28TH INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL MEETING

CIRCULAR 14

Resolutions and Statute Amendments
Submitted to the 2007 ICM 
with PrepCom comments on proposed treatment

Date: April 2007
Summary
This circular contains all sections and structures resolutions, IEC enabling resolutions, Statute Amendments and amendments to the Standing Orders submitted to the 2007 International Council Meeting. In order to assist the movement in the transition to a different ICM (see Circular 5:  “A Vision for the 2007 ICM”), the ICM Preparatory Committee has included the proposed treatment for each resolution at the Council Meeting.  This is not a final decision but is indicative of current PrepCom thinking. PrepCom welcomes any comments on the proposed treatment of resolutions at the ICM.
The text of these resolutions is not necessarily final as this circular is a work in progress indicating discussions between PrepCom and the proposing sections and structures.  The text that will be considered at the ICM will follow. 
Enabling resolutions are submitted by the IEC to ensure that the issue is part of the agenda and to allow it to be discussed by the Council; they do not necessarily reflect the view of the IEC. 
Distribution
This is an internal circular which is being sent to all sections and structures.
Recommended Actions
Please circulate this document to all people in your section/structure who are involved in ICM preparations.
April 2007

Dear Friends,

The 2007 ICM PrepCom had its first meeting 27th -28th January 2007.  Among other things we reviewed all the resolution and themes that were received by the deadlines the 13th of January (resolutions) and by the 24th of January (themes).

What is different about this Resolutions Circular?

This circular marks a new approach to the ICM – you are receiving in this document not only the resolutions, but with a view towards a new ICM, the different types of treatment that PrepCom proposes for them during the meeting.

As we described in Circular 5, we aim to make the ICM not only about resolutions but also about developing shared understandings and shared commitments about the challenges inherent in delivering the ISP, without undermining the authority of the ICM as the highest decision-making body of the movement.

PrepCom’s role in consolidating and suggesting the withdrawal of resolutions

The ICM Standing Orders frame the ICM PrepCom’s role in setting the agenda of the ICM.

Paragraph 8.2 of the Standing Order states:

	The Preparatory Committee meets as soon as possible after the deadline for the submission of Statute amendments and resolutions in order to prepare possible consolidations of resolutions, to append appropriate background information to the resolutions, including costings where possible, to refer resolutions to the relevant paragraph(s) of the draft plan where appropriate and to advise the International Executive Committee on the handling of resolutions.

As you can see Prepcom has the authority to consolidate resolutions and to consider the background information. Members of PrepCom are, therefore, approaching a number of sections to discuss possible consolidations of resolutions.

Paragraph 8.4 states:

	The Preparatory Committee has responsibility for giving effect to Standing Orders 1.1 and 1.2 and for managing the agenda to ensure that the International Council focuses on broad issues.
PrepCom has the responsibility to make sure that the agenda only includes broad issues. PrepCom therefore will ask you to consider withdrawing resolutions that are not strategic.

ICM agenda:  Different treatment for different issues (including resolutions)

The 2007 ICM will be organized around four major types of meetings. A same issue could be treated in different ways depending on the interest of the delegates:
1	Plenary:  In addition to the formal opening, closing and reporting plenaries, plenary time will be devoted to the discussion of major issues that will benefit from a broad discussion with all section and structure delegates. We will thus take issues like Growth and the Language Strategy at least partially in plenary.  

1	World Café: Issues that will benefit from a more participatory discussion will be dealt with (at least in part) in a World Café format – giving delegates the opportunities to work at tables in a room, rotate between tables, and develop more lively conversations. The outcomes of this work will be gathered in a document for consideration of the Resolutions Plenary. Where agreements are strong on recommendations and suggestions they will be recorded in an ICM Chair’s Statement for the final plenary. PrepCom suggests that a discussion on Youth where sections and structures can speak about their work and plans, exchange ideas and best practice could be dealt with in this way. An issue like Activism could be discussed in a World Café and more operationally in a workshop.

2	Working Party:  Some resolutions are as usual, best dealt with in a formal decision making session.  Issues that will be addressed in this way are the resolutions on the ICM cycle, the Language Strategy and others.

