Back Diplomatic Academy “Human Rights Day 2019 in Europe: Is there anything to celebrate?”

Vienna , 

As delivered

 

Excellencies,

Distinguished guests,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure to speak here at the Diplomatic Academy.

Under its various guises, this institution has a long and distinguished history in the study of international affairs, and in the education of those who have gone on to influence them.

Indeed, since the establishment of what was the Oriental Academy in 1754, this city has been at the centre of enormous political change in Europe and the world, including the rise and fall of an empire of which it was a capital.

So, this is a fitting place in which to discuss the changes in our current political environment too.

Those changes are real and manifest.

In the aftermath of the 2016 presidential contest in the United States, plus other election results and events, the foreign affairs environment continues to evolve in ways that may not yet be fully understood.

But there is a clear sense that multilateralism is less predictable and a related concern that promoting and protecting universal standards of human rights is becoming harder at a time when those standards are as relevant as ever.

So, we are right to ask ourselves whether the opportunity still exists for human rights to put down deeper and more secure roots or whether there is a real danger that they will perish in the cold reality of contemporary international politics.

As Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I want to give my perspective on the position of our fundamental rights on this continent today.

In order to do that, I want to first set some context.

Tuesday of this week marked the United Nations’ annual Human Rights Day.

And it was the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 that laid the foundations of Europe’s human rights laws.

Shocked by the unparalleled horrors of the Second World War – the Holocaust first among them – world leaders understood the need for change:

They understood that by defining the human rights that belong to every individual, and elevating those rights above national law, they could better protect the dignity of humankind.

The following year – 70 years ago – the Council of Europe was founded.

Drawing on the content of the Universal Declaration, its member states drafted the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, which came into force three years later.

The rights to life, privacy, expression, a fair trial, liberty and security, conscience and religion – and freedom from discrimination, servitude, and torture.

These are just some of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention, for the people, to prevent the arbitrary use of state power.

The Council of Europe had ten founding member states in 1949.

Today, we are a pan-European family of 47 countries – and each has ratified the Convention.

It is interpreted and enforced by the European Court of Human Rights, to which everyone in the jurisdiction of those member states has the ultimate right of individual appeal.

And, alongside the European Social Charter, it enshrines the fundamental rights to which 830 million Europeans are entitled by law.

The Council of Europe applies these rights to specific challenges by developing new legal instruments on the basis of agreed common standards.

These include conventions on the prevention of torture, on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, against the trafficking of human organs and human beings, and cybercrime.

Other instruments aim to protect children against sexual exploitation and abuse, national minorities and regional or minority languages, and our personal data.

And the Council of Europe also supports the role of sports, culture and education, where equality, inclusion and democratic citizenship are key.

For seven decades now, this Organisation has expanded in size and output, to the benefit of millions of Europeans.

But there is also no doubt that we are in a period of relative backlash.

In parts of Europe today, human rights are more frequently violated and their legitimacy called into question.

A heady mixture of extreme nationalism and populism has emerged, whose advocates often regard the international rule of law as an obstacle to action rather than a guarantor of individuals’ rights.

This puts international organisations such as the Council of Europe and, in particular, the European Court of Human Rights in the line of populist fire.

And it matters because it is part of a bigger strategy: to attack or undermine the very concept of individual, fundamental rights which exist above national law, and thereby to weaken the protection they offer.

Let me give you some examples of what this looks like in practice.

Freedom of expression is enshrined by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This protects the right of individuals to form, hold and express their own opinions without undue interference.

But over recent years, studies of the freedom of expression in Europe have shown that it is under heightened threat.

We also witness it through the alerts put by our partners, leading journalists’ associations with whom I met last week in Paris, on our Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.

Violence against journalists has increased significantly over the last decade.

This includes physical attacks, intimidation, harassment, targeted surveillance and cyberbullying.

Last year, the number of threats doubled, and there have been high-profile cases of murder.

Impunity for such attacks is a problem despite the fact that the state has a duty to fully investigate such incidents.

And the effect of all of this is to silence critical voices and inhibit free speech.

