| INFORMATION LEAFLET NO. 20 | ||||
|
Using international legal instruments in the fight against racism
Why influence
governments? These vary strongly, some are binding, like the EU treaties. Others have no more power than that of a friendly request. The subjects may vary as strongly. You can find treaties on Human Rights, but also on the use of international access codes for telephones, or the precise angle of a banana. But whatever the subject and whatever the strength of its binding power, there will be influence on what the state does or does not. Most states are sensitive to (inter)national pressure or even international shame. Or in the worst case the threat of an international conflict. In this respect states behave like humans: they will try as much as they can to avoid problems (or cause problems when there is enough to win) . The world is a global village, and as in villages, we care of what our neighbours think or say about us. Being named and shamed is not a good feeling, it is something that is better to avoid, if possible. It is this simple principle that makes it possible for a.o. NGOs to gain influence, to use the instruments that were developed to change situations. Can this be done? Yes, it can. It is true, however, that the sole existence of instruments is not enough to make a difference. Instruments should be used by organisations, and the more organisations start using them, the more sophisticated and effective an instrument will be become. It is also true, alas, that no miracles can
be expected. It may take a long breath before even a comma is moved.
5. NGOs and ECRI 1. Why international instruments? The costs can be low. The CERD and ECRI procedures are not legal procedures where you would need an expensive lawyer (though it is always good to consult one) but they are practical comments on how states implement their obligations. Costs in terms of gathering information can be low too, thanks to Internet. Both bodies have extensive websites. The use of international instruments can be complimentary to an already existing national lobby. But such instruments can also be used independently. Either way they can produce pressure because the international community is watching. Before using the instruments that are
discussed here or any other instruments, you should develop a plan or a
strategy. Your goals, working methods and follow up must clear. Such a
plan will help you to stay focussed on what you are trying to achieve.
Without it, there is a big risk, that too many side paths will cross you
way and distract you from reaching your goal. For designing a plan see
also previous info leaflets. The UN is one of the most important
international bodies. The UN is the world's "market place" where many
parties find each other (voluntary or obligatory) in some sort of
agreement, be it political or legal. It is also referred to as the UN
Family, meaning the whole of the UN and its specialised agencies like the
WHO, ILO, UNESCO etc. The CERD was the first Commission that was formed by the UN with the specific task of ensuring the implementation of a convention: the ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination). ICERD came into force in 1969. Since then some 128 states ratified it. The ICERD is an anti-racism instrument pur sang. In legal terms the correct expression is "racial discrimination". According to ICERD racial discrimination "shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life". ICERD deals not only with the "ten commandments of anti-racism" but obliges member states to take various measures against racism. See for example article 2.
ICERD has many more obligations but the key
question is of course the implementation of these obligations. Do the
states that sign ICERD do what they have to do under the Convention? This
question is the mission of CERD: to ensure the implementation of
ICERD. ICERD opens the possibility for individual- and state-to-state complaints. In this context we do not describe those specific procedures. Every state party has homework. It has to submit a report every four years in which it describes what the state has done to implement the Convention. CERD (the committee) examines the report, and will draw conclusions and make recommendations. Every two years an updated report is required from the state. To every state CERD "attaches" a rapporteur who is independent from the state and is able to provide CERD with an overview on the state of racism of the reporting state party. Rapporteurs cannot do their work if they do not have access to information that is independent from the information provided by the government. They will need other -reliable- sources in order to be able to judge the state's report. It is obviously that NGOs are a major source of information. The first step therefore is to know who the
rapporteur is for your country. He/she should be contacted, and the issues
that are important for your organisation can be brought under his/her
attention. It may be more efficient (and effective both for your
organisation as well as for the rapporteur) to bundle forces with other
NGOs, or to give your information to a co-ordinating NGO. When a state produces a report, it will not
be too critical about itself. It is the task of the CERD to find out in a
meeting with representatives of the state whether or not obligations were
really met. The final meetings are in Geneva, where the headquarters of CERD are. The state report will be presented by a governmental representative. There is the possibility for NGOs to attend the meeting, but this will mean travel- and hotel expenses. It is not essential to go there: it is the outcomes are important. The conclusions and recommendations of CERD are the instruments you can use.
The above is a concluding observation. It will be brought under the attention of the General Assembly. Chances are that CERD was informed (probably by an NGO, not by the state) that there are the above problems in Iceland with the police. Now that CERD included this information in its conclusions, the next steps can be taken. You can seek either publicity or bring this under to attention of e.g. members of parliament or other international fora or do both. It could well be though, that the observation is used to open a dialogue (if it did not already) between the government and anti-racism NGOs. It will have an interest to initiate change before the next reports have to be written. The strategy you follow, will depend on the
circumstances in your country, your organisation etc. But again: it is
wise to have a plan before starting a process like the above.
The CoE (Council of Europe, 41 member
states) is sometimes called the House of Human Rights. It should not be
confused with the European Union (EU, 15 member states), which is still
mostly economic in nature. For more and more issues the EU has legislative
power instead of the national governments. Its powers go far beyond that
of the CoE. In the context of the CoE many treaties came into force but
the member states decide whether or not they will sign. A large part of
its work is the exchange of (new) policy (ideas) and the renewal of
existing treaties. This is important. It creates a normative context in
which almost 41 European states participate. This high number makes it the
Pan European Inter Governmental Organisation. In the framework of the CoE ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) was established in 1993. Its main task is ´to combat racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance at the level of greater Europe and from the perspective of the protection of human rights. ECRI's action covers all necessary measures to combat violence, discrimination and prejudice faced by persons or groups of persons, notably on grounds of race, colour, language, religion, nationality and national or ethnic origin.´ To achieve this goal ECRI launched in 1994
its so-called CBC (country-by-country) approach. With this approach ECRI
examines the situation on racism and intolerance in all CoE states. In the
first round, that closed in 1998, an initial picture of each country was
drawn. Suggestions and proposals to improve situations were given. The
second round started in 1999 and will in end 2002. Thus a cycle of viewing
and reviewing is started. The CBC closely resembles the reports of CERD.
Both monitor developments in which implementation of conclusions,
proposals etc play an important role. There are differences as well. CERD
acts on a convention, the ICERD. ECRI mandate is not based on a particular
convention. This makes ECRIs playing field less defined and therefore
broader than CERD's. At the same time it may be less powerful because it
misses a binding agreement. ECRI makes it a big point that it wants to
involve NGOs. It uses information provided by NGOs but asks them also to
spread reports after these have been published. In the second round of the
CBC approach, the relevant rapporteur for a state will visit the country
before a new report is composed. The first possibility is before the
production of a draft report. For NGO there is the opportunity to give
input and share their views.
European Union Monitoring Centre Racism
and Xenophobia
Int. Movement Against All Forms of
Discrimination and Racism
| ||||