3	Workshop:  There are many operational issues brought to this ICM.  PrepCom recommends that some of these issues be considered in Workshops that lead the participants to a Shared Understanding of how the movement should work on certain issues. These could become part of the Chair’s Statement or could remain as shared understandings of ways to work on a particular issue.

PrepCom is interested in gaining as much agreement as possible from sections and structures proposing resolutions as to the best way to take the issue forward at the ICM.

ICM outcomes

The 2007 ICM will record its work in an ICM Report that will include three types of outcomes:
4	Decisions:  These are the formal outcomes of Working Party recommendations to the plenary on resolutions that have been taken to the WP. For example, the 2007 ICM Report will include a Decision on the Language Strategy.

5	ICM Chair’s Statements:  In many international and national conferences and meetings, the formal outcomes are summarized in a Chair's Statement that records the discussions held and agreements reached at the meeting. The proposal for this ICM is to do something similar for the issues that do not require resolution-style decision-making. The IEC would give the issues contained in the Chair's Statement serious consideration and would report back to the next ICM on their implementation.  Depending on the issue the IEC would gather a report on the work of sections and structures, or would inform the movement directly as part of the IEC Report. Issues delegated to the SG for implementation would be included in the SG report. For example, in this ICM the Chair's Statement could include agreements on the implementation of the Youth Strategy or on matters pertaining to how we plan and prioritize for the next ISP.

6	Shared Understanding:  The report to the Closing Plenary could also include a joint statement of the delegates in a workshop on how they propose to take forward a particular piece of work. These would be included in the final ICM Report. This could be a possible outcome of a workshop on IMT Preparations, for example.

Themes and Fringe Meetings

Where at all possible, themes proposed by sections and structures will be incorporated into the formal agenda to be dealt with in one of the four types of sessions outlined above.

What does PrepCom propose?

At the end of each resolution in this circular you will see a note regarding the possible proposal of that issue at the ICM.  Please give PrepCom your opinions on the treatment of your resolutions.
This is a partial and indicative list:
1.	Plenary – Outcome: Chair’s Statements
a.	Reporting and Accountability
b.	Dignity Campaign
c.	Language Strategy
d.	Growth
e.	Global Communications
f.	Identity and brand
g.	Activism
h.	Financial architecture
i.	State of the Movement
j.	Other

2.	World Café – Outcome:  Chair’s Statement or Shared Understandings
k.	Adoption to Agency: planning for the next ISP
l.	Global Youth Strategy
m.	Activism
n.	State of the Movement
o.	Other

3.	Working Party – Outcome:  Decisions
p.	Grave abuses
q.	Language Strategy
r.	Transnational companies
s.	Same sex partnerships
t.	Child prostitution
u.	Other

4.	Workshop – Outcome:  Shared Understanding
v.	IMT and IMT preparations
w.	ISP – planning and prioritizing
x.	Conflict Prevention
y.	Other

As stated in Circular 5: “A Vision for the 2007 ICM”, PrepCom and the IEC are committed to preparing an ICM that allows the most informed decision-making, increased participation of members, particularly youth delegates and first-time delegates, and a commitment to dealing with strategic issues. We also want you to have opportunities to discuss implementation of the ISP and think forward to the next one. We trust the changes we will make will allow your delegation increased opportunities for participation and engagement.

We hope that you will help PrepCom and thereby the ICM in this process. 

Warm regards,

Claus Hoxbro 
Chair, 2007 ICM

Introduction

This pack contains all the resolutions that were received before the 13 January deadline for the 2007 ICM.

Working Party Names and Resolution Numbers

At the 2007 Mexico ICM, there will be four working parties, each dealing with issues relevant to portions of the Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP). The division of work is planned as follows:

1.	Human Rights Strategy (HRS), dealing with Goals 1-7 of the ISP, will be chaired in English by Janet MacLean;
2.	Growth Strategy  (GS), dealing with Goals 8-10 of the ISP, will be chaired in French by Mireille Boisson;
3.	Accountability - Organizational Strategy  (OS), dealing with Goals 11-13 of the ISP, will be chaired in Spanish by Guadalupe Rivas; and 
4.	Accountability - Financial Strategy (FS), dealing with Goals 14-15 of the ISP, will be chaired in English by Frans Huijnen.

