![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders (the guidelines) are an EU external relations policy tool providing European diplomats with operational recommendations to support and protect human rights defenders (HRDs) in third country missions, recognising the critical need to protect those working on the frontlines to ensure human rights obligations are enforced in their countries. Implementation of the guidelines by the EU and its member states has resulted in many good practice actions towards the support and protection of HRDs. However the guidelines' recommendations are not systematically implemented by all European member states and implementation in EU mission countries around the world is patchy and inconsistent. This article considers EU commitments to effectively implement the guidelines policy tool in practice, including steps taken to integrate the guidelines' operational recommendations within the relatively new process of planning EU Human Rights Country Strategies in mission countries. Drawing from a study for the European Parliament assessing implementation of the guidelines in Kyrgyzstan, Thailand and Tunisia, the author identifies key areas of stakeholders' concerns, and argues for the need to link the EU's efforts towards coherence in human rights policy with on-the-ground approaches towards the protection of HRDs in third countries.
Acknowledgements
Assessing the Implementation of the European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders: the Cases of Kyrgyzstan, Thailand and Tunisia was a research project carried out by Karen Bennett for the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights. The research report was published on 18 June 2013 (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Karen Bennett is a Senior Research Fellow in Human Rights and Director of the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute (HRSJ) in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at London Metropolitan University, London, UK.
Notes
1. On risks and human rights violations HRDs face in their practice, see as examples, situations presented in: analysis of the situation in Indonesia, in A. Nabanan, ‘To Protect the Defenders Doing the Most Possible, Continuing to do What Has to be Done’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 26, no. 1 (2008): 139–48; analysis of the impact of ‘war on terror’ to increased violations against HRDs, in T. Landmann, ‘Holding the Line: Human Rights Defenders in the Age of Terror', The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 8, no. 2 ( 2006): 123–47; report on the situation of women human rights defenders, ‘United Nations Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya’, Sixteenth Session, Agenda Item 3 (June 2010); and analysis of global trends of violations to HRDs needing further research, in A. Nah, K. Bennett, J. Savage, and D. Ingleton, ‘A Research Agenda for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders', Journal of Human Rights Practice 5, no. 3 (2013): 401–20.
2. European Union External Action Service, The EU's Work with Human Rights Defenders, http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/defenders/index_en.htm.
3. European Union, Ensuring Protection – European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders (revised 2008), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/16332-re01.en08.pdf.
4. The field research was carried out by Karen Bennett between October 2012 and January 2013. See K. Bennett, Assessing the Implementation of the European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders: The Cases of Kyrgyzstan, Thailand and Tunisia (European Union, DG External Policies, Policy Department, June 2013), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/410221/EXPODROI_ET(2013)410221_EN.pdf.
5. Bennett, Guidelines, 2013.
6. Ibid., see Chapter 3 on Kyrgyzstan, Chapter 4 on Thailand, and Chapter 5 on Tunisia.
7. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 53/144 (9 December 1998). This declaration is commonly referred to as the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
8. Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945); N. Jagers, ‘Mainstreaming Human Rights in International Economic Organisations: Improving Judicial Access for NGOs to the World Trade Organization’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 24 (2006): 229 –70.
9. COHOM's mandate monitors developments with regard to respect for human rights throughout the world, and missions are expected to carry out monitoring and reporting to COHOM on the position of HRDs, and to make recommendations for appropriate action, such as public declarations or the issuing of démarches when HRDs are at risk. COHOM has been responsible for drafting and revising the guidelines as a practical tool to assist EU representations in the field to develop EU policy, and COHOM continues this work within the structure of the EU External Action Service (EEAS). See EEAS graphic representation, October 2013, http://eeas.europa.eu/background/docs/organisation_en.pdf.
10. The instrument supports civil society projects independently, and was reinforced in 2007–2013 with a budget of €1.104 billion , with further budget commitments for 2014 –2020 of €1.332 billion . Europe Aid, European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EDIHR), How We Finance Aid, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/eidhr_en.htm; and Regulation (EU) No. 235/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 11 March 2014, Establishing a Financing Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights Worldwide, http://www.eidhr.eu/files/dmfile/EIDHR.2014-2020.pdf.
