Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:09:04.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulating Minority Issues through Standard-Setting and Mediation: The Case of the High Commissioner on National Minorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Anuscheh Farahat

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On 17 February 2000 the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) submitted a recommendation to the Senate of the Babes-Bolyai University (BBU) in Romania. In this recommendation he formulated inter alia: “It is important for the staff of a University to reflect the University's multi-cultural character […] Therefore, an Equal Opportunity Commission should be established within the university to encourage the hiring of minority and female staff – on the basis of academic credentials – regulate guidelines on the recruitment and promotion of staff in this context and monitor performance against clear and transparent success/failure criteria.”

Type
Thematic Studies
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 11: Special issue - The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions , 01 November 2008 , pp. 1453 - 1480
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Recommendation on Expanding the Concept of Multi-culturalism at the Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 17 February 2000, available at: http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/2000/03/2745_en.pdf.Google Scholar

2 Christiane Höhn, Zwischen Menschenrechten und Konfliktprävention 292 (2005); Walter A. Kemp, Quiet Dimplomacy in Action 4 (2005).Google Scholar

3 Para. 3 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

4 Kemp (note 2), at 54–55; Zaagman, Rob, The CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities: An analysis of the Mandate and the Institutional Context, in The Challenge of Change: the Helsinki Summit of the CSCE and its Aftermath 113, 127, 140 (Arie Bloed ed., 1994).Google Scholar

5 Julia Marquier, Soft law: Das Beispiel des OSZE-Prozesses 212, 219 (2004); Jan Klabbers, The Concept of Treaty in International Law 126 (1996).Google Scholar

6 Fastenrath, Ulrich, The Legal Significance of CSCE/OSCE Documents, in OSCE-Yearbook 1995/1996 411, 418; Theodor Schweisfurth, Die juristische Mutation der KSZE, in Recht zwischen Bewahrung und Umbruch 213, 224 (Ulrich Beyerlin ed., 1995); Schweisfurth, Theodor, Zur Frage der Rechtsnatur, Verbindlichkeit und völkerrechtlichen Relevanz der KSZE-Schlussakte, 36 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 681, 695 (1976); Marcus Wenig, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Streitbeilegung ethnischer Konflikte durch die OSZE 59–64, 72 (1996); Zaagman, Rob, Focus on the Future, 6 Helsinki Monitor 40, 42 (1995).Google Scholar

7 Knut Ipsen & Volker Epping, Völkerrecht 529–530 (5th ed., 2004).Google Scholar

8 For a detailed analysis of the effectiveness see Comparative Case Studies on the Effectiveness of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Core Working Papers 6, 7, 8 and 10 (Wolfgang Zellner, Randolf Oberschmidt & Claus Neukirch eds., 2002), available at: http://www.core-hamburg.de/CORE/pub_workingpapers.htm.Google Scholar

9 Richard J. Pierce, Sidney A. Shapiro & Paul R. Verkuil, Administrative Law and Process 285–308 (4th ed., 2004); Hartmut Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht 6–9 (16th ed., 2006); Herzmann, Karsten, Monitoring als Verwaltungsaufgabe, Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt (DVBl) 670–674 (2007); Paul Craig, Administrative Law 398–405 (5th ed., 2003).Google Scholar

10 Chapter C.Google Scholar

11 Chapter D.Google Scholar

12 Chapter D.Google Scholar

13 Para. 2 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

14 HCNM Wet, 31 October 2002, Staatsblad 2002, at 580.Google Scholar

15 The Mandate confers this power to the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO), which was followed by the Senior Council (SC) since the Charter of Paris 1990. Meanwhile this task shifted to the Permanent Council (PC).Google Scholar

16 Para. 9 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

17 Paras. 3, 13 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

18 Paras. 7, 17 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

19 Para. 3 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

20 Para. 5 b of the Mandate.Google Scholar

21 Para. 2 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

22 Para. 5c of the Mandate.Google Scholar

23 Para. 12 of the Mandate: The HCNM “may during as visit […] discuss the questions with the parties, and where appropriate promote dialogue […]” (emphasis added); Para 13: “If […] [the HCNM] concludes that that there is a prima facie risk […], he/she may issue an early warning.” (emphasis added).Google Scholar

24 See Zellner, Oberschmidt & Neukirch (note 8).Google Scholar

25 Kemp (note 2), at 56.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 58. The OSCE Chairmanship is held by one participating State for one calendar year and is supposed to co-ordinate the decision-making process and to set priorities for the activities during that year. The Chairmanship is headed by the Chairman-in-Office (CiO), which is usually the Foreign Minister of the State concerned. His tasks are defined as the co-ordination and consultation on current OSCE business and he presides over Summits and the Ministerial Council, the two central decision-taking organs of the OSCE. For further information see the OSCE Handbook (2007), available at http://www.osce.org.Google Scholar

