Chapter 6 propose the CoE pursues a more proactive, judicious, rapprochement with areas of conflict in Europe in line with the object and purpose of the organisation. This rapprochement requires political will, but can be substantially shaped by and based on the vision and associated initiatives of the Secretary General. It seeks to reflect on several legal, political or operational activities might contribute to satisfying the ordre public imperative described in Chapter 3. The objective is to begin to identify practical initiatives which could be pursued in accordance with the Statute to enable progress in a fully impartial, standards-based manner.

Chapter 3 considers the concept of shared, or collective, responsibility, a term which developed its own ambiguous ecosystem over the ten-year Interlaken process, but which reduced its meaning to an overly narrow focus on the ECHR control system. I propose that the protection of human rights in grey zones is a matter of first principles, which requires us to consider the object and purpose of the Council of Europe, which itself was established as a direct consequence of war. I argue that systemic and persistent limitations in the functioning of the broader CoE system in areas of conflict must consequently change the nature of the response. I suggest that such situations give rise to an ordre public imperative shared amongst all Member States. I further suggest that public order, when used as a tool for the intra-territorial effectiveness of the ECHR, constitutes a legal norm as it creates an exception to the state’s right to act voluntarily (i.e. it limits the possibility to declare a diminished level of responsibility for a particular region) on one hand, and it generates an imperative to act collectively, on the other.