11. Information on EDIHR funding and EU support to HRDs can be found on the European Commission website Democracy and Human Rights, Human Rights Defenders, http://www.eidhr.eu/human-rights-defenders.
12. Council of the European Union, Draft Council Conclusions on the First Review of the Implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders 10111/06, Brussels (6 June 2006), http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10111.en06.pdf.
13. EU Guidelines on HRDs (2008), sections 1, 4, 8, 12 and 14.
14. Ibid., section 13.
15. UN and Regional Human Rights Bodies Joint Statement, Ten Years On, Human Rights Defenders Continue to Pay a High Price, CommDH/Speech 19 (9 December 2008), https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?Index=no&command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1135612&SecMode=1&DocId=1344950&Usage=2.
16. In D. Joloy, ‘Mexico's National Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders: Challenges and Good Practices', Journal of Human Rights Practice 5, no. 3 (2013): 489–99, Joloy provides a detailed account of the practical work involved in developing a national protection mechanism for Mexico from the perspective of a HRD involved in the process, and the challenges remaining for effective implementation of the mechanism. The UN Special Rapporteur on HRDs' (title formerly Special Representative) mandate was first appointed to Ms Hina Jilani (2000–2008) and then Margaret Sekkagya (2008–2014), both very active in actions to support the implementation of the declaration. Michel Forst was appointed to the mandate in June 2014. He has recently stated: ‘I am interested to examine the effectiveness of human rights defenders laws and mechanisms recently enacted and established in places such as Mexico and Cote d'Ivoire … The incorporation of the Declaration into national laws and policies is crucial to ensuring a safe and enabling environment for the work of human rights defenders', comments published on the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) website, 16 July 2014, http://www.ishr.ch/news/new-special-rapporteur-human-rights-defenders-sets-out-his-vision.
17. EU Treaty of Lisbon (2009), http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/.
18. For commentary on EU human rights external relations policy to support HRDs during the period of the formation of EEAS see K. Kinzelbach and J. Kozma, ‘Portraying Normative Legitimacy: The EU in Need of Institutional Safeguards for Human Rights', Perspectives on European Politics & Society 10, no. 4 (2009); B. Donnelly, ‘Europe in the World: All Change or No Change in Foreign Policy After Lisbon?’, The International Spectator 45, no. 2 (2010): 17 –22; and Front Line, A Brief Evaluation of the Implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders (2010), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/201/201101/20110110_059hrdeval_en.pdf; A. Wetzel, ‘The Promotion of Participatory Governance in the EU's External Policies: Compromised by Sectoral Economic Interests?’, Democratization (July 2011): 978–1000; and Heidi Hautala, Report on EU Policies in Favour of Human Rights Defenders, A7-0157 (14 May 2010), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-439.063+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.
19. . K. Bennett, N. Piche, S. Bascon, and L. Mahoney , Final Report of 2009 Conference report on Security and Protection of Human Rights Defenders (Peace Brigades International, December 2009), also available at Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute, London Metropolitan University, https://metranet.londonmet.ac.uk/fms/MRSite/Research/HRSJ/2009-conf/conference-report-2009.pdf.
20. K. Koehler, ‘European Foreign Policy after Lisbon: Strengthening the EU as an International Actor', Caucasian Review of International Affairs 4, no. 1 (2010): 57–72.
21. D. Mahckne, ‘Post-Modern Diplomacy: Can EU Foreign Policy Make a Difference in World Politics?’, EU Diplomacy Papers, 4/2011 (Bruges: College of Europe, 2011), 22.
22. European Parliament Resolution on EU Policies in Favour of Human Rights Defenders, 17 June 2010, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-0226.
23. Ibid. The resolution called for creating specific tools for assessing implementation of the guidelines: ‘ … in order to develop more result-oriented action, that the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy regularly evaluate the implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders by each EU delegation in third countries and should prioritise and closely follow up this work, and make recommendations to those missions for enhanced action where the implementation has been noticeably weak; EU institutions to establish an inter-institutional cooperation mechanism on human rights defenders; understands that the creation of such a mechanism could be eased by the setting up of focal points for human rights defenders in all the EU institutions and organs, with such focal points working in close cooperation with those responsible for human rights and democracy in EU missions and delegations; Invites the Council and Commission to explore the possibilities of creating an alert system mechanism to be shared between EU institutions and all other protection mechanisms; Calls on the Commission to follow and monitor regularly the short- and long term implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and report back to the Human Rights Subcommittee of the European Parliament.’
