Download Which Agenda for the CoR? - Committee of the Regions

WHICH ROLE FOR COR IN STRENGTHENED MLG
FRAMEWORK?
PROF. DR. ANTONIO PAPISCA
Conceptual scheme
Key words: subsidiarity, local self-government,
democracy, responsibility to protect, City diplomacy.
plural
citizenship,
transnational,
Processes of structural change going on across the planet (among others, complex
interdependence, transnationalisation, globalisation, internationalisation of human rights,
migration flows) are affecting especially local governments (including communes, provinces,
regions) as providers of basic social services.
Governance crisis is a structural one, because it affects not only governments capacities (in
this case it would be a conjunctural crisis), but also, and in depth, the very “form” of
statehood as it has been shaped in the last centuries: the State as a national-sovereign-armedborder legal entity.
The ongoing crisis of democracy, that somebody wants to export even by bombing, is
mainly due to the fact that issues relating to representative and participatory articulations of
democratic practice continue to be addressed with reference and within the ‘space’ of nationstate, in despite of a political and economic reality in which huge and heavy decisions are
taken outside and beyond that suffocating space.
In this schizophrenic moment of history, human rights and the practice of democracy are
suffering even in those countries where their experience is long-standing. Some few powerful
leaderships, also in response to terrorist behaviours and economic failures, are attempting to
drive back to the Westphalian era the ‘new’ International Law that has been developing since
1945-1948 (UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights) on the assumption that
the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
The constitutional implication of such humancentric revolution is that human dignity, that
is the indissociable binomial life-peace, not state sovereignty, is the founding moral-legal
value of world order. This implies that the ‘new’ principle “humana dignitas servanda est”
should have the primacy over anyother principle of inter-state law including ‘pacta sunt
servanda’ and ‘consuetudo servanda est’: both treaties and customs to be legitimate should be
consistent with the universal paradigm of human rights.

University of Padua
Prof. Dr. Antonio Papisca
Unfortunately it is under way the attempt to push back history and to rescue again that
baleful right to make war (ius ad bellum) that has been de iure deleted, once for all, by the
UN Charter: this makes very difficult the pursuit of objectives of social, economic and
territorial cohesion among local governments.
World multilateralism and regional integration processes and institutions continue to be
heavily conditioned by the barbarian syndrome of the easy war in despite of a worldwide civil
society claim for their strengthening.
A Latin saying could suitably describe the situation: “Quod Barbari non fecerunt,
Barberini fecerunt”: What Barbarians did not make, Barberini did make, even by destroying
portions of the Coliseum to build up their sumptuous Palazzi.
Local governments are the venue of vital administrative and social services, incorporating
economics, educational and landscape infrastructures as well as artistic and cultural heritage.
In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the
Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and
Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (UNGA Res.
53/144 of 9 December 1998), as “organs of society” local governments share with states the
“responsibility to protect” all those who live in their territories. Committed to defend life and
pursue well being as they are, local governments are entitled to claim active participation in
the construction of a peaceful world order following article 28 of the Universal Declaration/
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration can fully be realised”. The very fact of taking over this global
responsibility fits well in the inner nature of the local territorial polity as “being territory, not
border”.
States are legally bound to account to the international community with regard to human
rights, a task that in the past was embedded into the domestic jurisdiction of each state.
Nowadays the international recognition of fundamental rights is disengaging territory from
the border sovereignty of states. This revolutionary process is taking place in parallel with the
de-territorialisation of politics as a consequence of planetary interdependence and connected
globalisation processes. Local governments should take advantage from this dynamics in
order to give visibility to their being genuine “human territory”, not marked by arms or
borders.
The current official doctrine of the “responsibility to protect” emphasises the internationalinterventionist role of states saying that they are in the front line and the UN in the second. It
calls upon states and the international community to intervene in internal affairs even by using
force though only as last resort. Also to avoid abuses of a sound principle and bearing in mind
that human rights protection and violation are “local” events - they took place in the street, in
the village, in the cities, where daily life is going on -, it should be stressed that the matrix of
the responsibility to protect lies with the multidimensional concept of human security and the
principle of local self-government more than with state sovereignty.
2
Prof. Dr. Antonio Papisca
Since the ‘high politics’ agenda handled by the intergovernmental oligopolistic summitry
of states heavily conditions the representation of local governance interests, a prior
commitment of local governments associations and networks for good global (multi-level and
supra-national) governance, is to directly refer to the humancentric principles set forth by the
‘new’ International Law such as human rights, the rule of law, democracy (representative,
participatory), subsidiarity, local self-government, all to be considered as interconnected
principles. This is the legal and political premise to open and enlarge ‘rooms’ for the
representation of grass-roots territorial interests in the architecture and decision-making of
multi-level (and supra-national) governance.
