FRIBOURG 2014
Welcome Booklet and Preparation Kit
Words of Welcome The Session President
Dear delegates, As I write this introduction, UN schools are being desecrated in Gaza; the people of Thailand are living under a military coup; a lecture in Kashmir on how the Indian state oppressed freedom of speech was declared illegal and disbanded; while in Zimbabwe the Public Order and Security Act is being used to arbitrarily limit the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. Here in Europe, the UN Commission on Human Rights has deplored Ireland’s system of ‘direct provision’ for asylum seekers; the Roma community continue to be discriminated against across the continent; anti-Semitic violence is on the rise in France and an LGBT rights defender has been fired from a Russian University. But small victories also abound; on Thursday the 7th of August a court ruled that two former commanders within the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia committed crimes against humanity; a Ugandan court has overturned a law banning homosexuality on the basis that it is unconstitutional and Ales Bialiatski, Belarus’ leading human rights defender and the head of the human rights organisation Viasna has been released after 1052 days in prison. Small victories, but enough to keep the flicker of light from extinguishing into darkness. As you peruse the pages of this preparation booklet, be grateful. Be grateful that you live in a country where the state cannot tell you what you should and should not believe. Be grateful that the words written herein have not been censored or tailored to fit a certain perspective. Be grateful when you gather your thoughts and form your opinions that you will be able to express them without fear of persecution or oppression. As you try to motivate yourself to prepare as well as possible for the session to come, just think of all those who could never partake in a similar activity. Think of all the things they would love to say; but can’t. When you need courage, strength or inspiration for the session to come, think of those who stand against oppression even when their life is in danger. Let’s speak for them at this session. Let’s make their voice heard. Let’s make this the best session it can be for them. Let’s do this. Niall Murphy
The Head-Organisers Dear delegates, For many of you Fribourg 2014 will be the first EYP session. During the five days of the session you will have the chance to meet your peers from all over Switzerland and Europe, you will play silly games and soon grow fond of them. Moreover you will have the opportunity to make your voice heard, most likely the most important aspect of the European Youth Parliament. You can often hear people say that although we have the possibility to vote, our voices are not heard. You can feel the distrust in politics and politicians and the impression that the democratic system is more and more falling apart. In short, there is a clear democratic deficit on European as well as national level. Switzerland, known for its semi-direct democratic system, is not different from the rest of the continent. In fact, most of the time less than 50% of those who have the right to vote in national referenda actually express their opinions and the last time at least 60% of the Swiss people participated in a Federal referendum was in 1989. Nevertheless, people do not want to take action or commit to improve the situation. Everyone is comfortable in blaming the ones in the positions of power. Therefore hardly anyone realises that difficult solutions and non-competent politicians are not the only reasons for problems but rather the fact that citizens do not want to live up to their responsibilities should be considered. Fortunately, more and more youngsters like you take part in activities simulating the work of a certain political institution and want to share their opinions on the current situation. The EYP gives everyone the opportunity to make statements and work on solutions for those problems everybody complains about. Apart from that it allows an exchange of opinions with individuals from different cultural or social backgrounds. Thanks to the European Youth Parliament you will have the chance to explore the differences between the way you and someone from another country understand a certain issue and at the same time you will see that the distinctions between a Swiss, a Czech and a Ukrainian are just nuances. Therefore, this organisation fulfils two important tasks: it takes young people closer to political activity and activism on the one hand and helps us smash the walls that block our mind and acknowledge the necessity of staying united on the other. You might not always agree with your peers and feel like approaching a fellow delegate telling him or her that what he or she says is solely wrong. We want to encourage you to do so. Tell them what you think, argue with them, change your own or their mind. There is nothing more reassuring than being able to see the future generation of this continent expressing their opinion. After this session you will see your freedom of speech under a different light, you will understand that this freedom is not there to say whatever you want, but to discuss with anyone your beliefs and to listen to what someone else has to say. This organisation will teach you that your freedom of speech is one of the most important things you have and it is always with you, it will make you understand that all the rights you can count on cannot be taken away from you without your, even passive, consent. If you always stay true to yourselves and your ideals, dear delegates, if you always have regard for what other people say and do not lock yourselves in a small world where only what you and your crew think exists, you will have a bright future, full of satisfaction. If you take up your responsibilities and fight for what is just and stop blaming others for what you are not doing, you will never be forgotten. There is not much left to say. Be prepared and ready to enjoy an interesting experience that we hope you will be able to fully appreciate. Make the best out of Fribourg 2014! Riccardo Passarella and Matthieu Loup
The City of Fribourg Fribourg is the capital of the Swiss canton of Fribourg and the district of Sarine and it is an important economic, administrative and educational centre. Its Old City, one of the best maintained in Switzerland, sits on a small rocky hill above the valley of the Sarine. The town was founded in 1157 and sold to the Habsburgs in 1277. The 14th century was dominated by trade, and cloth and leather production, which brought the city renown in Central Europe by 1370. In the15th century the Habsburgs ceded the city Savoy who kept it until 1477. The city and its canton joined the Swiss Confederation in 1481, and have long influenced Swiss and European Catholicism. An important milestone for the politics of the city was reached in 1627, when a number of influential families drew up a new constitution, in which they declared that they were the only people capable of ruling the city. The invasion of Switzerland by French troops in 1798 lead to the downfall of this Ancien Régime. The patricians regained control of the city in 1814 during the Restoration period. They ruled until 1830. Fribourg was part of the 1845-1847 Sonderbund, a “separate alliance” of Catholic cantons attempting to secede from Switzerland. Fribourg and the Sonderbund capitulated to Federalist forces 14 November 1847 in what amounted to a brief and nearly bloodless Swiss civil war. Since 1848, the new Federal constitution and the amendment to the Canton constitution have guaranteed every citizen the right to vote. The later 19th and the 20th century brought about drastic changes to the city’s culture and physical nature. In 1848 the city wall was partially torn down and a new bridge constructed across the Sarine. The opening of the midland railway line through the city in 1862 led to the development of a “railway station quarter” of the city. The improved transportation enabled Fribourg to undergo industrialisation. The city centre shifted from the Old City to the new Train Station quarter. Extensive areas in Pérolles, Beauregard and Vignettaz were developed with industry or houses around 1900. Finally, the University of Fribourg was inaugurated in 1889.
Arrival in Fribourg
Getting to Fribourg is fairly easy. The city is very well connected to the rest of the country. We advice to travel here by train. Just check www.sbb.ch. You have to be in Fribourg by 11:30 on the 3rd of September. An organiser will be waiting for you at the Train Station (downstairs, with placards) and will show you the way to Collège Ste-Croix, where you will go through check-in and registration and where you will spend the rest of the day. Please keep in mind that lunch won’t be provided on Arrival Day and you won’t be allowed to leave the venue after your registration. You must also fill out a form and provide us with information about your arrival time, the food and beverages you will bring for Swiss Village and details about your delegation presentation and your performance at the Swiss Concert. The form is available at THIS LINK
Session Overview
DAY
TIME
EVENT
Wednesday, Sep 3rd
by Noon
Delegates Arrival
Afternoon
Teambuilding (TB)
Evening
Opening Ceremony
Morning
TB / Committee Work
Afternoon
Committee Work
Evening
Swiss Village Workshops Night
All-day
Committee Work
Evening
Swiss Concert Delegation Presentation
Morning
GA preparation General Assembly
Afternoon
General Assembly
Evening
Committee Dinner Party
All-day
General Assembly
Afternoon
Closing Ceremony Departures (no later than 6pm)
Thursday, Sep 4th
Friday, Sep 5th
Saturday, Sep 6th
Sunday, Sep 7th
Venues
Accommodation The participants will be accommodated in the civil protection shelter situated in Route de la Heitera 19, 1700 Fribourg (Ecole du Schoenberg). You will have to bring your own sleeping bag. Also, since showers are in common (but gender-segregated), some of you might want to bring a swimming suit.
Collège Sainte-Croix Collège Sainte-Croix has collaborated with EYP Switzerland since the foundation of the National Committee. The school will host Teambuilding, Committee Work and Swiss Village. It is situated in Rue Antoine-de-SaintExupéry 4, 1700 Fribourg.
University of Fribourg The university of Fribourg has shown its continous support for this session. General Assembly will in fact be held in the auditoria located in Miséricorde and Pérolles, two of the main sites of the University. Part of Committee Work will also take place in Regina Mundi, a site next to Collège SainteCroix.
Events Teambuilding The first activity you will take part in is Teambuilding. This part of the session is essential to get to know the members of your committee and learn to work together. You will spend the day outside and experience all sorts of group dynamic games. Dress Code: Casual (comfortable)
Committee Work Committee Work represents the academic side of the session. You will work with your committee to find solutions relevant to your topic. Therefore, make sure to research your topic and prepare accordingly. You should have an overview of the other topics, too. Dress Code: Smart Casual (informal, neat)
Opening Ceremony During this formal event you will hear many inspiring speeches that will guide you through your EYP experience. At the end of the ceremony, the President will open the session. Dress Code: Formal (Suit, Dress)
General Assembly General Assembly marks the final part of the session. During this event every committee will present their solutions discussed during Committee Work in form of a resolution. You will get the chance to make points from the floor towards other resolutions or hold speeches from the podium. Dress Code: Formal (Suit, Dress)
Swiss Village During Swiss Village you will present your region to the other participants. You will have to bring your local food and beverages and the event will constitute dinner on Thursday. Be careful, though, it is not permitted to bring hard liquors or anything above 15% Vol.
Swiss Concert Swiss Concert is a good occasion to show what you can do! You can sing, dance, or perform whatever you want. If you want to be on stage for this event, let us know in the form already mentioned on the Arrival page. Dress Code: Smart Casual
Delegation Presentation At this event you will have to present your delegation. Use your creativity to come up with sketches or else that could entertain everyone. Your presentation does not have to be long and you are supposed to plan it beforehand. Unlike Swiss Concert, every delegation will have to perform something.
Committee Dinner and Party Committee dinner is a good chance to spend more time with your committee. During the farewell party you will get to have some fun with your new friends before the last day of the session. Make sure to bring enough money to pay for your dinner and your drinks at the party. Party theme: The Golden 20s, dress up accordingly.
Code of Conduct Dear delegates, parents and teachers, EYP Switzerland’s code of conduct outlines the basic guide for conduct during the National Selection Conference, Fribourg 2014, for the protection of the participants and the organisation throughout the duration of the event. By taking part in an event organised by EYP Switzerland, participants agree to adhere to the code of conduct provided here and upon arrival at the event. We would like to make your EYP experience a fantastic one, and to achieve this goal, we trust you to cooperate with us by respecting the rules mentioned here. At the check-in, all delegates will be asked to sign this code of conduct, as well as an authorisation that visual material produced by the session’s media team or by EYP Switzerland may be used for promotional or informational purposes. For your information find the code of conduct below.
Participants’ presence
Drugs
Participation in session events
The possession and consumption of illegal drugs is prohibited from the session. Infringement will result in immediate expulsion from the session.