Smear campaigns and inflammatory rhetoric by senior politicians, often followed by social media activity, also undermine the ability of journalists, media actors and others to do their jobs.

Also online, we have witnessed the rise of fake news, hate speech and misuse of anti-terrorism legislation to curtail freedom of expression.

Traditional threats to media freedom and independence also persist, including government shutdowns of media outlets, the growing threat to the protection of journalists’ sources, and restrictions on the editorial and financial independence of public service media.

Non-governmental organisations, human rights defenders, and other civil society actors also play a crucial role in holding the powerful to account.

For this, their freedom of assembly and association are essential, as guaranteed by Article 11 of the European Convention.

Here too there are increasing problems.

Verbal attacks and restrictive legislation often result in a shrinking civic space.

A study by the European Commission for Democracy through Law – the Venice Commission – found that, in many member states, specific obligations have been imposed on associations receiving funding from abroad.

Such regularity frameworks are sometimes selectively enforced in a bid to hamper, restrict, or silence specific civil society actors.

There has been a trend in the use of anti-terrorism legislation to restrict freedom of assembly too.

Legislative amendments have given priority to certain types of gathering, to the possible detriment of others, and there have been undue bans on assemblies and parades including, for example, those organised by LGBTI communities, with a number of examples this year.

The arrest and conviction of peaceful participants in assemblies who pose no threat to public order remains a problem, as does the use of disproportionate measures targeting well-known public figures.

Taken alongside the forced dispersal of peaceful events and concerns about the use of force by security services, it is clear that these tactics have the potential to deter members of the public from attending legitimate demonstrations.

When it comes to anti-discrimination and equality, there has been a dramatic rise in anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred and online hate speech across the continent.

And data shows that when such verbal transgressions are left unchallenged, they are a first step in escalating racial discrimination and even violent racist attacks.

In some member states there have been crackdowns on LGBTI people.

And, regarding gender equality, persistent failure by some countries to close the gap sits alongside retrogressive measures in others.

Unequal power structures persist, as do threats to women’s rights defenders; unequal access to employment and financial resources; gender bias and stereotypes; sexism and discrimination, including sexist hate speech online and offline and in political discourse; and budget cuts that are often applied to gender equality bodies and authorities.

Closely related to this is the ever-present problem of gender-based violence, which leaves millions of women in Europe fearing for their personal safety and security, and suffering from the physical and psychological impact of abuse.

The rights of national minorities have also been in the spotlight, with examples of hard-won rights being diminished.

In some countries, the tendency to emphasise the importance of the state language as a unifying factor has gone hand in hand with measures that diminish the protection of minority languages.

This is deeply concerning given that history has shown us that the strong protection of minority rights is key to maintaining high levels of political stability.

The same can be said of social rights.

Reports show that overall inequality has increased in Europe over recent years, both between and within countries, and that this leads to political polarization and strain on social cohesion.

There are a number of reasons for this inequality:

Technological change and the impact on the labour market; the fall-out from the economic crisis that began over ten years ago; and the consequences of related austerity measures adopted by some governments.

Where public spending cuts for public services and social provision have been deep – in the areas of health and housing or social security and pensions, for example – the impact has been heaviest on the most vulnerable:

The poor, the elderly, the sick; people with disabilities; migrants and refugees.

Evidence also suggests that changes to welfare impact disproportionately on women and that the effect of austerity measures is to make the labour market less accessible to young people and to Roma and migrants.

All of this makes social rights harder to maintain.

Significant budget cuts can also harm the quality of judicial services, and therefore the fulfillment of judicial rights.

More generally, a strong, effective and independent judiciary is needed in order to ensure the fair application of human rights at the domestic level, free from political pressure.

But here too there are problems.

Over recent years, there has been an increase in efforts at interfering in the composition of national judiciaries, including constitutional courts.

In several countries, key politicians – including government ministers – have alleged that the judiciary is corrupt or politicised, or elite and remote.

On some occasions this has led to action or legislation asserting executive powers over the judiciary or prosecutors.