24. High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council, Human Rights and Democracy at the Heart of EU External Action – Towards a More Effective Approach (12 December 2011), http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2012/060112_hr_silverthread_en.htm.
25. EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy: VI. Working with Bilateral Partners, 31 Impact on the Ground through Tailor-Made Approaches, 11855/12, Luxembourg (25 June 2012), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf.
26. EU Strategic Framework 5, Preambular paragraphs.
27. The Action Plan calls for EU missions to consult with civil society as part of the HRCS process, and the EEAS encourages EU delegations to address their engagement with HRDs when designing human rights country strategies. The specifics of EU engagement with HRDs (for example, which HRDs to engage with – of what profession or geographic regions; the frequency, design and agenda of meetings; the type of support – financial, protection related, facilitating HRD dialogue with state and national institutions, etc. is left to the discretion of individual EU delegations to organise with EU member state mission participation.
28. Amnesty International et al., Letter Re: ‘“Minimum Standards” for the Implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders under the Human Rights Country Strategies' to Veronique Arnault, Director, Human Rights and Democracy, EEAS, 25 November 2011, http://www.irct.org/media-and-resources/irct-news/show-news.aspx?PID=13767&NewsID=3395.
29. European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2012 on The Review of the EU's Human Rights Strategy (2012/2062(INI), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/p7_ta-prov(2012)0504_/p7_ta-prov(2012)0504_en.pdf.
30. EU Who is Who: European Parliamentary Human Rights Action Unit, http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=idea.hierarchy&nodeID=369146&lang=en.
31. Inter-parliamentary Committee Meeting with National Parliaments, 25 September 2013, Session Two: Internal/External Coherence on Human Rights, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/2a_backgroundnote_/2a_backgroundnote_en.pdf.
32. European Parliament Report on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2012 and the European Union's Policy on the Matter (2013/2152(INI), Committee on Foreign Affairs (29 November 2013), which includes calls for EU action regarding particular human rights defenders in need of immediate support and protection, and furthering actions on proper implementation plans of EU Human Rights Guidelines, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2013-0418+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.
33. Remarks by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the EU Annual Report on Human Rights, Strasbourg (12 June 2013), http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/137457.pdf.
34. EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief: EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg (24 June 2013).
35. EU Guidelines to Promote and Protect the Enjoyment of all Human Rights by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Persons: EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg (24 June 2013).
36. EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline: EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg (12 May 2014).
37. The 11 EU Human Rights Guidelines (as of April 2015) are providing EU policy directives on: human rights defenders (2008); death penalty (2013); torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (2012); promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief (2013); promoting and protecting the enjoyment of all human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons (2013); human rights dialogues with third countries (2009); children and armed conflict (2008); promotion and protection of the rights of the child (2008); violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them (2008); freedom of expression online and offline (2014); and international humanitarian law. See: http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/guidelines/index_en.htm.
38. EDIHR Forum Conference, ‘Protecting Those Who Protect’, Brussels, 12–14 May 2014. EU introduction of Forum 2014: ‘Each year the European Commission organises a spring forum dedicated to the reality of Human Rights on the ground and in particular the implementation of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Gathering, each year, 400 NGOs from all over the world, this year's edition focused on Human Rights Defenders (HRDs). It timely followed the adoption of the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) for 2014–2020, which gives a strengthened role to HRDs, endowed with additional funding facilities and further protection mechanisms. The objective of this forum was threefold. First, it aimed at defining priorities and avenues for concrete EU operational support to HRDs for the upcoming 7 years and at launching several related initiatives. Second, it aimed, 10 year after the adoption of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, at reviewing field operations, operational good practices, concrete lessons learnt and practical adaptation in our support to HRDs. Third, it offered a useful opportunity for HRDs to gather, exchange concrete information, views and contacts, and to network between themselves or with the EU institutions. Therefore, this Forum took place at a key moment when several ongoing related initiatives converged, namely: the launch of a comprehensive EU Human Rights Defenders Mechanism, and the relevant related public procurements; the inclusion of a temporary relocation system for HRDs at risk as a component of this mechanism (“City Shelter”); the selection of new projects on Human Rights and their Defenders in the most difficult situation; the launch of the EIDHR Annual Action Plan (AAP) 2014, and the preparation of the upcoming AAP 2015; the potential adoption of the new EU Guidelines on Freedom of Expression, currently in negotiation; and the adoption of a Tool-box for working towards a Rights-based Approach, encompassing all Human Rights, for the EU Development Cooperation.’ The EDIHR Forum presentations are available at: http://www.eidhr.eu/side-panels/what-s-on/events/eidhr-forum-2014/background-documents-and-presentations.
