A new approach to shaping European citizenship

In the framework of the fight against global international terrorism, the United Nations Security Council has adopted sanctions expressly aimed at Daesh (Islamic State), Al-Qaeda and the individuals, groups, companies and entities associated with them. The World Bank Group's website features a 'World Bank and Civil Society' window, which, among other things, notes the importance of what it calls Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), "a wide range of actors: community groups, NGOs, trade unions, indigenous groups, charities, religious organisations, professional associations and foundations". The World Bank recognises that CSOs have become important channels for the provision of social services that complement government action, and also highlights their "influence on public policy-making at the global level". Hence its interest in establishing channels of cooperation with CSOs. The UN also draws on the same concept of civil society. K. Anan put it as a challenge: it is imperative - he said - to strengthen the links between NGOs and other civil society actors on the one hand, and the UN on the other, and to this end he proposed to states various institutional reform measures that would enable tripartite UN-government-civil society action (Renewing the United Nations. A Programme for Reform. Report of the Secretary-General, Doc. A/51/1950, 14 July 1997, paragraphs 207-216).

What is new in international society today is a tradition in European international organisations. Created after the Second World War, they are based on democratic principles and respect for human rights common to all Member States, and their main objective is to promote unity among the European peoples and the protection of the individual. These circumstances led to a slight - but very important - change in its structure (compared to the structure of universal international organisations): the deliberative body will not be made up of representatives of (all) states but of representatives of European citizens. As a logical consequence, the executive body will no longer be a restricted body, but will be composed of representatives of all states. Article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe (1948) introduced this singularity: "The Consultative Assembly shall consist of representatives of each member, elected by its Parliament from among its members or appointed from among its members in accordance with a procedure laid down by that Parliament (...)". The European Communities followed this model, which they have developed further. The 1951 Treaty of Paris, which established the ECSC, created a parliamentary assembly. In 1957 the Treaties of Rome created the Assembly of the European Communities, which from then on was responsible for the ECSC, the EEC and EURATOM. The members of the Assembly were initially appointed by the national parliaments. Since 1979, Members of the European Parliament have been elected by direct universal suffrage. 

This interest in defending the interests of Europeans is a constant in the history of the EU. There was, as is well known, an initial silence in the Treaties on the protection of human rights (which is explained both by the largely technical objectives of the founding treaties of the three European Communities and by the conviction of their drafters that fundamental rights were sufficiently protected by the Member States - all democratic, all States party to the Rome Convention). But this gap was filled by the case law of the Court of Justice, which developed a doctrine underpinning the protection of fundamental rights in the Community legal order in the notion of general principles of Community law, and since the 1990s in primary law itself, since the Maastricht Treaty meant a certain democratisation of the institutions and the incorporation of certain basic guarantees of human rights. Then came the Charter (1999) and its binding nature (2001) and an autonomous doctrine on fundamental rights of the CJ. And citizenship of the Union and its rights.

At the same time, we are witnessing the establishment and development of basic economic freedoms with their strong economic and social character. Here too, the European institutions have been pioneers (with the exception of the International Labour Organisation) and have included in their decision-making process as a consultative body the Economic and Social Committee, representative of the various categories of economic and social life: employers, workers and representatives of other groups (farmers, traders, liberal professions, consumers, etc.), and, since 1994, the European Committee of the Regions, made up of representatives elected at local and regional level. 

As far as the functioning of the Union is concerned, the principle of subsidiarity and the recognition of a role for national parliaments serve the same purpose: to involve civil society in the work of the Community. 

And yet, after so many successes and so many efforts, Brussels is still a long way off. I believe that this can be explained by its policies (currently focused on digitalisation and the green pact) and its activities (centred on the construction and maintenance of the single market), by the remoteness of its institutions and its bureaucracy, by the weight of the governments, which occupy everything. It is thus understandable that, once again, "enhancing, protecting and consolidating European democracy" is a priority for the Commission. 

The approach is relatively new. It is not a question of integrating the political, economic or social representatives of Europeans into the EU's political game; on the contrary, the focus this time is on giving Europeans "a more prominent role in the decision-making process and a more active role in setting our priorities". They are given the floor to express "their views on what they consider important for the EU". A "public forum is created for an open, inclusive and transparent debate with citizens on a number of key priorities and challenges". Even if it is not clear what use the institutions will make of our voices, it is almost a civic obligation to participate in this opportunity that Citizens pro Europe and Atalayar have been able to channel wisely.

Santiago Ripol, Professor of International Law at Pompeu Fabra University and Senior Researcher of the Civil Society and International and European Law Research Group.