For both quality and effectiveness of governance, it is urgent to recuperate genuine
democracy, that is “all democracy” - political, social and economic democracy - but to
achieve this strategic goal it is necessary to extend democratic practice in a suitable space,
from the local community up to the institutional sanctuaries of international politics and
economics. “All democracy” also means local, national, and international democracy.
Since local government institutions are forced to deal directly with problems that belong to
the political agenda of world order, local authorities are fully legitimated to claim and actually
play a visible role in international affairs. Local governments being closer than other
institutions to the ‘vital needs’ of citizens – formally recognised as ‘fundamental rights’ not
only by national democratic constitutions but also by the International law in force that is
rooted in the UN Charter and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -, they are the
primary (territorial) pole of subsidiarity also in the international system. This means that local
governments are the front line institutions that provide effectiveness to International law:
effectiveness on the spot. Consequently they benefit also from a formal legitimation to
participate in the functioning of a system of world governance which, to be good and capable,
cannot but be multi-level, even supra-national in some fields, and democratic.
To this regard, the case of Italy is worth mentioning. In 1991, Municipalities and Provinces
were allowed by a national bill to exercise a larger extent of autonomy in revising their
Statutes. The result is that thousands new Statutes include the so-called ‘peace human rights
norm’, that reads as follows: “The Commune X (the Province X), in conformity with the
Constitution and the principles of International law of human rights, recognises peace as a
fundamental right of individuals and of peoples. To this purpose it pledges to take initiative
and cooperate with civil society organisations, schools and universities”. By this statutory
provision, Italian Communes and Provinces are formally committed to comply with the
fundamental principles of International law, in particular with article 28 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Hence local governments can rightly claim to be formally
recognised as fundamental human security and human development public stakeholders, then
as institutions which directly contribute to the effectiveness of the International law of human
rights, then to the construction of positive peace.
The meaning of peace for local territorial polities cannot but be large and comprehensive,
that is both social peace and international peace.
3
Prof. Dr. Antonio Papisca
To carry out tasks of comprehensive peace-building from below up to the United Nations
system, local authorities should be aware of the strength of ‘soft power’ and of the skills that
are required to use it in the most effective way. A strong resource of soft power for local
governments is their commitment to build up ‘inclusive cities’, that is to provide equal
opportunities for the enjoyment of all human rights (civil, political, economic, social, cultural)
and political participation for all those leaving in the local community. The aim is to meet the
requirements of ‘plural citizenship’, which implies harmonising national (bureaucratic,
historical) citizenships with the ‘universal citizenship’ that coincides with the equal legal
status of “all members of the human family” as the original holders of inherent rights and
freedoms internationally recognised. The ratio of the new, plural citizenship based on human
rights is ad omnes includendos, differently from the older which is conceived ad alios
excludendos.
The growing political movement of ‘City Diplomacy’, strongly supported by ‘United
Cities and Local Governments’, is working to make more visible the political role of local
governments as an essential - I would even say providential - help to states and multilateral
institutions in the framework of a peaceful and democratic multi-level governance.
The commitment of the Committee of the Regions, Noblesse oblige
Needless to point out that the EU system is not sheltered from the worldwide turmoil. Its
functioning, even its architectural structure, is increasingly conditioned by externalinternational variables. The European ‘single voice’ in the world system has become a key
element also for the internal strengthening of the EU.
At present, the Committee of the Regions is the international-supranational body that owns
a high degree of formal and substantive authority and a large range of competences in the EU
system as well as in the international scenario. It works within a system that ‘decides’ in a
binding way in many vital fields.
It is composed by representatives of local and regional institutions democratically elected,
hence it is a body endowed with large grass roots legitimacy. It is actually the official
“transnational house” of local governments.
Its competences, although advisory, refer to matters covered by policies and programmes
involving remarkable EU budget lines.
The ‘regionalism’ represented and carried out by the CoR in the EU institutional system is
a ‘bottom-up regionalism’ that balances and excels the primitive ‘top-down (charitable)
regionalism carried out by the European Community. Briefly it is a high profile “political
regionalism”, having constitutional implications for the future of the EU system.
The fact of having political groups, as the European Parliament has, does contribute to
strengthen the political identity and impact of the CoR.
By representing local territorial interests, that are different from national (state) interests,
the CoR helps developing the supranational dimension of the EU, then its political
integration.
4
Prof. Dr. Antonio Papisca
Furthermore the continual production of Opinions that increasingly refer to sensitive
issues, like those dealing with human rights, plural citizenship, enlargement, environment,
multiculturalism and intercultural dialogue, social and territorial cohesion, strengthens the
‘political’ relevance of the CoR role for the extension of local self-government as a
contribution to democratic multi-level governance.
It is important to exploit these positional features as resources of power to carry out and
increase roles within the EU system and in the system of world politics. The CoR Committee
for external relations has a lot to do in this direction.
Which Agenda for the CoR?
The liberation of “territoriality” from the determinism of the (ontic…) ties with the “armed
sovereignty” of states should be pursued by referring to the principles of local selfgovernment and subsidiarity (both territorial and functional), human rights, the rule of law
and democracy (art.6 TUE, Charter of EU fundamental rights, other international legal
instruments), as key-principles of good (global) governance. It is important to refer to these
principles as complementary principles.
Within the EU system, main tracks for action (pistes pour l’action):
- mainstreaming in all EU policies, including Pesc-Pesd, local interests as “horizontal”
interests, not as “corporate” interests,
- highlighting “all human rights for all” with special emphasis on the principle of their
interdependence and indivisibility,
- emphasising the importance of the so-called solidarity rights, such as the right to
development, the right to environment, the right to peace, as well as the right to water
and to other global public goods, and the ‘rights of the Poor’ (see the draft “Guidingprinciples on extreme poverty and human rights: the rights of the Poor” prepared by
the UN Human Rights Council),
- pursuing objectives of social and territorial cohesion in the light of the above
mentioned article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
- promoting intercultural dialogue, ‘plural citizenship’ and ‘inclusion’ at local and
regional level,
- developing infrastructures dealing with education, sports, environment, landscape,
‘world heritage’.
A very important track deals with the building up across the EU territory, of European
Groupings of Territorial Cooperation, EGTCs, as provided by Regulation 1082/2006. Key
EGTC features: membership is varied, both territorial and non territorial (local governments,
states, other public institutions); local governments are at same level of states, hence “sharing
the territory” for social and territorial cohesion; territorial and non-territorial entities of third
countries could become members, etc. In this innovative context, building up EGTCs
provides a suitable ground to put into practice multi-level governance starting from below. As
a new trasnational territorial entity with legal personality, the EGTC has strategic relevance,
5
Prof. Dr. Antonio Papisca
also outside the EU, because it is a concrete example of how to mitigate, hopefully to break,
the monopolistic use of territory by states for peaceful purposes.
Methods: Opinions, own-initiative Opinions, Resolutions, ad hoc Presidential statements,
Dossiers, Workshops, Meetings with local governments associations, Dialogue with civil
society organisations, etc…
In the international system: as the most “powerful” and representative body of local
governance in the world scenario, not only in the EU system, the CoR should further
strengthen its task of leading by example, to mainstream in the global architecture of multilevel governance the principles of subsidiarity, local self government and transnational
democracy.
Among the strategic objectives, to pursue in cooperation, among others, with the Congress
of Regional and Local Authorities of the Council of Europe, the “United Cities and Local
Governments”, UCLG, the ‘City Diplomacy” movement and other networks of local
authorities and civil society organisations: a) the formal recognition, in the United Nations
system, of local self government as a universal value (analogy with the Council of Europe
regime), b) the establishment within the UN institutional architecture of a “UN Committee of
Local Governments” (that would be more representative and effective than the present
UNACLA), c) cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, the Peace-building Commission and the UN Human Rights
Council (with special reference to “local institutions for human rights”, human rights
defenders, children rights, rights of persons with disability, extreme poverty, immigrants;
pertinent documents, among others: EU guidelines on human rights, CoR Opinion on
EIDHR, Strategy Paper 2007-2010), d) the promotion of the idea of “International”
Groupings of Territorial Cooperation, e) cooperation in the framework of UNESCO,
especially in the fields of world heritage and cultural diversity, f) cooperation with the World
Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, UNICEF, UNDP, etc…
Hopefully, a further item on the CoR agenda should refer to the necessity of imagining a
new “institutional” arrangement for those multi-cultural (multi-ethnic) territories in which the
territorial independence could not be the suitable lasting outcome of a self-determination
process. I propose to set up a workshop to discuss the idea of establishing “transnational
territories” (transnational regions, provinces, districts) under supranational guarantee (without
disturbing pre-existing states) and giving them formal visibility in the EU system.
6