Monday, September 27, 2010

Roma Rights in the European Union.

Lately many European Union (EU) Member States experience high tensions with their Roma population. On July 28th 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy launched a new anti-crime initiative targeting the ‘itinerant population’ with a particular emphasis on the Roma community.[1]
This decision caused much controversy within the Institutions of the European Union. On August 19th, the French government decided to begin to expel Roma , mainly from Romania and Bulgaria, as they were living illegally in the country. Foreign born Roma are often seen begging on the streets of French cities and many French people consider them a nuisance. The Roma issue gained importance for the European Union (EU) due to the accession of new Eastern European countries with large Roma populations. When Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, it was determined that their citizens will enjoy full freedom of movement within the EU as of January 2014. The French government therefore, stated that the measures are in line with EU rules. [2]

The Roma make up the largest ethnic minority in the EU. They trace their origins to medieval India and settled in Europe as early as the 13th century. Historically, the Roma have been oppressed, enslaved, persecuted, expelled and subjected to ethnic cleansing during the Kosovo conflict in 1999.[3]

To a large extent, the European Human Rights platform is ill suited to effectively address the profound social, political and cultural challenges the Roma face. From the late 1990’s to 2008, Roma applicants to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) argued that they were victims of racial discrimination with respect to one or more substantive Convention rights.
Year after year, case after case, the European Court of Human Rights consistently declined to find violations of article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights. [4]
As time progressed, the body of evidence documenting discrimination against the Roma accumulated in both applicants before the Court and in monitoring reports by the Council of Europe and the NGO community. It was not until 2008, that the Court ruled an incident of police brutality against a Roma victim racially motivated and breached article 14 of the ECHR in Stoica versus Romania.[5] Unfortunately, this decision did not lead to much improvement regarding the position of Roma in Europe. In July 2008, the Italian government began to fingerprint Roma adults as well as children as a government attempt to fight street crime. The Italian government stated that only Roma lacking valid identification papers would be fingerprinted and claimed the measure was designed to help Roma children who are often seen begging on the streets. [6] The European Parliament responded by adopting a resolution urging Italian authorities ‘ to refrain from collecting fingerprints from Roma, including minors as this would clearly constitute an act of direct discrimination based on race and ethnic origin. [7] Upon reviewing this policy, the European Commission, found that there was no evidence of intentional discrimination or of seeking data based on ethnic origin. Subsequently, the European Commission reversed the admonition by the European Parliament and approved the measure of the Italian government. [8]

Apart from this obvious lack of transparency, there also seems to exist a disparity in standards that are being applied to new member states and the old European Union establishment.
The European Council has required that new prospective members ratify certain non- discrimination protocols such as the European Council Framework Convention on national minorities as a precondition to granting EU membership.[9] However, not all of the old EU members have ratified the instrument. Noteworthy is that France is not a signatory to this Convention.

According to a report by Álvaro Gil-Robles, the former Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, there is a lack of political will in many places to address Roma problems. Furthermore, the report states that national authorities, particularly those in elected positions are often unwilling to implement measures under national programs for Roma inclusion because such programs are unpopular with their constituents. [10]

During the Roma Summit in 2008, José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, pointed out that the Roma problem cannot be solved by the European Union alone. He emphasized that political will as well as Roma involvement is essential to improve relations between the EU Member States and their Roma citizens. [11]
If the European Commission decides to take France to Court on the expulsion of Roma groups, it would most likely start a procedure claiming a breach of article 58 of the Lisbon Treaty which determines that Member States can only expel an individual when he or she poses a serious threat to society, not an entire community as part of an preventive anti-crime measure. [12]
As the Roma rights movement looks to the future, it is clear that legal instruments by themselves will not suffice in resolving the Roma problem. The challenge lies in finding arguments that can compel reforms outside of European courtrooms in parliaments, local governments and other centers of political power capable of translating judicial decisions into changes on the ground.[13]



Footnotes

Other sources:
Further reading
Paris: Harmattan 2009
Aldershot: Ashgate 2007
Roms, une question europeenne by F. Sarter
Database Cairn Available in House Only
Les Roms migrants en région parisienne : les dispositifs d'une marginalisation by Alexandra Nacu in Revue europeenne des migrations internationales
Database Cairn Available in House Only

Friday, September 17, 2010

Norway and Russian Federation sign maritime delimitation agreement

In Murmansk on Wednesday 15th September 2010 Norway and the Russian Federation signed a treaty concerning the maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. The disputed territory covered 175,000 square km (67,600 sq miles), an area mainly in the Barents Sea between proven petroleum reserves on the Russian and Norwegian sides.

