Journal articles on the topic 'Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Permanent Council'

Security (in a broad sense, see infra, II.B) in Europe is the realm of several regional international organisations, mainly the European Union (“EU”), Western European Union (“WEU”), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (“OSCE”) and, to a lesser extent, the Council of Europe, creating a patchwork of regional security institutions that is unique in the world. These organisations interact in many ways and claim to be mutually reinforcing. Is that the case? Is there room for improvement?

This article summarizes developments in the protection of minorities in Europe in the areas of participation, citizenship and transfrontier exchanges during 2019. It includes developments at the UN level, in addition to regional developments under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe (CoE) and the EU.

On 27 May 2010, a roundtable on “Addressing Islamophobia: Building onUnused Opportunities for Mutual Respect and Inclusion” took place on thesidelines of the Alliance of Civilizations’ Third Global Forum. Held in Riode Janeiro, Brazil, at the initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference(OIC), it was cosponsored by the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC),the Council of Europe, and the British Council.After the initial remarks made by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (secretary general,OIC) and Jorge Sampaio (UN High Representative for the AoC), theroundtable was addressed by a host of speakers and representatives of internationallyreputed institutions, among them Marc de Brinchambaut (secretarygeneral of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe),Irina Bokova (director general, UNESCO), Mevlüt Çavusoglu (president,Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe), André Azoulay (president,the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation), and Mike Hardy(program leader, Intercultural Leader, the British Council). The session wasmoderated by Iqbal Riza (special advisor to the UN secretary-general for theAlliance of Civilizations) ...

Abstract This article provides an overview of the implementation of the rights of European national, ethnic or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples in 2020, in the fields of administration of justice, public administration, participation, citizenship and tranfrontier exchanges. Relevant legal developments are presented in the activities of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, and the Council of Europe. Special attention is paid to the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which are the most important international treaties on the rights of minorities in Europe.

This article provides an overview of the implementation of the rights of European national, ethnic or linguistic minorities, and indigenous peoples in 2021, in the fields of the administration of justice, public administration, participation, transfrontier exchanges and citizenship. Relevant legal developments in the activities of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, and the Council of Europe are presented. Special attention is paid to the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which are the most important international treaties on the rights of minorities in Europe.

International organizations have gained the right importance and have been named as the main actors in international relations with the end of the wars. States realized that it would be more reasonable to cooperate, thus achieving higher and faster results. For this reason, organizations of different types began to be created either by the nature of the operation or the geographic extent. Their roles and objectives have been different, some focus on the political aspects of relations between states and others have more administrative or technical functions to facilitate the work of states and form faster services to individuals. Other organizations deal with security issues and police and human rights issues. In this category are created many organisms, such as NATO, charged with state security and military interventions or the Council of Europe, with the aim of promoting democratic values, implanting them and protecting human rights. The organization that will focus on this paper is the OSCE: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Among the first created in this area, with objectives to coordinate the work in the fields of state and human security, the fight against terrorism, promotion of democracy and fundamental freedoms, environmental and economic protection, and the area of protection of Human Rights and Minorities, we will mainly see the focus of this organization in East Central Europe. During the time I've been involved with, I tried to bring a historical flow of events to understand how the OSCE missions work in the field and what is the difference with the theory and how the OSCE mission emerges CEE, as a case study Albania.

International organizations have gained the right importance and have been named as the main actors in international relations with the end of the wars. States realized that it would be more reasonable to cooperate, thus achieving higher and faster results. For this reason, organizations of different types began to be created either by the nature of the operation or the geographic extent. Their roles and objectives have been different, some focus on the political aspects of relations between states and others have more administrative or technical functions to facilitate the work of states and form faster services to individuals. Other organizations deal with security issues and police and human rights issues. In this category are created many organisms, such as NATO, charged with state security and military interventions or the Council of Europe, with the aim of promoting democratic values, implanting them and protecting human rights. The organization that will focus on this paper is the OSCE: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Among the first created in this area, with objectives to coordinate the work in the fields of state and human security, the fight against terrorism, promotion of democracy and fundamental freedoms, environmental and economic protection, and the area of protection of Human Rights and Minorities, we will mainly see the focus of this organization in East Central Europe. During the time I've been involved with, I tried to bring a historical flow of events to understand how the OSCE missions work in the field and what is the difference with the theory and how the OSCE mission emerges CEE, as a case study Albania.

Why do regional security organizations choose different approaches to implementing global gender norms? To address this question, we examine how the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (EU) integrated requirements derived from UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) on women, peace and security into their security policies. We identify differences in scope and dynamics between the change processes in the two organizations. The OSCE simply adapted its existing gender policy and has not changed it since, whereas the EU introduced a new, more extensive and specific policy, which it has already amended several times. Drawing on historical institutionalism and feminist institutionalism, we found that, first, reform coalitions prepared the ground for gender mainstreaming in the organizations’ respective security policies; and that, second, embedded policy structures, including rules and norms about external interaction as well as existing policy legacies, were responsible for the different approaches of the EU and OSCE with respect to UNSCR 1325.

AbstractTwenty years after the 1992 Helsinki Document — Challenges of Change, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) agreed at the 2011 Ministerial Council in Vilnius, Lithuania, on a decision intended to strengthen the OSCE's capacities in early warning, early action, dialogue facilitation and mediation-support as well as post-conflict rehabilitation. MC Decision 3/11 is an important one, in particular, as OSCE participating States were required to revisit the Organization's approach to conflict prevention and resolution over the last three years. The outcome was been an impressive document that demands the implementation of concrete action toward the creation of a systematic early warning and mediation-support capacity and the enhancement of early response to emerging crisis and conflict situations.

