Editors

Adrian IVAN
Cristian GĂZDAC
Claudiu MARIAN

New perspectives on
European (in)security
Copyright © CA Publishing, 2020, for the present edition.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored on a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other-
wise without the prior written permission of CA Publishing.

Book editor: Paul Țap

Design editor: Paul Țap
Front cover: Palkó Botond

CONTENTS

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României Authors’ Biographies 9

IVAN, ADRIAN LIVIU
New perspectives on European (In)security / Adrian Liviu Ivan, Cristian Găzdac,
Claudiu Marian. - Cluj-Napoca : CA Publishing, 2020 Ani KINTSURASHVILI
Conţine bibliografie
NorthStream 2: A security threath or a strategic gain for the EU? 11
ISBN 978-606-8330-81-5

I. Găzdac, Cristian Bogdan ȚOPAN

II. Marian, Claudiu Fake news, disinformation and propaganda in Eastern Europe:
32 Rethinking the new battlefield of the hybrid war 25

Eszter SZEDLACSEK
Hungarian migration and security policy as a semi-peripheral
positioning in the European Union 45

Florian COLDEA
Towards European Union Intelligence: No Longer “Raison d`état” Only 65

Horea Mircea BOTOS

Information architecture and Competitive Intelligence 79

Jaseff Raziel YAURI-MIRANDA

Surveillance and intelligence studies: points for a theoretical and
Published by CA Publishing interdisciplinary approach 87
ADDRESS: Cluj-Napoca, B-dul Eroilor, 34/3
PHONE: 0364.807.636 Nino MACHURISHVILI
E-MAIL: office@ca-publishing.ro
Prospects of EU Policy towards South Caucasus vs. Russia’s Military Intervention 105
WEB: www.ca-publishing.ro
Pınar Uz HANCARLI
When Copenhagen School meets Brexit: An analysis of pro-Brexit MPs
speeches in British Parliament 121

Saše GERASIMOSKI, Marjan ARSOVSKI

Private security in South-Eastern Europe: Between Security and Insecurity 129

Valéria HORVATH
Human insecurity – the focal point of irregular migration 145

Vassilios GRAMMATIKAS
An overlooked Security Issue: Cultural Practices vs. Fundamental Rights 161
Francesca Vietti (2013): Human Insecurity: Understanding International Migration from a Human
Security Perspective, Journal on Migration and Human Security, Volume 1 Number 1 17-31.
George Christou (2014) The European Union’s human security discourse: where are we now?,
European Security, 23:3, 364-381.
Giorgio Shani (2017): Human Security as ontological security: a post-colonial approach,
Postcolonial Studies.
Joao Estevens (2018): Migration crisis in the EU: developing a framework for analysis of national
security and defence strategies. Comparative migration studies, 6(1).
Khalid Koser (2005) Irregular migration, state security and human security, A paper prepared for
the Policy Analysis and Research Programme of the Global Commission on International An overlooked Security Issue:
Migration at https://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/
mainsite/policy_and_research/gcim/tp/TP5.pdf (Downloaded: 26 April, 2019). Cultural Practices vs. Fundamental Rights
Lorraine Elliott (2015) Human security/environmental security, Contemporary Politics, 21:1,
11-24.
Margit Fauser (2006): Transnational Migration – A National Security Risk? Securitization of
Migration Policies in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, Center for International Vassilios GRAMMATIKAS
Relations, Reports & Analyses, 2/06.
Mely Caballero-Anthony (2015) Community security: human security at 21, Contemporary Politics, Abstract:
21:1, 53-69. The recent migration flows into the EU have, undoubtedly, increased security concerns mainly focusing on
Nikolaos Tzifakis (2011): Problematizing human security: a general/contextual conceptual the spread of Islamic extremism / terrorism and its impact upon European societies. However, another issue,
approach, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 11:4, p. 353-368.
which is usually underrated, as it does not address hard security issues, has to do with the cultural differences
P. Brian Fisher (2011): Climate change and human security in Tuvalu, Global Change, Peace &
of the masses of people arriving in Europe to fundamental rights upon which European societies rely. The
Security, 23:3, 293-313.
vast majority of migrants / refugees that have settled in the EU share values which appear to be prima facie
Robert O. Keohane (2002): Ironies of Sovereignty: The European Union and the United States. IN:
Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4) 743-65. incompatible to those of the Europeans. Examples that could be seen as totally in contrast with fundamental
Supt. Shahbudin Bin Abdul Wahab (2002): GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON rights are Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages of minors, castration etc. Within most European
NATIONAL SECURITY, Journal of the Royal Malaysia Police Senior Officers’ College. societies, there appears to be a general reluctance in addressing or combating such practices, based on the
T.V. Paul and Norrin M. Ripsman (2004): Under Pressure? Globalisation and the National Security notions of tolerance, peaceful coexistence and, more importantly, cultural relativity. However, acceptance
State, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 33, 355-380. of practices that violate fundamental rights within European societies and the EU itself entails the inherent
Tamirace Fakhoury (2016): Tangled Connections between Migration and Security in the Wake of danger of compromising these values, thus leading to a notion of “human rights relativity”, which would
the Arab Uprisings: A European Perspective, IAI Working Papers, 16/06. undermine the very foundations upon which these societies developed in the last 50 years. While this threat
Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen – Ninna Nyberg Sorensen (ed): The Migration Industry and the does not apply to hard security, it could become a serious destabilizing factor endangering the social fabric of
Commercialization of International Migration. Routledge, New York, 2013, 302. our societies. Through the examination of relevant state practice, domestic and international jurisprudence,
Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber: The social construction of state sovereignty in Thomas J. the presentation will analyze the level of this danger and the responses that could be provided in the context
Biersteker and Cynthia Weber (eds.) (1996): State sovereignty as social construct, Cambridge
of our modern, multicultural societies.
University Press.
Keywrods: EU, security, Islamic extremism, migrants
Reports and charter
FRONTEX Annual Risk Analysis 2018. Introduction
Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018.
UN Charter, 1945.
When we discuss the concept of security nowadays, we usually tend to address hard
UN Commission on Human Security Human Security Now! Report 2003. security issues like terrorism, cyber-crime in its various forms, military aspects etc. And quite
UNDP Human Development Report 1994. right we do so, since these aspects of security have been in the forefront of state considerations
UNDP Human Development Report 2000. and media coverage for decades. Europe, as a political formation (the EU), is widely considered
UNGA Resolution 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome. to be a model of peaceful transition from the horrors of WWI and WWII to a peaceful
World Migration Report 2020. coexistence with gradual, unique, achievements in the economic and political unification

160
process. Therefore, according to this perception, the level of security that has been achieved
throughout this process is very high and is used as a standard for any other similar endeavor.
However, reality does not seem to be so ideal. First of all, the EU experiment initially
included a minority of European states, with a number of others being dominated by communist
regimes, the collapse of which led to violent conflicts in the former USSR and, mainly, Yugoslavia,
where we witnessed unprecedented violence, ethnic cleansing, huge amounts of casualties,1
even to the brink of genocides,2 events that took place in the heart of Europe. Analogous events
– but in a much smaller scale concerning the overall life losses, but probably larger in terms of
ethnic cleansing – took place in the Caucasus after the dissolution of the USSR.
In a different setting, Western Europe has been the main theatre of domestic and
international terrorism, from the early 70’s to the 90’s. Political terrorism included groups
such as Brigade Rosse in Italy,3 the Baader Meinhof / RAF in W. Germany,4 Action Directe
in France,5 17th November, ELA, EA, Nucleuses of Fire in Greece, while national liberation
terrorism included ETA in Spain, IRA in the UK / N. Ireland and Palestinian / Arab groups that
found Europe as the most suitable area of operations, like PFLP, Carlos group etc. The demise
of the above groups by the early 90’s and the relative security that was accomplished all over
Europe, together with the economic development mainly in the EU, was violently interrupted
after 9/11, when the rise of Islamic extremism found the open societies of Western Europe as an
easy target offering huge media coverage as well.6However, one should also mention the Breivik
attacks in Norway (2011) with 77 victims.7
The above cases, as well as many others, show that the concept of security within Europe
(and even more within the EU) is somewhat illusional, as challenges are plenty.
The various forms of security
The position of International Organizations
Security though is not confined to issues having to do with terrorism, war, or crime, but
is a multifaceted concept that includes many aspects of human activity. This is acknowledged,
inter alia, by NATO, which represents the most powerful military alliance that exists today. In
1
It is estimated that during the Bosnia & Herzegovina war alone there were more than 100.000 deaths (civilian and military)
thus constituting the largest massive loss of life in Europe since the end of WWII.
2
In the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina
v. Serbia and Montenegro) Case, the ICJ found that the mass killings that took place in Srebrenica constituted genocide
( Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, paras. 186-188). See also the Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic Judgment of the ICTY
where the ICTY Chamber cited a number of domestic jurisprudence cases that found mass killings in Bosnia & Herzegovina
to amount to genocides at a local level (para. 589) but the Chamber itself deviated from this approach considering that the
acts of Krstic did not amount to a genocide (para. 590). (Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No IT-98-33-T, Judgment of
2.8.2001, available at http://www.icty.org/x/cases/krstic/tjug/en/krs-tj010802e.pdf).
3
For a historical account of the group’s composition and activity see Sundquist, VH.: “Political Terrorism: An Historical Case
Study of the Italian Red Brigades.” 3 Journal of Strategic Security 53 (2010), 57-63.
4
See BBC: Who were Germany’s Red Army Faction militants? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35354812).
5 12
Dartnell M.Y.: Action Directe: Ultra-left Terrorism in France, 1979-1987 (Frank Cass, London, 1995), pp. 1-17.
6
One could refer to the2004 Madrid attacks, resulting in 200 people killed, the 2005 London bombings with 50 victims and
the more recent attacks in Paris, Brussels, London and Paris.
7
See https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/anders-behring-breivik.
162
a Declaration adopted by the Heads of States in 2009 it is stated that “Other challenges such as
energy security, climate change, as well as instability emanating from fragile and failed states, may also
have a negative impact on Allied and international security. Our security is increasingly tied to that of
other regions”,8 thus expanding, the notion of security to cover aspects directly connected to the
needs of peoples and societies.
The OSCE, the most comprehensive Security Organization worldwide, apart from the
security issues connected to terrorism, arms proliferation and control, border management
and conflict resolution has a very powerful human dimension which is defined in the following
terms: “All OSCE participating States agree that lasting security cannot be achieved without respect
for human rights and functioning democratic institutions. The OSCE helps its participating States
strengthen democratic institutions; hold genuine and transparent democratic elections; promote
gender equality; ensure respect for human rights, media freedom, the rights of persons belonging to
national minorities and the rule of law; and promote tolerance and non-discrimination”.9
The notion of Human Security
All aspects of security that have a direct connection with human activities fall within a
general category described as “human security”. Although there is no precise definition of the
concept, as it is still developing within various academic disciplines and state practice, there are
some defining characteristics that can be demarkated. Human Security:
• tends to start from individual citizens and the communities in which they live, rather
than from states;
• approaches person-centred security as an integral element of international peace and
security;
• recognises that the security of states is essential but not sufficient to guarantee
person-centred security and well-being;
• focuses on threats to persons, whether their origin may be military or nonmilitary.10
In other words, human security amounts to “… protecting people from severe and pervasive
threats, both natural and societal, and empowering individuals and communities to develop the
capabilities for making informed choices and acting on their own behalf”.11
If one wishes to describe human security, the United Nations, its first Human Development
Report noted that it is a holistic, evolving, people-centric interpretation of security that exists
when an individual has political and civil rights (“freedom from fear”) and social and economic
rights (“freedom from want”).12 More than 20 years later, the same report considers human
8
Declaration on Alliance Security Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North
Atlantic Council in Strasbourg / Kehl on 4 April 2009 (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_52838.htm).
9
OSCE: What we do: Human Dimension (https://www.osce.org/what-we-do).
10
Heinbecker P.: “The Concept of Human Security”, 145 RUSI Journal 27 (2000), pp. 27-32. See also Homan K.: “The Military
and Human Security”, 19 Security and Human Rights 74 (2008).
11
The above definition is rather important, as it was provided by Sadoka Ogata, former UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
Ogata S. & Cels J.: “Human Security: Protecting and Empowering People”, 9 Global Governance 273 (2003), p. 274.
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report (Oxford University Press, Oxford / New York,
1994), p. 24. While recognizing the difficulty in defining human security, the report goes on to identify it in the following
terms: “Human security can be said to have two main aspects. It means, first, safety from such chronic threats as hunger,
disease and repression. And second, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the patterns of daily
163
security as “… enlarging freedoms so that all human beings can pursue choices that they value. Such
freedoms have two fundamental aspects— Freedom of well-being, represented by functionings and
capabilities, and freedom of agency, represented by voice and autonomy”.13
By observing these formulations, we can easily detect a gradual shift towards individual
rights and freedoms as crucial components of human security. The 2005 World Summit
Outcome Document (WSOD)14 incorporated the notion of “human security”. In para. 143 it is
stated that “We stress the right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair.
We recognize that all individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear
and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their
human potential. To this end, we commit ourselves to discussing and defining the notion of human
security in the General Assembly”.15
More importantly, it employed the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” in the sense
that it is the primary obligation of states to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and, if they do not do so, collective
action may be taken against these states.16 The fact that the WSOD was adopted without a vote
(unanimously) is very important in the sense that the whole international community accepted
that prevention and responses to the most severe threats to human security, as described in the
crimes enumerated in the WSOD, (a) constitute a primary responsibility of States and (b) allow
the UN to collectively address them if a state is violating them or cannot act in an appropriate
manner to protect its population.
This constitutes, by far, the most important concession that UN members have made
to their sovereignty17 towards preserving fundamental aspects of human security through
collective efforts and action.
life-whether in homes, in jobs or in communities. Such threats can exist at all levels of national income and development”
(id., p. 23). Furthermore, in the same document, the threats to human security are enumerated as: Economic security, Food
security, Health security, Environmental security, Personal security, Community security, Political security. It should also be
mentioned that the former UN Secretary General Cofi Anan commented on the concept of human security by making the
following statement: “Human security in its broadest sense embraces far more than the absence of violent conflict. It encom-
passes human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportuni-
ties and choices to fulfil his or her own potential. Every step in this direction is also a step towards reducing poverty, achieving
economic growth and preventing conflict. Freedom from want, freedom from fear and the freedom of future generations to
inherit a healthy natural environment—these are the interrelated building blocks of human, and therefore national, security.”
(Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now, (UN, New York, 2003), p. 4.
13
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2016: Human Development for Everyone (http://
hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf), p. 1.
14 19
World Summit Outcome Document, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1 of 24.10.2005.
15 20
See the Follow-up to General Assembly resolution 64/291 on human security Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc.
A/66/763 of 5.4.2012. Para 17 emphasizes that: “First, human security aims at ensuring the survival, livelihood and dignity of
people in response to current and emerging threats — threats that are widespread and cross cutting. Such threats are not limited to
those living in absolute poverty or conflict. As evidenced by the recent earthquake and tsunami in east Japan and the financial and
economic challenges in Europe and the United States of America, today, people throughout the world, in developing and developed
countries alike, live under varied conditions of insecurity. These threats seriously challenge both Governments and people, and call for
a rethinking of security where the protection and empowerment of individuals form the basis for achieving stability, development and
human progress”..
16 24
WSOD, ibid., paras. 138-139.
17
It should be noted that, prior to the end of cold war period politically and the WSOD institutionally, Article 2 § 7 of the UN
Charter that forbade interference by the Organization or its members to the internal affairs of states was considered one of
the cornerstones of the whole UN system (the other being Art. 2 § 4 on the prohibition of the use of force).
164
Human Security and Human Rights
The fact that the notion of “human security” is person-centered directly connects it with
human rights which essentially share the same goal: the wellbeing of individuals.18
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,19 the evolution and
promotion of human rights at the universal and regional levels has been one of the main objectives
of the international community, especially after the collapse of the USSR and the communist
regimes in Europe. This importance is evidenced by the growing degree of interference in the
domestic affairs of various states regarding the protection of human rights, but also towards
non-state actors.20 At the global level, the World Conference on Human Rights (1993),21 ended
up with the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action,22 which provides that
“Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection and
promotion is the first responsibility of Governments” (principle I, 1 (c)).
As far as the relation between human rights and human security is concerned, this
is already established in the UN Charter since respect for human rights is included in the
prerequisites for the establishment and preservation of international peace and security. (Art. 1
1, 3 in conjunction with Art. 55).
However, not all authors share this view. Tomuschat argues that the notion of human
security constitutes a useless repetition of the rights already stipulated in the two Human
Rights Covenants.23 He also supports that the evolution of human security is the outcome of
the efforts of overzealous bureaucrats who fail to understand the developments that have been
accomplished in the field of human rights.24
A different view is supported by Boyle and Simonsen who claim that the new way
of thinking over human security may acquire an added value from the viewpoint of human
rights, but there is still a noteworthy distance between the two approaches.25 Another opinion
considers that the two concepts – human rights and human security – must coexist and “work
side by side”.26
It is the opinion of the present author that human rights cannot be assimilated with
human security for a number of reasons:
18
See inter alia, Roberts D.: “The science of human security: a response from political science”, 24 Medicine, Conflict and
Survival 16 (2008), pp. 20 – 22 where the author tries to connect the notion of human security to medical issues and various
impact factors.
UNGA Res. 217 A (III), 10.12.1948.
See Anderson R.J.: Reimagining Human Rights Law: Toward Global Regulation Of Transnational Corporations, 88 Denver
University Law Review 183 (2010), pp. 186, 194-197. The author cites a UN study according to which, in 2007, 320 human
rights violations by transnational corporations were discovered covering a wide range of rights through actions or omissions.
21
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ABOUTUS/Pages/ViennaWC.aspx. Representatives from 171 states and a total of 7000
participants gathered and discussed the developments in the field of human rights in the post-cold war era.
22
U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 of 12.7.1993.
23
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), 999 UNTS 171 and International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (1966), 993 UNTS 3.
Tomuschat C.: Between Idealism and Realism. The Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, Vol. 13/1, (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2003), p. 56.
25
Boyle K. & Simonsen S.: “Human Security, Human Rights and Disarmament” (2004) 4 Disarmament Forum, 5 (2004), p. 12.
26
Ramcharan B.: Human Rights and Human Security, (Kluwer, The Hague, 2002), pp. 231-237.
165
 • Human security represents a generic and abstract concept while human rights
regulate certain features of social life.
• While human security is based upon political and rather vague bases, on the
contrary, human rights are well defined and legally reinforced, usually accompanied
with control and adjudication mechanisms.27
• The concept of human security is partly based on the development of human rights,
as it encompasses other aspects as well.
Culture and Cultural Rights
The definition of Culture
According to the 1982 Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies culture is defined
as “...the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features that
characterize a society or social group. It includes […] modes of life, the fundamental rights of the
human being, value systems, traditions and beliefs”.28
Other definitions include the one given by Matsumoto “... the set of attitudes, values,
beliefs, and behaviors shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated
from one generation to the next”,29 Hofstede “[Culture] is the collective programming of the mind
which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another”.30
Despite the variations on the key elements and the focus on each one of them, there
seems to be a common, general understanding on the concept of culture. Due to the fact that it
was the outcome of an international conference, it would seem that the UNESCO declaration
is the most authoritative one, although it is not a legally binding document.
27
It is supported that there are certain “intersections” between the two notions: 1. Human rights can offer regulatory effect to
human security, 2. Human security can confront threats that the overall structure of human rights fails to address, 3. Human
security can limit national security considerations in favour of human rights, 4. Human security may serve as the legitimizing
factor for the use of force to protect human rights, 5. Human security and human rights can establish, in common, a holistic
approach to human dignity, in the context of “security through freedom” (Acharya A.: “A Holistic Paradigm”, 35 Security
Dialogue 355 (2004), pp. 355-356 and Oberleitner G.: Porcupines In Love: The Intricate Convergence of Human Rights
and Human Security, 6 European Human Rights Law Review, 588 (2005)). I would disagree with most of these points as,
for example, 1 seems to contradict 2, the use of force is not regulated through human security and 5 is rather vague and, to
some extent, pointless.
28
Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies, (www.culturalrights.net/descargas/drets_culturals401.pdf) adopted in the
context of the UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000052505).
In the Declaration, it is also stated that “… is culture that gives man the ability to reflect upon himself. It is culture that makes us
specifically human, rational beings, endowed with a critical judgement and a sense of moral commitment. It is through culture that
we discern values and make choices.”
29
Matsumoto D.: Culture and Psychology (Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove (CA), 1996), p. 16.
30
Hofstede G.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. (Harper Collins Business, London, 1994), p. 5. For
a very good compilation of definitions and the discussion of the basic characteristics of cultures see Spencer-Oatey H.:
What is culture? A compilation of quotations (GlobalPAD Core Concepts, 2012), available at http://www.warwick.ac.uk/
globalpadintercultural.
166
Cultural Diversity
Another concept that has to be defined in the context of the present article is cultural
diversity. UNESCO defined it, as follows: “Culture takes diverse forms across time and space. This
diversity is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making
up humankind...” (Art. 1), “In our increasingly diverse societies, it is essential to ensure harmonious
interaction among people and groups with plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities as well as
their willingness to live together.” (Art. 2).31
The UN General Assembly built upon the latter definition in a Resolution entitled
Human Rights and Cultural Diversity32 to provide that “…cultural diversity and the pursuit of
cultural development by all peoples and nations are a source of mutual enrichment for the cultural
life of humankind” and “…each culture [has] a dignity and value that deserve recognition, respect
and preservation, and convinced that […] all cultures form part of the common heritage belonging to
all humankind”, thus proclaiming the principle of equal value of cultures.
One should not forget that the phrase “unity in diversity” which, as the official motto of
the EU since 2000, “signifies how Europeans have come together, in the form of the EU, to work for
peace and prosperity, while at the same time being enriched by the continent’s many different cultures,
traditions and languages”.33 The motto also encompasses the general idea of cultural diversity as
an asset, rather than a deficit in the European unification project, considering that the mutual
interaction of European cultures will enrich the EU.
Cultural Rights
Cultural rights form part of the title of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights but, in reality, very little attention is given by the Covenant itself to cultural
rights. In the preamble it is recognized that “…these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the
human person”, while in Art. 15 1 (a) it is provided that everyone has the right to take part in
cultural life and in 2 that necessary steps to be taken by states in realizing this right include
“conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture”.34
Without denying that cultural rights are part of human rights, since they form part of
the international bill of rights, however the exact content of the term and the obligations of
states towards preserving and protecting them is rather vague. Perhaps the only solid (negative)
31
UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001), text: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_
ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html). On the content and value of the Declaration
see Moghadam V. & Bagheritari M.: (2007) “Cultures, Conventions, and the Human Rights of Women: Examining the
Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and the Declaration on Cultural Diversity”, 59 Museum
International 9 (2007), and for a more critical approach see Stoczkowski W.: “UNESCO’s doctrine of human diversity: A
secular soteriology?”, 25 Anthropology Today 7 (2009)..
32
UNGA Res. 62/155 of 18.12.2007, preamble paras. 11 & 16.
33
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/motto_en.
34
The CESCR General Comment No. 21, in interpreting Article 15 CESCR noted that participation includes, inter alia “the
right of everyone — alone, or in association with others or as a community — to act freely, to choose his or her own identity;
to identify or not with one or several communities or to change that choice;to take part in the political life of society; to engage in
one’s own cultural practices and to express oneself in the language of one’s choice, (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (CESCR), General comment no. 21, Right of everyone to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1a of the Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/21 of 21.12.2009, para. 15 (a).
167
responsibility of states derives from Article 27 ICCPR which is devoted to minority protection
and obliges states not to deny minorities to enjoy their culture.35
In 2009 the Human Rights Council decided to establish the position of an independent
expert on cultural rights with a mandate to identify the best practices for the promotion and
protection of cultural rights, possible obstacles to the enjoyment of such rights and to study the
relationship between cultural rights and cultural diversity with the aim of further promoting
cultural rights.36
However, it is still unclear whether cultural rights, without having a specific content, can
produce solid, enforceable obligations upon states.
Relation between cultural rights and other human rights
Article 4 of the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity explicitly states that “No one
may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to
limit their scope”.37
The CESCR General Comment No 21 goes on to elaborate this position by stating
“Applying limitations to the right of everyone to take part in cultural life may be necessary in certain
circumstances, in particular in the case of negative practices, including those attributed to customs and
traditions, that infringe upon other human rights”.38
Τhe UN Declaration on National Minorities39 also reflects on this issue. Article 4, 2
provides that “States shall take measures to create favorable conditions to enable persons belonging to
minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and
customs,except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international
standards”. The explanatory Report to the Declaration,40 in clarifying the above provision,
emphasizes that the observance of various customs and traditions is prohibited when it
contradicts fundamental human rights principles and it has a general character applying equally
for minorities and majorities.
The categorical statements place emphasis upon the – very frequent – possibility that
the exercise of cultural rights may violate other human rights, usually of higher value. While, in
35
Article 27 ICCPR reads as follows: “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such
minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and
practice their own religion, or to use their own language”.
36
UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/10/23 of 26.3.2009, operative paragraph 9. The latest renewal of the position was made by an HRC
decision of 2018 (UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/37/12 of 5.4.2018).
37
This is also reflected in the CESCR General Comment No. 21 in para. 18 “The Committee wishes to recall that, while account
must be taken of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds, it is the duty of
States, regardless of their political, economic or cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Thus, no one can invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope”.
More explicitly, the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (supra n. 21), in para. 5, emphasized that “While
the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in
mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and
fundamental freedoms”.
38 43
General Comment No. 21, ibid., para. 19.
39
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, UNGA Res. 47/135 of
18.12.1992.
40
UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2005/2, para. 57.
168
theory, human rights are indivisible and on an equal standing, there are, however, certain rights
that bare a much higher value than others and, in cases of conflict with each-other, they prevail.
Therefore, the right to life, for example, has an absolute nature in the sense that no other human
right can be invoked to justify its violation. The same stands for the nullum crimen nulla poena
sine lege (prohibition of retroactive application of criminal legislation), prohibition of torture,
prohibition of slavery.
This becomes particularly relevant in relation to a – not so small – number of practices
related with culture or religion that have an adverse impact upon other human rights. In this
case, there has to be an assessment of the impact, the reasoning and whether such practices
can be justified when we strike a balance between the protected and the affected rights and
freedoms.
Practices Associated with Cultural Issues
Such practices differ significantly as to their gravity, the level of potential harm and the
other rights that may be affected through their performance. Therefore, there must be a further
categorization in order to properly distinguish and assess them.
Customs against human life
Undoubtedly, the most iconic custom of this category is the widow burning in India
where wives are burned alive together with the dead husband (sati). This ritual is ancient
and deeply rooted in many parts of the Indian peninsula, mostly in rural areas.41 The Indian
government has outlawed the sati, but it is still performed in remote areas, many times at the
request of the widows themselves, but many other times against their will.
Another custom mainly observed by tribes in Africa is the ostracism (killing) of twins,
which were considered to be bad luck.42 Nowadays the custom seems to be extinct but similar
rituals can be observed like the killing of albinos in some African tribes.
However, the above customs are rare or obsolete. A far more “popular” set of practices
refer mainly to the treatment of women in certain societies. A very common behavior of this
type is the “honor murders” in various moslem communities, where the father or relatives of a
girl that either commits adultery, refuses to marry a man selected by her family or has an affair
kill her, and also for other reasons related to honor as well.43
In this category we have to add penalties imposed upon women in moslem societies
for certain offences. Thus, it is very common to stone women to death for adultery in Egypt,
41
On the custom see the entry “Widow-Burning” (http://www.deathreference.com/Vi-Z/Widow-Burning.html), Weinberger-
Thomas C.: “Cendres d’immortalité. La crémation des veuves en Inde” 67 Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 9 (1989),
pp. 9–51, Hawley J.S.: Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India (Oxford University Press, Oxford /
New York, 1994).
42
See Chappel T.J.H.: The Yoruba Cult of Twins in Historical Perspective, 44 Africa JIAI (Africa: Journal of the International
African Institute,) 250 (1974), pp. 250-251.
See the relevant report: Germany: Wave of Muslim Honor Killings (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10441/germa-
ny-muslim-honor-killings), ‘Honor killings’ in Germany: When families turn executioners, (https://www.dw.com/en/
honor-killings-in-germany-when-families-turn-executioners/a-42511928), Examining Pakistan’s ‘honor killings’ scourge
(https://www.dw.com/en/examining-pakistans-honor-killings-scourge/a-19321039).
169
Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. These “sentences” are usually carried out without a proper trial, even
where adultery constitutes a capital offence.
Long standing traditions violating other human rights
Under this heading there are many traditions / customs that can be prejudicial or harmful
to the victims either physically or mentally. Examples of this type include the compulsory dress
code for women in Islamic countries that includes the veil, burka, hijab, niqab, depending on
the level of coverage of the face and body of the woman. It should be added though that in many
societies this “dress code” is deeply rooted within the social fabric and is observed as an essential
part of social behavior.
We could also refer to marriages of minors or forced marriages that are quite common in
Islamic societies but not confined there. Another similar practice is the caste44 which refers to a
custom of intra family marriages (endogamous) and is quite common in India.
The most common and cultural practice in this category is the female genital mutilation
(FGM), which amounts to the total or partial removal of the external genital organs of young
girls.45 It is established in most countries of sub-Saharan Africa, where it is considered necessary
for hygiene and social purposes.46 The 1989 UN Convention on the rights of the Child47 in
Art 24, 3 provides that “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view
to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children”. In recent years there are
ongoing efforts by the governments of many of the respective states to reverse this practice. A
very characteristic case is Uganda where the FGM rated to about 100% of the female population
in the 1980s but was gradually virtually eliminated.48
Possibly the best response derives from the Ethiopian Constitution, Art. 35, 4 of which
provides that “The State shall enforce the right of women to eliminate the influences of harmful
customs. Laws, customs and practices that oppress or cause bodily or mental harm to women are
prohibited”.49
44
Castes (jātis or castes) describes the social hierarchy between tribes but is also used as a term to describe the custom of intra
family marriages (endogamous), which has been prohibited by the Indian Constitution but is still quite common in remote
rural areas. For an analysis of this custom see inter alia Bayly S.: Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century
to the Modern Age (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
45 50
The World Health Organization defines FGM as procedures that include the partial or total removal of the external genital
organs (clitoris) of women as well as any other injury to the female genital organs for non medical purposes. According to the
WHO 200 million girls or women that are alive today have been subjected to FGM in 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East
and Asia. (https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation). See also the relevant study
of UNICEF from 2016 entitled “Female Genital Mutilation / Cutting: A Global Concern” (http://www.unicef.org/media/
files/ FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf).
46
For an overview of the practice in various African countries see the work of the INGO “too Many” which strives to end FGM
in Africa. https://www.28toomany.org/research-resources/. In selected countries the FGM rate over the female population
is in Egypt 87%, Burkina Faso 76%, Eritrea 83%, Ethiopia 65%, Guinea 97%, Kenya 21%, Mali91%, Nigeria 25%, Sierra
Leone 87%, Sudan 87%, Tanzania 10%, Gambia 75%, Uganda 0,3%.
47
Text: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. It is quite interesting to note that the Convention has
196 states parties, Somalia being the last to ratify it and only 1 (the USA) which is not a party!!!
48
According to the “too Many” INGO, the current FGM rate is 0.3% of the female population.
49 54
Text: http://www.ethiopia.gov.et/democratic-rights. Ethiopia is a country of special significance as the FGM rate is about
65% and is not religion based, since the country is predominantly Christian.
170
Practices connected to religion
The same or other practices and customs are also connected to religion, or draw their
ideological basis from religious / theological teachings. The most common practice of this type
is circumcision which is performed on boys in Islam and Judaism in the context of religious
ceremonies and is considered one of the most important cultural aspects in the respective
religions. While, in theory, there could be a danger for the boys’ health, nowadays this danger
is virtually eliminated.
A far more different approach is taken with the performance of FGM, but not on cultural
but on religious grounds. While the Quran itself does not advocate FGM it is widely seen as
a tradition associated with Islam.50 The proponents of the performance of FGM apply ethical
arguments including preservation of chastity, purity, nobility, marriageability.51
While the official Islam is trying to dissociate the religion from this practice,52 the fact
is that the religious aspect of FGM is deeply rooted in many Islamic societies, not confined to
their countries of origin, but also in Western Europe and North America.
In reality however, depending on the degree of the mutilation / cutting, a girl is deprived
of an organ which serves certain purposes without her consent or knowledge of the future “uses”
of it and, whether mandated by the Islamic faith or not, it is tolerated or officially sanctioned in
many states in Africa and Asia.
FGM is illegal in several western countries like Canada53 and Switzerland.54
The Reality in Europe
The current situation
Due to its geographical position and its level of openness and prosperity, Europe in
general and the EU in particular has always been a target (the main target after the end of the
cold war) of migration in various forms.
The presence of migrants from different cultural and religious backgrounds is common in
many EU countries, as well as in Canada and the US. In France, a very large number of migrants
See eg. Asmani I.L. & Abdi M. S.: De-linking Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting from Islam (Population Council / US AID,
2008), pp. 2-4, also Minaret of Freedom Institute: FGM: An Islamic Perspective (http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.
htm), Mordechai K.: (2002). “Islam and ‘Female Circumcision’: The Dispute over FGM in the Egyptian Press, September
1994”. 21 Medicine and Law 403 (2002), pp. 403–418.
51
In Indonesia, the practice is officially sanctioned by the Religious authorities of the country as morally recommended for
girls (http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Indonesian-Ulema-in-favour-of-female-circumcision:-a-human-right-26948.
html). On the practice itself in Southeast Asia see Clarence-Smith W.G.: “Female Circumcision in Southeast Asia since the
Coming of Islam”, in Raghavan C. and Levine J.P. (eds.): Self-Determination and Women’s Rights in Muslim Societies. (Brandeis
University Press, 2012), pp. 124–146.
52
See eg. the statement made by the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in 2012 (http://news.trust.
org//item/20121204114600-k6dat/).
53
In Article 268 of the Canadian Criminal Code FGM is considered as an aggravated form of assault (https://laws-lois.justice.
gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-268.html).
Article 124 of the Swiss Criminal Code (as amended in 2012) expressly prohibits FGM (https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/
classified-compilation/19370083/index.html).
171
from Algeria and former colonies of France in Africa reside in Marseille, Paris and other major
urban centers.55 In Germany, an estimated 3.000.000 people of mainly Turkish origin migrated
there in the 60s and now form a compact element within the German society. In Belgium, the
population of Brussels is composed of about 50% people of Moroccan origin, whether still
having the status of migrants or having acquired the Belgian citizenship.56 In Sweden, about
14% of the population is migrants / refugees and most of them come from Moslem or African
countries, due to a relatively easy asylum policy Sweden had traditionally employed.57 Therefore,
one can see that Europe is no strange in accommodating different cultural groups.
Moreover, Europe was the destination of illegal / irregular migration for a long time.
What changed during the last few years was the massive flow of migrants / refugees in an
unprecedented scale, predominantly because of the Syrian crisis. An estimated number of 2,4
million people reached the territory of the EU between 2015 – 2018, most of them from Syria
and Iraq, but also from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eritrea, Sudan and sub-Saharan Africa.58
In terms of numbers, the flow is not significant. Out of an overall EU population of 513
million,59 migrants / refugees represent about 0.47 – 0.5% of the total. Lebanon, which is a
country of 6 million people hosts more than 1 million Syrian refugees, which is about 20% of its
population.60 It is evident therefore, that the issue is mainly political.
“Cultural compatibility”
The question on the presence of a large number of people from different cultural
backgrounds in Europe is whether their cultural differences can be accommodated or can be
compatible with the predominant values in Europe.
The focus here is not cultures themselves but rather the volume of human rights attached
to the cultural background of Europeans on the one hand and migrants / refugees on the other.
First of all, it should be emphasized that there is no such thing as a “European culture”. The
differences between the various European nations are significant and can be attributed to many
factors (historical, social, economic, ethnic), but now we accept that there is a set of common
standards that all European states adhere to, focusing on human rights standards, based on, but
not confined to, the European Convention of Human Rights.
55
Marseille is considered to be the first French city that will have a Moslem majority in the future. On the demographics of
Marseille see http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/marseille-population/.
56
See https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/belgium-country-permanent-immigration.
57 61
For detailed statistics see https://sweden.se/migration/.
58 62
For statistics see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44660699.
59
h tt p s : / / e c . e u r o p a . e u / e u r o s t a t / d o c u m e n t s / 2 9 9 5 5 2 1 / 9 0 6 3 7 3 8 / 3 - 1 0 0 7 2 0 1 8 - B P - E N . p d f /
ccdfc838-d909-4fd8-b3f9-db0d65ea457f.
60 63
See Eldawy D.: A Fragile Situation: Will the Syrian Refugee Swell Push Lebanon Over the Edge?, Migration Policy Institute,
21.2.2019 (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/syrian-refugee-swell-push-lebanon-over-edge).
172
Tolerance v. Cultural Relativism
Tolerance
In order to assess the level of compatibility / coexistence of different cultures within
the European geographical and political context two other concepts play a role. The first is the
concept of tolerance. According to a dictionary definition tolerance is the “willingness to accept
behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve
of them”.61 The coexistence of many cultures in Europe and the institutional framework for the
protection of human rights that exists, undoubtedly, creates an overall atmosphere of tolerance
which encompasses all cultural groups that live in the EU.
The EU motto “unity in diversity” is indicative as to the importance of tolerance and
peaceful coexistence of cultures within the geographical limits and institutional framework that
EU member states have gradually created during the last 60 years. However, all cultures of the
EU countries share a common heritage of traditions, human rights standards and behaviours
that are often phrased as “European values”. The question is whether other cultures that exist in
the EU can accept or live according these standards.
Cultural Relativism
A second concept that is very relevant to the discussion is “cultural relativism”. Originally
a concept that was developed by anthropologists it claims that hat a person’s beliefs, values,
and practices should be understood based on that person’s own culture, rather than be judged
against the criteria of another.
It has recently been used to substantiate the position of several states against the universal
application of fundamental human rights. These countries include Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia which claim the upholding of the sharia, but also other countries
in relation to pluralism and democratic values like China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Cuba, Mexico.62
In relation to the attitude of states in defending cultural relativism, the Vienna Declaration
and Programme of Action (1993) categorically stated that “universal nature of these rights and
freedoms is beyond question”,63 adding that “While the significance of national and regional
particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind,
it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote
and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.64
It should be noted that cultural relativism is not the same as tolerance. The latter
advocates the coexistence of different cultures in the same political or social environment, while
the former rejects attempts by the dominant culture or political system to interfere with aspects
of the cultural life of other groups, thus promoting some kind of defiance of the structures and
Cambridge English Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance).
Blackburn R.L.: Cultural Relativism in the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council, ICIP Working Papers
2011/3, Institut Català Internacional per la Pau, Barcelona, 2011 (http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/general-doc-
ument/pdf/blackburn_upr_cultural_relativism.09.2011.pdf).
Vienna Declaration (supra n. 21), Principle I.1.
64
Vienna Declaration, ibid., principle I.5.
173
function of the system within which a minority cultural group exists. Moreover, if one accepts
this line of argumentation, it must be concluded that certain parts of the state legislation would
not apply to a given group, thus marginalizing it from the rest of the society and creating (or
aggravating) tensions between the majority and the minority.
Relevant Jurisprudence
There are several judicial decisions by internal and international bodies assessing the
validity of various customs and behaviors vis-à-vis fundamental rights.
The most important evaluation of this type is offered by the ECtHR decision on the
S.A.S. v. France Case (2014).65 According to a French Law of 2010 a person was prohibited
from concealing his/her face in public. While the prohibition was of a general nature, it was
widely conceived to be against wearing of the veil (or burka, niqab) by Moslem women. The
basic arguments of the applicant were that this prohibition violated her freedom of thought
conscience and religion (Art. 8) and private life (Art. 9). The French Government responded
that the limitation was necessary in a democratic society as the measure aimed to protect public
safety. Belgium intervened defending the prohibition. The Court, by a wide majority 15-2,
decided that there was no violation of Articles 8 & 9 of the ECHR.66
A very interesting dimension of the relevant discussion was examined in the Refah Partisi
and Others v. Turkey Case.67 The ECtHR had to assess whether the dissolution of Refah Partisi
by the Turkish Constitutional Court was compatible with Art. 11 (freedom of Association).
The Court examined the Party’s main objective which was to implement sharia law if elected
and held that “sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, since principles
such as pluralism in the political sphere and the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in
it and a regime based on sharia clearly diverges from Convention values”, concluding unanimously
that there was no violation of Art. 11.
The Court slightly diverged from the above categorical condemnation of sharia law
as incompatible with the ECHR values in the recent Molla Sali v. Greece Case,68 where it
considered the case in the light of Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Additional
Protocol 1 (right to property) without touching the application of sharia law on the persons
(specifically women) belonging to the Moslem minority in Greece which, in essence, was the
core problem in that case.
Domestic courts have also dealt with conflicts arising from cultural issues. In one of the
most important cases of this type, the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht)
in 2016 rejected the request of a girl of Moroccan origin she should be exempted from the
65
S.A.S. v. France, (App. No. 43835/11), Decision of 1.7.2014.
66
In the earlier case of Dahlab v. Switzerland (App. No. 42393/98, Decision of 15.2.2001) the Court decided that the prohibi-
tion of a headscarf imposed on a primary school teacher who had converted to Islam by virtue of the Swiss Public Education
Act did not constitute a violation of Article 9 EHCR. More specifically the ECtHR held that “… the impugned measure may be
considered justified in principle and proportionate to the stated aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, public order and
public safety. The Court accordingly considers that the measure prohibiting the applicant from wearing a headscarf while teaching
was necessary in a democratic society.” (p. 13 of the English pdf version).
67
Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey (App. Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98 and 41344/98), Decision of 13.2.2003.
68
Molla Sali v. Greece (App. no. 20452/14) Decision of 19.12.2018.
174
swimming class because exposure of her body would be contrary to her religious beliefs.69
Moreover, she claimed that the appearance of boys in minimal dressing made her feel bad. The
Court observed that there was the option of a full body suit (burkini) and that the applicant
failed to prove how her participation in swimming courses violated Islamic traditions, since
there are no mandatory rules in Islam on how to comply with modest dressing. Further on, it
held that there cannot be exemptions from the school curriculum on the basis of belonging to
a certain group.
The danger…
As already discussed, Europe is no new to the phenomenon of migration nor to the
presence of large numbers of people with different cultural and religious backgrounds. The issue
that was already present, although given smaller significance, is how the masses of migrants /
refugees will function and, eventually, be incorporated into the European societies and if this is
feasible at all. European experiences until now show that this has only been partly achieved, as
many of these communities still insist in defying the legislation of the host states, when it comes
to observing their customs and traditions, despite their long lasting presence in the respective
countries. There is however a growing tendency on behalf of human rights organizations,
NGOs and authors to legitimize this trend by applying cultural relativism (as opposed to mere
tolerance) in defence of customs and traditions that violate human rights. In the S.A.S v. France
case, several human rights INGOs, including Amnesty International, intervened in favor of the
applicant, considering that the prohibition violated her rights.
This is in line with the view that human rights are a western construction and they do
not represent the position / perception of other cultures and societies. This view maybe partly
correct, given the fact that democratic systems, that prevailed in this part of the world, provided
the proper environment for the evolution and promotion of human rights. Nevertheless, a core
of rights is now considered to have universal application, as stated in the Vienna Declaration.
Moreover, one should not forget that all different cultures that reside in a certain
country (in our case the EU as a whole) are obliged to abide by the constitutions, legislation
and international instruments that apply in those countries. Tolerance is a characteristic of
democratic societies, providing that all members of the society, while preserving and promoting
the basic characteristics of their culture and values, accept the basic rules for the orderly function
