter alia, take measures to ensure a Council of Europe presence in the region; initiate action to ensure the implementation of Recommendation 1444; and, most importantly, to “consider the question of human rights violations in the Chechnya conflict at its next meeting in order to take the necessary actions within its statutory powers”.
In April 2000, alarmed at continuing reports of gross human rights violations in the Chechen Republic, the Assembly suspended the voting rights of the Russian parliamentary delegation and issued Recommendation 1456. This Recommendation, inter alia, called on the Committee of Ministers to “initiate without delay, in accordance with Article 8 of the Statute, the procedure for the suspension of the Russian Federation from its rights of representation in the Council of Europe”, should the Russian Federation fail to demonstrate substantial progress towards ceasing all human rights violations in the Chechen Republic.
In May 2000, at the close of the Irish Presidency, the Committee of Ministers published its reply to Recommendation 1444 in which it outlined the further actions it had undertaken regarding the conflict in Chechnya.[23] These included:
· pending the express agreement of the Russian authorities, a decision had been taken to provide consultative expertise to the office of Mr Kalamanov, Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for ensuring human and civil rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic;
· consideration of the reports by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights;
· a review of co-operation activities aimed at strengthening democratic stability in the North Caucasus region;
· examination of proposals by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs for the organisation of a seminar in the North Caucasus on “the hierarchy of rules in a federal state and methods of harmonising federal and regional legislation”.
In its reply, the Committee of Ministers also noted that: the CPT had carried out a visit to the Russian Federation and visited places of detention in the Chechen Republic; that it had been informed of action undertaken by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe under Article 52 of the ECHR (see below); and finally, the Committee expressed an interest in organising - in co-operation with the Russian authorities - a North Caucasus regional conference/seminar on democracy, rule of law and human rights.
the approach of the Committee of Ministers
under Ireland’s Presidency
At the final Ministerial level meeting of the Irish Presidency, held in May 2000, the Committee of Ministers issued a communiqué which “welcomed the contribution of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe”.[24] This at a time when Amnesty International continued to report on the torture, ill-treatment and deaths in detention of men, women and children in so-called “filtration camps” in the Chechen Republic.[25] Further, after a visit to one such camp - Chernokozovo - the CPT had concluded that it was of crucial importance, in the interests of the prevention of ill-treatment, for what happened in the establishment during the period December 1999 to early February 2000 to be the subject of a thorough and independent inquiry and for appropriate sanctions to be imposed on those responsible for ill-treatment.[26]
The Communiqué made no reference to the CPT’s call for an inquiry instead noting that topics for discussion at the Ministerial level meeting had included: “the enhancement of co-operation between the Council of Europe and the Russian Federation” and “the contribution of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe”. The language employed in the Communiqué suggests that the Committee of Ministers had elected to side-step any serious consideration of its statutory obligations to collectively enforce the Statute of the Council of Europe and to consider the suspension of member states in violation of the Statute.
The principal action undertaken by the Committee of Ministers in response to the situation in the Chechen Republic was the assignment of three Council of Europe Secretariat members to the Office of the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for ensuring human and civil rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic, (the office of Mr Kalamanov). Amnesty International considers that the Office of Mr Kalamanov does not meet international standards for independent commissions of inquiry.
According to Human Rights Watch, the Office “does not investigate complaints of abuse by Russian forces. Nor does it appear to have the authority to compel the procuracy to investigate meritorious cases”.[27] In a report published in November 2000, Amnesty International noted that the office of Mr Kalamanov has failed to provide any substantial information on the number of investigations into cases of human rights abuses by security forces against civilians.[28]
Amnesty International and other NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, have continued to call for an international independent investigation as domestic investigative agencies have proved incapable or unwilling to undertake rigorous, impartial investigations into atrocities in Chechnya or to prosecute their authors.[29]
opportunities missed
The Committee of Ministers is mandated to take strong action aimed at ensuring that member states of the Council of Europe comply with their international human rights obligations. Under the leadership of the Irish Presidency, the Committee of Ministers could have availed of the following specific powers:
· instigation of the Committee of Ministers monitoring procedure to investigate compliance with human rights obligations in a member state;[30]
· initiation of the procedure for suspension of a member state in accordance with Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.
