Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Council of Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Resetting the Political Culture Agenda: From Polis to International Organization

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 396 Accesses

Abstract

The establishment of the Council of Europe in the aftermath of World War II manifested the political will of European States, having experienced two great wars, to construct a political union, based on the common principles and visions of the European political tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Statute of the Council of Europe, London 5 May 1949, ETS No 01.

  2. 2.

    Article 1.

  3. 3.

    According to Article 3 of its Statute “[e]very member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council [..]”. In cases of a member’s serious violations of the obligations stipulated in Article 3 the Committee its representation rights may be suspended and it may be asked to withdraw from the organization (Article 8).

  4. 4.

    This is evident in several cases. Portugal and Spain became members of the organization only after the fall of the military juntas in 1976 and 1977 respectively, while Greece chose to withdraw from the organization in 1969 before its membership was suspended by the Committee of Ministers, following the inter-state complaint submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights by Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. Council of Europe 1972. Greece rejoined the organization after the restitution of democracy in the country. The Turkish coup d’état also caused the suspension of Turkey’s participation in the Parliamentary Assembly. Parliamentary Assembly 1981. The Turkish delegation resumed its place in 1984 after the holding of free elections. The war in Chechnya caused the suspension of Russian Federation’s voting privileges in the Parliamentary Assembly in April 2000. Hill and Smith 2000, pp. 9–10. Belarus’ accession process has frozen and the Special Guest Status granted to the Parliament of Belarus at the Parliamentary Assembly was suspended in January 1997, following the constitutional reforms adopted in the country, because “the way in which the new legislature had been formed deprived it of democratic legitimacy.” The Commission of Venice has characterized the constitutional amendments as falling short of “the democratic minimum standards of the European constitutional heritage”. See Parliamentary Assembly 2000, pp. 2–3.

  5. 5.

    Council of Europe 1993.

  6. 6.

    Council of Europe 1997.

  7. 7.

    Council of Europe 2005.

  8. 8.

    In its first session in August–September, 1949, the Consultative Assembly declared unanimously that the aim of the Council of Europe was the establishment of a European Political Authority with limited functions but real powers. More resolutions followed, suggesting the gradual transformation of the intergovernmental character of the organization and the adoption of a supranational model of governance. However, this qualitative shift never tool place. Secretariat General of the Council of Europe 1956, Lipgens and Loth 1988.

  9. 9.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome 4 November 1950, ETS No. 005.

  10. 10.

    Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Judgment 23 March 1995, Series A, no 310, § 75. However, the concept of the “European public order” is not defined in the Court’s case-law. Some jurists identify it with the enjoyment of human rights in the European continent through the implementation of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights. See Dupuy 1996; and Costa 1999. Others appeal to the concept of jus cogens, perceiving the European public order as part of a regional jus cogens related to the protection of human rights. See Carreau 1999, p. 87.

  11. 11.

    The organization’s structure was a compromise between federalist perceptions of the future of the European unification process (mainly promoted by private bodies, France and Belgium) and more moderate positions for the creation of a pure intergovernmental organization (supported by the United Kingdom). Despite the fact that a Consultative Assembly was created, the intergovernmental model prevailed. Political and Economic Planning 1959, pp. 126–127; Council of Europe 1970, pp. 3–7; The European Movement 1949, pp. 47–48; and Heinrich 2010.

  12. 12.

    Both institutions served by a Secretariat. Article 10.

  13. 13.

    Ministerial sessions were gradually restricted to one venue per year, dedicated to issues of particular political significance (as in the case of the adoption of Protocol 14 to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights in the ministerial session held in May 2004) allowing for a more technocratic, less politicized working environment among diplomats (enjoying the same rights as ministers) and moderating in this way, not typically but functionally, the intergovernmental character of the Committee.

  14. 14.

    As in the case of the League’s Assembly or the UN General Assembly.

  15. 15.

    The Congress, a bicameral assembly consisting of a Chamber of Local Authorities and a Chamber of Regions, promotes local and regional democracy and the improvement of local and regional governance. Its members are elected representatives at local and regional level.

  16. 16.

    Since 1952 the organization has recognized consultative status for INGOs while in 2003 the latter changed into participatory status. This status, according to the criteria defined by the Committee of Ministers, is granted to INGOs “particularly representative in the field(s) of their competence, fields of action shared by the Council of Europe; which are represented at European level, […]; which are able, through their work, to support the achievement of that closer unity mentioned in Article 1 of the Council of Europe’s Statute; are capable of contributing to and participating actively in Council of Europe deliberations and activities; which are able to make known the work of the Council of Europe among European citizens”. Committee of Ministers Resolution Res(2003)8 19 November 2003. INGOs participate in the implementation of Council of Europe’s policies and programmes, provide expert advice and co-operate with the majority of the organization’s institutions.