The State Program for NATO – Ukraine Cooperation 2001-2004 is analyzed, its priorities and features in the context of the development of bilateral relations are determined. It has been established that the content of the program has become a logical continuation of the previous one and should, in the short term, ensure the fullest / best possible implementation of terms of the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership (1997). It is shown that the President of Ukraine, as well as the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) and on its behalf, the State Interagency Commission for NATO – Ukraine Cooperation, have overseen the implementation of the program. The author notes that its adoption took place during the intensification of Ukraine's foreign policy activities aimed at deepening constructive cooperation with the European Union (EU), the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe. The program played an important role in the path to the state's declared accession to the North Atlantic Alliance. During this period, it became one of the main directions of the state policy on national security in the context of the formation of the new architectonics of European security of the 21st century. It is claimed that in the political area the program was meant to ensure the implementation of national policy on European and Euro-Atlantic integration, to increase the level of independence guarantees, territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukrainian borders, its national security, as well as to promote the principles of democracy, respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the rule of law in Ukraine. Keywords Ukraine, NATO, Euro-Atlantic Integration, national security, Armed Forces of Ukraine (ZSU).

Introduction. On the 29th Annual Session of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly the delegates of the OSCE participating States issued Birmingham Declaration and, as part of it, the Resolution “On the Importance of the Human Dimension in the Context of Current Threats tothe Security in the OSCE Area Stemming from the Russian Aggression Against Ukraine”, where by they underlined “the importance of OSCE commitments, in particular those undertaken within the Human Dimension, that constitute firm political declarations of the participating States to fulfil, respect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms ”and urged the participating States to implement those commitments. The aim of the article is to examine the main characteristics of the human dimension commitments and current approaches to their implementation. Results. This article provides a summary of the key characteristics of the OSCE human dimension commitments, focusing on their sources (CSCE and OSCE documents), process of adoption, nature of commitments, absence of sanctions for noncompliance, and lack of systematic verification of their implementation. The articlerefers to a precedent-setting suspension of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from the CSCE/OSCE “in view of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of CSCE commitments” in response to the growing crisis in Balkans. With reference to the unprovoked Russian aggression against Ukraine, and noting the OSCE’s position that, unlike the Council of Europe or other international organizations, the Organization does not have an effective mechanism for suspension or exclusion of its participating State for gross violation of the OSCE commitments and principles, the article highlights a need to review and transform current procedures and improve mechanisms to ensure implementation of the human dimension commitments. Conclusions. Although the OSCE human dimension commitments have beenre-affirmed by the participating States on numerous occasions, the challenge that is being faced by the OSCE, and which has become even more evident throughout 2022,one example of which may be the blocking of the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting by Russia and Belarus, is that the divergence between the participating States around the implementation of the OSCE human dimension commitments will onlyincrease. This will call for the development of new approaches to eliminate such divergence. The article concludes with a view that it is necessary to reassess the main institutional foundations of the OSCE’s work with the aim to increase effectiveness of the monitoring and verification of the implementation of the human dimension commitments, particularly as concerns respect for human rights. Key words: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE),Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, CSCE, human dimension,human rights, Helsinki Final Act 1975, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, principles of international law, principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Four-Day War of 2016 once again exposed the danger that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict poses in the Caucasus. However, despite its military scale and human losses, Russia has raised only general statements from other co-chairs of the osce (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Minsk Group, from the United States and France, and from other international actors such as the United Nations Security Council. In an attempt to stimulate debate about this lack of engagement, this paper claims that the external actors involved aim to cast silence over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict beyond the region. While this approach may serve to remove the political impact of the conflict from the international arena, it unwittingly also enhances the aggressiveness of both Armenia and Azerbaijan in the regional arena. The main aim of this paper is, then, to explain why the conflict is being silenced, how this is made possible and what the regional effects of this approach are. By drawing on the Four-Day War of 2016, the paper intends to show how the recent violence has challenged the silencing of external actors.

The article reveals the content of armed aggression and the legal status of the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. Russia's aggression against Ukraine is considered in historical retrospect. Cases of torture and other ill-treatment on the temporarily occupied territories have been demonstrated in specific cases. The article examines the state of human rights on the temporarily occupied territories, namely the prevention of torture and other ill-treatment. Ways to prevent torture and ill-treatment in order to respect human rights and maintain the rule of law have been identified. The author determined that system of counteraction to aggression of Russia, which consists the political, legal and economic means, includes the prevention of torture and ill-treatment.The author notes that the adoption of UN GA resolutions and other documents of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe are new elements of increasing legal pressure on Russia. The submission of interstate applications by the Government of Ukraine to the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation is one of the effective means of preventing torture. The article reveals the impact of expert and advocacy activities of non-governmental human rights organizations on the prevention of torture and the state of human rights on the temporarily occupied territories. It is noted that maintaining contacts with the citizens of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, constant informing, as well as obtaining information by the Ukrainian side on the state of human rights in the temporarily occupied territory provides an opportunity to partially prevent such violations and allow future reintegration of these territories. Keywords: prevention of torture, temporarily occupied territories, armed aggression, observance of human rights.

