06. FRAME Reports

Permanent URI for this collection

https://reponew.gchumanrights.org/handle/20.500.11825/53
The reports constitute the chief result of the work of over a hundred of scholars gathered under the umbrella of FRAME project researching the means to foster human rights among European policies. FRAME is a large-scale, collaborative research project funded under the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) coordinated by the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and conducted by 19 research institutes from around the world. As a complement to the on-going evaluation work carried out by the European Commission, and answering to the findings and recommendations of recent studies on EU human rights policies, the main objective of FRAME is to provide the necessary building blocks for the development of a comprehensive and coherent EU human rights policy comprised of: (i) a sound knowledge base taking into account the evolving factors, concepts, institutions and instruments underlying the protection and promotion of human rights at the EU, international and national levels; (ii) a critical examination and appraisal of the EU’s real and potential contribution to global human rights governance through its engagement with multiple actors and partners and through its multiple policies and instruments; (iii) a thorough scrutiny of the effectiveness of human rights promotion in the maze of EU institutions, competences and policies; and (iv) a set of indicators, tools and policy proposals allowing for a consistent and tailor-made integration of human rights in EU external and internal actions and policies. In this way, FRAME offers creative solutions to enhance the effectiveness and coherence of EU human rights policy and provides concrete guidance to EU policy-makers to help resolve problems hindering the protection and promotion of human rights. The project took off in March 2014 and will continue until 30 April 2017.

Browse

Browsing 06. FRAME Reports by Author "Bregaglio, Renata"
  • Item
    The global human rights protection governance system
    (FRAME, 2015-07) Häusler, Katharina ; Bregaglio, Renata ; Chavez, Carmela ; Dai, Tingting ; Gómez Isa, Felipe ; Hegde, Venkatachala G. ; Jaraczewski, Jakub ; Killander, Magnus ; Lukas, Karin ; Nagore Casas, María ; Nkrumah, Bright ; Yin, Lingying ; Mayrhofer, Monika
    This report was written as part of the FP7 research project ‘Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies’ and falls under Work Package 4 ‘Protection of Human Rights: Institution and Instruments’. The report builds on the D 4.1 ‘Report on the mapping study on relevant actors in human rights protection’ which outlined institutions and instruments for the protection of human rights at the national, European Union (EU), regional and international level. As the objective of WP 4 is to assess the institutions and instruments operating to protect human rights at the international, regional and national levels, the specific task of D4.2 ‘Report on the global governance protection system’ is to further this investigation by identifying gaps, tensions and contradictions in the regional and global human rights protection governance system. In order to tackle the quantity of institutions, instruments and levels involved, the report focuses in particular on the regional level. The first part of the report deals with the European level. The contributions shine spotlights on different aspects of the complex European human rights system, with a particular focus on the EU. The second part concentrates on regional human rights systems in Africa, the Americas and Asia and highlights gaps, contradictions and tensions of human rights institutions and instruments in these regions. The third part briefly summarises the most important conclusions. The review of academic legal literature at the beginning of the report (chapter II) elaborates on the broader European context by discussing the insufficiencies and inconsistencies of and the tensions and contradictions between different human rights protection systems in Europe. Examples of this are the complicated legal relationship between the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and national constitutions. Moreover, the large number of Council of Europe’s (CoE) instruments which codify diverse human rights standards lack adequate supervisory mechanisms, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) suffers from severe work overload. Concerning the human rights regime of the EU, the legal literature review discusses the fragmented EU fundamental rights framework, the subordinate role of economic, social and cultural rights and the lack of an internal EU fundamental rights monitoring mechanism. The report then (chapter III) analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities/Union (ECJ), the ECtHR and the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in two selected areas: asylum and migration and the secondary role of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) in EU law and possible tensions between these rights and the four fundamental (economic) freedoms. It finds that there are serious human rights gaps concerning the protection of migrants such as, e.g. difficulties for migrant children to access basic services. It also points out that ESCR, which in any