Additional options:
· The Secretary General of the Council of Europe exercised his power under Article 52 of the ECHR to request explanations from the Russian authorities on the implementation of the ECHR in Chechnya. He concluded that the response received from the Russian authorities was “unsatisfactory” and submitted a report on the matter to the Committee of Ministers. It was open to the Committee of Ministers to take action under Article 33 of the ECHR, Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe or under its monitoring procedure, to tackle the failure of the Russian authorities to meet its treaty obligation under Article 52 to provide precise and adequate explanations in response to the Secretary General’s request;[31]
· Ireland, alone or together with any number of member states, could have availed of the possibility of bringing an inter-state case against the Russian Federation before the Court of Human Rights, further to Article 33 of the ECHR;[32]
· The Committee of Ministers could have supported the CPT’s call for an investigation into the events in Chernokozovo and called on the Russian authorities to publish the observations made by the CPT delegation which carried out a second visit to the Russian Federation in March 2000, during which it visited detention centres in the Chechen Republic, the Republic of North-Ossetia-Alania and the region of Stavropol.
iii) Conclusion: Why did the Irish Government fail to capitalise on its Presidency of the Committee of Ministers ?
The opportunity to promote and protect human rights presented by the Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe went far beyond any opportunities which might normally arise in the context of the State’s bilateral relations.
It is therefore highly regrettable that, under the Irish Presidency, the Committee of Ministers failed to take any effective action against the Russian Federation, which had clearly failed to meet its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe[33] including through failing to implement the ECHR in Chechnya and failing to meet its treaty obligations under Article 52 of the ECHR as outlined above.
During the period of Ireland’s Presidency, it appears that the Government was willing to severely criticise the Russian Federation for its actions in Chechnya in statements issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but was far less willing to advance its concerns in the context of its Presidency of the Committee of Ministers. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister’s statements were made in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, no comparable statements were issued by the Committee of Ministers during Ireland’s Presidency.
Indeed, just as Ireland’s Presidency had commenced with the publication of a Presidency Programme which made no reference to the Russian Federation or the conflict in Chechnya, it closed with the publication of a Committee of Ministers’ Communiqué which avoided any direct criticism of the Russian Federation’s actions in Chechnya. In stark contrast, in January 2000, Minister David Andrews T.D., went so far as to state that the Russian Federation’s indiscriminate use of force in Chechnya was in violation of its human rights commitments as a member of the Council of Europe[34] and in May 2000, Minister Cowen expressed the view that “the steps that have been and are being taken by Russia do not respond adequately to the legitimate concerns of the Assembly (the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe)”.[35] Bearing in mind that the Assembly had previously recommended the Committee of Ministers suspend the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe if it did not adequately address its concerns, this statement was highly significant.
One conclusion which could be drawn is that the Government considered that it was preferable to issue condemnatory statements concerning the situation in Chechnya rather than to provide political support to Ireland’s Presidency and utilise its enhanced political leverage as President of the Committee. Or perhaps the Irish Government was a strong advocate for action but was stymied in its efforts by an unwilling Committee of Ministers. Whatever the correct conclusion, an assessment of why the Presidency failed to take effective action regarding the situation in Chechnya is required if future Irish efforts to provide leadership in international fora are to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
The reasons for the failure of the Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers to co-ordinate any effective action against a member state so clearly in violation of its human rights commitments should be the subject of a thorough process of evaluation and assessment.
Such an evaluation should include an assessment of :
As a general rule, Amnesty International recommends that systematic monitoring of the conduct of foreign policy should be carried out (see recommendations below).
c) Ireland’s
membership of the United Nations Security Council
In October 2000, Ireland was elected by the
General Assembly of the United Nations to serve on the United Nations
Security Council for a term of two years from January 2001 to 2003.
There are fifteen members of the Security Council - of which five are
permanent - and Ireland has previously held a non-permanent seat on
the Council on two occasions, in 1962 and from 1981 to 1982.
Amnesty International has welcomed
Ireland’s election to the Security Council as a significant
opportunity to promote a coherent human rights agenda within a highly
influential multilateral
forum.[36] The Security Council is the most powerful
political organ of the UN with “primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and
security”.[37] In the exercise of its powers the Security
Council has authorised military intervention operations and the
establishment of ad-hoc war crimes tribunals, such the UN
International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia.[38]
The Security Council considers matters of
great political sensitivity and, during its two-year membership,
Ireland’s foreign policy will come under significant pressure
from many quarters and will be open to enhanced public scrutiny. The
Minister for Foreign Affairs has acknowledged that membership is a
“huge responsibility” and has stated that Ireland’s
commitment to human rights will be carried through in its
participation on the
Council.[39] In particular, the Government has expressed
its commitment to the UDHR, the rule of law in international
relations and an unwavering commitment to the ideals, principles and
programmes of the UN in the document “Ireland: Security Council
Candidate 2000”, produced by the Government to generate support
for its candidature.
