Human Rights and the OSCE

I. Introduction

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which prior to 1 January 1995 was named the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), ¹ is not “user friendly.” Its change in name, complex structure and nomenclature, use of obscure terminology, consensus decisionmaking process, and tendency to produce elaborate and bureaucratic procedures, most of which have never been used, ² can seem like a Kafkaesque nightmare.

However, in the twenty years since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act ³ in 1975, the OSCE ⁴ has been through a number of phases. At its best, it has been a means of keeping channels of communication open during the Cold War, maintaining pressure in relation to human rights issues, and responding to events quickly when the will to cooperate was present, whether in standard-setting (e.g., minorities in Copenhagen and emergencies in Moscow) or in sending missions.

In recent years, the OSCE has made its greatest achievements in the area of human rights when it has acted rather than negotiated, in particular through the work of its long-duration missions and of the High Commissioner on National Minorities. Neither of these examples technically falls within the human dimension (human rights) facet of the OSCE. However, one need not feel bound by the official classification, as the OSCE itself is not a human rights organization but a political body.

II. Background

The adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 is the point most often considered to mark the beginning of the OSCE, although this was preceded by two years of negotiations and a much longer period of efforts by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact nations to establish a European security conference following the end of the Second World War. For the Soviet Union, the main wish was for acceptance of the de facto division of Europe and of the new borders, together with some commitment towards greater economic cooperation between East and West. ⁵ The West was skeptical, but eventually agreed that there could be benefits in such a meeting, where pressure could be brought to bear on the Soviet bloc in relation to human rights issues. ⁶ For the neutral and non-aligned countries there was the particular wish for a voice in the debate on security issues from which they were normally excluded by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact, as well as the possible reduction in some of the tensions. (It was no accident that Finland offered to host the first meeting.) Although it was heralded as a European Conference, the Western group insisted that all the NATO countries be involved because of the nature of the European security system. Thus Canada and the United States have participated throughout, together with all the countries of Europe. The only change in the geographical area covered by the OSCE occurred when Albania joined in 1991. With the splitting up of the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, the number of Participating States has increased from thirty-five (including two Germanies) to fifty-four. The present total includes Yugoslavia (i.e., Serbia and Montenegro), which has been suspended since 1992.

The first phase of the OSCE ran from its inception until the break-up of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991. During this period, the OSCE was indeed a series of intergovernmental conferences, as its original name implied. The major ones were held in Helsinki (1973–1975), ⁷ Belgrade (1977–1978), ⁸ Madrid (1980–1983), ⁹ Vienna (1986–1989), ¹⁰ and again in Helsinki (1992). ¹¹ Each conference created its own secretariat. The OSCE had no continuing institutional existence between the conferences. The main conferences (known after the initial Helsinki meeting as Follow-up Meetings) spawned a number of shorter, more specific meetings. During this first phase, the OSCE was a forum for dialogue (or competing monologues); it was in essence truly an intergovernmental process. This was radical for its time, although already it may be hard to remember the dearth of multilateral discussions, the few opportunities available to Warsaw Pact...