39. Council of the EU, Council Conclusions on a Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation, Encompassing all Human Rights, Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Brussels, 19 May 2014, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142682.pdf.
40. European Union, EIDHR Civil Society Forum, May 12, 2014, Brussels, Belgium: Panel Session on Improving Support and Evaluation of EU Guidelines on HRDs, comments from discussion with audience.
41. Bennett, Guidelines, 19–21.
42. Ibid., Annex 3-Questionnaire and Study Information Sheet, 93–5.
43. Responses are from interviews conducted with those working in Kyrgyzstan, Thailand and Tunisia. The study was small, thus data provide a limited scope when assessing implementation of the guidelines' recommendations, but the findings do demonstrate that knowledge of the guidelines' recommendations are uneven amongst diplomats and HRDs in these countries. Knowledge refers to having read the guidelines – familiarity refers to vague understanding of content.
44. The HRD liaison officer details were not found on websites of EU delegations in Thailand or Tunisia at the time of study (accessed 16 December 2012). In Thailand, an INGO reported the EU delegation has appointed a Thai-speaking HRD liaison, but this information was not confirmed by the EU or posted on the EUD website. Kyrgyzstan did provide contact details for the HRD liaison officer on the EUD website (accessed 16 December 2012).
45. Bennett et al., Conference Report, 29.
46. These concerns were raised in interviews with HRDs in Kyrgyzstan, Thailand and Tunisia, and with HRDs from Kenya and Sri Lanka.
47. Bennett, Guidelines, 66–83. For a full account of best practices and gaps in implementation from the study, please see the full research report, inclusive of country sections and recommendations to the European Parliament.
48. The practice of intervening only with consent from HRDs (or their families) was acknowledged by a number of diplomats interviewed. Also, see EU Guidelines on HRDs, section 10:5, which states: ‘ … EU Missions should therefore seek to adopt a proactive policy towards human rights defenders. They should at the same time be aware that in certain cases EU action could lead to threats or attacks against human rights defenders. They should therefore where appropriate consult with human rights defenders in relation to actions which might be contemplated.' Of the INGOs interviewed, they also emphasised this practice was consistent in their interventions for the protection of HRDs.
49. Bennett, Guidelines, 69. The study noted areas for improving trial monitoring of HRD cases included: diplomatic missions registering official notification to the court to attend a hearing or trial; senior diplomats monitoring trials, as this will show level of concern about a case; increasing number of diplomats attending most important trials to show level of concern; consistent monitoring of hearings/trials throughout the court process; increasing diplomats monitoring of trials in outlying areas, outside of capital cities; consistent action when violations are evident against HRDs, and their families.
50. The FRAME Policy Brief on the Post-2014 EU Action Plan also provides suggested adaptations for the EU Action Plan 2015 going forward in the use of indicators. Though not specifically addressing the guidelines' implementation, one suggestion is ‘the objective of the future Action Plan should be to bolster the credibility of the EU's action in the promotion of its values through the definition of actions which are verifiable in terms of results' (p. 8). The document outlines some direction for the use of indicators, which could be applied to better documentation of the EU guidelines' implementation. See:
51. Jagers, Mainstreaming Human Rights, 229. See also, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights published guidance on Frequently Asked Questions on Human Rights Based Approach to Development Programming, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQen.pdf.