event have a weak position within the EU, are further threatened by the ongoing economic crises, amounting to serious violations of these rights e.g. in Greece. The political science analysis of the EU’s legal and institutional fundamental and human rights frameworks (chapter IV) shows that tensions between the Member States and the EU are a problematic and disconcerting force when it comes to human and fundamental rights protection. The specific political system of the EU allows Member States to a certain extent to safeguard their national political FRAME interests which are in some cases at odds with the human rights values laid down in the Treaties. Other problematic issues are the lack of coherence which is observable in all EU institutions, a lack of knowledge about EU human and fundamental rights competences not only among EU citizens but also among policy makers and thus, the need for a better communication to the European public as well as the necessity of revealing and addressing political aspects, processes and responsibilities concerning human rights law and policies. The analysis further points to the need for institutional learning and adequate human rights training of EU officers, the demand for a stronger focus on conceptual and strategic human rights issues and the necessity of addressing trade-offs between human rights and other interests in EU external and internal action. In addition, an analysis of EU human rights political and legal documents (chapter V) demonstrates the lack of a comprehensive and overarching EU internal human rights policy, the uneven reflection of the concept of positive duties in EU policy documents and the fact that a majority of EU policy and legal documents refer to human rights on a very general and abstract level. The review of the outcome reports of the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council (UPR) of EU Member States (chapter VI) reveals that there is not only a lack of ratification of specific human rights instruments by EU Member States – e.g. the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families – but also a lack of, or inadequate, implementation of these instruments. Part II of the report covers regional human rights protection systems in Africa, the Americas and Asia. The African Union (chapter VII) has developed a considerable body of human rights instruments that are distinguished from other regional systems by explicitly taking into consideration all generations of rights. Some of them offer wider protection, some of them leave out key human rights issues. The most important gaps were identified in the field of implementation of these sometimes far-reaching instruments. This is not only a result of a rather weak and ineffective institutional framework, but also of the inadequate implementation of these instruments by state parties. The Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) (chapter VIII) evolved on the initiative of the Organization of American States and has adopted various regional human rights instruments. The problems identified include the repeated overruling of human rights standards of the IAHRS through military jurisdiction and amnesties, evasion of and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and difficulties of state parties to comply with judgments that involve measures regarding ESCR. Only recently have two international organisations in Asia started to advance regional human rights protection. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) adopted the ‘ASEAN Human Rights Declaration’ in 2012, which is criticised for falling far below international human rights standards and which is equipped only with a very weak and toothless supervisory body. The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) mainly relies on soft law instruments and has not established any formal institutional monitoring mechanism.
  • Item
    International Human Rights Protection: The Role of National Human Rights Institutions - a Case Study
    (FRAME, 2016-04) Mayrhofer, Monika ; Aquilar, Francisco ; Azeriah, Mehdi ; Bregaglio, Renata ; Gunn, Jeremy ; Harris, Patrick ; Idrissi, Amal ; Lagresa, Alvaro ; Lengua, Adrián ; Murthy, Y.S.R. ; Nkrumah, Bright ; Yigen, Kristine
    This Report was written as part of the FP7 research project, ‘Fostering Human Rights Among European (External and Internal) Policies’ and falls under Work Package 4, ‘Protection of Human Rights: Institutions and Instruments’. This Work Package aims to ‘map’ and assess current human rights protection systems. The present report focuses on National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and the roles which they play or should play in the monitoring of human rights. This analysis focuses on the national level, through four case studies on the NHRIs of India, Morocco, Peru and South Africa, and on the regional, European level. The report sheds light upon the many and varied institutional foundations and working methods of NHRIs and at times highlights a number of discrepancies between their legal mandates and their practical functions or effectiveness in the promotion and protection of human rights. Whilst all institutions covered were granted ‘A’ status by the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs, which assesses them in the light of their compliance with the 1993 ‘Paris