  17. 17.

    Kleinsorge 2010, p. 70. The Court is inextricably linked with the organization.

  18. 18.

    Not only nationals of a state party to the Convention but all persons under its jurisdiction.

  19. 19.

    Rozakis 2010, p. 20.

  20. 20.

    States’ approval of the Convention as evidenced in the implementation of its rulings by national authorities and the ‘constitutionalization’ of their conventional obligations in the respective domestic legal orders has enhanced the process of “institutional enmeshment”. See Keohane and Kelly 2005. See also Helfer 2008, p. 131.

  21. 21.

    Helfer and Slaughter 1997.

  22. 22.

    Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restructuring the control machinery established thereby, Strasbourg 11 May 1994, ETS No. 155; Bernhard 1995; and Naskou-Perraki 2004.

  23. 23.

    Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, Strasbourg, 13 May 2004, CETS No. 194. Sicilianos 2003.

  24. 24.

    For a presentation of the arguments against the latter’s implementation see Keller et al. 2010, pp. 1037–1039.

  25. 25.

    The reforms adopted by Protocol 14 constituted an attempt to address the problems caused by the continuous increase of the Court’s workload that hindered its efficiency on the one hand, and that would gradually undermine its institutional profile and function at the European continent.

  26. 26.

    European Social Charter, Turin 18 October 1961, ETS No. 035; Additional Protocol of 1988 extending the social and economic rights of the 1961 Charter, Strasbourg 5 May 1988, ETS No. 128; Amending Protocol of 1991 reforming the supervisory mechanism, Turin 21 October 1991, ETS No. 142; Additional Protocol of 1995 providing for a system of collective complaints, Strasbourg 9 November 1995, CETS No. 158; Revised European Social Charter of 1996, Strasbourg 3 May 1996, ETS No. 163.

  27. 27.

    Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg 1 February 1995, ETS No. 157.

  28. 28.

    European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Strasbourg 26 November 1987, ETS No. 126.

  29. 29.

    Dipla 2010.

  30. 30.

    Only to think that many states applying for membership in the 1990s did not have a constitution yet, see Raue 2009, pp. 164–166. Ukraine’s case is a typical example. The country still faces difficulties with the implementation of the obligations undertaken by its accession. Copsey and Shapovalova 2010.

  31. 31.

    It is worth mentioning that the criteria the applicant states had to fulfill in order to become members in the 1990s, where far more austere than those fulfilled by the older member states, which were restricted to certain basic prerequisites. See Huber 1999, pp. 21, 121, 180.

  32. 32.

    Reference is made to the monitoring procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly established by Order 488 (1993) which addressed to the “new” member states and was extended to all members after the adoption of Resolution 1115 (1997) “in a spirit of co-operation and non-discrimination”. The latter institutionalized monitoring of the “honouring of obligations and commitments by member states of the Council of Europe” by establishing a Monitoring Committee for this purpose. Sicilianos 2000b; and Malenovsky 1997.

  33. 33.

    According to Article 8 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

  34. 34.

    According to the 1995 Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter.

  35. 35.

    As stipulated in the Convention’s Preamble.

  36. 36.

    As in the case of the Venice Commission.

  37. 37.

    Established by a partial agreement in 1956, CEB is the first multilateral development bank in Europe. It finances projects of social vocation aiming at strengthening social integration, environmental protection and supporting public infrastructure.

  38. 38.

    Compliance with the Court’s rulings remains high. See Rozakis 2010, p. 29.

  39. 39.

    As in the case of the suspension of Russian Federation’s voting rights in the Parliamentary Assembly in April 2000 due to persistent violations of human rights during the Chechnya conflict, see supra Chapter 5, note 4.

  40. 40.

    Turkey’s denial to comply with the ECHR Judgment in the Loizidou case (see supra Chapter 5, note 10) has led the Committee of Ministers to the adoption of four strongly worded Resolutions, Interim Resolution DH (99) 680 of 6 October 1999; Interim Resolution DH (2000) 105 of 24 July 2000; Interim Resolution DH (2001) 80 of 26 June 2001; Interim Resolution DH (2003) 174 of 12 November 2003. Turkey finally complied with the Judgment and paid the sum awarded by the Court as just satisfaction with default interest. See Interim Resolution DH (2003) 190 of 2 December 2003.

  41. 41.