Amnesty International believes that action
must be taken to ensure that expressed commitments to human rights
will be transposed into real state action during Ireland’s
tenure on the Security Council. In this connection, the organisation
considers that lessons should be learned from the experience of the
Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe and that the State should establish mechanisms within the
Department of Foreign Affairs to effectively mainstream human rights
policy in the formulation of foreign policy.
4
Recommendations: monitoring the conduct of foreign policy
Amnesty International recommends that the
Government should monitor the implementation of its human rights policy
in order to assess its
efficacy.
The Government’s Overseas Development Assistance programme is subject to review by an Evaluation and Audit Unit established within the Development Co-operation Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DCD). The Unit carries out reviews of all aspects of development policy, including bilateral country assistance programmes and Ireland’s participation in multilateral organisations, and publishes its reports. Amnesty International recommends that the DCD model of evaluation and audit should be transposed to the Political Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and to all relevant Government Departments charged with implementing aspects of the Government’s human rights policy
As regards the Political Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, monitoring should include an assessment of the effectiveness of bilateral and multilateral policy and an account of political action undertaken including: representations made to governments, the promotion of the ratification of human rights instruments, and action taken within intergovernmental organisations.
More specifically, monitoring the
implementation of policy should involve the
following:
·
monitoring
by regional desks of the effectiveness of bilateral policy. In order
to ensure consistency, such monitoring activities should be subject
to the oversight of the Human Rights Unit of the Department of
Foreign Affairs;
·
monitoring
Ireland’s participation in intergovernmental organisations,
including assessments of any leading roles played by Ireland; for
instance, the Irish Presidency of the Council of Europe (see above)
and membership of the UN Security Council;
·
studying
reports by third parties, for example UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies, UN
Rapporteurs, NGOs and third countries;
·
the
possible publication of an annual report on human rights, an
undertaking which would require not insubstantial human and financial
resources. Although not an end in itself, an annual report would
facilitate an evaluation of the efficacy of the Government’s
human rights policy and perhaps engender a sense of responsibility
and accountability among political policy makers. It would also be in
line with the Government’s commitment to “ensure a better
understanding and sense of public ownership of its foreign
policy”.[40] The report could be submitted to the Irish
Parliament and the Joint
Oireachtas[41] Committee on Foreign Affairs in order to
enhance the democratic accountability of Government policy. The
Annual Report could be composed of the following elements :
§
annual evaluations of the work of
the Joint Department of Foreign Affairs/NGO Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Human
Rights (see recommendations below);
§ an analysis of country-specific policies;
§ reports on the thematic action undertaken by the Government in, for example, the fields of child labour, torture, and discrimination against women.
[1] See the Introduction, above.
[2] Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1, Article 1(4).
[3] The Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organisation based in Strasbourg, France. It was founded in 1949 and is the oldest European intergovernmental organisation with 43 member states.
[4] Statute of the Council of Europe, Article 3, “Every Member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter 1”.
[5] Second Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1997, Action Plan, I(3): “Compliance with member States’ commitments: the Heads of State and Government resolve to ensure that the commitments accepted by the member States are effectively honoured, on the basis of a confidential, constructive, non-discriminatory dialogue carried on within the Committee of Ministers and taking into account the monitoring procedures of the Parliamentary Assembly; they reiterate their determination to work together to solve the problems faced by member States”.
[6] Charter of the United Nations, Chapter V, The Security Council Article 24(1).
[7] Government of Ireland, The White Paper on Foreign Policy “Challenges and Opportunities Abroad”, 1996, at 2.40.
[9] “Challenges to Liberal Internationalism, Opening Address by Mr. Brian Cowen T.D., Minster for Foreign Affairs, to the Annual Conference of the Royal Irish Academy National Committee for the Study of International Affairs”, 24 November 2000.
[10] See in particular the section entitled “The International Challenge”.
[11] Statute of the Council of Europe, Article 8, “Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 (see below) may be suspended from its rights of representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Article 7. If such Member does not comply with this request, the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a Member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may decide”.
[12] Ibid at Article 3, “Every Member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council…”
[13] Ireland’s Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Programme presented to the Committee of Ministers by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland, Mr D. Andrews T.D., 4 November 1999, CM/Inf(99)73 (unclassified 15 November 1999).
[15]
See further
“The Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers”
at http://cm.coe.int/intro/chair/pres_ireland.htm This document, issued at the
close of Ireland’s Presidency, sets out the achievements of the
Irish Presidency.
[16] Human Rights Law Journal (HRLJ), Vol 21. No. 8, 4 November 2000.