27 The detailed procedural aspects will be explained under point III.2.Google Scholar

28 Para. 34, sentence 2 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

29 See B. II.Google Scholar

30 Recommendation on Policing in Multi-Ethnic Societies, available at: http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/2006/02/17982_en.pdf.Google Scholar

31 Bloed, Arie, Comments on the new set of Recommendations on Policing in Multi-Ethnic Societies, 17 Helsinki Monitor 184, 187 (2006).Google Scholar

32 Id. Google Scholar

33 Para. 32 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

34 Para. 34 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

35 Kemp (note 2), at 100; Kemp formulates that “its very raison d'ětre was to serve the High Commissioner”, due to the fact that the FIER was founded on the initiative of the first HCNM, Max van der Stoel, who was also adviser to the Board of Directors of the FIER.Google Scholar

36 Now Senior Counsel.Google Scholar

37 22nd CSO Journal no. 2, annex 2, 30 June 1993.Google Scholar

38 27th CSO Journal no. 3, annex 2, 23 September 1993, the CSO expressed his support for “the continued activities of the High Commissioner on National Minorities in the Ukraine”.Google Scholar

39 Zaagman (note 4), at 170.Google Scholar

40 Para. 23a of the Mandate.Google Scholar

41 Para. 23b of the Mandate.Google Scholar

42 Para. 26 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

43 Interview with Krzysztof Drzewicki, Senior Legal Adviser of the HCNM, 29 May 2007 in The Hague.Google Scholar

44 Kemp (note 2), at 83–84.Google Scholar

45 Paras. 27–30 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

46 Kemp (note 2), at 91.Google Scholar

47 Id. at 96; Margit Sarv, Integration by Reframing Legislation, in Core Working Paper 7 (note 8).Google Scholar

48 Kemp (note 2), at 91.Google Scholar

49 Kemp (note 2), at 56; (note 22).Google Scholar

50 Id. Google Scholar

51 Jonathan Cohen, Conflict Prevention Instruments in the OSCE: an Assessment of Capacities 64 (1998); Kemp (note 2), at 59.Google Scholar

52 This procedure follows the right to comment recommendations elaborated by experts as it is foreseen by para. 34 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

53 Para. 34 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

54 Id. Google Scholar

55 Para. 20 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

56 Kemp (note 2), at 74–75.Google Scholar

57 Saadia Touval & Ira William Zartman, Introduction: Mediation in Theory, in International Mediation in Theory and Practice (Saadia Touval & Ira William Zartman eds., 1995).Google Scholar

58 Ratner qualifies the HCNM as a “normative intermediary.” Steven Ratner, Does International Law Matter in Ethnic Conflicts?, 32 NYU Journal of international law and politics 591, 668–684 (2000).Google Scholar

59 Höhn (note 2), at 324; Ratner (note 58), at 624.Google Scholar

60 Höhn (note 2), at 322–327.Google Scholar

61 Id. at 349–352.Google Scholar

62 Id. Google Scholar

63 Ratner (note 58), at 591, 659.Google Scholar

64 Weber, Max, Bürokratismus, in IV Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 159, 186–189 (Edith Hanke ed., 2005); Max Weber, Rechtssoziologie 123–126 (Heinz Maus & Friedrich Fürstenberg eds., 1967); Niklas Luhmann, Legitimation durch Verfahren 204–207 (Heinz Maus & Friedrich Fürstenberg eds., 1969).Google Scholar

65 Hans Kelsen, Reine Rechtslehre 228–230 (1960); Alf Ross, Theorie der Rechtsquellen 359–369 (1929); Merkl, Adolf, Prolegomena einer Theorie des rechtlichen Stufenbaus, in Gesellschaft, Staat und Recht 252, 272–285 (Alfred Verdross ed., 1931).Google Scholar

66 Jürgen Bast, Grundbegriffe der Handlungsformen der EU 222 (2006).Google Scholar

67 Id. Google Scholar

68 Linda Senden, Soft law in European Community Law 140, 143–145 (2004).Google Scholar

69 Para. 34 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

70 Kemp (note 2), at 59.Google Scholar

71 Packer, John, Making International Law Matter in Preventing Ethnic Conflicts, 32 NYU Journal of International Law & Politics 715–724 (2000); Ratner (note 58), at 659–668; Höhn (note 2), at 205–231.Google Scholar

72 Packer (note 71); Ratner (note 58); Cohen (note 51); Sarv (note 47); Kulyk, Volodymyr, Revisting A Success Story, in Core Working Paper 7 (note 8), at 1–146; Galbreath, David, The Politics of European Integration and Minority Rights in Estonia and Latvia, 4 Perspectives on European Politics and Society 36, 45 (2003).Google Scholar