Principles’, they all have a somewhat different modus operandi and approach towards human rights monitoring. The first part of this report introduces the research and elaborates upon the importance and growing significance of NHRIs. The second part, introduces the ‘Paris Principles’ and the relevant international framework and delineates the concept of monitoring. Part III, as the substantial body of the report, contains four chapters, each contributing a separate national case study based upon, the Indian ‘National Human Rights Commission’ (NHRC), the Moroccan ‘Conseil National des Droits de L’Homme’ (CNDH), the Peruvian ‘Defensoría del Pueblo’ (Office of the Ombudsperson) and the South African ‘Human Rights Commission’ (SAHRC), respectively. The fourth part of the report focuses upon the coordination and collaboration of NHRIS on a European (regional) level, before the fifth and final part notes conclusions which can be drawn from the ways in which the case studies highlight different approaches to human rights monitoring, drawing upon instances and categories of the latter which cut across the different institutions under review. The insights offered in Part III of the report are somewhat context-specific, but have as their common denominator the elaboration of mandates and functions undertaken by the NHRIs with the ultimate aim of the protection and promotion of human rights. In this work, monitoring necessarily emerges as a crucial and core element of such mandates and functions. The effectiveness of the transition from mandate to concrete action, in other words, the effective practical exercise of such mandates, appears to vary between the different institutions. Despite this, monitoring functions can certainly be noted and have been assessed throughout all case studies. Suggested areas for improvement and factors hampering the effective monitoring mandates are also clearly noted in all chapters. Ultimately, as regards the respective NHRIs, it is noted that the Indian NHRC has a somewhat ‘patchy’ record. Whilst it conducted crucial legislative monitoring and review in certain areas, it neglected to do so in others. It has perhaps not fulfilled its potential to play a coordinating role in harnessing synergies with other monitoring bodies. The assessment of Morocco’s CNDH is that whilst it exists as a Constitutional body, and its mandate allows it to conduct investigative visits, make recommendations, and undertake annual reporting, it has largely neglected some of its functions, including the reporting obligation. It is acknowledged that the CNDH has played a somewhat ‘modest’ role in the identification and monitoring of human rights abuses. In this regard, greater autonomy and collaboration with other state institutions and civil society is greatly needed. As regards the Peruvian Ombudsperson, whilst it has been increasingly involved in the receipt and addressment of individual complaints, and possesses a function of Constitutional review, the latter has been used sparingly and the former does not appear to guarantee a great deal of redress to victims. The Office of the Ombudsperson does appear to be rather active in the production of reports however, on thematic and regional bases. Despite this, it is concluded that themes addressed in this regard, and in general, would benefit from greater rights-based and gender perspectives in order to provide more useful information with regard to human rights. Finally, the SAHRC of South Africa notes a good number of areas in which monitoring is theoretically provided for and in which it occurs in practice. Concretely, the Commission sends out ‘protocols’ to state departments in order to measure progress made on specific economic, social and cultural rights, and it has also conducted public hearings on a number of themes. The chapter does note however, that there is an issue with a lack of governmental engagement with recommendations made, and that suggestions are not always taken seriously. It is noted that this may relate to the abstract nature of the issues addressed and a lack of substantive guidance on implementation. A more creative approach is suggested, in order to increase accessibility in this regard and furthermore an increase in the SAHRC’s monitoring mandate is also mooted, in order for it to intervene where provision of basic amenities could improve human rights situations. As regards cooperation with the European Union, the chapter notes reasons for the lack of a flourishing relationship, suggesting the need for constant engagement with the provision of technical and logistical resources in this respect. Part IV of the report focuses upon the key actors at the European level, and aims to elaborate upon the ways in which coordination among European NHRIs is ensured, including through the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions. The chapter notes that the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency has the potential to play a coordinating role in this respect, given its position in the institutional framework as a form of European ‘NHRI’. In relation to engagement of the EU with NHRIs in third countries, the chapter notes the valuable tool of human rights impact assessments as a means and basis for cooperation. It concludes however, that much greater systematic and formalised engagement is still needed.