1. The Community of Democracies: from Warsaw to Seoul
2. The Transnational Radical Party and the Community of Democracies: ideas for its evolution
3. Towards the transformation of the Council of Europe into a World Council of Democracies
1. The Community of Democracies: from Warsaw to Seoul
The Community of Democracies was born in Warsaw in June 2000. On that occasion the founding countries (the Convening Group formed by Chile, the Czech Republic, the Republic of Korea, India, Mali, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, South Africa and the United States) undertook in the final declaration to build a Community of Democracies, as an association of democratic countries committed to the reinforcement of the values and the institutions of democracy at national and international level.
From 10 to 12 November 2002 the government of the Republic of Korea hosted the second Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies, attended, on the invitation of the Convening Group, by the representatives of 110 countries and international organisations.
The Ministerial Conference in Seoul came to a conclusion on 12 November with the adoption of a Plan of Action and a declaration by the Member States of the Community of Democracies on terrorism. The participants confirmed the principles of the Warsaw Declaration and the objectives contained in the Charter of the United Nations and in the other international instruments for the protection of human rights, aiming at the protection and consolidation of democracy at world level through co-operation as a valid response to the recurrent threats to democracy.
Compared to the Warsaw Declaration, the Seoul Plan of Action also contains procedures to put into practice the will to consolidate and protect the various aspects of democracy. Reference is made in particular to the formation by the Convening Group and by other countries that are part of the Community of Democracies of coalitions and caucuses in support of democracy.
While there is no specific mention of the contexts within which these caucuses can be set up, it would be natural to envisage them within organisations that are already operative, such as the United Nations or the various regional organisations. It is also specified that the Convening Group should function as a link between regions and regional organisations to promote the sharing of best practices and ideas.
It is our belief that two fundamental developments should now be encouraged: the expansion of the Convening Group to countries that make an official request to join it, and the adoption by the Convening Group of rules of procedure and convocation. The latter requirement was explicitly acknowledged by the Foreign Ministers of the Convening Group in a joint communication published on 12 September 2000, in which they pledged to draw up procedures for the direction of the activities of the Convening Group and of the informal “democracy caucuses”, a commitment which has still not been honoured.
2. The Transnational Radical Party and the Community of Democracies: ideas for its evolution
In the framework of the forum of NGOs held in parallel with the meeting of the Community of Democracies in Seoul, the Transnational Radical Party made concrete proposals for the establishment of a full-fledged “World Organisation of Democracies and of Democracy”, proposals that were adopted during the course of its 38th Congress, held in Tirana, Albania, from 31 October to 3 November 2002.
In particular, the Transnational Radical Party proposed:
1) The formal institution of a permanent Secretariat of the Community of Democracies, made up of representatives of the countries of the Convening Group and charged with enacting the Warsaw Declaration of 2000 and the Seoul Plan of Action of 2002 and with drawing up a project which, through Preparatory Intergovernmental Conferences, can arrive at the convocation of a Diplomatic Conference for the formal institution of a World Organisation of Democracy.
2) The official formation of Democracy Caucuses, groups of democratic countries, within the United Nations and international and regional organisations such as the Council of Europe and the Organisation of American States. These caucuses should meet at least six times a year and deal with the effective implementation of the institutive Treaties of these organisations.
3) Priority focus in the international forums and the Democracy Caucuses on the respect of human rights and the principles of democracy in procedures for the election of organs and for the appointment of experts in monitoring organs.
4) The promotion both in the UN Commission on Human Rights and in the General Assembly of resolutions aiming at the establishment of a Preparatory Committee charged with presenting proposals leading to the birth of the World Organisation of Democracy.
5) The promotion of initiatives at the United Nations which, through the adoption of resolutions by the General Assembly, would recognise the referral to the Security Council of situations in which the systematic violation of human rights, democracy and the Rule of Law is considered to be a threat to international peace and security.
3. Towards the transformation of the Council of Europe into a World Council of Democracies
There are various reasons in favour of the transformation of the Council of Europe into a World Council of Democracies. The first undoubtedly lies in the criteria for membership of this organisation. In order to join the Council of Europe candidate states must, in fact, not only opt clearly and concretely for democracy and the Rule of Law but also pledge to respect a number of additional criteria (the abolition of the death penalty, the ratification of conventions, …) in their national legislations. In exchange, membership of the Council of Europe constitutes on one hand a sort of certificate of “democratic status”, or “democratic respectability”, and on the other hand a spur to democratisation or the preservation of democracy.