All of the events in the session programme are compulsory for all delegates, including the evening programme(s). Active participation in all of the activities is encouraged. Should participants need to abstain from any part of the programme, exceptions may be made on a case-to-case basis if so agreed by the Head Organisers and Board of EYP Switzerland. Leaving session venues During the session, participants are under the joint responsibility of EYP Switzerland and delegates’ schools, represented by the respective teachers. To ensure that the organising team is aware of the whereabouts of all session participants (particularly in case of emergencies), it is not permitted to leave the venue of any session element or the accommodation at any time without explicit permission from the Head Organisers and Board of EYP Switzerland, least of all at night. Exceptions may be made in individual cases but failure to respect this rule will be taken extremely seriously. Medical emergencies EYP Switzerland provides a session medic throughout the session. Before leaving a session activity for health or emergency reasons, she needs to be contacted.
Failure to respect these rules may, corresponding to the graveness of the breach, result in expulsion from the session. Parents and teachers may be informed accordingly.
Smoking Smoking is only permitted for those legally allowed to do so. Smokers may do so during official breaks only and are expected to respect the individual regulations at each venue.
Alcohol According to Swiss federal law, the sale of beer and wine to persons aged less than 16 is prohibited and the sale of other spirituous beverages is prohibited to persons under 18. EYP Switzerland takes these regulations very seriously. While alcohol may only be allowed for people of a legal drinking age, drinking will only be allowed at the farewell party, and exceptionally at events specifically indicated by the session Head Organisers. Therefore, delegates are not to bring any alcohol to the session. Moreover, the maximum amount of alcohol contained in any alcoholic beverage consumed during the session cannot be superior to 15% alc/vol. Over-indulgence in alcohol may result in expulsion from the session
General Preparation Essentials
Swiss Village
- ID Card (or Passport, if needed) - Health Insurance information - Cash (~50 CHF) or a credit/debit card - Mobile Phone
- local Food and Beverages - Mind the alcohol policy (cf. max. 15% alc/vol) - Keep in mind that you won’t be able to use a kitchen
Teambuilding
What to Bring
- Comfortable clothing and shoes for sports/Outdoor activities - Waterproof jacket - Waterproof shoes
- Enough clothing for 5 days - Towels - Everything needed for personal hygiene - Hair dryer (if needed) - Sleeping bag - Pillowcase - Swimming suit for shower (if needed) - Shower slippers - Umbrella - Tablet/Laptop/Note pad
Committee Work - Smart Casual clothing (shirt, blouse, trousers, no flip-flops) - Preparation kit, position paper, others (no printer available during the session)
Emergency Sheet General Assembly/Opening Ceremony
- Formal clothing (shirt, suit, blouse, formal dress, tie, bowtie, foulard,...)
You must download, fill out, print and sign the Emergency Sheet. You will then have to bring it along during registration and only the session medic will have access to it. Further information is available on the first page of the form. You can download the form at this link
Swiss Concert/Delegation Presentation
- Musical Instrument(s) - Music bases (on a USB stick or similar) - Powerpoint presentation (if needed) - Anything you need to perform
Also, don’t forget about the Travel Form
ACADEMIC PREPARATION
Fribourg 2014 is a bilingual session. The working languages are English and French. Following a recent decision adopted by the Board of National Committees and the Governing Body, International Sessions will no longer recognise French as a working language, making English the only one delegates will be allowed to use. It is also important to notice that the use of any language but French and English is not permitted.
Session Theme Civil Rights in a Diverse Europe With low voter turnout on the one hand and increasing civil unrest on the other, equality before the law becomes a pivotal point. In fact, European states and institutions are widely criticised for their democratic deficit as well as for disparities in standards for civil rights. Variation in cultural, economic and political spheres foster inequality on a national and international level and restrain the consolidation of fundamental rights as the basis of European values. Under this theme, participants will reflect on how to tackle deviations from democratic standards, on how to reduce discrimination of vulnerable groups and on how to promote active citizenship. How can Europe truly become a guardian of liberty, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms–in brief, the values, with long political and philosophical traditions, shared among many European governments? What should be done to promote these rights within and beyond Europe’s boundaries? How can the democratic functioning of European institutions be ensured and inclusiveness–on the basis of a common identity and shared values–be stimulated? In times of globalisation, how can a solid guarantee of civil rights contribute to unifying Europe in its diversity?
N.B.: Underlined, bold, black lines of text in topic overviews are hyperlinks. Click on them! The same applies to every “Required Reading” section. N.B.2: At the end of the booklet you will find the information concerning the position papers
Committee Topics AFCO
Sophie Duffield (UK) and Andong HU (CH)
With a referendum [1] on Scottish independence imminent and in light of the continued tension between the Catalonian and Spanish governments, should the EU take action to affirm the right to self-determination of all its citizens?
AFET
Jonathan Piepers (BE) and Lena Vogel (CH)
In light of recent reports of civil rights violations in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, how should the EU approach the ongoing negotiations for a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the Indian Union so as to protect the civil rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir?
DEVE
Anna Zellweger (CH)
With supply chains of multinational corporations being spread across an ever greater number of countries to take advantage of less regulated labour markets in the developing world, should Europe act to ensure that products bought and sold within the common market are produced safely and ethically?
DROI
Evanthia Kasiora (GR)
With evictions, discrimination and bigoted rhetoric on the rise across Europe, and in light of the new requirements on EU Member States to produce and implement ‘National Roma Integration Strategies’, what further steps should European institutions, such as the EU and the Council of Europe, take to ensure the full inclusion of the Roma community in the economic, social, cultural and political life of European countries?
ECON
Patrick Lavelle (IE)
In light of the Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Austerity report by the Council of Europe which stated that Europe’s policies of debt reduction were undermining civil rights; should Europe seek alternative strategies for reducing its debt burden?
[1] Referendum: a general vote by the legislative branch (i.e the Parliament) on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.
Tobias Paul Satlow (AT)
EMPL
Unpaid internships: a necessary bridge between education and employment or an opportunity for businesses to avail of free labour? Should European governments act to protect the working conditions of stagiaries and interns across the continent?
Waltter Roslin (FI)
ENVI
Despite the creation of a “Health for Growth” programme, the cost of health care continues to rise across Europe. How can the EU assist Member States efforts to ensure that all citizens have fair and equal access to health care, irrespective of their socio-economic background?
Laure Steinville (FR)
LIBE I
Following the adoption of the Dublin III regulations, and with the growing number of civil conflicts across the globe, how should the EU respond to the refugee crisis so that all asylum seekers are treated fairly and humanely while simultaneously ensuring that all Member States can cope with the challenges posed by having a higher number of migrants within their borders?
Alastair Payne (UK)
LIBE II
“We have learned that the times of mass surveillance are not relegated to the past” (Commissioner Reding, 2014). As EU citizens share more personal data online than ever before, what provisions should be made in the EU’s proposed ‘Data Protection Compact’ to safeguard the digital rights of all Europeans?
Manfredi Danielis (IT)
LIBE III
Free movement or annual quotas? Following on from the vote of the Swiss electorate to place restrictions on the free entry of EU citizens, what should the stance of the EU be towards member and associated states with restrictive immigration policies?
Topic Overviews Introduction and explanation
AFCO
On 18th September, 2014, the Scottish people will make a historical decision-- whether or not they will remain a part of the United Kingdom, or become a new, independent and sovereign state. In Catalonia, Spain’s most prosperous and industrialized region, the same demand has been put forward multiple times, yet the government in Madrid keeps denying its legality. If handled incorrectly, the tension these secessionist movements create could be a spark that, fuelled with Spanish discontent of their current government, causes the dismemberment of Spain as a country. Also seeing as Catalonia isn’t the only region within the EU seeking independence and the Spanish not the only people unhappy with their government, the same situation may repeat itself, multiple times, leaving us with a fragmented Europe and a whole new set of challenges for the continent. What prompts these regions to seek independence? What’s their gain once their goal is achieved?
Main Conflict You may ask: “Ok, so there’s a problem, solve it, where’s the conflict?” Well, as a supranational organisation, the most pressing question the EU should ask itself is not: “Should we support/condemn these secessionist movements?” seeing as they lack the legal competence to command individual Member States. The question they should be asking is: “How should we deal with the issue of EU Membership for these breakaway states?” European Commission President Barroso has made it clear that if a region becomes independent it has to apply for EU membership according to EU law. When discussing the issue of Catalonia back in 2013, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy echoed his statement. However, there is no precedent or clear legal basis provided on how these types of “internal enlargement”[1] can take place within the EU. We can, of course, consult Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), which deals with EU Membership. It clearly states that the admittance must have the unanimous consent of the Council after consulting both the Commission and the European Parliament. Countries must also abide by the 1993 Copenhagen Criteria[2]. The problem lies with the word “unanimous”; this gives the State from which the new nation has seceded the right to block the breakaway state’s entrance to the EU, creating significant political consequences. Also, the Scottish Gov-
ernment argues its legal basis for joining the EU is the ‘ordinary revision procedure’ (ORP) in Article 48 TEU. The ORP is the mechanism by which the Treaties can be amended and has never been used to expand the membership of the EU. Aside from the political dilemma, there is also the economic situation to consider. Since it is made clear a reapplication of the EU membership is needed for these breakaway states, this also includes the reapplication to the Schengen Area. This affects a lot of things such as import/export taxes, and free movement of trade goods, capital, and people. A sudden restriction to these areas could pose serious challenges to the economy of these newly independent states not to mention the loss of markets for the EU. This also brings into the consideration on the impact of the breakaway nations on the Mother State itself. In particular, it is possible to envisage a situation where the separation has a negative impact on the Mother State by, for example, taking away the most prosperous regions of the country. This will cause a loss of major industries, job market, which in turn will lead to mounting discontent of the population, thus severely damaging the stability of the Mother State. What should the EU’s take on the two Articles be? How can it be used to solve the current crisis? Should an independent region enjoy the same privileges it had while with the Mother State? How should the EU react to the new situation of the Mother State after region secession? [1] Internal Enlargement: When the EU is expanded by a newly independent region previously part of one of the Member States. [2] A set of political and economic criteria, along with the ability to adapt administrative structures and subscribe to the aims of the EU. An overview of Membership conditions can be found here.
Main Actors
Measures and solutions
The main actors of this problem, as stated before, are namely the Council, Commission and Parliament. The Council is made up of ministers from the Members States and is one of the legislative and executive insitutions of the EU. According to the TEU, they are the most crucial part of the reapplication process. It doesn’t matter if both the Commission and the Parliament agree; if even a single Council Member votes against the reapplication, the applicant state will not be admitted to the union. Second up is the Commission, which has the power to propose legislation and implement it once it has passed. Whilst also crucial to the process, the applicant state will only need a majority of Commissioners to vote in favour for the reapplication process to continue. Lastly, the Parliament, which is made up of 751 parliamentarians from across Europe and, to put it simply, does the voting. Like the Commission, also crucial but not as important as the Council, but the applicant state still needs its majority approval.
So are there measures already in place? Sadly, no. Something like this has never happened before, that’s why even with the amendment of the TEU through the Lisbon Treaty, things still remain extremely vague, and solutions are scarce and undeveloped. A referendum such as the Scottish one is unprecedented in that it includes such a level of political and, to a certain extent, economic intricacies. This is what makes the topic a challenge; it not only reveals the flaws of the TEU, the foundation of the EU, but also brings major economic and political consequences into light. Any decision made regarding this topic shall and will become the framework of all successive independence movements within the EU, such as Catalonia, Flanders and Padania[1] and it is not one to be taken lightly. [1] Padania – alternative name for Po Valley, major plain in northern Italy.