State recognition of human rights and freedoms by enshrining them in the constitution and other legislative acts is the first and most urgent step towards their establishment and implementation. However, the role of the state should not be limited to this sole aspect. The state should make every effort to guarantee, protect, and defend both human and citizen rights and freedoms, which determines its main direction of humanization and humanitarian characteristics. Various international organizations, which constitute an international legal mechanism to protect human rights, play a significant role in the observance and protection of these rights and freedoms in Ukraine. The activity of these international organizations is primarily aimed at reforming the national system in this regard, rulemaking, and ensuring accountability, the rule of law, and dialogue between government and society. Consequently, these international organizations can be considered an additional guarantee for the observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. This research aims to review the role and influence of international organizations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in the formation of the national mechanism to protect human rights and freedoms in Ukraine. For this purpose, international legal documents adopted within these organizations were analyzed to determine their specific features, role, and implementation in the country.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the role of international organizations in elections observation as an instrument of ensuring human rights. The objectives are to analyze the notions of democracy and human rights, democratization trends worldwide, current threats to human rights related to elections procedures and the role of international organizations as entities safeguarding human rights in the globalized world. In order to investigate this problem the researcher utilized such scientific methods as deduction and induction, historical and comparative method and the case study one. Historical and comparative methods were used to trace the evolution of international organizations’’ activities with regard to elections observation and compare various organizations’ pertinent processes and procedures. Case study method was used to collect and analyze qualitative data about international organizations’ activity related to elections observation and to define their role in ensuring human rights, in particular, freedom of expression. The notions of democracy and human rights, democratization trends worldwide, current threats to human rights related to elections procedures and the role of international organizations as entities safeguarding human rights in the globalized world were analyzed. As a result, it can be stated that in the increasingly globalized world there are various democratization trends. There are different visions and models of democracy, yet no single one can be considered optimal. It can be noted that international organizations play a significant role in elections observation as an instrument of ensuring human rights. The dynamic rhythm of global development helps to promote plurality of ideas, political ideologies and ethical values. It can be concluded that in this increasingly interconnected world democracy has the function of a mediator promoting understanding among countries, first of all, through the United Nations. Democracy as a type of political regime, i. e. type of relationship between the country leadership and the people cannot function effectively without active social groups and civil society organizations. The political context has to promote freedom of speech, independent media, rule of law, effective judiciary system and overall respect for human rights. Freedom of expression and political choices are among fundamental human rights guaranteed by democratic national and international laws. International organizations are among the most noteworthy entities on the world arena safeguarding human rights and free expression of people’s political will. International organizations are working actively in order to tackle current threats to human rights, in particular, freedom of expression and freedom of political will. To this end, the international and national organizations provide comprehensive electoral support. The United Nations, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe are actively engaged in providing electoral support and assist in holding objective and just elections worldwide, especially in transitioning countries. They play a key role in providing electoral support in accordance with the international organizations’ mission, bolstering democracy and safeguarding human rights. The role of international organizations in the globalized world as human rights protector continues to be vital and indispensable.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the role of international organizations in elections observation as an instrument of ensuring human rights. The objectives are to analyze the notions of democracy and human rights, democratization trends worldwide, current threats to human rights related to elections procedures and the role of international organizations as entities safeguarding human rights in the globalized world. In order to investigate this problem the researcher utilized such scientific methods as deduction and induction, historical and comparative method and the case study one. Historical and comparative methods were used to trace the evolution of international organizations’’ activities with regard to elections observation and compare various organizations’ pertinent processes and procedures. Case study method was used to collect and analyze qualitative data about international organizations’ activity related to elections observation and to define their role in ensuring human rights, in particular, freedom of expression. The notions of democracy and human rights, democratization trends worldwide, current threats to human rights related to elections procedures and the role of international organizations as entities safeguarding human rights in the globalized world were analyzed. As a result, it can be stated that in the increasingly globalized world there are various democratization trends. There are different visions and models of democracy, yet no single one can be considered optimal. It can be noted that international organizations play a significant role in elections observation as an instrument of ensuring human rights. The dynamic rhythm of global development helps to promote plurality of ideas, political ideologies and ethical values. It can be concluded that in this increasingly interconnected world democracy has the function of a mediator promoting understanding among countries, first of all, through the United Nations. Democracy as a type of political regime, i. e. type of relationship between the country leadership and the people cannot function effectively without active social groups and civil society organizations. The political context has to promote freedom of speech, independent media, rule of law, effective judiciary system and overall respect for human rights. Freedom of expression and political choices are among fundamental human rights guaranteed by democratic national and international laws. International organizations are among the most noteworthy entities on the world arena safeguarding human rights and free expression of people’s political will. International organizations are working actively in order to tackle current threats to human rights, in particular, freedom of expression and freedom of political will. To this end, the international and national organizations provide comprehensive electoral support. The United Nations, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe are actively engaged in providing electoral support and assist in holding objective and just elections worldwide, especially in transitioning countries. They play a key role in providing electoral support in accordance with the international organizations’ mission, bolstering democracy and safeguarding human rights. The role of international organizations in the globalized world as human rights protector continues to be vital and indispensable.