Another fundamental reason in favour regards content. Whether it is a matter of reforming the United Nations, inventing a new international organisation or transforming an existing organisation, one of the crucial issues to be faced is the need for progress in the development of new areas of international justice and, even more important, of international jurisdiction. One clear example of this kind of progress in terms of the expansion of the bounds of international justice and international jurisdiction is the experience of the European Court of Human Rights. An international tribunal with subsidiary competence with respect to national jurisdictions, which during the fifty years of its existence has played a crucial role in the defence of the fundamental rights, giving European citizens the chance to appeal to a court above the highest court in their own countries and forcing the Member States to review their own laws on the basis of the sentences passed by the Court.
Another reason lies both in the process of enlargement of the European Union and in the process of its deepening (to be verified after the conclusion of the current process for the reform of the treaties), which tends to create an overlap between the two institutions. The transformation of the Council of Europe into the World Council of Democracies would thus provide it with a new mission.
This prospect could also be an opportunity, in the light of the experience of the Council of Europe over the last fifty years, to reinforce its mechanisms for supranational integration or federation.
In particular, this development would reinforce the comparative advantages resulting from membership of the organisation in the economic field (trade and co-operation agreements) or in the cultural field.
It would also reinforce the competence of the present Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular with regard to its control over questions that are the subject of an international treaty signed by all the Member States of a future World Organisation of Democracies. We might think, for example, of the Sixth Protocol (or of similar treaties or conventions) on the abolition of the death penalty, the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel mines, the Kyoto Treaty on the reduction of gas emissions, and so on. The Parliamentary Assembly would also be given the power to set up committees of inquiry with real, extensive powers of investigation.
As for the Committee of Ministers, an organism so far of an almost exclusively intergovernmental character, it might be possible to introduce a series of modifications to the rules regarding its decision-making procedures, in particular by replacing unanimous decisions by (super)qualified majority decisions.
Finally, one argument often used against this proposal needs to be countered. The argument, that is, which sees the European nature of the organisation as a factor that makes its transformation into a World Council of Democracies a clearly Eurocentric operation. It is clear that the transformation of the Council of Europe into a World Council of Democracies would mean making a European organism the foundation (including - as far as the Court is concerned - its huge legacy of jurisprudence) of an international organism. It should be noted, however, that this fact - incontrovertible as it is - has not prevented the United States, Japan, Mexico, Israel, or Canada from applying for and obtaining the status of observer members of the Committee of Ministers or of the Parliamentary Assembly. Equally significant is the non-restrictive approach taken by the Council after the break-up of the Soviet Union. As well as Russia, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan are now members to all effects and purposes of the Council, while Turkey has been a member for a considerable time. The identity of the Council of Europe as it is today is very different from what it was at the time of its foundation, and it would no doubt have no trouble assuming a new physiognomy with the adhesion of democratic countries from Africa, America, Asia or Oceania. The only criteria of “identification” to be maintained (and in some ways strengthened) is that of the adhesion to the principles of democracy and of the Rule of Law of the new (and also the “old”) members.
The proposal is therefore the gradual transformation of the Council of Europe into a World Council of Democracies, by opening up membership to extra-European countries and extending its structures: the enlargement of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and the European Court of Human Rights.
The Council of Europe would already have three of the organs thought by some observers to be necessary in a World Council of Democracies: a Secretariat, an Assembly of Parliamentarians and an Assembly of Governments. Moreover, it already possesses, as its major asset, a tribunal with international competence.
For the Member States, therefore, the benefits could be of two types: a political benefit, also in terms of prestige, and an economic benefit through membership, for example, of a common economic space or through the mutual recognition of preferential customs tariffs.
Membership of the World Council of Democracies would be based on the recognition and respect of all the principles and values recognised in the treaties and conventions on which the Council of Europe is currently founded, as well as on other commitments that the founder members of the World Council of Democracies. |
PER UNA ORGANIZZAZIONE MONDIALE DELLE DEMOCRAZIE E DELLA DEMOCRAZIA 
POUR UNE ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA DEMOCRATIE ET DES DEMOCRATIES
POR UNA ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DE LAS DEMOCRACIAS Y DE LA DEMOCRACIA