Is there a way to avoid the “bias vetoes” from the Mother States?
Keywords Right to self-determination, EU Membership procedures, secession, opt-out, Schengen Area, Lisbon Treaty. Specific regional secession demands: Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, and Padania/Lega Nord and others.
Required Reading Regional Independence: Opening Pandora’s Box A Referendum on Independence Independent Scotland could get special EU deals, says Foreign Office Relationship between Independent Scotland and the EU Towards a plausible EU response to breakaway regions The Independence of Catalonia: Jumping on a Bandwagon Would an Independent Catalonia remain in the EU
Introduction and explanation
AFET
June 28th 2007 marked the beginning of negotiations for a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, a process that will link the long-lasting, successful economic cooperation of the EU Member States to the fast growing India. In 2008, a joint statement was issued, explaining that “... as long-standing strategic partners, [we] are committed to working together with a balanced and result-oriented approach, bearing in mind each sides’ respective development priorities, based on common shared values, relating to democracy, rule of law, civil liberties, fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights. ” The shared values of rule of law and civil liberties are particularly pertinent issues in the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) region of northern India where any attempts to prevent that region splitting in to warring Hindu and Muslim fractions has failed. Since the independence of India in 1947, the state has been claimed by the Pakistani and Indian government as well as having strong movements in support of independence. Through no final agreement has been reached, Jammu and Kashmir are currently administered by the Indian Union. However beyond the geopolitical conflict, there is another crisis in J&K; that if the violation of basic civil rights by the Indian state (as well as concern over how Pakistan runs its territory in J&K); reports ranging from mass killings, forced disappearances, torture, rape and sexual abuse as well as political oppression and the denial of the freedom of speech are all cause for deep concern. Although a ceasefire border was established in 2003 and the provinces have received a greater degree of independence to accommodate the ethnic variations, civil rights[1] violations continue. In 2013 the death toll rose to 204 including 73 alleged militants, 82 armed forces and police personnel and 48 civilians. n is in . In gree [1] refer to non-political rights of persons regardless of his or her race, sex or religion
[2] link to the map on the right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir#mediaviewer/File:Kashmir_map.svg
d on shmir an mir regi The Kash administered Ka d Kashmir. re Pakistan dian administe ministered In ad is e ent s ar blue ge area er settlem The oran No final bord n the ee a. by Chin reached betw has been s. de three si
Main conflict(s) Over the past half a century, J&K has been designated as a “distressed area,” which provides the Indian military with extraordinary powers by means of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) of 1958. The act grants officers the right to open fire on individuals, arrest people or search a premises without a warrant and has led to hostage taking as well as seizure of or damage to property. Meanwhile the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front is, for example, fighting for the independence of the states and fundamentalist groups seek an Islamic state. Others within the region seek to join either Pakistan or India or for the region to between divided among its neighbours. As each party fights to win its battle, they disregard civil rights along the way. Currently the EU is faced with a conflict of interests: its moral obligation to represent, protect and foster civil rights versus the huge economic prospects of the partnership. If the EU were to take its role as ambassador for civil rights into consideration, it must develop a nuanced, delicate solution that respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. In order to fulfill its ethical responsibility the EU has put great emphasis on the reciprocal benefits of its partnership with India. The key element in this regard is sustainability, with specific regard to the social, environmental and political fields. Consequently the commissioned report of the India-EU High Level Technical Group analyses the impact of the agreement on India, utilising the current situation as the status-quo. The 2010 report overlooked the civil rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. On another occasion, the EU-Ambassador to India stated “We are not coming here with a particular mandate (to solve the issue). What is happening in this part of the country has to be solved by the people who are living in the region.” Controversially, the Common Security and Defence Policy of the EU aims for the resolution of conflicts and crises by civil and military means and seeks “to influence policies violating international law or human rights, or policies disrespectful of the rule of law or democratic principles, the EU has designed sanctions of a diplomatic or economic nature.” What justification does the Indian Union have for enforcing the AFSPA Act? If it were to be lifted, what be the consequences for the region? Would the EU be justified in requesting amendments to home affairs legislation in return for a trade deal? What should be the limits of the EU’s interference in the region?
Main Actors The Indian government seeks a greater partnership with the EU moving on from the 1994 Co-operation Agreement. As a measure to adequately deal with the ethical diversity it granted the states a greater share of independence in 1952 through Article 370 of the Indian constitution. It allows for different laws with regards to citizenship, ownership of property, and fundamental rights. In 1958 it established the AFSPA. The Pakistani government: administers sections of the region and claims the Muslim majority Kashmir Valley, which has long been claimed and is currently run by India, as part of its national territory. EU Commission will be the one taking points in negotiations for international agreements concerning trade, in some matters this will be done jointly with the Council of the European Union. European External Action Service (EEAS) will be responsible for anything that is not a part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU such as foreign policy and security and defense. Indian Armed Forces have, under the AFSPA the right to arrest, destroy the property of, harm or even kill anybody who is a potential threat to the security, so as to re-establish order. Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front is a large group of Muslim militants on either side of the border demanding independence for the regions. It is also active as a mediator in forums such as a breakaway of the Kashmir and Jammu National Conference, a political party in the Indian Union. However, many elections in the region since independence have not been free or fair. How can the different actors in the region be encouraged to respect civil and human rights at all times?
Measures & Solutions Economically the current relation between the EU and the Indian Union is still governed by the 1994 Co-operation Agreement. The cornerstones of this agreement are to enhance dialogue and partnership by means of trade and investment, understanding and strengthening technical, economic and cultural matters, increase the effectiveness of economic influence in India and developing the country. As with all agreements signed by the EU beginning in the early 1990’s, the preliminary article mentions that the respect for human rights and democratic principles should be the basis for this relationship. The European Parliament has explored the conflict in the mid 2000s, whereby they sent ad hoc delegations on visits to Kashmir from 8 to 11 December 2003 and from 20 to 24 June 2004. On May 24th 2007 the European Parliament presented a resolution on Kashmir, taking into consideration the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2005, the EU’s policy on the matter of 18 May 2006, as well as the reports of the ad hoc delegations. Thereby they urge for the EU, its Member States and the United Nations to mediate the situation, in addition to calling upon the Indian and Pakistani governments to tackle and resolve the civil and human rights violations. The agreement for which negotiations were initiated in 2007 has thus far tackled many different aspects including, but not limited to investment, product standards and working conditions. Individual member states have demanded a clause
on civil rights to parallel articles 2, 3(5) and 21(1) of the Treaty on the EU, which requires upholding and promoting human rights. The Commission demands a respectful exchange through regular human rights reports with recommendations for the EU-India human rights dialogue. The European Parliament shed particular light on the civil rights situation pertaining to the persecution of religious minorities and human rights activists as well as the situation in Kashmir. Such conditions in EU trade agreements are not uncommon, as there have been cases in which such has happened, for example in the EU-Georgia Association Agreement. However, the structure of such clauses is to be considered, as there have been cases of “implementation clauses”[1] or “non-excecution clauses”[2] How can the EU effectively protect the civil rights of the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir? What role does Territorial Integrity and National Sovereignty play in the approach taken? Can trade legitimately be used to impose values on the EU’s partners?
[1] derviving form the TEU Article 4 (3), it begins with: ‘[t]he Parties shall adopt any general or specific measures required for them to fulfil their obligations under this Agreement’ [2] provides for conditions that must be fulfilled, whereby priority must be given to measures that least disrupt the functioning of the agreementand and if such should fail, consequences will follow.
Conclusion Looking at the sheer volume of trade between the EU and India, it is hard to underestimate the importance of good relations between these two entities. However, the severe violations of basic civil rights in these areas are untolerable for an entity like the EU and it is therefore that several Member States have called for the comprehensive Free Trade Agreement to include human rights provisions. The question, however remains if this is enough and if not, what additional measures the EU can take to address atrocities in Jammu and Kashmir without acting in a paternalistic manner and maintain the ties with India.
Key Terms India-EU High Level Technical Group Indian Armed Forces Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front and Jammu & Kashmir National Congress Partnership for prosperity
Required Reading EU-Indian Joint Statement (2010) EU and Indian Trade Human Rights Watch Report on India 2014 EU Parliament Resolution of 2007 on Kashmir Types of Human Rights Clause Pages 5-9 1994 Co-operation Agreement
Introduction and Explanation
DEVE
The term Multinational corporations (MNCs) describes organisations that have their headquarters in one country but are active in the distribution and production of their products on an international level. MNC have always and still do play a vital role in the globalisation of trade. The foundation of the first MNCs, the British and Dutch East India Company, can be dated back to the beginning of the seventeenth century, During the Belle Époque, which brought forth an immensity of technological and scientific discoveries, trade was mostly restricted to the exchanging of final products. However, nowadays we are experiencing a second wave of trade globalisation, where the production process is divided up across a variety of different countries. In 2006, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), meaning the direct investment of resources into production in a country by a foreign company, was worth around 25% of the world’s GDP. Firms such as Nike, Nestle, Coca-Cola and Microsoft expand abroad to gain market share. However, such firms also expand abroad to less developed regions in order to profit from cheaper resources and labour. While some studies suggest that MNCs generally do offer slightly higher wages to third world labourers[1], there are many incidences to suggest that working conditions of labourers employed by MNCS in the developing world have failed to improve and in many case have become much worse. Incidents such as the Savar Building Collapse in Bangladesh in 2013 showed that the safety of production facilities is often neglected. The products that are brought to the European Internal Market are most often not produced under the employment standards of European countries. Unsafe facilities, child labour, insufficient pay and extreme working hours are only a few examples of the conditions that people in developing countries have to endure. Are MNCs really likely to bring in more jobs, better pay, better conditions and better practices to host destinations or do they hold back developing countries, with little hope for progress? What can Europe do to ensure that MNCs regularly control the safety of the places their employees work? [1] Foreign direct investement (FDI) increased average wages in Indonesia by 18% (source 1)
Key Terms Foreign direct investment, Millennium Development Goals, the OECD, European Labour Law, the WTO
Main Conflict EU Member States are subjected to their own employment policies as well as to the EU labour law. This law covers two main areas: working conditions and informing and consulting employees. As MNCs are active in many different countries it is often not clear under which law they are to be held accountable for their actions. Furthermore, the less developed countries, which host the majority of MNC production facilities and employees, often do not have sufficient labour protection policies. Lack of proper employment standards allows MNCs to produce their goods at a very low cost and to then sell them for at a considerable margin. As stated above, having foreign investment is often key to a country’s economy. However, as the host country and the MNC each control assets useful to the other, conflicts are inevitable. Negotiations between these two parties depend on who is more dependent on the other’s assets. Furthermore, many national governments and the EU have committed themselves to long-term goals such as the Millennium Development Goals, those often contradict their interests when negotiating with large investors such as MNCs. Imposing European standard labour regulations brings the risk of driving away MNCs. Thus many developing countries find themselves in a conflict between their dependency on FDI and their commitment to enforcing basic human rights on an international level. Considering the consequences that the imposition of more stringent labour regulations could have on the economy of the developing world, Europe finds itself in a difficult situation. To which extent is Europe or the international community responsible for bettering working conditions in third world countries? Which stance should Europe take in setting the standards of production of items sold within the European market? Market or development oriented? Or can the two be combined?