73 Kemp (note 2), at 74–75.Google Scholar

74 Kemp describes the vivid example of the Crimean Conflict in the Ukraine, during which the HCNM organized for example a donor conference in 1996. Kemp (note 2), at 222–229.Google Scholar

75 For the example of Estonia see Sarv (note 47), at 79–83, 108–110.Google Scholar

76 COM (2000) 704 final, Regular Report from the Commission on Estonias progress towards accession, at 18–20, COM (2000) 706 final, Regular Report from the Commission on Latvias progress towards accession, at 23.Google Scholar

77 Galbreath (note 72), at 36–53, 45. For the latest development see Drzewicki, Krzysztof, National minority issues and the EU Reform Treaty. A Perspective of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, 2 Security and Human Rights (SHR) 137–146 (2008).Google Scholar

78 For the influence of external minority protection on the internal EU-standard of minority protection: EU Network of independent experts on fundamental rights, Thematic comment no. 3, available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/justice_home/cfr_cdf/doc/thematic_comments_2005_en.pdf.Google Scholar

79 Drzewicki, Krzysztof & de Graaf, Vincent, The Activities of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities: July 2004-June 2005, 4 European Yearbook of minority Issues (EYMI) 595–613, 600, 601 (2004/2005).Google Scholar

80 For the OSCE this is the High Commissioner.Google Scholar

81 Sarv (note 47), at 33.Google Scholar

82 Paras. 11a, 23, 26 of the Mandate.Google Scholar

83 Administrative Law 292, 327, 328 (Mark Elliot, Jack Beatson & Martin H. Metthews eds., 3rd ed. 2005); Zhiyong Lan, A Conflict Resolution Approach to Public Administration, in Public Administration Law 189, 197–198 (Julia Beckett & Heidi O. Koenig eds., 2005); Jean-Francois Lachaume, Droit administrative 604–605 (13th ed. 2002); René Chapus, Droit administrative general 98, 1111 (15th ed. 2001); Badura, Peter, Das Verwaltungsverfahren, in Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht 511–512 (Hans-Uwe Erichsen ed., 13th ed. 2006).Google Scholar

84 Craig (note 9), at 469; Lachaume (note 83), at 122.Google Scholar

85 Pierce, Shapiro & Verkuil (note 9), at 474–783; Craig (note 9), at 98–103.Google Scholar

86 See country recommendations at: http://www.osce.org/hcnm.Google Scholar

87 Ratner (note 58), at 684.Google Scholar

88 Pierce, Shapiro & Verkuil (note 9), at 95–97.Google Scholar

89 Id. Google Scholar

90 Art. 255 TEC; Sweden: Chapter 1, § 3 Constitution of Sweden (1.1.1975); USA: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552, Pub. L. 89–554, 6 September 1966, 80 Stat. 383; Canada: Access to Information Act, Bill C-43, R.S. 1985 Chapter A-1, 1 July 1983; Australia: Freedom of Information Act, A 1989–46, Gazette 1989 No S 164, 10 May 1989; for a more detailed overview: Public Access to Government-held Information: a Comparative Symposium (Norman S. Marsh ed., 1987); Öffentlichkeit von Umweltinformationen. Europäische und nordamerikanische Rechte und Erfahrungen (Gerd Winter ed., 1990).Google Scholar

91 Gröschner, Rolf, Transparente Verwaltung: Konturen eines Informationsverwaltungsrechts, 63 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung Deutscher Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDStRL) 346, 355 (2004); Masing, Johannes, Transparente Verwaltung: Konturen eines Informationsverwaltungsrechts, 63 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung Deutscher Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDStRL) 379–441 (2004).Google Scholar

92 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, recital (2).Google Scholar

93 Art. 4(3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; Masing (note 91), 385; Jestaedt, Matthias, Das Geheimnis im Staat der Öffentlichkeit, 126 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 204, 225 (2001).Google Scholar

94 Rob Zaagman, Conflict Prevention in the Baltic States: the High Commissioner on National Minorities in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 10 (1999).Google Scholar

95 Craig (note 9), at 101; Georges Dupuis, Marie-José Guédon & Patrice Chrétien, Droit administratif 469–472 (10th ed. 2007); Franz-Joseph Peine, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht 192 (6th ed., 2002).Google Scholar

96 Id. Google Scholar

97 Boyron, Sophie, Mediation in Administrative Law, 13 European Public Law 263, 266 (2007); Christoph A. Stumpf, Alternative Streitbeilegung im Verwaltungsrecht 289–290 (2006).Google Scholar