This has involved the removal and appointment of judges, including supreme court judges, the removal of court presidents and the establishment of new courts, and broad reforms to high judicial councils.

In some cases, combined amendments to judicial laws, the criminal code and the criminal procedure code have seemed to directly undermine the independence of judges and prosecutors, and the effectiveness of criminal justice.

And broad powers exercised by the executive – sometimes by a justice minister – have led to concerns about the independent functioning of the judiciary.

Among these are cases of ordinary courts refusing to execute judgments of a constitutional court.

This not only raises issues relating to the separation of powers in a healthy democracy, but it means that the execution of cases that relate to human rights laws are also put at risk.

Ladies and gentlemen, this list of problems is non-exhaustive:

There are others.

But as serious as these issues are, and as much as Council of Europe member states are rightly obliged to address them, they are not by themselves a fair representation of where human rights stand overall.

For this, we need to take a step back and look at the broader picture.

I began this afternoon with a brief outline of the Council of Europe’s role, development yetand work.

But we should be clear about the full significance of that.

What has been built is a common legal space that has paved the way for pan-European standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the like of which has never been seen before:

In Europe, or anywhere else in the world.

Today, our legally-binding Convention system, complete with an international court issuing judgments, comprises more than 220 conventions, and various other instruments.

These have resulted in countless legislative acts and policy initiatives at the domestic level that have embedded a human rights culture in Europe:

Giving practical effect to rights that are now regarded as routine, and sometimes taken for granted.

Discrimination against children born outside marriage is illegal in Europe because of the European Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Similarly, judgments from the Strasbourg Court have clarified that homosexual relationships cannot be criminalized;

That arbitrary mass surveillance of our daily communications is illegal;

That suspects have a right to legal assistance while in police custody;

And that there is a right to legal aid for those who cannot afford lawyers’ fees but who need access to a court.

Similarly, the ratification of our conventions has helped member states across Europe – and often countries from further afield – to meet European standards.

Take for example the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Or the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which includes measures to protect against human rights abuses online.

Or the Lanzarote Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse:

A treaty that requires member states to criminalise all kinds of sexual offences against children:

And to prevent sexual violence, to protect child victims and to prosecute the perpetrators.

All of these Conventions have monitoring committees that assess member states’ implementation and support them to do better.

But they are just three of the many treaties and instruments by which human rights standards continue to improve on our continent.

Good news rarely makes headlines, but significant progress has been made over the decades.

We all benefit from this and it deserves recognition.

Even in those areas where I have outlined worrying trends, it is important to understand that there are also positive developments.

There are member states that have taken steps recently to shore up freedom of expression, including added protection for journalists, and support for public broadcasting.

Some national authorities have acted to ensure freedom of assembly and association, amending legislation and adjusting practice to better align them with European Convention standards, with changes to notification procedures and to the handling of public assembly, for example.

Concerning anti-discrimination, most European countries have now established equality bodies;

Many have adopted national Roma integration strategies – albeit with limited implementation;

And in many others, there have been considerable improvements in attitudes towards LGBTI people and legislative initiatives on same-sex partnerships, marriage and the rights of transgender people.

With regard to women, awareness of gender inequality and violence has been heightened in the #MeToo era, and a number of countries are taking steps towards preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence in line with the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention.

The gender pay gap has also narrowed, if slowly and by too little.

Individual problems relating to the use of minority languages continue to flare up.

But for the most part this issue is contained.

Legal protections are provided by the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter for Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of Minorities.

Where they have been applied, they have worked.

This is important given the range of minority language issues that remain in the Balkans and the Baltic states, in the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Ukraine and elsewhere.

And when it comes to judicial independence, several Council of Europe member states have made positive reforms, setting-up merit-based appointment and evaluation systems, effective judicial councils and solid professional training.

This can only be good for ensuring compliance with human rights laws, and the rule of law in general.

For a further perspective on the progress that is being made, we should look to the European Court of Human Rights itself.

The Court has not been spared from the wrath of populist attack.

There has been criticism of the Court’s efficiency.

And its authority over national courts and constitutions has been challenged.