Required Reading Interview with the Initiator of the Bangladesh Accord Accountability of MNCs (chapters 1 &3) MNCs investing in developing countries Resolution of the EP encouraging European companies to enforce standard labour laws in developing countries
Main Actors When speaking of main actors one can identify three levels. First, there are the individual national governments and their respective policies. Secondly, there is the European Union. The EU’s internal market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services and people within the 28 Member States. The members of the European Economic Area can equally participate in this market without becoming a member. The participants in the internal market must, however, also conform to general EU standards, which also include employment policies. Following the Bangladesh Building Collapse in 2013 the European Parliament (EP) issued a resolution encouraging production facilities in Bangladesh as well as globally to enforce labour conditions according to the standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Furthermore the EP published a Resolution on EU Standards for European Enterprises Operating in Developing Countries in which it states that basic labour law is not to be neglected in order to gain more profit. Thirdly, one must take general international interest in the topic into consideration. The United Nations is highly dedicated to improving working conditions for all. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development is the responsible body in dealing with international development in respect to international trade. They encourage intergovernmental dialogue on the topic and offer direct assistance to developing countries in building up capacities necessary to be equally integrated in global economy. The International Labour Organisation (the ILO is an agency of the United Nations that is responsible for coordinating international labour regulations. Members of the ILO are free to adopt their conventions and to include them in national legislation. In 2006 the ILO issued the MNE Declaration which contains a series of principles concerning employment, conditions of work and trainings. Currently, there is no such thing as a general international labour law that applies to all countries. However, many countries have committed themselves to following certain standards set by organisations such as the ILO. How could European Institutions ensure that the products imported to the common market have been produced in a safe environment?
Measures and Solutions The OECD not only provides a platform for the dialogue between governments to discuss the aim of improving their social and economic situation but has also issued Guidelines for Multinational Corporations. The document makes non-binding suggestions concerning the improvement of labour issues. Institutions such as the European Union aim to improve working conditions in developing countries specifically by bringing information and know-how to these countries, non-governmental and governmental programs aim to inform citizens of their rights. Doing this, they aim to strengthen employment policies and to improve the social protection systems. The EU has taken many measures towards sustainable development of labour markets around the world. On a global level it works closely with influential organisations such as the ILO. Taking a more active role the EU has also included labour standards in most of its bilateral trade agreements. Once the incorporation of international labour standards has been assured in an agreement the EU regularly meets with those partner countries in order to ensure the adherence to those agreements. Finally, the EU has developed the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GPS). The GPS was introduced in order to facilitate the access to the European market for developing countries. It offers highly reduced tariffs on certain product categories. Countries that actively implement human and labour rights are rewarded with better tariffs. One measure taken under the GPS is the “Everything but Arms� agreement. An initiative launched that allows all Least Developed Countries (LDCs) duty-free and quota-free access to the internal market for their exports excluding the export of arms. In a last aspect one should mention the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety. Although it has specific targets, this accord is worth mentioning as a groundbreaking agreement in the area of improving working conditions in developing countries. 172 companies, mostly MNCs, have signed the agreement, thereby legally binding themselves to assuring employees in Bangladesh safe working conditions. Key actors in creating the accord were the IndustriALL Global Union and the UNI Global Union; unions representing the international working force. Unions such as these challenge MNCs and negotiate with them on a global scale, making constant progress in the area of increasing labour standards in developing countries. Their outreach and connections makes them an interesting component in applying labour regulations to MNCs. Regarding the measures in place what can be done on a political and non-political level to further encourage the development of labour standards all over the world? In conclusion, guidelines such as those from the ILO determine the basic working conditions every person should have access to. The European community has managed to mostly establish these standards. However, the guidelines set by such organisations have no obligatory power. The European Union has managed to incorporate the sustainable development of working conditions in developing countries into its ideology. It aims to allow developing countries to improve their own labour markets through on the one hand exchanging know-how and on the other by introducing measures concerning its own market access that encourage developing countries to improve their conditions. When speaking of bilateral agreements and international labour standards MNCs have the potential to act as an intermediary between the developing world and developed countries as they are equally involved in both parties. They have, however, so far mostly exploited this position rather than using it in order to further the positive development of labour conditions in less developed countries. The question thus remains as to how far Europe should react to the current situation. MNCs continue to spread their production across less regulated labour markets around the world. Should Europe act to ensure that products bought and sold within the common market are produced safely and ethically? How could Europe introduce legislation around MNCs so that they aid in improving the working conditions in developing countries? What can the EU itself do more in bettering labour conditions around the world?
DROI
Introduction and explanation
The term Roma is used to encompass ethnic minorities with more or less similar cultural characteristics, such as Gypsies, Sinti, Travellers, Kalé, Dom, Lom and Ashkali[1]. A prominent feature of their culture, the Roma language, is used and understood by a large number of Roma in Europe. Contrary to common belief of being nomadic, around 80-85% of Roma in Europe are estimated to be sedentary[1]. 10-12 million Roma–the majority of Roma in the world- live in Europe; Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia have the highest shares of Roma populations[2]. Despite being Europe’s largest minority, Roma still occupy a marginal position in society, politics and national economies. In Eastern Europe, at least 71% of Roma households live in deep poverty, while Roma communities in several EU countries are rendered homeless by forced evictions. Evicted groups and individuals are rarely given alternative housing options; they are sometimes relocated in remote areas, where they are left to live in questionable living conditions. Roma are also not treated equally when it comes to education; Roma pupils often attend segregated Roma-only schools and classes or institutions for students with “mild mental disability”, where they are taught a reduced curriculum. The rates of illiteracy and educational attainment amongst Roma are also alarming, with only 42% of Roma children completing primary school[3]. In addition to difficulties in practical aspects of their lives, the cultural and social inclusion of Roma has proven to be a struggle. Europe has yet to find an effective way to embrace the distinct cultural identity of the Roma. The specific form of racism against Roma is called “anti-gypsyism” or “Romaphobia”, whilst violence against minorities has increased in light of the rise in the power and influence of the far-right. On a political level, the lack of considerable Roma representation in decision-making processes hinders their demands for equal treatment with regular citizens. In the recent elections for the European Parliament, only two Roma were elected[4], a number highly disproportional to the EU’s Roma population. How should Europe combat discrimination against the Roma and “Romaphobia”? How can Roma be successfully included in the social, cultural, economic and political life of Europe? [1] For a comprehensive overview of the identity and differences between these groups and definitions of other key terms related to Roma issues, see the Descriptive Glossary of terms related to Roma issues by the Council of Europe. [2] 535.000 Roma are present in Romania, 370.000 in Bulgaria, 205.000 in Hungary and 89.000 in Slovakia. Roma are also present in the Czech Republic and Greece (source: euractiv. com). [3] Based on the International Comparative Data Set on Roma Education (2008) by the Open Society Institute, a survey conducted in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia. [4] Soraya Post from Sweden and Damian Drăghici from Romania.
Main Conflicts
Main Actors
In light of the fact that the unique lifestyle of the Roma community diverges from the social and cultural norm in Europe, their inclusion in society becomes a key challenge with two different models under consideration; assimilation describes the process of absorption of minority cultures into one homogenous dominant culture, while integration opts for the equal participation of different cultures and lifestyles in society and embraces cultural pluralism and diversity. At the same time, the current European approach on Roma inclusion has been largely based on national responsibility and initiative, while guidelines, priorities or progress indicators are usually set on an international (EU or European) level. The apparent failure to integrate Roma so far has been partly attributed to the lack of commitment from European countries, thus the possible need for legally binding measures on a supranational level arises. On the other hand, European countries prefer a flexible approach according to each country’s specific needs and the particularities of the Roma population within its borders .
Roma Community: The Roma are evidently the concerned party when it comes to their integration. With Roma inclusion seen as a two-way process that requires their willingness and effort, Roma share a significant responsibility for their own empowerment. Council of Europe: A human rights organisation with 47 member states, which monitors the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and can bring cases of violation before the European Court of Justice. The Council works in order to combat violence, discrimination and prejudice against Roma. European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC): An international organisation which seeks to fight against anti-Roma racism and undertakes human rights education and research work. The ERRC also protects Roma interests by launching collective complaints under the European Social Charter . The movement for Roma rights, as part of the human rights movement, falls under the work area of many non-governmental organisations. In particular, Amnesty International strives to put pressure on governments to stop Roma rights abuses and publishes annual human rights protection reports that evaluate the status of human rights protection and abuse internationally. EU Member States: Member States share a joint responsibility for social inclusion and integration of the Roma with the EU. Each Member State is responsible for deciding its own Roma policy and preparing a National Roma Integration Strategy. Roma populations can be found at a higher density in some
Should Roma integration be a process stemming from the Roma community itself? Should Roma integration be based on country-specific measures or should Europe develop a common and binding framework of specific goals and measures? Should Europe aim for the integration or assimilation of Roma in society?
Member States, requiring a more active approach and intense effort from their part. European Commission: The Commission monitors and evaluates the progress made by Member States with regards to Roma inclusion under the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies and issues country-specific Recommendations . How can the different actors coordinate their efforts for Roma inclusion? How can different policy and action areas be divided amongst these key actors?
Looking towards future measures for the inclusion of the Roma community in society, politics and economy, the EU or the Council of Europe could choose to endorse all proposed measures and further recommend their inclusion in National Roma Integration Strategies, or opt for a more persuasive approach by adopting them as legally binding. What are the alternative options concerning measures against Roma exclusion? Is Europe lacking on a framework and policy concerning Roma issues or on proper implementation of the already existing laws and policies? Are the existing measures sufficient to tackle the issue and what more needs to be done?
Measures and Solutions
[1] Article 21, Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union: “Any discrimination
Examining the legal framework already in existence, the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities accords collective rights to minority groups such as the Roma, however, it is not legally binding for UN members. On an EU level, the Racial Equality Directive has been adopted in order to give effect to the principles of non-discrimination[1] and equal treatment. Lastly, all European countries have adopted anti-discrimination legislation that focuses on preventing and combating discrimination, racism and violence. The European Commission has linked Roma integration with the achievement of its 2020 Growth Strategy and thus adopted an EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies, focusing on closing the gap in access to the four key areas of education, employment, healthcare and housing. All Member States were invited to present their National Roma Inclusion Strategies, which are evaluated through an annual report and assessment of progress by the European Commission. In addition, the Council of the EU adopted the first ever EU legal instrument on Roma, a Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States, identifying specific measures to be adopted. At the same time, the Council of Europe undertakes joint projects with the European Commission, namely the ROMACT and the ROMED. As coordination and exchange of know-how and good practices is important for applying effective policies on Roma integration, the Council of Europe has set up an Alliance of Cities and Regions on Roma Inclusion. In parallel, the network of National Roma Contact Points supports EU Member States in the co-ordination, coherency and consistency of their efforts. The European Roma Summits organised by the European Commission bring together all relevant stakeholders and give them the chance to critically analyse Roma issues. Furthermore, Amnesty International has been pressuring the European Commission to take stronger action against states that fail to comply with EU anti-discrimination law, by initiating a formal infringement proceeding against a country whose laws, policies or practices are contrary to EU law. A softer and informal procedure that can precede an infringement is the EU Pilot. An alternative policy response that targets the Roma community explicitly is the concept of positive action[2] which diverges from the principle of equal treatment and implicates measures that preferentially support the Roma community, so as to compensate for their disadvantages and achieve their equality with regular citizens in practice.
property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited�.
based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, [2] cf. also Execturive Summary (pages 8-10)
Conclusion It is high time for Europe to make a choice; are Roma full partners in society or a problem to be solved? Consequently, should the Roma culture be integrated or assimilated into the European one? On the struggle against Romaphobia and marginalisation, the EU and Council of Europe are asking for clear and consistent commitments from European countries; the issue of Roma inclusion arises as a European one, while European countries prefer to maintain national initiative for relevant measures. Should Europe adopt a unified approach towards the Roma community and what should that approach be? What are the benefits and challenges of Roma inclusion? How should Europe react to the slow progress with regards to efforts for Roma inclusion?
Key Terms Roma, social integration, racial discrimination, ethnic minorities, minority rights, Romaphobia
Required reading Amnesty International-Human rights here, Roma rights now World Bank on the Roma community National Roma Integration Strategies; overview and critiques Roma inclusion in the next European Parliament and Commission Inclusion of Roma in decision-making
Introduction and explanation
ECON
The sovereign debt crisis came about due to worries about the ability of certain European governments to rescue their troubled banks and to repay their debts, as well as concerns about their large budget deficits, leaving financial institutions less willing to lend to them . The EU’s response, through actions such as the strengthening of the Stability and Growth Pact and the agreement of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG or ‘Fiscal Compact’), has focused on getting Member States to reduce their budget deficits in both the short and medium term . EU policy has thus focused on bringing government expenditure closer to revenue through ‘fiscal discipline’, more widely referred to as ‘austerity’. Austerity measures can be defined as official actions taken by a government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts and tax increases . Strict austerity programmes were a condition of the bailouts of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Cyprus, whilst other countries including Spain, Italy and France undertook austerity measures to reduce their own deficit and debt levels in line with EU policy. However such measures inevitably affect people negatively at a time when economic conditions have already had an unwelcome impact on their lives. The paper entitled “Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis”, published by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in November 2013, concluded that the new political reality of austerity threatened over six decades of social solidarity and human rights protection in Europe.
Main Conflict There is a conflict between policies that the EU considers necessary to ensure economic recovery and the significant impact these policies have on civil rights. Those who support the austerity approach argue that there can be no real recovery unless nations get their public finances in order. They say that a state simply can’t spend its way out of a recession and if it were to, structural problems would remain and Member States would ultimately fall back into the same situation. However, given the findings of the Council of Europe’s report, many of the measures this policy fosters conflict with the civil rights of European citizens. According to the report, human rights protected under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, such as the right to food and the right to education, have been adversely affected by austerity measures. It notes that civil rights were also violated through the manner in which many governments have speedily drawn up austerity policies, side-stepping regular channels of participation and social dialogues on the pretext of a national financial emergency. What justification do advocates offer for austerity? How does the EU’s focus on the economic rules in its treaties impact on the civil rights of citizens?
Main Actors
Ultimately the choice and implementation of austerity policies is made by national governments. They decide what to cut and which taxes to increase. However, the four EU counWhat is austerity? Why has the EU employed it in tackling the tries that were ‘bailed out’ are an exception, as the bailout sovereign debt crisis? How does it affect civil rights? funds were conditional on the countries implementing certain austerity measures. The ‘Troika’, consisting of the European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), has a powerful role in monitoring and ensuring implementation of the agreed bailout programmes by each of the national governments (Portugal and Ireland have exited their programmes in the last year) . However the EU is involved in a higher sense. EU level decisions and interpretation of treaties have set the ‘austerity agenda’ in Europe, which member states have followed. The European Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the EU’s fiscal rules. It has significant power to determine what methods member states may use to reach the deficit and debt limits in the treaties and the time period over which they must do so. The European Council holds significant power over EU economic policy. Major changes to the EU’s economic policies are agreed by Heads of Government in the Council, or by finance ministers in the Council of the European Union. Therefore they tend to decide on proposals for greater flexibility in how member states reach the debt limits. In terms of human rights, EU institutions and national governments are expected to protect human rights in the policies they implement. Arguably, in responding to the crisis, this has not always been the case. Whilst courts at national and EU level act as checks on rights abuses, given the findings of the Council of Europe’s report, they are often powerless to prevent most of the austerity measures which the report criticises. This is because of the difficulties in defining whether an austerity measure itself leads to a violation. For example does cutting spending on education directly prevent certain individuals from accessing education, or simply reduce the quality of education? What institutions have the ability to allow for greater flexibility in reaching debt targets? What institutions are responsible for protecting the rights of citizens?
Measures and Solutions The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) was introduced as part of the Maastrict Treaty as a precondition for monetary union and it sets out the limits for national debt (no greater than 60% of GDP) and the annual national budget deficit (which can be no greater than 3%). It has a preventative arm which allows the European Commission and Council of the European Union to monitor Member States and issue recommendations. There is also a corrective arm that takes effect when levels are breached, resulting in increased surveillance, warnings and the possibility of economic sanctions. New reforms (2005 Euro Plus Pact, 2011 Six Pack and 2013 Two Pack) have been added to the SGP to deal with specific issues that arose during the crisis. The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG), commonly known as the ‘Fiscal Compact’, was introduced in March 2012 as a new, stricter version of the SGP that binds states to introducing their own self-correcting mechanism that will ensure the country will automatically remain within the SGP limits. It was ratified by all Member States at the time, except the UK and Czech Republic. There are a variety of different approaches the EU could take to respond to the crisis, with some having a greater impact on civil rights than others. Some member states, such as Germany, argue that the EU should continue with austerity through the treaty framework in place. For them, austerity is a necessary evil to tackle root structural problems in the economy and also to give investors and consumers the confidence to invest in the economy once they see that the state is serious about dealing with its debt. Others have argued for stimulus spending, or for other market reforms to encourage growth, for example greater labour mobility or more training. Their support of stimulus spending rests on the premise that while debt will rise initially to finance such action, a state will come to fall within the EU’s debt levels in the medium-term, because GDP will grow, thereby increasing the amount of permitted debt a state may have. Therefore a state would not need to cut services or change taxation levels. There has been much debate around Eurobonds; government debt issued in Euros jointly by the 18 Eurozone member states. This would allow indebted states to borrow funds at a lower interest rate than if they issued their bonds individually. This proposal is however highly controversial, with stronger economies worried about moral hazard. However the lower borrow-
Required Reading “Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Economic Crisis” report by the Council of Europe, in particular pages 39-50 Stability and Growth Pact info from the European Commission (focus on Corrective Arm) Arguments for and against austerity Greece Pros and Cons: Bailout & Austerity or Default Inflation and Economic Recovery The Guardian’s Guide to Eurobonds Fiscal Union Explained Greek Debt Crisis: Lessons in Hindsight by the Guardian
ing costs offered to indebted member states by such a move, would allow countries to adopt a more flexible, less pressured and long-term readjustment of their budgets, which impacts less on a state’s social fabric. Historically, many indebted states have increased inflation rates to escape debt crises. Since debt is set in nominal terms, higher inflation erodes its real value. However the social cost of such action can be quite severe. There is a particular fear of this approach among many European nations, who fear it could easily lead to hyperinflation and the devastating consequences it had for Europe in the 1930s, as well as the fact that it has a greater impact on poorer sections of society and erodes the value of pensions and savings. There have been calls for the restructuring of the debt of indebted member states, or even outright default. This refers to the process that allows a state to reduce or renegotiate its debts in order to improve or restore liquidity. A notable example of debt restructuring is mass “haircuts”, which involves a significant markdown or trimming on what debtor banks and others had been promised in terms of interest on outstanding debt of that state. This would reduce a countries debt, thereby reducing the size of the adjustment that state needs to make to reach EU debt limits, though it may make borrowing more expensive in the future for those countries since investors will see the debt as being a riskier investment than before. For others the only long-term solution to the problem is fiscal union, which would involve the integration of the fiscal policy of member states. Instead of individual national budgets, member states would share a common central European budget. Therefore spending and tax level decisions would be taken at a European level. Fiscal union would also entail common Eurobonds to replace national bonds. Should the EU adjust its economic policy in response to the report? What changes to policy would ensure better protection of civil rights?
Conclusion The committee is asked to resolve how the EU can protect civil rights in these difficult times, while also implementing policies necessary for economic recovery. Therefor it must analyse the different policy alternatives the EU could implement, whilst bearing in mind their impact on civil rights, whilst simultaneously evaluating their efficacy in ensuring economic recovery. How should the EU balance its treaties’ fiscal rules with the civil rights of its citizens? What changes are needed to economic policy to achieve this? Is austerity as a whole the problem, or is austerity a necessary evil, which citizens must endure from a long-term perspective?
Key Terms Budget Deficit, Debt, Austerity, Stability and Growth Pact, Civil Rights, EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Introduction and explanation
EMPL
Society calls today’s youth employment strategies a culture of internships. It has become common place for businesses to require previous experience in a field, even for entry level jobs. Even if the sought after position does not require an internship, employers can test if the person is well suited for the company by offering a traineeship first without being bound by long lasting contracts. An ongoing debate has arisen over internship exploitation. It is argued that employers use stagiaries as cheap or free labour while work options not requiring an internship or not being an internship are kept to a minimum. On the other hand it is argued that interns cost more than they gain for the company and that relevant experience in their field of work is a necessity in order for a successful career to unfold. Are internships a necessity in modern times like these or has it simply been established as the norm? What are the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking an internship from the point-of-view of both the employer and the intern?
Main Conflict The Europe 2020 Strategy names increasing the access of young people to the labour market as one of its key goals. Most States however do not uphold the practice of defining internships through formalised contracts which means that they are not treated the same way as regular employees. Since legal-certainty is deemed highly important, these unregulated contracts result in a grey zone, which leaves much room in the areas of transparency and accountability. Considering the perspective of a trainee, one has to consider the delay to career progression and the affordability of actually undertaking an unpaid internship. After spending years in education, career development is further hindered by having to take on internships before being able to build up savings or reinvest in the economy. In addition, some young people might not be able to afford taking on an unpaid or low-paid internship as savings may have been used up before and families may be unable to support them. This leads to the exclusion of certain society groups from the job market. Furthermore, there is a concern that stagiaries may be used instead of full time employees, which is supported by the rising number of cases reporting an unhealthy workload put on interns. Often over-working is incentivised as a means to secure a possible future job.