52. EU Guidelines (2008), section 5.
53. HRDs may receive small project support from specific EU member state missions. Larger funding streams are available through schematic calls for proposals and at the Foreign Ministry level. EU funds for HRDs may come from multiple schemes, and as referred to earlier in this article, the EDIHR has recently initiated the Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights Worldwide Multiannual Indicative Programme (2014–2017), which provides a HRD mechanism to further support HRDs at risk, including provision of ad hoc grants in most difficult situations, re-granting, eligibility for non-registered civil society organisations (CSOs) and natural persons (Operating Principles 5: 8), http://eeas.europa.eu/human_rights/docs/eidhr-mip-2014-2017_en.pdf.
54. Nah et al., ‘A Research Agenda', 405–6.
55. HRDs working on difficult cases in the south of Thailand were particularly concerned of the lack of attention from the EU, in spite of their request for meetings and support from the EU delegation. HRDs in Thailand also raised concerns regarding only ‘drop in’ attention given to WHRDs, when the EU specifically promoted their attention to WHRDs in Thailand (when ushering in the revisions to the EU guidelines in 2008). For further information on Thailand, see Bennett, Guidelines, 48–56.
56. See: EU Guidelines (2008), section 9.
57. The author was invited by HRDs working for women and LGBTI rights to attend an NGO conference celebrating ‘Women Human Rights Defenders Day’ in Bishkek Kyrgyzstan on 29 December 2012. NGOs showed video footage of police raids on their work premises. WHRDs discussed how appropriate strategies and international networks can help legitimise their practice, and provide necessary support for ensuring their security.
58. See Recommendations for Gender-Specific Implementation of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, web-based publication from a civil society consortium: http://www.omct.org/files/2006/11/3790/gender_specific_recomm_for_eu_hrd_241106_eng.pdf.
59. Peace Brigades International UK, 2012 Conference Report – Women Human Rights Defenders: Empowering and Protecting the Change-Makers (27 August 2013), http://www.peacebrigades.org.uk/country-groups/pbi-uk/pbi-uk-news/news/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3930&cHash=93ec379331f58186d61905505ffac5b7.
60. UN Resolution on Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly, A/C.3/68/L.64 (4 November 2013), http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.64.
61. It was argued that this language was already agreed to by the General Assembly in Resolution 67/144 on the Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence against Women. The Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) monitoring the UN process reported that states who opposed the initial draft resolution asked for the deletion of this paragraph in exchange for the withdrawal of their further amendments. The concession resulted in some member states of the EU withdrawing their co-sponsorship of the resolution. See draft UN Resolution on Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders (with contested language): http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/68/L.64.
62. A very strong lobby formed in support of the UN resolution protecting WHRDs, including an open letter from the Elders group (http://www.theelders.org/news-media/human-rights), http://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/files/article/files/2013_11_open_letter_by_gro_harlem_brundtland_and_hina_jilani_-_unga_reso.pdf ; and Nobel women Laureates, http://nobelwomensinitiative.org/2013/11/nobel-laureates-to-un-support-resolution-on-women-human-rights-defenders/; and 71 African CSOs calling on African countries to support the UN resolution, http://www.awid.org/News-Analysis/Announcements2/Letter-calling-on-African-States-to-support-the-UN-General-Assembly-resolution-on-WHRDs.
63. Europe Aid, EDIHR, How We Finance Aid .
64. EDIHR, A Strengthened Comprehensive EU Human Rights Defenders Mechanism, slides, http://www.eidhr.eu/files/dmfile/HRDsmechanismFORUM2013.pdf.
65. The EU commissioned a report by GHK Consulting on Mapping of Temporary Shelter Initiatives for Human Rights Defenders in Danger in and Outside the EU (Luxembourg: Publications Office of European Union, February 2012).
66. Interviews with EEAS participants: see Bennett, Guidelines, 28–9.
67. Ibid. See also, F. Benoit-Rohmer et al., ‘Report on Human Rights Mainstreaming in the EU's External Relations' (Brussels: European Parliament Publication, September 2009).
68. A. Mihr, Human Rights Benchmarks for EU's External Policy (Brussels: European Parliament, December 2011), 16–18.
69. Catherine Ashton's communication Human Rights: The ‘Silver Thread' in Europe's Foreign Policy (6 January 2012), http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/2012/060112_hr_silverthread_en.htm.
