EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders step forward (original) (raw)
Related papers
EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders: European Implementation Assessment
European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament, 2022
This study examines the implementation of the European Union (EU) Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, which constitute the policy framework and provide the operational means for protecting human rights activists in third countries. The first part of the study, written internally, provides an institutional perspective of the implementation of the Guidelines. It assesses the development of the EU framework to support human rights defenders, including EU Member States' emergency measures, and evaluates the coordination of such efforts. It also examines the European Parliament's support for human rights defenders and considers its impact on the EU's overall work on defender protection. The second part of the study, which was outsourced, evaluates the implementation of the Guidelines from a bottom-up perspective. It provides an evidence-based analysis of how EU missions apply the Guidelines in countries where rights and freedoms are particularly challenged for human rights defenders, and assesses when and why the measures have not been applied. The study also addresses ways in which implementation gaps can be bridged and recommends possible measures and action that could be taken to ensure the protection of human rights defenders.
Human rights review, 2024
Human rights defenders (HRDs) fight for various human rights and address concerns related to corruption, employment, the environment, and other issues. They also challenge powerful state and private stakeholders and seek justice for human rights abuses. Therefore, HRDs are increasingly becoming targets of violent attacks and abuse with the aim of silencing them. This article begins by providing a brief definition of HRDs and then proceeds to outline the risks associated with their work in defending human rights. It also identifies the perpetrators responsible for these violations. The article categorises the types of abuses against HRDs into two main categories, with a particular focus on the widespread tactic of using the legal system to target and silence defenders in Europe, which is also emerging globally. It introduces a taxonomy of various types of violations through the legal system. By categorising the types of violations against HRDs and establishing a taxonomy to aid in identifying these tactics, the article seeks to deepen understanding and awareness of the varied abuses experienced by HRDs, as well as their deviation from human rights standards, providing a valuable resource for academics, practitioners, and defenders.
2016
Discrimination against Women CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights CESEDA Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile CFREU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union CoE Council of Europe FRAME Deliverable No. 4.2 vii COHOM Human Rights Working Group COREPER Committee of Permanent Representative CP Civil and political CRC UN Convention on the Rights of the Child CRPD UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities CSCE Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe CSO Civil society organisation CSTPEP Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in 4) Research Material Academic literature, legal texts Case law of the ECJ Policy and legal documents of the Commission and other EU institutions, Interviews, Academic Literature Methods Literature review and analysis Legal analysis of case law of the CJEU Literature review Analysis of policy documents Qualitative interviews with stakeholders Chapters II and III IV and V Council of Europe Objective Identifying legal gaps, tensions and contradictions in CoE human rights protection system system (Court of Justice and General Court). In this report, 'ECJ' will be the abbreviation for both the former and the current name. 4 The selection of the DGs follows the requirements laid down in the project proposal. FRAME Deliverable No. 4.2 3 Focus Implementation and violation of ECHR and ESC in EU Member States-Research Material Academic literature Case law of the ECtHR and case law and reports of the ECSR-Methods Literature review Legal analysis of case law of ECtHR and ECSR-Chapters II and III UN standards Objective Identifying legal gaps, tensions and contradictions concerning the protection of global human rights standards in EU Member States-Focus Implementation/violation of international human rights standards in EU Member States-Research Material Outcome Reports of the UPR-Methods Analysis of UPR documents-Chapter VI Other regional levels Objective Identifying legal gaps, tensions and contradictions in other regional human rights protection systems Identifying institutional gaps, tensions and contradictions in other regional human rights protection systems Focus Regional protection systems of Africa, the Americas and Asia Regional protection systems of Africa, the Americas and Asia Research Material Academic literature Documents Case law Academic literature Documents Interviews Methods Literature review Literature review FRAME Deliverable No. 4.2
2015
This report is submitted in connection with Work Package 8 of the FP7 FRAME (Fostering Human Rights Among European Policies) project. The report falls within Cluster Two, tasked to look at the actors in the European Union's Multi-Level, Multi-Actor Human Rights Engagement. Work Package 8, 'Coherence Among EU Institutions and Member States', examines the principles, competences, actions and interactions of EU institutions and the Member States that characterise human rights policies and that lead to coherence or incoherence in the EU and Member States' promotion of human rights. Having examined the potential for 'horizontal' coherence and incoherence in the Work Package's first report, 8.1, 'Report on coherence of human rights policymaking in EU Institutions and other EU agencies and bodies', this report examines 'vertical' coherence and incoherence, produced by the interaction between the EU and its institutions and the Member States. The specific task for the report, as described in the proposal for FP7 FRAME, is to examine the competences and responsibilities of the EU and its Member States and the implications of EU fundamental principles including the principle of sincere cooperation. In this report, we focus on the key statements of EU actors with regard to vertical coherence and consider their implementation in policies in a number of fields, including multilateral and bilateral action. These include policies governed by the competences conferred on EU institutions and Member States, including those where the EU has 'exclusive' competence, like trade, and their interaction with policy areas with shared competence, like development. In contrast to these areas where competences are supposed to be clear, we also examine policies with more 'intergovernmental' characteristics, such as the CSDP and CFSP. This report makes the following suggested actions to enhance vertical coherence in the promotion of fundamental and human rights by the EU institutions and Member States: FRAME Deliverable No. 8.2 iii The CJEU should develop a clear understanding of the principles of proportionality and sincere cooperation and their relation to each other and their application in cases involving fundamental and human rights. The discursive commitments of the EU institutions should reflect the wider discourse of human rights, developed by other courts and regional systems and in international fora. This human rights discourse should be the language in which political conflicts between the EU institutions and the Member States and between Member States regarding EU internal and external policies involving fundamental and human rights are resolved. A number of people have contributed to this report. Dr. Tamara Lewis was the lead author and formulated the approach we have taken to this complex subject. She has since moved to a permanent position in The Hague University, but was able to give a comprehensive draft before taking up her new duties. All of us at University College Dublin wish her well in her new role and are grateful for her drive and her remarkably warm and sunny presence throughout the research process. As noted in individual sections, important contributions have been made by Ms.