In addition, the terms of internships are rarely clearly agreed upon in advance and are not monitored by a third party. The National Minimum Wage is required to be paid to interns who work regular hours in some states, making many unpaid traineeships illegal. However this is not a unified practice in addition to the fact that some countries tolerate the practice of not paying interns. From the point-of-view of the employer, it is argued that taking on trainees can be time-consuming and resource-demanding. In addition to paying out an additional salary, at least one of the regular employees needs to be put on “trainee-duty” in order to monitor and mentor the new labourer. Another argument is that internships prove an excellent opportunity to gain hands on experience, boosting one’s employability and thereby justifying the lower pay. Requiring employees to pay their interns may cause many to stop taking on interns and thus, with less work experience, it may be more difficult for young workers to find jobs in an already highly competitive labour market. What are the pros and cons of both sides of the argument? Where do we have to draw the line between limiting companies in their freedoms, and thus possibly hindering economic growth, and protecting the rights of employees-to-be?
Main Actors 1) European Social Partners: a) Trade Unions: On a European level trade unions (such as the European Trade Union Confederation) represent the working force, in this case the interns, when it comes to consultations about possible legislation. They argue for clear entitlements of social security and remuneration, contracts. b) Employer Organisations: Organisations such as BusinessEurope are consulted at the same time in order to provide the view of businesses as a whole. While accepting the fact that there may be quality concerns with some traineeships, they argue against EU action in this field due to the lack of competence and better handling on a regional or national level. 2) European Social Fund/Youth Guarantee: The European Social Fund is the biggest dispenser of public funding in this area. As part of the measures to counteract youth unemployment, the European Union is introducing a so called “Youth Guarantee”. In connection to the topic, it calls for an increase in traineeships for those out of education for 4 months. Even though it requires immense structural reforms in some countries, it is deemed to pay of significantly.
3) Erasmus+: this aims at facilitating vocational education and training abroad among other projects. As the programme is relatively new, it has not been dealt with by any of the existing stakeholders and is currently pursuing the increase in mobility and overall quality of traineeships. 4) EU Commissioner Laszlo Andor has been strongly advising the establishment of both the Youth Guarantee and the Quality Framework on Traineeships. What can be done when it comes to the contrasting arguments of the social partners? Is the Youth Guarantee all it takes to make repair the current internship culture? How can the ‘new’ Erasmus+ be included into the existing discussions?
Existing Measures The situation across Europe has become difficult to assess due to the lack of comprehensive data and comparable statistics. Member States have received Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) action agendas on youth employment issues as a part of the European Semester process. The agenda promotes the visibility of CSR and highlights the feasibility of increased training on the companies. The Commission intends to reward companies for good social measures (i.e. internships and trainings) with public recognition and thereby fostering (amongst other things) traineeships and the treatment of trainees. The European Commission (EC) has outlined the situation as of 2013 in a report called “Study on a comprehensive overview on traineeship arrangements in Member States”. Therein the lack or low compensation of work is brought out as one of the drawbacks of traineeships. It is argued though that there exist several funding opportunities, be it in EU funding, national or regional funds or university grants. Another point raised in the report is the absence of mandatory social security and health insurance as well as the companies being unconcerned with the well-being of their stagiaries. An initiative with the title “Towards a Quality Framework on Traineeships” was started in 2012 by the EC, which aims at the facilitation of education-to-work transitions and the promotion of mobility by increasing the quality of internships across the continent. As the EU only has a supporting competence when it comes to labour market policies, many of the suggested solutions can not be enforced by on a European level at the moment. Amongst other proposals were the calls for specific contracts for interns, limiting the duration of traineeships or adequate remuneration. Which of the existing measures lack implementation and which need alteration? What are other possible solutions that have not been mentioned yet?
Key Terms Unpaid internships, internship exploitation, learning mobility, Quality Framework for Traineeships
Conclusions Where does Switzerland stand in all of this? In the reading list below, you will find the decree on internships of the city of Bern. Would laws like these throughout the EU help stagiaries acquire their much needed skills or is it still lacking certain aspects? Are internships today more abusive than helpful for the trainees? To what extend should the working conditions of trainees still developing their skills be regulated? Who can and should to something to help resolve the issue and who can only sit and watch? How can the transition from education to employment be beneficial to both, the intern and the employer?
Required Reading Debating Europe on Traineeships Youth Guarantee summary Erasmus+ on vocational education and training CSR action agenda Summary on Quality Framework on Traineeships Decree of the city of Bern on internships (French or German only)
Introduction and Explanation
ENVI
Health is often regarded as a fundamental right. Enshrined in many treaties and articles, one of the most encompassing being article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights[1]. Not only being relevant to peoples wellbeing, the European healthcare sector accounts for over 10% of the Unions gross domestic product (GDP) making it one of the largest sources of employment within the EU. Thus it can be stated that healthcare plays not only a major part in our wellbeing, but also in our economy. Currently most Member States are combatting rising costs within the healthcare sector with no relief in sight. Rapidly increasing expenditures due to an aging population, rising social inequality, and the proliferation of new treatments through technological advancements stretch hospital queues and make affordable access to healthcare more difficult. Equal access to affordable healthcare should be one of the EU’s main goals, as enshrined by the European Commission in the preamble of the Health for Growth program. The program was devised to aid Member States in developing their health care sectors to combat the growing problems and also increase cooperation between Member States since currently there is hardly any interplay in the field of health care in Europe. However, in reality the program only initiates discussion without actually offering concrete measures to tackle the issues at stake. Implying that a platform for discussion would be fruitless is however a false implication. During the times when euro-scepticism is on the rise would further harmonisation possibly fuel even more debate on European integration? What is the reason behind the rising cost of health care? What are the true implications of the health for growth programme? What has been the role of the EU in national health care policies? What should its role be going forward [1] The right to health is the economic, social and cultural right to a universal minimum standard of health to which all individuals are entitled, stated partially in article 25 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
come or are they simply an expensive drain on an already stretched healthcare budget? The topic set out for the committee can be said to have two Why should/shouldn’t there be a joined EU health policy? Is there a main conflicts. Firstly there is the level of integration. To what cause for further European integration or should the sovereignty of extent is it viable for the EU to influence its Member States in the Member States be upheld? Which measures would be appropricreating an integrated health policy, something which does not ate and feasible for the Union to take? What aspects of healthcare yet exist? Should the Union strive for further integration or leave could the EU justifiably take competency for and what should be the the matter more for the Member States. Especially now when preserve of the Member States? euro-scepticism is rising and the recent European parliamentary elections, the desire for further integration is not at its highest, and could in a worse case scenario merely turn into a Main Actors debate on the nature of the Union, without giving answers to the problems healthcare sectors are now facing. Furthermore, One of the most fundamental actors is the European CommisMember States all have vastly different healthcare systems. For sion, as they may see healthcare both as a right that should instance the Netherlands requires all citizens to have private be upheld, but also through which further European integrahealth insurance (not abiding to the rule will result in a recurring tion could possibly be achieved. As the Commission has the fine) whilst in Finland health insurances are fully optional as the legal power of initiating EU legislation they play a central role in government, through taxation, offers a free healthcare plan. the future of the Union’s healthcare policy. The Commission is Could these differences be reconciled in a common policy? followed by both the Parliament and the Council, both which Second is the appropriate and feasible measures which could have to agree to the proposal for it to be final. The Parliabe taken to enable Member States cope with the rising cost of ment with its committee on Environment, Public Health and providing their citizens with access to health care. Should there Food safety acts with the intention of improving the European be an emphasis on private practises as they do take part of the situation and often suggests differing ideas for the commission burden of the public healthcare sector? Would this further into bring forth. Lastly the Council represents the interest of the crease the gap in inequality of access to healthcare? Shouldn’t Member States in the process, ensuring that all is taken into those who are financially unfortunate be treated the same than account. those who are fortunate, or does such a system create further As health is tied to many aspects of life, also many individuals problems if all are treated equal? Or should free healthcare be carry interest on its behalf. With good health a better quality of made accessible for only those that cannot afford it? life is more likely to occur. Pharmaceutical companies play a Third what about companies that deal with health care, many large role in regulating the overall cost of health care, but also might question the morality of pharmaceutical companies play part in its development, as they are big lobbyist both withmaking money with expensive drugs. However, they do employ in the member states and on the European level. The World vast amounts of Union citizens, whose occupations might be Health Organisation (WHO), plays a large part in the worldwide threatened if the price of drugs is lowered. What other cost development of universal healthcare, and oversees the proreductions could the EU and Member States seek to find in cess. As such the WHO serves as a platform for cooperation order to make health care more affordable? For example; do and discussion. Concretely this means that in the EU decision public health campaigns reduce the incidence of ill-health and making process WHO can be granted an expert position, thus relieve the pressures on the health system in years to
Main Conflicts
enabling it to give guidance and ensure that no mistakes are made in technicalities. Other NGO’s for instance is the EMA (European Medicine Agency), which is similar to the WHO in that it offers its expertise during the union’s legislative process. How could the EU ensure that most directly interested actors are taken into account? Do pharmaceutical companies play too large of a role in the development of health care, if so how should this be dealt with? Should citizens take more personal responsibility for their health by making healthier daily choices?
Measures and Solutions The appropriate measures and solutions is dependant on the stand the committee wishes to take on integration. Should the committee wish to deepen the bonds between the Member States there are few current measures available for further usage. For coordinating healthcare the Health for Growth program offers a starting point from which to expand. The EU Health Insurance Card provides individuals free access to any national health system which is not their own, however it could also be developed further and into a more efficient cross-border treatment. As there is no extensive cooperation yet in place the current measures are also fairly lacking. For solutions the committee is left with far reaching possibilities. Either creating a far more unified European healthcare policy through joint research initiatives, shared medical records, shared pharmaceutical purchases within the Union[1]. The Union can also initiate far less harmonizing measures such as investment projects into the infrastructure of poorer Member States or provide a platform for communication and development. As most European systems now rely more on the public sector for health care, to even the balance the common market could be enlarged to enable cross-border private healthcare insurance providers, to enable further competition on a market which currently is seen as unnecessary in many of the Member States. This could breed new life into the health private insurance market and help relief some of the pressure from the public sector[2]. Are there any existing internal solutions that could benefit other member states as well? Is introducing a new framework of health care too burdensome to the differing healthcare systems of the EU? As there has not been any previous need for legislation on the area of health care why is now the time to act? [1] Meaning that individuals could purchase their drugs from all member states with a prescription from any of the member states [2] Currently health insurances are mainly country based, thus there is no multi-national insurance packages available for citizens of the Union.
Key Terms Equality, Health for Growth, Public and Private, Accessibility, Social inequality
Conclusion The question on how to ensure that all citizens have fair and equal access to health care is not an easy one to answer. It requires knowledge on the flaws of the current systems and the skills to envision a solution that would suit the whole of EU. As the general population keeps on aging the burden on the health care sector increase and solutions are needed to ensure that the ones needing treatment will be able to receive it in the future. Without forgetting that the health sector employs 1 in 10 EU citizens and due its high impact on the lives of many, it is vital that European Health care systems are advance enough to deal with the modern issues it faces. Is it sufficient that the Union takes more of a supportive stance and lets the member states to primarily take care of themselves? Or should the Union guide its members to a more unified plan irrespective of the different health care systems the member states practise. Should the economic value of the health care sector play a crucial role in the solution? What is the role of private health care in all of this?