70. As an example, the Human Rights and Social Justice (HRSJ) Research Institute at London Metropolitan University runs a number of projects with human rights defenders at risk, designing bespoke training components working with recommendations of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders. Recent trainings include working with Central Asian HRDs from Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and trainings with lawyers from Darfur, Sudan, including training HRDs on the EU guidelines' recommendations as a protection mechanism.
71. Some diplomats in the study questioned the need for HRDs to be aware of the guidelines, as this was an internal EU policy directed to EU diplomats. Most commentators, and the majority of participants in the study, supported the need for HRDs to be aware of the policy tool directed to support and protect them, particularly as the guidelines call for ‘organising at least once a year a meeting of human rights defenders and diplomats to discuss topics such as the local human rights situation, EU policy in this field, and application of the local strategy for implementing the EU Guidelines on human rights defenders'. The HRCS process further supports EU-HRD consultations around implementation of the guidelines (thus inferring the policy document must be disseminated and known amongst HRDs). The EU is in the process of implementing a rights-based approach (RBA) and has provided EU members with an RBA toolbox, intended to provide pragmatic support and guidance to EU staff and partners involved in the implementation of day-to-day EU development cooperation. The EU RBA approach, to be implemented as a coherent approach across all EU foreign policy, promotes ‘being closer to citizens and interacting with civil society'.
72. P. Alston and J.H.H. Weiler, ‘An “Ever Closer Union” in Need of a Human Rights Policy: The European Union and Human Rights', European Journal of International Law 9 (1998): 658–723.
73. G. Crawford, ‘Evaluating European Union Promotion of Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance: Towards a Participatory Approach', Journal of International Development 14 (2002): 911–26.
74. Ibid., 920–26, referencing: P.C. Schmitter and I. Brouwer , Conceptualizing, Researching and Evaluating Democracy Promotion and Protection, EUI Working Paper SPS No. 9 (Florence: European University Institute, 1999).
75. M. Nowak, T. Hofstätter, and J. Hofbauer, eds, The Role of the EU in UN Human Rights Reform, Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Menschenrechte, Volume 29, EU COST Publication (2013).
76. Ibid.
77. Olivier De Schutter, Speaker at the 15th EU-NGO Forum, ‘On Human Rights: The Fight Against Impunity and Accountability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', Brussels, 5–6 December 2013, http://www.eidhr.eu/events/15th-eu-ngo-forum-on-human-rights.
78. Protection International, Roundtable on National Public Policies for the Protection Of Defenders at the 15th EU-NGO Forum on Human Rights (6 December 2013), http://protectioninternational.org/2013/12/06/pi-hosts-roundtable-on-national-public-policies-and-protection-mechanisms-for-hrds-at-the-15th-eu-ngo-forum-on-human-rights/.
79. J. Ruggie, UN Special Representative on Human Rights and Transnational Corporations, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework', Section 17–21 Human Rights Due Diligence (2011): 17–24, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.
80. Committee, Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2012 (29 November 2013), 27–30: 11, puts forth a number of calls for change, see: Human Rights in the EU's Trade Policy.
81. European Commission, Replies of the Commission to the Special Report of the European Court of Auditors ‘Are Preferential Trade Arrangements Appropriately Managed?' (EU, 8 March 2014). See section 38: ‘The GSP scheme consists of a general arrangement and two special arrangements. The general arrangement is granted to all those developing countries which share a developing need and are in a similar stage of economic development without the need to ratify or implement any international conventions. The EU's GSP+ sub-scheme has been designed to include additional incentives for vulnerable countries willing to take extra steps towards sustainable development and good governance, leaving the choice to those countries whether to seek the additional benefits or not. This approach, endorsed by Council and Parliament, represents a policy choice. The need to ratify and effectively implement international conventions on human and labour rights, the environment and good governance has, therefore, been considered for these 10 countries and not in respect of other beneficiary countries of the general arrangement', http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2014/EN/1-2014-194-EN-F1-1.Pdf.
82. Peace Brigades International, A Dangerous Business: The Human Cost of Advocating against Environmental Degradation and Land Rights Violations, Conference Report, October 2011, http://www.peacebrigades.org.uk/fileadmin/user_files/groups/uk/files/Publications/A_Dangerous_Business_-_edit_.pdf.
83. EU Council Conclusions on 10th Anniversary of EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, CL14-118EN, 23 June 2014, http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15216_en.htm.