This has taken the form of constitutional change, judicial reforms and referendums, and has often been sparked by controversy generated by a small number of the Court’s judgments.

But the reality is this:

Overall, member states comply fully and swiftly with its judgments, as they are obliged to do.

A decade-long reform process has helped reduce the backlog of pending cases from 150,000 in 2011 to around 60,000 today.

And no member state has bluntly refused to execute the Court’s judgments on the basis of national sovereignty.

Indeed, when it comes to the execution of judgments overall, the number of cases closed by the Council of Europe has reached an all-time high, thanks to a new policy of enhanced dialogue by member states.

That is not to say that there have been no genuine problems.

There have been cases of member states being unco-operative on specific cases, and it is right that we should take appropriate action where these occur.

But today the European Court of Human Rights – the ultimate arbiter on Europe’s human rights laws – is effective and efficient.

For human rights to remain effective, they must also be applied to changing circumstances and emerging challenges.

This continues to happen.

The Council of Europe is currently working with member states towards the wider implementation of social rights.

And we are looking at further action to tackle human trafficking for the purposes of labour exploitation:

A scandal in twenty first century Europe.

Similarly, we are continuing our work of recent years to help member states ensure that the increased numbers of migrants and refugees arriving on Europe’s shores have their human rights respected.

It is not the Council of Europe’s job to manage migration, but it is national authorities’ obligation to treat all people on European soil in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

To that end, we have helped member states to maintain appropriate standards in reception centres and accommodation, to provide access to services, and to treat minors – especially unaccompanied children – with the sensitivity and protection they need.

In November of this year, we established an Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence to examine the feasibility and potential elements of a legal framework for the development, design and application of AI.

Because new technologies raise important questions about the future of human rights.

AI has implications for the ways in which our elections are fought and conducted.

It has already made a significant impact on some employment sectors, with a disproportionate impact on the female workforce.

And algorithms can be used to profile individuals online, resulting in selective recommendations on everything, from what we read to what job adverts we see.

So, the time is right to look at what further measures might be introduced to ensure that the future of AI enhances our human rights, rather than undermining them.

And I look forward to hearing the Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations next year.

Lastly, I am also determined that the Council of Europe must act to better protect and promote human rights in unresolved conflict areas and so-called grey zones.

Every individual in our member states should be fully protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, regardless of de facto control or the status of a given area.

And it is the Secretary General’s responsibility to seek access for relevant Council of Europe bodies.

Working with member states, I hope that we can find a way forward together.

Ladies and gentlemen, my intention this afternoon is not to play down the risks for the future of human rights in Europe.

Those risks are real.

What has fanned the flames of populism is up for debate.

Disillusionment with contemporary politics?

Perhaps economic hardship and inequality, writ large in the aftermath of a deep recession?

Or the loss of historical memory as the circumstances and logic of the post-1945 world order fade in people’s minds?

Maybe all of these play a role.

But if we want human rights to remain a firm fixture in the constellation of European justice, we need to be clear that these rights exist not as a tool for political elites;

Rather, they are tools that belong to every European as a means of protection against those elites.

And we need governments to accept that logic and to uphold the system.

At our Ministerial Session in Helsinki earlier this year, foreign ministers from across our member states committed to doing precisely that.

And, equally, I hope that all of you here today will remain vigilant and be ready to defend and promote our fundamental rights wherever you see attempts to uundermine them.

Because the pan-European human rights standards achieved in our common legal space is a great success story of our modern times.

Today, there is no death penalty in use in any one of our 47 member states.

That is because the death penalty is illegal under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What a symbolic, but substantive achievement.

It is unthinkable that this progress could be put into reverse.

Just as it is unthinkable that all the standards raised by the implementation of the European Convention, the Social Charter and our substantial acquis could be set aside or dimished.

These have had a transformative effect on our justice systems, in our societies and indeed on the pan-European character of our modern continent.

Europe and the world would be diminished without them.

So, we should have confidence in the human rights progress from which generations have now benefitted, to defend these against undue attack, and to apply them to the new challenges we face.

Let us move forwards together.