Required Reading Further into the causes of rising healthcare costs Brilliant overview on the current issues, definitely a must read Same publication as the previous link, with additional information and broader discussion on the topic A collective report from a commission hosted innovation forum EU commission pages for public health, good place to start researching Another report form an EU hosted innovation forum Great Overview on Public Health from the European Perspective
LIBE I
Introduction and Explanation
The practice of granting asylum to people fleeing persecution in foreign lands is one of the earliest hallmarks of civilization. References to it have been found in texts written 3,500 years ago, during the blossoming of the great early empires in the Middle East such as the Hittites, Babylonians, Assyrians and ancient Egyptians. The 1951 Refugee Convention states that a refugee is someone who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”. A refugee however should not be confused with an asylum seeker; an asylum seeker is someone who says that he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated. European states have a long tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted. The protection of fundamental rights is part of Europe’s core identity; thus the European Convention on Human Rights is a key European treaty, signed by all Council of Europe Member States. Over the last decade, the EU has adopted a number of important legislative measures aimed at harmonising the Member States’ differing asylum systems, such as the Dublin regulations. In 2013, the EU Member States committed themselves to creating a Common European Asylum System (CEAS). With this, all Member States should ensure a fair and humane treatment of asylum seekers, wherever they may arrive. However the reality is far from the vision laid out by the European treaties and agreements. Last October an event subsequently referred to by the media as ‘the Lampedusa tragedy’ occurred, when a boat transporting 280 African migrants sunk off the coast of Italy. The EU estimates that around 2,000 people die at sea every year while trying to reach the European continent. Furthermore, in 2011, the number of asylum applicants in the EU-27 surpassed the significant barrier of 300, 000. This figure rose to 330, 000 in 2012, an indirect result of the international context at this time (due to the Arab Spring and the Syrian and Sudanese civil wars amongst others). Since most of these conflicts continue to rage on, it is unlikely that this number will decrease in the near future. What measures does the CEAS include? Is it an efficient system? What problems do the Dublin III regulations attempt to solve? Are they successful?
Main Conflict Despite many directives and regulations aiming at a consistent EU-wide policy, such as the Dublin agreements, there are still significant inconsistencies between EU Member States in their approaches to granting asylum. The first possible divergence is due to the clause of sovereignty in the agreement, which states that every Member State has the right to examine an application themselves independently. Therefore the chances and rates of refugee recognition can be affected by each country’s own individual policy. The second inconsistency is the humanitarian aspect, mainly the issue of bringing together family members, and the reception conditions, such as available health care. Indeed, in some EU Member States, access to basic material support is so limited that many asylum-seekers end up sleeping on the streets. In addition, over time and especially in the last couple of years, multiple human rights organisations have criticised European detention centres for their treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. The process is said to be degrading; the UN Committee Against Torture, along with many NGOs, have criticised multiple European countries for their practices. On the other hand, it is not a secret that southern European countries receive many more asylum seekers than northern ones; and we know that in the current economic situation, northern states are general better off economically than southern ones. How should the burden best be shared? For instance, Greece has for a long time stood out due to its failure to implement asylum regulations, and it took a long time for EU institutions to act on the human rights situation of refugees and asylum seekers in the country. Furthermore many fear that by being too accommodating towards asylum
seekers, the EU will create an incentive for people who do not actually qualify for refugee status to attempt to enter the EU illegally under the guise of asylum – making it more difficult to look after those who do genuinely need the help of foreign governments. How do we ensure that Member States share this burden equally? Should the heavily criticised detention centres be used? Are the asylum seekers sufficiently informed about the process they are taking part in to take care of their own rights?
Main Actors The European Council (EC) is searching for more efficient ways to manage asylum flows at all stages of the process, calling for the development, in close cooperation with countries of origin and transit, of information campaigns on the possibilities for asylum, and for the prevention of all forms of human trafficking. Cooperation between Member States is essential to this process. Member States: Under the Dublin III regulations, the responsibility for looking after refugees still remains with the Member States, many of whom struggle with the sheer volume of applications made for asylum (such as Southern countries) while others consistently fail to provide a decent standard of living to those who are waiting for their application to be processed (such as Ireland). The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ensures the observance of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In instances where MS asylum policy is in breach of the the ECHR the ECtHR can rule against the MS in question, as happened in the case of M.S.S v Belgium and Greece. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) also becomes an
actor where there is a breach of EU legislation when it comes to the treatment of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers and refugees are often not visible in discussions of the asylum process; instead there are multiple NGOs who speak on their behalf. Can the EC finally come up with a real, unified solution to manage asylum flows, considering their different interests on the matter? Are NGOs really influential enough to improve refugees’ living conditions? Do the refugees actually have a voice in this debate?
Existing Measures and Solutions The Dublin III regulations, implemented in January 2014 as part of the CEAS, were brought in to update the previous Dublin II regulations that outlined which Member State is responsible for processing an asylum seeker. The Member State in which an asylum seeker first arrives is responsible for dealing with the application. Whilst a second Member State is able to voluntarily process an application, this does not often occur. Therefore under the regulations, an asylum seeker must be transferred to and detained in their country of entry
in order to process their application. The previous regulations were heavily criticised for impeding the rights of asylum seekers, breaking up families, failing to protect and care for unaccompanied children, putting Border States under extreme pressure and denying asylum seekers the opportunity to appeal against transfers. The new Dublin III regulations attempt to combat these issues; for example, an asylum seeker is no longer able to be transferred to another Member State if there is a risk that they will suffer from inhumane and degrading treatment. Dublin III also introduces a new surveillance system, to allow for easier detection of problems and prevent situations such as the 2010 breakdown in the Greek asylum system. However criticisms remain. Many say DR III fails to go far enough to guarantee a full and fair examination of asylum claims, to better ensure family reunification, and better protect the best interests of children and other vulnerable persons. Moreover, the EU still works from the presumption that protection standards are equally present and applied in all MS, a presumption which has clearly proved to be inaccurate. In addition, Article 33 does outline a “mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management” but the responsibility relies heavily with the Member State and no provisions are made as to how article 33 will be implemented in practice. The Reception Conditions Directive sets out the minimum conditions for the reception of asylum seekers, including housing, education and health. The Asylum Procedure Directive lays out minimum standards for asylum procedures, making an important contribution to international law, as this issue is not originally regulated by the 1951 Geneva Convention. The Qualification Directive introduces a form of subsidiary protection, complementing the 1951 Convention, to be granted to people facing risks or serious harm. The EU has also set up a European Refugee Fund to provide financial support to Member States to allow their asylum systems to work efficiently, though many argue that the funding made available to this fund is not sufficient. In 2013 a two day conference was held at the Council of Europe, ‘Immigration Detention in Europe: Establishing Common Concerns and Developing Minimum Standards’. Since then, attendees have put together a Draft Standards Framework for the Treatment of Immigration Detainees. This is not yet European legislation. Do the Dublin III agreements and other parts of the CEAS sufficiently protect the interests of the families, and furthermore vulnerable groups, such as children, victims of torture and elderly people? Should the EU proportionally allocate asylum seekers to Member States? Or should extra supports be made available to Member States under particular strain?
Conclusions
Required Reading
The Committee on Civil Liberties needs to address the problem of sharing the burden between the northern and the southern European states, keeping in mind the economic challenges of the countries and the basic needs of immigrants. Some think that the policies put into action are insufficient and don’t solve the problem of illegal immigration because they fail to address the real issue of why immigrants and refugees seek to come to Europe. Thus we must also ask ourselves whether asylum procedures alone are sufficient, or whether these issues can only be solved by first dealing with the source of asylum seekers: the conflicts abroad.
A brief explanation of the Common European Asylum System Summary of the Dublin III regulations Euronews reports on a meeting between EU ministers about sharing the asylum load after the ‘Lampedusa tragedy’ A NGO proposing alternatives to immigration detention An article of the Spiegel showing the asylum crisis and its contradictions, especially in Germany An article of Le Monde (that can be translated into English) explaining why the EU has to intervene abroad Critical Examination of the Dublin Regulation
Key Terms Asylum seeker, Dublin III regulation, Common European Asylum System (CEAS)
Introduction and Explanation
LIBE II
In 2013 the world learnt of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the PRISM programme operating in the United States of America. As the true scope of the surveillance being performed on both American and EU citizens was revealed, people around the world were scandalised by the extent to which they were being monitored. Almost all forms of electronic communications and data; phone calls, email, photographs, text messages, Facebook and Twitter use; can be intercepted for potential analysis and storage. Further revelations came about similar programmes being operated by the intelligence agencies and security services of European countries, making this a truly international problem. The monitoring of citizens by government agencies is a civil rights issue as it can give the state too much information about, and possibly control over, its citizens. This can lead to a number of problems, such as discrimination, manipulation, blackmail, selective enforcement of laws to target political or religious movements, and ultimately the potential to control which ideas can be freely expressed and which cannot. It comes at a time when exposure of personal data has reached an unprecedented level, and reflects how existing data protection legislation has failed to keep pace with rapid advances in technology. Our lifestyle has changed, and we have an almost irreversible conflation of the offline and the online. Consumer choice in this area is almost non-existent, as websites and applications offer a “take it or leave it” approach for users to either accept their privacy policy or not use the product. What data protection rights do EU citizens currently have, and which surveillance activities are actually legal?
Main Conflict The essential conflict in this issue is that of the rights of the individual versus the security of the state. Surveillance operations on citizens have historically been a necessary tool for law enforcement and the protection of life. Intelligence gathering may be deemed crucial in matters of international diplomacy and for the prevention of crime, especially terrorism, organised crime and child abuse. These measures come at the cost of the state having increased access to the personal information of citizens, including the content of messages and phone calls. There is also a wave of public sentiment, particularly since the USA’s Patriot Act[1], that too wide a set of secretive actions is justified by governments as being matters of national security. The problem for consumers is that services like Google, Facebook and Twitter are now irremovable components of modern life, and the convenience and leisure opportunities of Internet and mobile services and products leaves consumers with little choice but to accept the data protection risk involved. The EU’s Data Protection Package will make it clear that citizens own their data, but this has proven controversial as shamed and embattled public figures are already using a European Court of Justice ruling to have damaging news articles about them removed. Big Brother is watching you: at what point does normal national security become a police state? How can privacy rights be respected whilst protecting a society from dangerous elements? To what extent should people have control over data they have previously made public? Should the Internet be a permanent record of activity or not? [1] A USA law which granted a wide range of new powers to the state following the 9/11 terrorist attacks
Main Actors
Measures and Solutions
The European Commission is driving a reform of data protection policy, which needs to be agreed on by the Council of the European Union in co-decision with the European Parliament. The national governments of Member States are also key, as their officials compose the Council of the European Union and their intelligence agencies will be affected by legislation changes. Companies like Facebook and Google also have a huge stake in this issue, as they rely on processing the personal data of users for their revenue, although all businesses handling data would be impacted. Every EU Member State has a national data protection authority, and increased co-operation between these bodies could be a key component in the implementation of new data protection legislation. Co-operation will also be needed between the EU and the USA given the extent of the USA’s surveillance activities, with American snooping even extending to German chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone.