The treaty marks the end of a long process that started in 1970. The breakthrough in the negotiations was made public during President Medvedev’s visit to Norway on 27 April this year, when the Norwegian and Russian foreign ministers signed a joint statement announcing that the two countries’ negotiating delegations had reached preliminary agreement on delimitation.

At a news conference President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia said: “I believe this will open the way for many joint projects, especially in the area of energy” . The Norwegian prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, said it showed good will in the face of rising international anxiety over who controls the Arctic seabed, which by some estimates contains a quarter of the world’s undiscovered fossil fuels.

In the treaty two Annexes are included.
Annex I sets rules about fisheries matters. According to article 4 Annex I the Norwegian-Russian Joint Fisheries Commission shall continue to consider improved monitoring and control measures with respect to jointly managed fish stocks.

Annex II deals with the Unitisation Agreement on commercial exploitation of transboundary hydrocarbon deposits in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Article 1 under 11 obligates each Party to ensure inspection of hydrocarbon installations located on its continental shelf and hydrocarbon activities carried out thereon. In case of a disagreement about the Unitisation Agreement in article 1 Annex "Each Party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators so appointed shall elect a third arbitrator, who shall be the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall not be a national of or habitually reside in Norway or the Russian Federation. If either Party fails to appoint an arbitrator within three months of a request to do so, either Party may request that the President of the International Court of Justice make the appointment. The same procedure shall apply if, within one month of the appointment of the second arbitrator, the third arbitrator has not been elected." (article 3 under 2 Annex II).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Books and articles in Peace Palace catalogue


About Maritime boundaries Barents Sea


About Fisheries in the Barents Sea


About Maritime boundaries Arctic Ocean




Relevant documents:


Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean (Annex I and II)

Joint Statement on maritime delimitation and cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean


Relevant press articles:

New York Times : Russia and Norway Reach Accord on Barents Sea;

ITAR-TASS News Agency : Russia, Norway sign maritime areas delimitation treaty

Reuters : Russia and Norway sign border deal for Arctic energy

Friday, September 3, 2010

The Moon Agreement of 1979 : What Relevance to Space Activities ?

Years of negotiations in the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and vigorous drafting and re-drafting of an international treaty to govern the activities of States on the Moon, culminated in an unanimous acceptance of the Moon Agreement (or Moon Treaty) by the UN General Assembly in 1979.

The Agreement applies to the Moon and all other celestial bodies within the solar system other than the Earth, including orbits or other trajectories to or around them. It turns over jurisdiction to the international community. Thus, all activities must be in accordance to international law, notably the UN Charter. The agreement makes a declaration that the Moon should be used for the benefit of all states and all peoples of the international community. It also expresses a desire to prevent the Moon from becoming a source of international conflict. As a follow-on to the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon Agreement was intended to establish a regime similar to the one established for the deep seabed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

However, after entering into force in 1984, having secured a sufficient number of ratifications, it is unratified by any major space-faring power such as the United States and the Russian Federation, and unsigned by the majority of nations. Therefore, at this point it is of no direct relevance to current space activities.

But what of the future ? Improved perspectives will perhaps appear on the horizon when exploratory missions to the Moon and Mars are becoming more realistic. Such missions have, incidentally, been receiving more and more attention among international space law experts in recent years. Conferences have been organized with topics such as : ‘The legal status of property rights on the Moon’, ‘Jurisdiction on space settlements’. The race to the Moon has yet to begin.


PPL keywords:

Moon, Moon Treaty, Outer Space Treaty


Recommended books and articles:

DIEDERIKS-VERSCHOOR, I.H.Ph. and V. KOPAL, An Introduction to Space Law, Alphen aan den Rijn : Kluwer Law International, XXIV, 249 p

WILLIAMS, S.M., “Celestial Bodies”, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Amsterdam [etc.] : North-Holland, 1992, pp. 545-548