The institutional arrangements made by the Community in order to give effect to human rights policies have generally been inadequate, both in relation to internal and external matters. In the great majority of instances, the task has been left to entities with a very vague human rights mandate, reinforced by little expertise and even less interest. In a few isolated instances, however, and especially in relation to external policies, the Commission has established units with a specific mandate. They include Unit 2 of Directorate A of Directorate-General 1A, responsible for human rights and democratization; and Unit 4 of Directorate-General VIII responsible for the coordination of issues relating to the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, democratization and institutional support. These isolated units have achieved an enormous amount through the promotion of human rights activities in a wide range of areas.
But the complexity and fragmentation of the current arrangements are well illustrated by the composition of the ‘Standing Inter-Departmental Human Rights Co-ordination Group’, which sets the general guidelines for funding from the main external relations human rights budget (under chapter B7-70). The group is convened by DG I A and includes representatives from the Secretariat General, Forward Studies Unit, Legal Service, and from Directorates-General I, I A, I B, II, V, VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII, XV, XIX, XXII, XXIV, XXIII, and ECHO.26 Even with respect to external relations alone, the regional breakdown of responsibilities among Commissioners means that five different Commissioners and their respective bureaucracies have central roles to play.
This dispersal serves to highlight the extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs in relation to responsibility for human rights matters within a very large institutional apparatus which boasts all too little specialist human rights expertise in this field. It is important that the key human rights-related Units exist within Directorates-General IA and VIII. It is disturbing, however, that institutionally there is little more than that in any concerted sense. The result is that the Community landscape of human rights policies is not without some important positive features, but it is clearly fragmented, deficient in overall coherence and lacking in institutional leadership.
The recent decision of the European Court of Justice, in which it undercut the legal basis of the financial support given by the Community to a myriad of human rights agencies and activities, is emblematic.27 It was a perfect display of the consequences of human rights activity without a coherent policy, of ad hoc action rather than the achievement of programmatic goals, of almost intentional constitutional ambiguity towards human rights, of the wilful lack of clarity as regards Community competences and jurisdiction, and the embarrassing realization that in this field the Community has had to act by stealth and questionable constitutional means. In a perverse way the decision has had a positive impact in so far as it has drawn both public and official attention to the fact that the existing approach is in crisis and in need of major reform.
The decision also underscores that the European Court of Justice, no matter how carefully it may be attuned to the need to ensure full respect of fundamental rights within the Community legal order, cannot make up for the absence of the necessary legal and policy commitments on the part of the other institutions.
D Excessive Reliance upon Judicial Remedies
Overall, human rights policy within the Community continues to rely far too heavily on the premise that equipping individuals to pursue existing Community legal remedies (both at the national level and through the possibility of references to the European Court of Justice) is, for the most part, not merely sufficient but is even an effective mechanism to guarantee that rights will not be violated within the Community legal space. We challenge this implicit understanding. Judicial protection at the instance of individuals is an important, even foundational, dimension of an effective human rights regime. But while it is necessary, it is not sufficient. Effective access to justice requires a variety of policies that would empower individuals to vindicate the judicially enforceable rights given to them.28 Ignorance, lack of resources, ineffective representation, inadequate legal standing and deficient remedies all have the capacity to render judicially enforceable rights illusory.
In our view, therefore, too much faith is placed by the Community in the power of legal prohibitions and judicial enforcement. The gap between the political rhetoric of commitment to human rights and the unwillingness to provide the Union with the means to make that rhetoric a living reality has only served to underscore the inadequacy of the excessively judicially-focused strategy of negative integration in relation to human rights. To pretend at the end of this century that human rights and dignity can be guaranteed to all those, especially the weakest in our society, who need them by simply affirming the principle of respect or even by rendering Community and Union measures which are incompatible with human rights putatively illegal if challenged before Community Courts, is a position which, at best, is overly complacent.
The inadequacy of the Union’s approach to human rights is made possible in part by a knowledge and monitoring gap. The United Nations bodies responsible for supervising states’ compliance with their international human rights obligations have consistently emphasized that effective monitoring systems are an indispensable foundation upon which domestic human rights policies must be constructed.29 While there is a great deal of unsystematic information which suggests lacunae and gaps in the vindication of human rights in the field of application of Community law, no observer can have a comprehensive picture in this regard because there is no agency which is empowered to provide or collect such information in a regular, ongoing and systematic fashion. As a result, the Community lacks the necessary information base upon which it should make decisions as to the identification of legislative and policy priorities and the allocation of administrative and budgetary resources in the field of human rights.
A similar vacuum exists in relation to external relations. The absence of any systematic approach to monitoring and reporting has frequently been remarked upon, whether by the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, non-governmental organizations involved in EU matters or outside experts. The consequence is that the various policy-making and review exercises undertaken by the different institutions within the Union are based upon inadequate, uneven and above all unreviewable data and analysis. The resulting situation is unsatisfactory from the point of view of the institutions themselves, of third countries who should know the basis upon which an EU evaluation of their performance has been based, and of civil society whose informed capacity to scrutinize is an indispensable element in a consistent, coherent, transparent and well-supported human rights policy.30 If human rights are to be given their due in the context of the Second and Third Pillars, transparent reporting, based on objective and systematic monitoring, is essential. The availability of such reports would also have the capacity to increase considerably the effectiveness of the role played by the Parliament.
What is needed are not isolated initiatives – a database here, a new report there – nor even greater transparency; rather, a fundamental rethinking of the entire Union posture in this area is required.