ABSTRAK Kekalahan Jepang pada Perang Dunia II membawa sejumlah perubahan dalam perpolitikan Jepang. Sejak saat itu, Jepang menerapkan politik pasifisme yang berorientasi kepada perdamaian dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Kontribusi Jepang dalam bantuan ekonomi semakin besar setelah menjadi bagian dari Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Jepang juga menunjukkan peran aktifnya dalam upaya menciptakan perdamaian dunia. Keaktifan Jepang mulai terlihat pada masa Perang Teluk dengan menjadi United Nation Peace Keeping Operation (UNPKO). Hingga saat ini, Jepang masih menjadi salah satu negara yang aktif mengirimkan bantuan militer melalui UNPKO untuk menjaga perdamaian dunia. Besarnya peran Jepang dalam menjaga perdamaian dunia dan kontribusinya dalam perekonomian dunia membuatnya merasa siap untuk menjadi anggota tetap Dewan Keamanan PBB. Tulisan ini menganalisa mengenai upaya yang dilakukan oleh Jepang untuk mendapatkan posisi sebagai anggota tetap Dewan Keamanan PBB melalui OECD dan UNPKO serta tanggapan negara-negara mengenai intensi Jepang tersebut.Kata Kunci: Politik Luar Negeri Jepang, Anggota Tetap Dewan Keamanan PBB, OECD, UNPKO ABSTRACTJapan's defeat in World War II brought several changes in Japanese politics. Since then, Japan has implemented a pacifist policy that is oriented towards peace and economic growth. Japan's contribution to economic assistance has been even greater after becoming part of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Japan has also shown its active role in efforts to create world peace. Japan's activeness began to be seen during the Gulf War by becoming part of the United Nations Peacekeeping Operation (UNPKO). Until now, Japan is still one of the countries that actively sends military assistance through UNPKO to maintain world peace. The magnitude of Japan's role in maintaining world peace and its contribution to the world economy has made it feel ready to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. This paper analyzes the efforts made by Japan to obtain a position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council through the OECD and UNPKO and the responses of countries regarding Japan's intentions.Keywords: Japanese Foreign Politics, Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, OECD, UNPKO

The internationalisation of political authority elongates the chain of delegation between the citizen and elected representatives. It increases executive dominance while weakening parliamentary control. International Parliamentary Institutions (IPIs), parliamentary assemblies affiliated with international organisations, could potentially mitigate the ‘parliamentary deficit’ of global governance but are commonly criticised for their weak authority. This paper revisits this critical perspective and argues that IPIs provide access to information circumventing the privileged access of governments. Thereby, IPIs strengthen national parliaments’ capability to control the executive. This benefit explains the motivation of national MPs to attend IPIs. The study is based on novel data on the attendance of parliamentarians to the sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly from 2007 to 2015. The results speak in favour of intertwined parliamentary arenas, as attributes of national parliaments drive attendance. For one, parliaments with higher scrutiny capacity participate more in delegations to IPIs. Moreover, the composition of delegations is related to control incentives, causing a difference in attendance patterns of government and opposition parties.

Abstract This article takes its point of departure in the recommendations by the Council of Europe, and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) that recommend that European states should offer education about religions for all school students, regardless of religious or non-religious background. Sweden is one of the countries that provides such education through a compulsory non-denominational religion education (RE) school subject. The compulsory nature of the school subject is possible as long as the teaching is both ‘objective and pluralistic’. In this article, the concept of objectivity but also neutrality is discussed, using the Swedish school subject as an example. The argument pursued is that RE in Sweden, although presented as objective and neutral, also can be understood as ‘marinated’ in Lutheran Protestantism. In the end, the protestant taste of the Swedish non-denominational and compulsory RE is used as a call for further awareness of how the religious history of a given country affects not only education but also the way people perceive the phenomena called religion. These are important perspectives not only for RE teachers who are demanded to teach in a neutral and objective manner, but perhaps also for lawyers?

It is investigated from the standpoint of international law the feasibility of using the term «hybrid war» to qualify the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The international legal doctrine and norms of international law concerning the subject of the research are analyzed. It is emphasized that, in accordance with norms of international law, armed conflicts have traditionally been divided into international and noninternational. The mentioned division contains ideal constructions, since no armed conflict can be exclusively international or non-international, the more so it does not contain «political wars», «information wars» and propaganda, collaboration, etc., that is all that is often included in the concept of «hybrid war». It is emphasized that to characterize the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the most acceptable is the use of the term «international armed conflict», which is used by the UN General Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Office of the Prosecutor of the International criminal court. It is noted that the use of the term «hybrid war» shifts the focus from the armed aggression of the Russian Federation (international armed conflict) to the very vague concept of «hybrid war». This can be used to deviate from the concept of international armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and in particular as a gradual transition to the concept of non-international armed conflict, with all its negative consequences, including the questions of responsibility of the Russian Federation and its senior officials. Key words: hybrid war; armed conflict; aggression; war crimes; International Criminal Court.

The crime of defamation, known as criminal libel in some jurisdictions, has (along with associated “insult laws”) been identified in the 2007 Declaration of Table Mountain of the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers as the “greatest scourge of press freedom on the continent”. The Declaration proceeds to call for the abolition of such laws as a matter of urgency. This call has similarly been made in the Caribbean context by the International Press Institute and in the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). Writing on behalf of CHRI, Cowell notes the “chilling effect” of defamation laws (along with the procedural laws and regulations governing libel actions), defining this phenomenon as “partially … self-censorship on the part of individuals but in general…a wider culture of fear and uncertainty within society that limits free speech”. On this basis, Cowell argues (for CHRI) that criminal defamation represents the “clearest threat to the exercise of freedom of speech withCommonwealth states” and that the “threat of criminal sanction can act as asignificant and widespread deterrent against all freedom of speech”, and that they should therefore be repealed. Similar calls forthe abolition of criminal defamation laws have issued from the Organization of American States and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and in response to a complaint relating to a criminal libel conviction emanating from the Philippines, the United Nations Human Rights Council stated that “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation … application of the criminal law [in the context of defamation] should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate remedy”.Despite these calls for the abolition of the crime, it is noteworthy that the crime is retained in many jurisdictions, including European jurisdictions and Commonwealth countries. For example, every Commonwealth state in the English-speaking Caribbean (except Grenada) has specific criminal libel laws, Asian Commonwealth countries such as India, Singapore and Malaysia have corresponding criminaldefamation provisions, and so do African Commonwealth countries such as Botswana and South Africa. In addition, Commonwealth members such as Australia and Canada retain criminal defamation laws. An approach from the Commonwealth Press Union arguing for the abolition of the crime of defamation on the basis that such a crime threatens freedom of expression and is subject to abuse, being used in cases which do not involve the public interest, did not find favour with the Commonwealth Law ministers in their meeting in Accra in 2005.