    The assessment of the progress achieved by candidate countries in relation to the fulfillment of the political criteria for accession to the European Union includes the evaluation of their compliance with Council of Europe’s Conventions and the ECHR Judgments. Thus, the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken by these states’ membership to the Council of Europe concerning human rights, the rule of law and democracy constitute benchmarks for accession to the Union.

  42. 42.

    Parliamentary Assembly 2007.

References

  • Bernhard R (1995) Current developments. Reform of the control machinery under the ECHR: Protocol no 11. Am J Int Law 89(1):145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreau D (1999) Droit international public. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Copsey N, Shapovalova N (2010) The Council of Europe and Ukraine’s European integration. Wider Europe Working Papers 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa JP (1999) La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme: vers un ordre juridique européen? In: Mélanges en hommage à Louis-Edmond Pettiti. Bruyant, Bruxelles, pp 197–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (1970) Manual of the Council of Europe. Structure, functions and achievements. Steven & Sons Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (1972) The Greek case. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (1993) Vienna Declaration, 9 Oct 1993. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=621771&Site=COE. Accessed 25 Oct 2011

  • Council of Europe (1997) Second summit of Heads of State and Government (Strasbourg, 10–11 Oct 1997) Final Declaration and Action Plan. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=593437&Site=CM. Accessed 25 Oct 2011

  • Council of Europe (2005) Third summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, 16–17 May 2005). Warsaw Declaration. CM(2005)79 final 17 May 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Dipla H (ed) (2010) The Council of Europe’s contribution to the promotion of human rights. In: Honor of Christos Rozakis. Sideris, Athens (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy RJ (1996) L’ordre public en droit international. In: Polin R (ed) L’ordre public. Colloque de Paris des 22 et 23 mars 1995. Fondation Singer-Polignac/PUF, Paris, pp 103–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich M (2010) The process that led to the creation of the Council of Europe and its Assembly. In: Kleinsorge TEJ (ed) Council of Europe. Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 37–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer LR (2008) Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European human rights regime. Eur J Int Law 19(1):125–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfer LR, Slaughter AM (1997) Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law J 103(2):273–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill C, Smith KE (eds) (2000) European foreign policy key documents. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber D (1999) A decade that made history. The Council of Europe 1989–1999. The Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller H, Fischer A, Kühne D (2010) Debating the future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: two innovative proposals. Eur J Int Law 21(4):1025–1048

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly CR (2005) Enmeshment as a theory of compliance. Int Law Polit 37:303–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane R (1992) Compliance with international commitments: politics within a framework of law. Am Soc Int Law Proc 86:176–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinsorge T (2010) The Council of Europe’s institutional structure. Overview. In: Kleinsorge TEJ (ed) Council of Europe. Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 69–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipgens W, Loth W (eds) (1988) Documents on the history of European integration. The struggle for European union by political parties and pressure groups in Western European countries 1945–1950, vol 3. European University Institute Series B. de Gruyter, London/Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Malenovsky J (1997) Suivi des engagements des Etats du Conseil de l’Europe par son Assamblée Parlémentaire: une course difficile entre droit et politique. AFDI XLIII: 633–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Naskou-Perraki P (2004) The 11th Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights. RHDH 23:769–799 (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly (1981) Official report of debates. 32nd ordinary session, vol II. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly (2000) Situation in Belarus. Report doc 8606 of 3 Jan 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly (2007) Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: Second Report. http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Events/2006-cia/. Accessed 24 Oct 2011

  • Political and Economic Planning (1959) European organisations. Staples Printer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Raue J (2009) Constitution building in Eastern Europe: achievements of and challenges to the Council of Europe. In: Raue J, Sutter P (eds) Facets and practices of state-building. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston/Lieden, pp 155–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozakis CL (2010) The particular role of the Strasbourg case-law in the development of human rights in Europe (2010) Special issue-European Court of Human Rights. 50 years-Nomiko Vima: 20–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat General of the Council of Europe (1956) Handbook of European organisations. Typographie Firmin-Didot, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Sicilianos LA (2000b) Les mécanismes de suivi au sein du Conseil de l’Europe. In: Fabri HR, Sicilianos LA, Sorel JM (eds) L’effectivité des organisations internationales. Mécanismes de suivi et de contrôle. Ant. Sakkoulas-A. Pedone, Athènes-Paris, pp 246–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Sicilianos LA (2003) La ‘réforme de la réforme’ du système européen des droits de l’homme. AFDI XLIX: 611–640

    Google Scholar 

  • The European Movement (1949) The European Movement and the Council of Europe. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Antonia Zervaki

Authors
  1. Antonia Zervaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonia Zervaki .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zervaki, A. (2014). The Council of Europe. In: Resetting the Political Culture Agenda: From Polis to International Organization. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04256-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation