Copenhagen Document

OSPAR (2003). Harmonisation of Criteria for the Assessment of TBT-specific Biological Effects, presented by the Netherlands, Meeting of the working group of monitoring (MON), 16-18 December 2003 in Copenhagen, document MON03/3/1-E. 

CSCE (1990) Copenhagen Document http //www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304 Accessed 06 May 2014. 

The Copenhagen Document refers only to Part IV on minorities. Aspects of adoption are, of course, meant to apply to the whole document. 

OSCE While there was always a human dimensirm in the CSCE, it layed down a profotmd basis for further work in the Copenhagen Document from 1990. The raison d etre of the CSCE/OSCE, however, were not and are not human rights as such. The OSCE is a security and cooperation organization. If human and minority rights are one of the pillars of the organizatiOTi it is evidence of the important role that the observation of both human and minority rights has on the stability and security of a state or region. 

A last point is made in selecting two documents each from the fields of minority rights and setf-determination. The chosen documents are introduced in more detail below. They are key documents in their fields and provide substantive input to their issues. In the field of minority rights the chosen instruments that meet the above criteria are the 1992 UN Minority Declaration and the 1990 CSCE Copenhagen Document. In the field of self-determination, two UN documents are chosen. One is Res. 1541 on decolonization which delves into the content of self-determinati(Mi and illuminates in what way self-determination can be achieved. Furthermore, Res. 1541 establishes the salt water rule that is still invoked for denying self-determination outside the colonial context. It is for these reasons that Res. 1541 is regarded as more important as Res. 1514 which was the most cited GA resolution in the context of decolonization. The second instrument is Res. 2625 which is... 

In the field of human rights, issues of bindingness remain. Positivism cannot explain why principles of the CSCE Copenhagen Document are treated as rules. It is therefore necessary to go further and seek alternative explanations. The question to be answered is whether minorities have a right to internal self-determination. The answer is proposed in two steps. First, as many minority rights and also issues of self-determination appear in so-called non-binding instruments, it is important to show their relevance. Once this is done, the second step is taken. 

In this context, the CSCE (1990) Copenhagen Document http //www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ 14304, accessed on 06 May 2014 refers only to part IV on minorities if not otherwise indicated. In this context, the General Assembly (1970) Friendly Relations Declaration UN Doc. A/RES/ 2625 (XXV) refers only to the Principle of Equal Rights and Self-Determination of Peoples if not otherwise indicated. 

Adherence Just like the Copenhagen Document, the UN Minority Declaration does not have subsidiary rules that back it up—it cannot have such rules because of its very nature as a General Assembly resolution. However, there is something similar to subsidiary rules. The Independent Expert on Minority Issues and the Forum on Minority Issues both refer to the Declaration in their scope of work. There thus are bodies continuously concerned with the implementation of the Declaration even though neither is an explicit monitoring body or has judicial power. 

Existence covers physical and/or mental existence. See para. (33) CSCE (1990) Copenhagen Document http //www.osce.org/odlhr/elections/14304, accessed on 06 May 2014 art. 1 UN Minority DeclaratiOTi, UN Doc. A/Res/47/135, art. 5 (1) FC. In addition, see art. 27 ICCPR which speaks of the existence of minorities. 

Pedigree The Copenhagen Document is an agreement adopted by states. Decision making at the OSCE is always done by consensus which is defined as the absence of objection. States have the possibility to make reservations or interpretative statements. In other words, while the OSCE as a whole remains capable of acting. 

The Copenhagen Document has only three interpretative statements and no reservations attached.All three statements concern the minority part of the document and affirm the state s strong position in relation to minorities. It is important to note that a state knows that an adopted document, even if it abstains, will create expectations from it. The only way to soften the expectations is through interpretative statements or even reservations. As no reservations were filed and only three interpretative statements were issued, one can assume strong support for the Copenhagen Document among states. 

General Aims Similar to the pre-set values, the general aims of the Copenhagen Document are mentioned in para. (30). Respect for minority rights contributes to peace and stability. Thus, the document is understood to aim at obtaining or preserving peace and stability. 

Apart from these specific restrictions, the common safeguard is found that nothing in the document can be used contrary to the UN Charter. Fitting for an OSCE document, the Copenhagen Document also refers to the Final Act and especially to the provision on territorial integrity. 

At the same time, the resolution uses cautious words. For example free association should be the result. Non-binding instruments need not be so cautious. The Copenhagen Document shows in parts that treaty language can be used. Here, the treaty language states that belonging to a national minority is a matter of individual choice. It does not say should be a matter of choice. Nevertheless, the meaning of Res. 1541 is easily understood and there is no lack in determinacy. 

Turning to the Copenhagen Document, we see that it uses legal language. 

Compared to the UN Minority Declaration, the Copenhagen Document has more substance and has thus stronger impact. The pre-set values as well as the general aims are addressed in the very beginning of the section on minority rights. Individual freedom is explicitly affirmed. State considerations are addressed. Here, it is important to remind ourselves that we are in a liberal state in the original position. The state considerations will not lead to minority oppression. Overall, there is a balance between minority and majority interests. The difference principle is affirmed. 

The UN Minority Declaration scores well on Franck s criteria. It is a just document even though one could have wished for an approach that covers more areas important to minorities. Its compliance puU exists, though the documents weaknesses in several fields make the compliance pull rather weak compared to the Copenhagen Document and the Friendly Relations Declaration. 

---