A same-but-different dichotomy has recently been encapsulated within the US Food and Drug Administration’s ill-defined concept of “substantial equivalence” (USFDA, FDA). By invoking this concept the genetically modified organism (GMO) industry has escaped the rigors of safety testing that might otherwise apply. The curious concept of “substantial equivalence” grants a presumption of safety to GMO food. This presumption has yet to be earned, and has been used to constrain labelling of both GMO and non-GMO food. It is an idea that well serves corporatism. It enables the claim of difference to secure patent protection, while upholding the contrary claim of sameness to avoid labelling and safety scrutiny. It offers the best of both worlds for corporate food entrepreneurs, and delivers the worst of both worlds to consumers. The term “substantial equivalence” has established its currency within the GMO discourse. As the opportunities for patenting food technologies expand, the GMO recruitment of this concept will likely be a dress rehearsal for the developing debates on the labelling and testing of other techno-foods – including nano-foods and clone-foods. “Substantial Equivalence” “Are the Seven Commandments the same as they used to be, Benjamin?” asks Clover in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. By way of response, Benjamin “read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran: ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”. After this reductionist revelation, further novel and curious events at Manor Farm, “did not seem strange” (Orwell, ch. X). Equality is a concept at the very core of mathematics, but beyond the domain of logic, equality becomes a hotly contested notion – and the domain of food is no exception. A novel food has a regulatory advantage if it can claim to be the same as an established food – a food that has proven its worth over centuries, perhaps even millennia – and thus does not trigger new, perhaps costly and onerous, testing, compliance, and even new and burdensome regulations. On the other hand, such a novel food has an intellectual property (IP) advantage only in terms of its difference. And thus there is an entrenched dissonance for newly technologised foods, between claiming sameness, and claiming difference. The same/different dilemma is erased, so some would have it, by appeal to the curious new dualist doctrine of “substantial equivalence” whereby sameness and difference are claimed simultaneously, thereby creating a win/win for corporatism, and a loss/loss for consumerism. This ground has been pioneered, and to some extent conquered, by the GMO industry. The conquest has ramifications for other cryptic food technologies, that is technologies that are invisible to the consumer and that are not evident to the consumer other than via labelling. Cryptic technologies pertaining to food include GMOs, pesticides, hormone treatments, irradiation and, most recently, manufactured nano-particles introduced into the food production and delivery stream. Genetic modification of plants was reported as early as 1984 by Horsch et al. The case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty resulted in a US Supreme Court decision that upheld the prior decision of the US Court of Customs and Patent Appeal that “the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law”, and ruled that the “respondent’s micro-organism plainly qualifies as patentable subject matter”. This was a majority decision of nine judges, with four judges dissenting (Burger). It was this Chakrabarty judgement that has seriously opened the Pandora’s box of GMOs because patenting rights makes GMOs an attractive corporate proposition by offering potentially unique monopoly rights over food. The rear guard action against GMOs has most often focussed on health repercussions (Smith, Genetic), food security issues, and also the potential for corporate malfeasance to hide behind a cloak of secrecy citing commercial confidentiality (Smith, Seeds). Others have tilted at the foundational plank on which the economics of the GMO industry sits: “I suggest that the main concern is that we do not want a single molecule of anything we eat to contribute to, or be patented and owned by, a reckless, ruthless chemical organisation” (Grist 22). The GMO industry exhibits bipolar behaviour, invoking the concept of “substantial difference” to claim patent rights by way of “novelty”, and then claiming “substantial equivalence” when dealing with other regulatory authorities including food, drug and pesticide agencies; a case of “having their cake and eating it too” (Engdahl 8). This is a clever slight-of-rhetoric, laying claim to the best of both worlds for corporations, and the worst of both worlds for consumers. Corporations achieve patent protection and no concomitant specific regulatory oversight; while consumers pay the cost of patent monopolization, and are not necessarily apprised, by way of labelling or otherwise, that they are purchasing and eating GMOs, and thereby financing the GMO industry. The lemma of “substantial equivalence” does not bear close scrutiny. It is a fuzzy concept that lacks a tight testable definition. It is exactly this fuzziness that allows lots of wriggle room to keep GMOs out of rigorous testing regimes. Millstone et al. argue that “substantial equivalence is a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgement masquerading as if it is scientific. It is moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests. It therefore serves to discourage and inhibit informative scientific research” (526). “Substantial equivalence” grants GMOs the benefit of the doubt regarding safety, and thereby leaves unexamined the ramifications for human consumer health, for farm labourer and food-processor health, for the welfare of farm animals fed a diet of GMO grain, and for the well-being of the ecosystem, both in general and in its particularities. “Substantial equivalence” was introduced into the food discourse by an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report: “safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology: concepts and principles”. It is from this document that the ongoing mantra of assumed safety of GMOs derives: “modern biotechnology … does not inherently lead to foods that are less safe … . Therefore evaluation of foods and food components obtained from organisms developed by the application of the newer techniques does not necessitate a fundamental change in established principles, nor does it require a different standard of safety” (OECD, “Safety” 10). This was at the time, and remains, an act of faith, a pro-corporatist and a post-cautionary approach. The OECD motto reveals where their priorities lean: “for a better world economy” (OECD, “Better”). The term “substantial equivalence” was preceded by the 1992 USFDA concept of “substantial similarity” (Levidow, Murphy and Carr) and was adopted from a prior usage by the US Food and Drug Agency (USFDA) where it was used pertaining to medical devices (Miller). Even GMO proponents accept that “Substantial equivalence is not intended to be a scientific formulation; it is a conceptual tool for food producers and government regulators” (Miller 1043). And there’s the rub – there is no scientific definition of “substantial equivalence”, no scientific test of proof of concept, and nor is there likely to be, since this is a ‘spinmeister’ term. And yet this is the cornerstone on which rests the presumption of safety of GMOs. Absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. History suggests that this is a fraught presumption. By way of contrast, the patenting of GMOs depends on the antithesis of assumed ‘sameness’. Patenting rests on proven, scrutinised, challengeable and robust tests of difference and novelty. Lightfoot et al. report that transgenic plants exhibit “unexpected changes [that] challenge the usual assumptions of GMO equivalence and suggest genomic, proteomic and metanomic characterization of transgenics is advisable” (1). GMO Milk and Contested Labelling Pesticide company Monsanto markets the genetically engineered hormone rBST (recombinant Bovine Somatotropin; also known as: rbST; rBGH, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone; and the brand name Prosilac) to dairy farmers who inject it into their cows to increase milk production. This product is not approved for use in many jurisdictions, including Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan. Even Monsanto accepts that rBST leads to mastitis (inflammation and pus in the udder) and other “cow health problems”, however, it maintains that “these problems did not occur at rates that would prohibit the use of Prosilac” (Monsanto). A European Union study identified an extensive list of health concerns of rBST use (European Commission). The US Dairy Export Council however entertain no doubt. In their background document they ask “is milk from cows treated with rBST safe?” and answer “Absolutely” (USDEC). Meanwhile, Monsanto’s website raises and answers the question: “Is the milk from cows treated with rbST any different from milk from untreated cows? No” (Monsanto). Injecting cows with genetically modified hormones to boost their milk production remains a contested practice, banned in many countries. It is the claimed equivalence that has kept consumers of US dairy products in the dark, shielded rBST dairy farmers from having to declare that their milk production is GMO-enhanced, and has inhibited non-GMO producers from declaring their milk as non-GMO, non rBST, or not hormone enhanced. This is a battle that has simmered, and sometimes raged, for a decade in the US. Finally there is a modest victory for consumers: the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) requires all labels used on milk products to be approved in advance by the department. The standard issued in October 2007 (PDA, “Standards”) signalled to producers that any milk labels claiming rBST-free status would be rejected. This advice was rescinded in January 2008 with new, specific, department-approved textual constructions allowed, and ensuring that any “no rBST” style claim was paired with a PDA-prescribed disclaimer (PDA, “Revised Standards”). However, parsimonious labelling is prohibited: No labeling may contain references such as ‘No Hormones’, ‘Hormone Free’, ‘Free of Hormones’, ‘No BST’, ‘Free of BST’, ‘BST Free’,’No added BST’, or any statement which indicates, implies or could be construed to mean that no natural bovine somatotropin (BST) or synthetic bovine somatotropin (rBST) are contained in or added to the product. (PDA, “Revised Standards” 3) Difference claims are prohibited: In no instance shall any label state or imply that milk from cows not treated with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST, rbST, RBST or rbst) differs in composition from milk or products made with milk from treated cows, or that rBST is not contained in or added to the product. If a product is represented as, or intended to be represented to consumers as, containing or produced from milk from cows not treated with rBST any labeling information must convey only a difference in farming practices or dairy herd management methods. (PDA, “Revised Standards” 3) The PDA-approved labelling text for non-GMO dairy farmers is specified as follows: ‘From cows not treated with rBST. No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows’ or a substantial equivalent. Hereinafter, the first sentence shall be referred to as the ‘Claim’, and the second sentence shall be referred to as the ‘Disclaimer’. (PDA, “Revised Standards” 4) It is onto the non-GMO dairy farmer alone, that the costs of compliance fall. These costs include label preparation and approval, proving non-usage of GMOs, and of creating and maintaining an audit trail. In nearby Ohio a similar consumer versus corporatist pantomime is playing out. This time with the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) calling the shots, and again serving the GMO industry. The ODA prescribed text allowed to non-GMO dairy farmers is “from cows not supplemented with rbST” and this is to be conjoined with the mandatory disclaimer “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST supplemented cows” (Curet). These are “emergency rules”: they apply for 90 days, and are proposed as permanent. Once again, the onus is on the non-GMO dairy farmers to document and prove their claims. GMO dairy farmers face no such governmental requirements, including no disclosure requirement, and thus an asymmetric regulatory impost is placed on the non-GMO farmer which opens up new opportunities for administrative demands and technocratic harassment. Levidow et al. argue, somewhat Eurocentrically, that from its 1990s adoption “as the basis for a harmonized science-based approach to risk assessment” (26) the concept of “substantial equivalence” has “been recast in at least three ways” (58). It is true that the GMO debate has evolved differently in the US and Europe, and with other jurisdictions usually adopting intermediate positions, yet the concept persists. Levidow et al. nominate their three recastings as: firstly an “implicit redefinition” by the appending of “extra phrases in official documents”; secondly, “it has been reinterpreted, as risk assessment processes have … required more evidence of safety than before, especially in Europe”; and thirdly, “it has been demoted in the European Union regulatory procedures so that it can no longer be used to justify the claim that a risk assessment is unnecessary” (58). Romeis et al. have