of that society.
If we start discussing about reducing human rights standards that were developed through
long lasting efforts and struggles in order to accommodate customs and traditions that clearly
contradict fundamental human rights, then the discussion is reversed and instead of talking
about cultural relativism, we would start talking about human rights relativism. And this would
amount the beginning of the end for European values as the driving force for the function of
European institutions and societies as a whole, thus seriously endangering the human security
upon which Europe has built its economic and institutional success.
69
Text of the case (in German): https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/rk20161108_1bvr323713.html. English
summary: http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/germany-court-declines-case-challenging-mandatory-participa-
tion-of-female-muslim-student-in-co-ed-swim-class/.
175
 References
Acharya A.: “A Holistic Paradigm”, 35 Security Dialogue 355 (2004), pp. 355-356.
Anderson R.J.: Reimagining Human Rights Law: Toward Global Regulation Of Transnational
Corporations, 88 Denver University Law Review 183 (2010), pp. 186, 194-197.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) Case, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p.
43, paras. 186-188.
Asmani I.L. & Abdi M. S.: De-linking Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting from Islam (Population
Council / US AID, 2008), pp. 2-4.
Bayly S.: Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
BBC: Who were Germany’s Red Army Faction militants? (https://www.bbc.com/news/
world-europe-35354812).
Blackburn R.L.: Cultural Relativism in the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council, ICIP
Working Papers 2011/3, Institut Català Internacional per la Pau, Barcelona, 2011 (http://
www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/general-document/pdf/blackburn_upr_cultural_
relativism.09.2011.pdf).
Boyle K. & Simonsen S.: “Human Security, Human Rights and Disarmament” (2004) 4 Disarmament
Forum, 5 (2004), p. 12.
Cambridge English Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tolerance).
Chappel T.J.H.: The Yoruba Cult of Twins in Historical Perspective, 44 Africa JIAI (Africa: Journal
of the International African Institute) 250 (1974), pp. 250-251.
Clarence-Smith W.G.: “Female Circumcision in Southeast Asia since the Coming of Islam”, in
Raghavan C. and Levine J.P. (eds.): Self-Determination and Women’s Rights in Muslim Societies.
(Brandeis University Press, 2012), pp. 124–146.
Commission on Human Security, Human Security Now, (UN, New York, 2003), p. 4.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General comment no. 21, Right of
everyone to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1a of the Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/21 of 21.12.2009, para. 15 (a).
Dartnell M.Y.: Action Directe: Ultra-left Terrorism in France, 1979-1987 (Frank Cass, London, 1995).
Declaration on Alliance Security Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the
meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Strasbourg / Kehl on 4 April 2009 (https://www.
nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_52838.htm).
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities,
UNGA Res. 47/135 of 18.12.1992.
Eldawy D.: A Fragile Situation: Will the Syrian Refugee Swell Push Lebanon Over the Edge?,
Migration Policy Institute, 21.2.2019 (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/
syrian-refugee-swell-push-lebanon-over-edge).
Examining Pakistan’s ‘honor killings’ scourge (https://www.dw.com/en/
examining-pakistans-honor-killings-scourge/a-19321039).
Follow-up to General Assembly resolution 64/291 on human security Report of the Secretary-General,
UN Doc. A/66/763 of 5.4.2012.
Germany: Wave of Muslim Honor Killings (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10441/
germany-muslim-honor-killings).
Hawley J.S.: Sati, The Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India (Oxford University Press,
Oxford / New York, 1994).
176
Heinbecker P.: “The Concept of Human Security”, 145 RUSI Journal 27 (2000), pp. 27-32.
Hofstede G.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. (Harper Collins Business, London,
1994), p. 5.
Homan K.: “The Military and Human Security”, 19 Security and Human Rights 74 (2008).
Honor killings’ in Germany: When families turn executioners, (https://www.dw.com/en/
honor-killings-in-germany-when-families-turn-executioners/a-42511928).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), 999 UNTS 171 and International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), 993 UNTS 3.
Matsumoto D.: Culture and Psychology (Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove (CA), 1996), p. 16.
Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies, (www.culturalrights.net/descargas/drets_culturals401.
pdf) adopted in the context of the UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies
(https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000052505.
Minaret of Freedom Institute: FGM: An Islamic Perspective (http://www.minaret.org/fgm-pamphlet.
htm).
Mordechai K.: (2002). “Islam and ‘Female Circumcision’: The Dispute over FGM in the Egyptian
Press, September 1994”. 21 Medicine and Law 403 (2002), pp. 403–418.
Moghadam V. & Bagheritari M.: (2007) “Cultures, Conventions, and the Human Rights of
Women: Examining the Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and the
Declaration on Cultural Diversity”, 59 Museum International 9 (2007).
Molla Sali v. Greece (App. no. 20452/14) Decision of 19.12.2018.
Oberleitner G.: Porcupines In Love: The Intricate Convergence of Human Rights and Human
Security, 6 European Human Rights Law Review, 588 (2005).
Ogata S. & Cels J.: “Human Security: Protecting and Empowering People”, 9 Global Governance 273
(2003), p. 274.
OSCE: What we do: Human Dimension (https://www.osce.org/what-we-do).
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No IT-98-33-T, Judgment of 2.8.2001, available at http://www.
icty.org/x/cases/krstic/tjug/en/krs-tj010802e.pdf).
Ramcharan B.: Human Rights and Human Security, (Kluwer, The Hague, 2002), pp. 231-237.
Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey (App. Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98 and 41344/98), Decision of
13.2.2003.
Roberts D.: “The science of human security: a response from political science”, 24 Medicine, Conflict
and Survival 16 (2008), pp. 20 – 22.
S.A.S. v. France, (App. No. 43835/11), Decision of 1.7.2014 .
Spencer-Oatey H.: What is culture? A compilation of quotations (GlobalPAD Core Concepts, 2012),
available at http://www.warwick.ac.uk/globalpadintercultural .
Statement made by the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in 2012
(http://news.trust.org//item/20121204114600-k6dat/).
Stoczkowski W.: “UNESCO’s doctrine of human diversity: A secular soteriology?”, 25 Anthropology
Today 7 (2009).
Sundquist, VH.: “Political Terrorism: An Historical Case Study of the Italian Red Brigades.” 3
Journal of Strategic Security 53 (2010), pp. 57-63.
Tomuschat C.: Between Idealism and Realism. The Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law,
Vol. 13/1, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003), p. 56.
U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 of 12.7.1993.
UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/10/23 of 26.3.2009, operative paragraph 9. The latest renewal of the position
was made by an HRC decision of 2018 (UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/37/12 of 5.4.2018).
UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2005/2, para. 57.
177
UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001), text: http://portal.unesco.org/en/
ev.php-URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html).
UNGA Res. 217 A (III), 10.12.1948.
UNGA Res. 62/155 of 18.12.2007, preamble paras. 11 & 16.
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report (Oxford University Press,
Oxford / New York, 1994), p. 24.
United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2016: Human Development
for Everyone (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.
pdf), p. 1.
Vienna Declaration (supra n. 21), Principle I.1.
Weinberger-Thomas C.: “Cendres d’immortalité. La crémation des veuves en Inde” 67 Archives de
Sciences Sociales des Religions 9 (1989), pp. 9–51.
World Summit Outcome Document, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1 of 24.10.2005.

178