Data protection is generally dealt with at an EU level; data protection rights are a part of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, furthermore private data protection can be linked to free market issues, an area where the EU holds a competence. Data processing often involves multinationals and cross border transfer of data, which makes it difficult to deal with the problem just on a national level. The EU is drafting the Data Protection Package which will be a reform of its current data protection policy. The focus is on protecting the rights of the individual and upholding civil liberties, though there has been debate in recent weeks over some measures, such as the controversial “right to be forgotten”, which raises questions about what information should be kept available to the public. The main piece of proposed legislation is the General Data Protection Regulation, which aims to provide a single piece of legislation for all Member States with a single set of rules valid across the EU. It strengthens the rights of the individual, particularly in regards to consent for data collection, increased responsibility and accountability for data processors, and notification of data breaches. It also introduces fines for companies breaking the law of up to 5% of their global turnover. It is expected to be adopted in 2014 and enforced from 2016. It will replace the Data Protection Directive which was adopted in 1995.
How can a fair agreement be negotiated between the EU and the USA, and how could its terms be reliably enforced? How will domestic political situations in Member States impact the direction of new data protection legislation?
The EU and the USA are currently engaged in talks negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which covers a range of economic measures, but also includes some Internet and privacy concerns. The EU and the US have also been negotiating an international framework known as the Data Protection Umbrella Agreement which would serve to complement other agreements between the US and the EU, and aims to provide a series of guarantees and safeguards for international data processing. What impact will increased legislation have on businesses, governments and individuals? What incentive is there for USA to work together with the EU on data protection? Why does it matter?
Conclusions
Required Reading
Conclusion The decisions made in the next few years about individual rights, mass surveillance and the use of the Internet may shape international politics and everyday life for the rest of the century. Now firmly rooted in the Age of the Internet, where almost everything we take for granted was unimaginable 20 years ago, we find ourselves with legislation and international agreements written for a bygone era, and now unable to adequately protect citizens from each other or the state. With new technology comes the potential for the nearly unlimited access to information and freedom of expression we now all enjoy, but also the danger of fascism and police states on an unprecedented scale, and with the citizens as willing collaborators, freely and glibly supplying their information.
European Parliament’s Video Introduction to EU Data Protection [1:49] Article covering a paper titled “The Dangers of Surveillance” An overview of EU data protection reform An EU fact sheet on the “right to be forgotten” EC Press Release on the Data Protection Package
Key Terms Data protection, PRISM, mass surveillance
Introduction and Explanation
LIBE III
“Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community”[1]. Since the foundation of the European Economic Community, freedom of movement has been a core principle designed to support the economies of Europe by providing a mobile work force safe from discrimination and with equal opportunity. First, it is important to make one big distinction: the agreement on the Freedom of Movement has nothing to do with the Schengen Area. The Schengen Area deals with the abolishment of border controls between Schengen countries and applies to short term stays, rather than long-term residence permits. Free movement of workers is instead a right that has evolved since the beginning of the European Community and allows EU/EEA (and Swiss) citizens to freely seek work in other countries, obtain a long-term residence permit and most importantly, once employed in another Member State, make use of the social security system of the hosting country. Where does freedom of movement apply? Freedom of movement applies in all Member States of the European Union and the European Economic Area (EEA) with the addition of Switzerland, who in 1999 signed seven bilateral agreements including the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons. Citizens of these countries can work freely within and across these countries according to the rules set by Directive 2004/38/EC. Under this directive, all citizens have the right to enter and stay in another Member State for a period of up to three months. After that, the right of residence for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions. The citizen must: • Either be engaged in economic activity (employed or self-employed basis); • Have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. • Be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance; • Be a family member of an EU citizen who falls into one of the above categories. EU citizens and the members of their family qualifying for the right of residence also benefit from equal treatment as host-country nationals in the areas covered by the Treaty. After a five-year period, the worker acquires the right to permanent residence in the host Member State. In simpler words, the Directive guarantees that all citizens employed in another Member State will suffer no discrimination and, as long as they remain employed, have access to that country’s social security. However, differences in salaries and welfare across the EU (for example, some countries have unemployment benefits, some do not) have fostered migration and the widespread perception of “benefit tourism”[2]. Where does Freedom of movement apply? Why is the topic not connected to the concept of the Schengen Area? What does Directive 2004/38/EC guarantee? [1] Article 45 of the TFEU [2] Benefit tourism: The perceived threat that huge numbers of citizens move to another Member State to benefit from their social welfare systems rather than to work
Main Conflict Following the events of the economic crisis and correlated factors an increasing part of the electorate of many EU/EEA countries has grown dissatisfied with free movement and has been calling for restrictive immigration policies. This dissatisfaction has been mainly driven by two factors: firstly, the belief that immigrants drive natives out of work and secondly the fear of benefit tourism and the pressure it can put on a country’s welfare system. In 2013 the home secretary of the UK, Theresa May, together with her counterparts in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, started to campaign for tighter restrictions for migrants’ access to welfare and other state-funded services. A formal letter exhorting the commission to review the effects of Directive 2004/38/EC was delivered in April 2013. However, the strongest attempt to implement a more restrictive immigration is taking now place in Switzerland following the aftermath of the “referendum against mass immigration” approved on the 9th of February 2014 which obliges their Federal Council to set limits on immigration through quotas. However, Switzerland does not stand alone in this fight; the UK has always had a strong opinion on this subject and, while it cannot impose quotas in the Swiss model because of its EU membership, has lately implemented some welfare restrictions. Subsequently the German government has also said to be considering some further restrictions. But the chain goes further; especially since the latest European Elections, it is clear that a growing part of the electorate in wealthier Member States view migrants as a source of unemployment and a pain on social security. Why are many countries growing dissatisfied with allowing freedom of movement of workers?
How should the EU approach its member states that implement tighter welfare restrictions for immigrants? Should a proposal to amend Directive 2004/38/EC be made, and if so, what should change?
Main Actors The European Union is in charge of negotiations with associated states when it comes to bilateral treaties. EU Member States cannot directly implement quotas however they can de-facto restrict immigration further by changing their welfare system. The Swiss Federal Council, following the results of the “referendum against mass immigration”, has the task of negotiating with the European Union over the application of quotas on work permits for foreigners. The European Economic Area (EEA) was established 1994 following an agreement with the European Community and gathers all 28 members of the EU plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Freedom of movement is guaranteed in all of these countries with the exception of Liechtenstein, which applies a permanent immigration quota. Croatia is the newest EU Member State and for this reason may face temporary restrictions. These are supposed to be lifted by 2015 for most European countries with the exception of the UK (2018). Potential Future EU members might also be interested in their ability to immigrate freely. What member states are more likely to want to restrict immigration? Citizens of what states are now facing restrictions on immigration and when will these expire?
Measures and Solutions The result of the “referendum against mass immigration” obliges the Swiss federal council to renegotiate the bilateral treaties with the EU, so as to be able to set a quota of work permits and de-facto restrict legal migration to Switzerland. A few days later the European Commission delivered a press statement declaring freedom of movement non-negotiable. Subsequently it froze Swiss participation in the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ programmes, as well as electricity market negotiations, following Switzerland’s unwillingness to sign the Protocol extending the Free Movement of Persons agreement to Croatia. Switzerland later signed this agreement on April 30th 2014 making clear however that this was a temporary measure. The EU has up to now refused every proposal to renegotiate the Freedom of Movement Agreement. The Swiss federal council is currently in a stalemate while trying to find a valid compromise between the EU and the will of its own people. When it comes to within the borders of the EU instead quotas are not compatible with EU Membership but instead Member States can de-facto reduce immigration by limiting welfare accessibility. The UK Prime Minister David Cameron has for a long time proposed some limitations, such as longer minimum residence periods for citizens of other member states who seek benefits, temporary barriers for re-entry EU citizens, new arrangements for future EU member states, a new minimum earnings threshold and many others. However the question remains of whether these measures are needed and justified, particularly because they could set of a tit-for-tat war between Member States regarding welfare.
Should the EU consider any of these measures and if so, which and how? Or on the other hand, should the EU further pledge to defend freedom of movement at all cost and fight these possible reforms? On the inner front this would bring strong political consequences like further distancing the UK from the fragile EU. On the associated state front, this could even mean invoking the guillotine clause , article 25 of the Agreement on the free movement of persons, which ties the fate of this agreement to six other bilateral agreements of that year. The use of this clause would deeply scar the EU-Swiss relations built in the last decade, not to speak of the economic losses it would provoke on both sides. Should the EU consider some of the proposals given by the British government and its allies? What position should the EU take in the negotiations with the Swiss Federal Council, or any other associated member states who want to implement immigration quotas in the next couple of years?
Conclusion The committee is asked to deliver only one simple thing: a stance. When it comes to negotiations with Member States and associated states joint statements, commitments and threats may have a deep impact. How should the EU react to the quota restrictions that Switzerland wants to set and to the welfare restrictions that many of its Member States are setting or wanting to set? What messages should be delivered? Should some actions be taken? Does the EU want to defend the right of freedom of movement of workers? Should it commit to some actions against Member States who limit freedom of movement or recommend some of the changes they suggest?
Required Reading Key Terms Immigration, Benefit tourism, Freedom of Movement for Workers, Directive 2004/38/EC, Jobseeker Benefits, Associated State, Guillotine Clause
Cameron on Free Movement What is Freedom of Movement? EU Statement on the Swiss Referendum of 9th February Summary of EU legislation on Freedom of Movement Federal Office for Migration The UK, EU citizenship and Free movement of Persons
Position Paper EYP Switzerland and the president of Fribourg 2014, Mr Niall Murphy, highly value a well-grounded academic preparation before the session. As you’ve jsut seen, along with the committee topics, this booklet also contains the so-called topic overviews. The chairpersons of the session have invested time and effort into these excellent papers in order to give you an overview of the topic. Now that you have allocated the topics given to you by our National Coordination, it is time to look into your topic much more in-depth. Therefore, we would like you to each write a so-called position paper for your committee topic. This paper will help you to not only get to know your topic, but to deal with the question at hand more thoroughly, to do some research yourself (after having read your topic overview), and to start forming your opinion on the issue. For your position paper, please answer the following questions: 1. What are the problems and questions revolving around the committee topic? Please identify the key conflicts. (Up to 200 words) 2. Which solutions have been found, and which measures have been taken so far? Explain how these measures are tackling the issue at hand. (Up to 200 words) 3. In your opinion, are the measures taken up to now helpful? How can the question be tackled even more efficiently, and what should be done further? (Up to 300 words) Please send your position papers as a Word document to seraina.petersen@eyp.ch (Board Member for National Session Support). The papers will then be sent to your respective chairpersons, who will get in touch with you before the session. The deadline for submission of the position papers is Monday, 18th August, 23:59 CET. Please respect this deadline in order to ensure a proper preparation process.
Next Steps...
1. If you haven’t done so yet, immediately allocate the topics within your delegation according to the e-mail you received by Mr Kian Hunziker. 2. Read the topic overviews 3. Write your position paper and send it to seraina.petersen@eyp.ch as a WORD (.docx, .doc) document 4. Print out the emergency sheet, fill in the information, and hand the form - signed by your parents - to your teacher 5. Fill out the form with your travel, Swiss Village, Swiss Concert and Delegation Presentation information at THIS LINK 6. Prepare for your delegation presentation 7. Pack