proposed a decision tree approach to GMO risks based on cascading tiers of risk assessment. However what remains is that the defects of the concept of “substantial equivalence” persist. Schauzu identified that: such decisions are a matter of “opinion”; that there is “no clear definition of the term ‘substantial’”; that because genetic modification “is aimed at introducing new traits into organisms, the result will always be a different combination of genes and proteins”; and that “there is no general checklist that could be followed by those who are responsible for allowing a product to be placed on the market” (2). Benchmark for Further Food Novelties? The discourse, contestation, and debate about “substantial equivalence” have largely focussed on the introduction of GMOs into food production processes. GM can best be regarded as the test case, and proof of concept, for establishing “substantial equivalence” as a benchmark for evaluating new and forthcoming food technologies. This is of concern, because the concept of “substantial equivalence” is scientific hokum, and yet its persistence, even entrenchment, within regulatory agencies may be a harbinger of forthcoming same-but-different debates for nanotechnology and other future bioengineering. The appeal of “substantial equivalence” has been a brake on the creation of GMO-specific regulations and on rigorous GMO testing. The food nanotechnology industry can be expected to look to the precedent of the GMO debate to head off specific nano-regulations and nano-testing. As cloning becomes economically viable, then this may be another wave of food innovation that muddies the regulatory waters with the confused – and ultimately self-contradictory – concept of “substantial equivalence”. Nanotechnology engineers particles in the size range 1 to 100 nanometres – a nanometre is one billionth of a metre. This is interesting for manufacturers because at this size chemicals behave differently, or as the Australian Office of Nanotechnology expresses it, “new functionalities are obtained” (AON). Globally, government expenditure on nanotechnology research reached US$4.6 billion in 2006 (Roco 3.12). While there are now many patents (ETC Group; Roco), regulation specific to nanoparticles is lacking (Bowman and Hodge; Miller and Senjen). The USFDA advises that nano-manufacturers “must show a reasonable assurance of safety … or substantial equivalence” (FDA). A recent inventory of nano-products already on the market identified 580 products. Of these 11.4% were categorised as “Food and Beverage” (WWICS). This is at a time when public confidence in regulatory bodies is declining (HRA). In an Australian consumer survey on nanotechnology, 65% of respondents indicated they were concerned about “unknown and long term side effects”, and 71% agreed that it is important “to know if products are made with nanotechnology” (MARS 22). Cloned animals are currently more expensive to produce than traditional animal progeny. In the course of 678 pages, the USFDA Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment has not a single mention of “substantial equivalence”. However the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) in its single page “Statement in Support of USFDA’s Risk Assessment Conclusion That Food from Cloned Animals Is Safe for Human Consumption” states that “FASS endorses the use of this comparative evaluation process as the foundation of establishing substantial equivalence of any food being evaluated. It must be emphasized that it is the food product itself that should be the focus of the evaluation rather than the technology used to generate cloned animals” (FASS 1). Contrary to the FASS derogation of the importance of process in food production, for consumers both the process and provenance of production is an important and integral aspect of a food product’s value and identity. Some consumers will legitimately insist that their Kalamata olives are from Greece, or their balsamic vinegar is from Modena. It was the British public’s growing awareness that their sugar was being produced by slave labour that enabled the boycotting of the product, and ultimately the outlawing of slavery (Hochschild). When consumers boycott Nestle, because of past or present marketing practices, or boycott produce of USA because of, for example, US foreign policy or animal welfare concerns, they are distinguishing the food based on the narrative of the food, the production process and/or production context which are a part of the identity of the food. Consumers attribute value to food based on production process and provenance information (Paull). Products produced by slave labour, by child labour, by political prisoners, by means of torture, theft, immoral, unethical or unsustainable practices are different from their alternatives. The process of production is a part of the identity of a product and consumers are increasingly interested in food narrative. It requires vigilance to ensure that these narratives are delivered with the product to the consumer, and are neither lost nor suppressed. Throughout the GM debate, the organic sector has successfully skirted the “substantial equivalence” debate by excluding GMOs from the certified organic food production process. This GMO-exclusion from the organic food stream is the one reprieve available to consumers worldwide who are keen to avoid GMOs in their diet. The organic industry carries the expectation of providing food produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers, and by extension, without GMOs. Most recently, the Soil Association, the leading organic certifier in the UK, claims to be the first organisation in the world to exclude manufactured nonoparticles from their products (Soil Association). There has been the call that engineered nanoparticles be excluded from organic standards worldwide, given that there is no mandatory safety testing and no compulsory labelling in place (Paull and Lyons). The twisted rhetoric of oxymorons does not make the ideal foundation for policy. Setting food policy on the shifting sands of “substantial equivalence” seems foolhardy when we consider the potentially profound ramifications of globally mass marketing a dysfunctional food. If there is a 2×2 matrix of terms – “substantial equivalence”, substantial difference, insubstantial equivalence, insubstantial difference – while only one corner of this matrix is engaged for food policy, and while the elements remain matters of opinion rather than being testable by science, or by some other regime, then the public is the dupe, and potentially the victim. “Substantial equivalence” has served the GMO corporates well and the public poorly, and this asymmetry is slated to escalate if nano-food and clone-food are also folded into the “substantial equivalence” paradigm. Only in Orwellian Newspeak is war peace, or is same different. It is time to jettison the pseudo-scientific doctrine of “substantial equivalence”, as a convenient oxymoron, and embrace full disclosure of provenance, process and difference, so that consumers are not collateral in a continuing asymmetric knowledge war. References Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON). Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) 6 Aug. 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/ AustralianOfficeofNanotechnology.aspx >.Bowman, Diana, and Graeme Hodge. “A Small Matter of Regulation: An International Review of Nanotechnology Regulation.” Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 8 (2007): 1-32.Burger, Warren. “Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty, et al.” Supreme Court of the United States, decided 16 June 1980. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=447&invol=303 >.Curet, Monique. “New Rules Allow Dairy-Product Labels to Include Hormone Info.” The Columbus Dispatch 7 Feb. 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2008/02/07/dairy.html >.Engdahl, F. William. Seeds of Destruction. Montréal: Global Research, 2007.ETC Group. Down on the Farm: The Impact of Nano-Scale Technologies on Food and Agriculture. Ottawa: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Conservation, November, 2004. European Commission. Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin. Brussels: European Commission, 15-16 March 1999.Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS). Statement in Support of FDA’s Risk Assessment Conclusion That Cloned Animals Are Safe for Human Consumption. 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=191 >.Grist, Stuart. “True Threats to Reason.” New Scientist 197.2643 (16 Feb. 2008): 22-23.Hochschild, Adam. Bury the Chains: The British Struggle to Abolish Slavery. London: Pan Books, 2006.Horsch, Robert, Robert Fraley, Stephen Rogers, Patricia Sanders, Alan Lloyd, and Nancy Hoffman. “Inheritance of Functional Foreign Genes in Plants.” Science 223 (1984): 496-498.HRA. Awareness of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies: A Report of Findings. Washington: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 25 Sep. 2007.Levidow, Les, Joseph Murphy, and Susan Carr. “Recasting ‘Substantial Equivalence’: Transatlantic Governance of GM Food.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 32.1 (Jan. 2007): 26-64.Lightfoot, David, Rajsree Mungur, Rafiqa Ameziane, Anthony Glass, and Karen Berhard. “Transgenic Manipulation of C and N Metabolism: Stretching the GMO Equivalence.” American Society of Plant Biologists Conference: Plant Biology, 2000.MARS. “Final Report: Australian Community Attitudes Held about Nanotechnology – Trends 2005-2007.” Report prepared for Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR). Miranda, NSW: Market Attitude Research Services, 12 June 2007.Miller, Georgia, and Rye Senjen. “Out of the Laboratory and on to Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture.” Friends of the Earth, 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://nano.foe.org.au/node/220 >.Miller, Henry. “Substantial Equivalence: Its Uses and Abuses.” Nature Biotechnology 17 (7 Nov. 1999): 1042-1043.Millstone, Erik, Eric Brunner, and Sue Mayer. “Beyond ‘Substantial Equivalence’.” Nature 401 (7 Oct. 1999): 525-526.Monsanto. “Posilac, Bovine Somatotropin by Monsanto: Questions and Answers about bST from the United States Food and Drug Administration.” 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.monsantodairy.com/faqs/fda_safety.html >.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “For a Better World Economy.” Paris: OECD, 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.oecd.org/ >.———. “Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles.” Paris: OECD, 1993.Orwell, George. Animal Farm. Adelaide: ebooks@Adelaide, 2004 (1945). 30 Apr. 2008 < http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george >.Paull, John. “Provenance, Purity and Price Premiums: Consumer Valuations of Organic and Place-of-Origin Food Labelling.” Research Masters thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 2006. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://eprints.utas.edu.au/690/ >.Paull, John, and Kristen Lyons. “Nanotechnology: The Next Challenge for Organics.” Journal of Organic Systems (in press).Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA). “Revised Standards and Procedure for Approval of Proposed Labeling of Fluid Milk.” Milk Labeling Standards (2.0.1.17.08). Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 17 Jan. 2008. ———. “Standards and Procedure for Approval of Proposed Labeling of Fluid Milk, Milk Products and Manufactured Dairy Products.” Milk Labeling Standards (2.0.1.17.08). Bureau of Food Safety and Laboratory Services, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 22 Oct. 2007.Roco, Mihail. “National Nanotechnology Initiative – Past, Present, Future.” In William Goddard, Donald Brenner, Sergy Lyshevski and Gerald Iafrate, eds. Handbook of Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007.Romeis, Jorg, Detlef Bartsch, Franz Bigler, Marco Candolfi, Marco Gielkins, et al. “Assessment of Risk of Insect-Resistant Transgenic Crops to Nontarget Arthropods.” Nature Biotechnology 26.2 (Feb. 2008): 203-208.Schauzu, Marianna. “The Concept of Substantial Equivalence in Safety Assessment of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Organisms.” AgBiotechNet 2 (Apr. 2000): 1-4.Soil Association. “Soil Association First Organisation in the World to Ban Nanoparticles – Potentially Toxic Beauty Products That Get Right under Your Skin.” London: Soil Association, 17 Jan. 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047 cb466780256a6b00298980/42308d944a3088a6802573d100351790!OpenDocument >.Smith, Jeffrey. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Fairfield, Iowa: Yes! Books, 2007.———. Seeds of Deception. Melbourne: Scribe, 2004.U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC). Bovine Somatotropin (BST) Backgrounder. Arlington, VA: U.S. Dairy Export Council, 2006.U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA). Animal Cloning: A Draft Risk Assessment. Rockville, MD: Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 28 Dec. 2006.———. FDA and Nanotechnology Products. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2008. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/faqs.html >.Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS). “A Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory.” Data set as at Sep. 2007. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Technologies, Sep. 2007. 24 Apr. 2008 < http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer >.