Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:19:56.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Rights in Europe; The Copenhagen Conference, June 1990

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Rick Lawson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

By now it is commonplace that developments in Europe take place faster than any observer, who intends to write an analysis, would prefer. The degree of difficulty to predict the directions in which Europe will develop itself, is only matched by the importance to study the landmarks that have already been reached.

Type
Current Legal Developments
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 238 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. I.e. those issues which cannot be regarded as human rights in a strict sense: family reunification; tourism and contacts between citizens of different states; exchange of information and the working conditions for the press etc..

2. To what extent these traditional CSCE-characteristics are still valid, is described by Bloed, A., Institutional Aspects of the Helsinki Process After the Follow-up Meeting of Vienna, 36 NILR 342–363 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Hazewinkel, H.J., The Madrid Meeting 1980–1983: An Eye-Witness Account, in A. Bloed and P. van Dijk (eds.), Essays on Human Rights in the Helsinki Process, 9–28 (1985). See for another detailed account:J. Sizoo and R.Th. Jurrjens, CSCE Decision-Making: the Madrid Experience (1984).Google Scholar

4. Even in 1990, the Dutch government refused to use the CSCE forum to confront NATO ally Turkey with information about torture and other forms of human rights violations. See Lawson, R., Nederland, de CVSE en Turkije, 1 Helsinki Monitor 26–28 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. See Bloed, A., Successful ending of the Vienna Meeting of the CSCE, 7 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 106–114 (1989)Google Scholar, and for a more detailed account in Dutch: Bloed, A. and Lawson, R., Het Slotdocument van Wenen: de humanitaire dimensie van het Helsinki-proces, 14 NJCM Bulletin 791–813(1989). As all CSCE states are obliged to distribute the text of the Final Act and all Concluding Documents, these can be obtained freely at the Foreign Ministry.Google Scholar

6. As was demonstrated by Rumania, that bluntly refused to accept a request for information made by Spain on behalf of the European Community. See Bloed and Lawson, supra note 5, at 804–807.

7. See, for an account of the conference Lawson, R., Human Rights News - the Helsinki Process, 7 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 326–329 (1989).Google Scholar

8. Until the Copenhagen meeting, Albania had chosen to isolate itself and consequently refused to take pan in the Helsinki process. On the other hand, the 35 states refused to grant the three Baltic states observer status despite a request of their governments.

9. For the contents of the proposal, See Agence Europe of June 21,1990, No. 5279, at 4. The proposal was supported by Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Together with Italy, these countries formed a completely new ‘alliance’, indicated as ‘the pentagonal’.

10. See for a general overview: O. Andrysek, Report on the Definition of Minorities (SIM special No. 8),13–60 (1989).

11. Copenhagen Document, Art. 35; emphasis added.

12. Which can be compared to the discussion within the United Nations on the relation between the right of peoples to self-determination and the right of states to territorial integrity.

13. Proposals by the German Foreign Minister Genscher in 1989 and by the British Prime Minister Thatcher on August 5, 1990 (See NRC Handelsblad, Aug. 6, 1990, at 4), respectively.

14. See The Commission's Programme for 1990, Bulletin of the EC, Suppl. 1/90, §72.

15. Secretary-General Catharine Lalumiére of the Council of Europe, in Agence Europe of July 5, 1990, at 4. It should be pointed out, however, that the CSCE human dimension also contains relevant subjects that fall outside the traditional scope of human rights - See supra note 1.

16. The Soviet Union has indicated that it will accede to several conventions of the Council of Europe, but it will not apply for membership; neither does it Seem to contemplate accession to the ECHR.

17. To some extent, this has already happened, due to the effectiveness of the meetings in Paris and Copenhagen.There, only human rights were at the agenda, so concessions of one party could not be balanced by concessions of other parties in other fields. Bloed (supra note 2) also warns for a “fragmentation” of the CSCE process, which appears to him “to conceal a great danger” (at 361). One might wonder, however, whether the interdependence rule is still needed in a post-Cold War era.

18. Not all countries appear to be ready for such a step. See supra note 4.