[17] Ireland’s annual budgetary contribution for 2000 was 1.1 million euros, see “Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers” at http://cm.coe.int/intro/chair/pres_ireland.htm
[18] Amnesty International, “Public Statement, Russian Federation, Chechen Republic – Russian Government must protect civilians of Grozny”, 1 October 1999, EUR 46/034/1999.
[19] Amnesty International, “The Russian
Federation: Chechen Republic - Humanity is Indivisible - Open letter
to the United Nations from the Secretary General of Amnesty
International”.
AI Index: EUR
46/038/99.
[20] See further: Amnesty International, “Russian Federation: Chechnya, For the Motherland, Reported grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Persecution of Chechens in Moscow”. EUR 46/046/1999; Amnesty International “Chechnya: Rape and torture of children in Chernokozovo ‘filtration camp’, March 2000,EUR 46/019/2000; Human Rights Watch “Council of Europe Must Act on Chechnya”, Press release, 3 April 2000.
[21] Ministers’ Deputies, Information Documents, “Statutory Report to the Parliamentary Assembly (January 2000), Written communication by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, Mr David Andrews, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ireland”, CM/AS(2000)3 (unclassified) 31 March 2000.
[22] Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1444 (2000),“The Conflict in Chechnya”.
[23] Ministers’ Deputies Information Documents, CM/AS/Rec 1444 (unclassified) 18 April 2000.
[24] Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Information Documents, “106 Session, Communiqué”, Strasbourg, 10-11 May 2000, CM/Press(2000)1 (unclassified) 16 May 2000.
[25] Amnesty International, “Chechnya, the Council of Europe must support an international investigation into human rights abuses”, AI Index: EUR/46/24/00 “detainees in ‘filtration' camps - men, women and children - are routinely and systematically tortured: they are raped, beaten with hammers and clubs, tortured with electric shocks and tear gas, their teeth are sawn off and some are simultaneously beaten around both ears to burst the ear-drums. A former detainee described the torture and rape of a 14-year old girl by guards in the Chernokozovo ‘filtration’ camp. She subsequently died”.
[26] Document CPT/Inf (2000) 19.
[27] Human Rights Watch, “Memorandum on Accountability for Humanitarian Law Violations in Chechnya”, September 2000.
[28] Amnesty International, “Failures at Fifty: Impunity for torture and ill-treatment in Europe on the 50th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights”, EUR/01/004/2000, 6 November 2000.
[29] See further, Amnesty International, “Chechnya, the Council of Europe must support an international investigation into human rights abuses”, April 2000, AI Index: EUR 46/24/00 and also Human Rights Watch, “Memorandum on Accountability for Humanitarian Law Violations in Chechnya”, September 2000.
[30] This power was conferred on the Committee of Ministers in its own “Declaration on compliance with commitments accepted by the member States of the Council of Europe”, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 1994.
[31] For information on the obligations of contracting parties under Article 52 see: Council of Europe, “Consolidated report containing an analysis of the correspondence between the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Russian Federation under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights”, Mr Tamas Bán, Mr Frédéric Sudre and Mr Peter Van Dijk, SG/Inf(2000)24, June 2000.
[32] In its Recommendation 1456, the Parliamentary Assembly called on the member States of the Council of Europe to take an inter-state case against the Russian Federation as a matter of urgency. See Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1456, para 18.
[33] In April 2000, the Parliamentary Assembly concluded that “the conduct of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic in the past few months up until the present time constitutes such a grave violation of Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, that the use of all of the possibilities afforded by the Statute and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly would be fully justified”, Recommendation 1456, 6 April 2000.
[34] “Comments by David Andrews Following Meeting with Russian Foreign Minister”, Department of Foreign Affairs Press Release, 14 January 2000. See also “Cowen expresses concern over reports of human rights abuses in Chechnya”, Department of Foreign Affairs Press Release, 26 February 2000.
[35] Remarks made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Brian Cowen T.D., at the luncheon in University College Dublin on the occasion of the spring meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the launch of the book “Ireland and the Council of Europe”, 15 May 2000.
[36] “State must act in support of human rights”, Irish Times, January 10, 2001.
[37] Charter of the United Nations, Chapter V, The Security Council Article 24(1).
[38]
See, Statute
of the International Tribunal, adopted on 25 May 1993, as amended on
13 May
1998.
[39] “Ahern promises reform role for Ireland at UN”, Irish Times, October 11, 2000.
[40] Government of Ireland, White Paper on Foreign Policy, “Challenges and Opportunities Abroad”, 1996, at 16.41.