84. EU actions towards enabling environments and protection of HRDs as part of the EU Human Rights Action Plan for 2015 were discussed at the EDIHR Forum, see: http://www.eidhr.eu/events/eidhr-forum-2014.
85. M. King et al., Measuring Policy Coherence for Development (Commission report by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, for the European Centre for Development Policy Management, 2012), 16, http://www.oecd.org/pcd/ECDPM%20Paper_Measuring%20PCD.pdf.
86. One area where human rights defender practice has transformed in recent years is through the use of digital technology, with examples coming from Arab Spring countries' use of social media for mobilising the oppressed to challenge authoritarian political structures. While technology can advance efforts towards improving human rights and democracy, it can also give rise to new tactics used by aggressing states – control of digital technologies is used to oppress and criminalise HRDs. The guidelines should now be revised to reflect EU policy towards legal frameworks and actions that violate HRD freedoms by, and inhibit civil society free space for, the use of technology. Representatives from EU countries have taken interest on a number of fronts to dedicate efforts around the positive and negative uses of technology, which include threats posed to HRDs through surveillance, censorship and acts of criminalisation through unjust laws used against HRDs.
87. EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy – 11855/12, Luxembourg, 25 June 2012, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf.
88. European Parliament Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2012 and the European Union's Policy on the Matter (2013/2152(INI), 29 November 2013, section 25: paras 10–11, on human rights country strategies and human rights focal points: ‘regrets, however, the lack of transparency regarding the contents of the country strategies; reiterates its call for public disclosure of, at least, the key priorities of each country strategy, and for Parliament to have access to the strategies so as to allow a proper degree of scrutiny'.
89. Ibid. Human rights country strategies and human rights focal points: ‘encourages the EU to produce a public assessment of the lessons learnt during the first cycle of EU human rights country strategies and to identify best practices for the next cycle'.
90. Council of the EU, Commission Staff Working Document Tool-Box A Rights-Based Approach, Encompassing All Human Rights For EU Development Cooperation, Brussels, 30.4.2014 SWD(2014) 152 final, http://europeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/files/2014/05/9489-14.pdf.
91. EU Commission, Staff Working Document Tool-Box, ‘A Rights Based Approach Encompassing all Human Rights for EU Development Cooperation (Brussels, 30 April 2014, 9484/19), 18.
92. Bennett, Guidelines, 74–5.
93. Ibid., 61–2.
94. H. Miller, ‘From “Rights-Based” to “Rights-Framed” Approaches: A Social Constructionist View of Human Rights Practice', The International Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 6 (2010): 915–31.
95. Council of the EU, Council Conclusions on the 10th Anniversary of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, Foreign Affairs, Council meeting, CL14-118EN, Luxembourg, 23 June 2014. Summary Press Statement, http://eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_15216_en.htm.
96. INGO statement (Amnesty International, FIDH, Frontline, Peace Brigades International, Protection International) responding to the EU Council Conclusions on the 10th Anniversary of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, http://www.peacebrigades.org.uk/fileadmin/user_files/projects/honduras/files/JOINT_STATEMENT_ON_THE_EU_CONCLUSIONS_ON_THE_10TH_ANNIVERSARY_OF_THE_GUIDELINES_ON_HUMAN_RIGHTS_DEFENDERS.pdf.
97. For example, since the 2008 guidelines were drafted, there have been important changes in how HRDs work and organise. This includes new communication tools and technologies available and used by most HRDs. HRDs' privacy and use of social media may be under surveillance, and access to technology limited and/or controlled by governments (for information on use of technologies for civil society activism see toolkits produced by the tactical technology collective, https://www.tacticaltech.org/). It is the authors' opinion that the newly adopted EU guidelines ‘Expression Offline and Online', should be referenced in a revised version of the guidelines on HRDs, as should other human rights guidelines applicable to HRD protection, and updated operational guidance referencing tools for EU engagement with HRDs in the new HRCS process.
98. UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, Mrs Margaret Sekaggya, A/HRC/25/55, 23 December 2013. The report focussed on lessons learnt for ‘Creating a Safe and Enabling Environment for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders'.
99. Nah et al., ‘A Research Agenda', 401–20.
100. Bennett, Guidelines, 81–2.