Friday

5th Mar 2021

Opinion

Council of Europe vs Russia: stay or go?

  • The Council of Europe in Stasbourg. Russia being expelled, or withdrawing, 'would by no means stop massive human rights violations in the country or contribute to the resolution of the conflict in Donbas and the return of Crimea' (Photo: Council of Europe)

The session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) starting on Monday (24 June) will be decisive for the future of this pan-European organisation upholding common standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

PACE will discuss amendments to its rules of procedure, which would limit the scope of its so-called 'sanctions' – restrictions on voting and participation rights in the assembly that may be applied to parliamentary delegations of member states for violations of their obligations.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

These amendments have been proposed as a potential way out of the current crisis prompted by imposing restrictions on Russian delegation's rights in 2014-2015 in response to the annexation of Crimea and Russia's involvement in the conflict in Donbas.

Russia, in its turn, starting from 2016 refused to participate in the work of the assembly until its delegation's rights are fully restored and the very opportunity of imposing such sanctions is eliminated, and in 2017 stopped paying its financial dues to the Council of Europe's (CoE) budget.

We have reached the point where Russia threatens to leave the CoE and cease to be party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The current amendments appear to be a reasonable solution, as they resolve the discrepancy between the provisions of the assembly's rules of procedure on restrictions of national delegations rights and those of the CoE's statute on equal participation of member states in making key decisions in the organisation.

Importantly, the amendments preserve the opportunity of imposing certain restrictions. They are also in line with the decision of the committee of ministers on the matter adopted in Helsinki on 17 May.

This approach has its pros and cons, but its critics do not propose any alternative options, apart from keeping the status quo.

It is clear, though, that it cannot be preserved any longer: if the crisis is not resolved this week, there is a high risk of Russia's pre-emptive withdrawal from the CoE at the end of June.

Besides, Russian authorities have flagged their participation in the elections of the new CoE secretary general, also scheduled for this week's session, as an essential condition for staying. The prospect of Russia's withdrawal should be taken very seriously and not seen as 'just a bluff'.

Not adopting any decision this week would likely trigger Russia's departure from the organisation with all the negative consequences for the Russian public and the CoE as a whole.

As pointed out by Russian human rights defenders in November 2018, this move would by no means stop massive human rights violations in the country or contribute to the resolution of the conflict in Donbas and the return of Crimea under Ukrainian jurisdiction.

No more influence?

Instead, it would have irreversible consequences and eliminate even the existing limited opportunities for the CoE to influence the situation in Crimea and Donbas as well as inside Russia.

Any sanctions are a tool to achieve some goal, not a goal in itself.

The goal of introducing restrictions on the rights of the Russian delegation to the PACE was pushing Russia to observe the norms of international law with regard to the annexed Crimea and the conflict in Donbas.

Five years after, we have to admit that these sanctions have not achieved their goal.

So, those who really care about compelling the Russian authorities to observe international law should rather focus on finding more effective ways and tools for ensuring that.

How this can be done?

First, the continued membership of Russia in the CoE should be actively used by all concerned parties as an opportunity to build up stronger pressure on Russia to ensure implementation of its obligations.

The PACE should much more actively use all the other tools it has, such as the monitoring procedure, thematic reports and resolutions, posing questions to the committee of ministers and prompting it to apply Article 46 in the cases of persistent non-implementation of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights by Russia.

These measures should be complemented by other practical tools outside of the CoE, including in bilateral relations with Russia.

Secondly, the current crisis should lead to an upgrade of the CoE's toolbox to address grave and systemic violations of the organisation's norms by its member states.

Follow-up to the committee of ministers' suggestion to develop a new procedure for a coordinated response to such situations, including a decision on suspension or expulsion of a member state, should be prioritised.

Developing the two above-mentioned lines of action would demonstrate that the PACE has not just resorted to a short-term tactical solution to the crisis by allowing an 'unconditional return of the Russian delegation' and thus 'appeasing the aggressor' but, on the contrary, is working on a long-term stronger strategy of responding to violations committed by Russia, as well as other member states.

Author bio

Konstantin Baranov is a member of the coordinating council of the International Youth Human Rights Movement. Yuri Dzhibladze is president of the Centre for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights (Russia) and coordinator of the advocacy task force at the EU-Russia Civil Society Forum.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Interview

Russia divides Europe's eurosceptic parties

Divisions on how to handle Russia's "neo-imperial appetite", among other factors, are set to block Italian Matteo Salvini's dreams of a new EU league, Jan Zahradil, a leading Czech MEP and a candidate for EU commission president has said.

Orbán leaves EPP group - the beginning of a long endgame

Aside from the EPP, Hungary was also protected - at a member states' level - by key bilateral partners; and not only illiberal countries like Poland, Bulgaria or recently Slovenia - but most importantly also by Germany.

Belarusian spring: finding hope in dark times

These are dark times in Belarus, with the government tightening the screws like never before. They are preparing for spring just as much as the opponents of the regime are.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council to host EU webinars on energy, digitalisation and antibiotic resistance
  2. UNESDAEU Code of Conduct can showcase PPPs delivering healthier more sustainable society
  3. CESIKlaus Heeger and Romain Wolff re-elected Secretary General and President of independent trade unions in Europe (CESI)
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersWomen benefit in the digitalised labour market
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersReport: The prevalence of men who use internet forums characterised by misogyny
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersJoin the Nordic climate debate on 17 November!

Latest News

  1. China and Russia abusing corona for geopolitics, Lithuania says
  2. Worries on Europe's infection surge, after six-week drop
  3. EU wants large firms to report on gender pay-gap or face fines
  4. EU Commission cannot hold Frontex to account
  5. Orbán leaves EPP group - the beginning of a long endgame
  6. 'Corporate due diligence'? - a reality check before EP votes
  7. Austrian ex-minister joins list of EU's pro-Kremlin lobbyists
  8. Internal Frontex probe to deliver final report this week

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us