At this point it is still not clear how many sessions will be allocated to each working party.  A detailed agenda for the Working Parties will follow at a later date. Working Party Chairs will propose the order in which to take the resolutions. Resolutions with the same subject will be dealt with together, independently of whether or not they have been amalgamated. Please note that the WP chairs, will deal with the proposals themselves, not with the Explanatory Notes.  

Emergency Resolutions

Emergency resolutions should be sent by 13th May 2007 to the ICM Agenda Coordinator, in OLU, at the IS, on clairesmitholu@amnesty.org.

All emergency resolutions will be considered by the ICM Preparatory Committee to see if they qualify as such. Emergency resolutions received by the deadline will be translated and distributed before the ICM.

Amendments to Resolutions

Sections wishing to propose amendments to, or amalgamations of resolutions they have submitted should send them by 13th May 2007 to the ICM Agenda Coordinator, at clairesmitholu@amnesty.org, to be discussed at the next meeting of the Preparatory Committee. Please ensure you get a return email confirming receipt of your proposals.

New wording should be written in italics, and words taken away should be indicated by a Ø. Amended resolutions received by the above deadline will be translated and distributed to the movement before the ICM. The translation and distribution of amendments and amalgamations submitted after the deadline is the responsibility of the submitting section. Sections wishing to amend resolutions submitted by other sections are advised to discuss their proposals with the relevant section.

Support to Statute Amendments

Sections wishing to support a proposed Statute Amendment should indicate this in writing before the start of the ICM to the section that has submitted the proposal and to the ICM Agenda Coordinator, in OLU, at the IS, on clairesmitholu@amnesty.org. 
Working Party– Human Rights Strategy
			
HR Strategy – AI Canada ES	Full Spectrum Approach: Vision and Mission	7	
			
HR Strategy – AI New Zealand	Grave Abuses	9	
			
HR Strategy - IEC	Sexual and Reproductive Rights	11	
			
HR Strategy – AI Peru	Abortion	12	
			
HR Strategy – AI Italy & AI Sweden	Woman’s decision on pregnancy	13	
			
HR Strategy – AI Germany	Situating AI policy regarding abortion in our work against grave abuses of human rights	15

			
HR Strategy – AI Norway	Control Arms	18	
			
HR Strategy – AI Norway	Cluster Munitions	20	
			
HR Strategy  – AI Japan	Depleted Uranium weapons	22	
			
HR Strategy  – AI Chile	Same-sex marriage	23	
			
HR Strategy – AI Mexico	Same-sex partnerships	27	
			
HR Strategy – AI France	Child prostitution	29	
			
HR Strategy – AI Italy	Life imprisonment	33	
			
HR Strategy – AI Mexico	Transnational companies	34	
			
HR Strategy – AI Germany	Conflict prevention  	36	
			
HR Strategy – AI Austria	Use of Force	38	
			
HR Strategy – AI Spain	Use of Force	39	

HR Strategy Statute Amendment– AI Canada (ES)	Full spectrum approach: Vision and Mission

The International Council: 
AMENDS  
Article 1 of the Amnesty International statute to read: 
Amnesty International’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.
In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing grave abuses of all of these rights.

Explanatory note
In October 2000, Philip Alston, former chair of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, provocatively told a meeting of AI “mandate experts” that Amnesty International was wrong to consider itself a “human rights” organization since, in fact, it was primarily a “civil and political rights organization”.  He had a point.   
At the 2001 Dakar ICM, AI ICM passed a significant amendment to our statute (Decision 3), which allowed AI for the first time to oppose grave violations of economic, social and cultural rights. 
Article 1 of the statute now states: 
Amnesty International’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.” (Decision 3)
At the same time that the current statute wording was approved, the 2001 ICM also decided to use the period of the next Integrated Strategic Plan “to lay the basis for AI evolving into an organization which may in principle oppose grave abuses of all human rights”, subject to the 2005 ICM deciding to do so (Decision 6).
Decisions 3 and 6 of the 2001 ICM were linked. “The decision to adopt the new mission was a compromise between those who wanted to go so far and no further, and those who either wanted to go full-spectrum immediately, or considered the new mission as a stepping stone on the road to the full-spectrum approach.” 
The current mission was adopted on the understanding that in 2005 the question of whether to adopt a full-spectrum mission would be reconsidered by ICM. That never occurred. Although the IEC did submit a resolution to the 2005 Morelos ICM that included as an option the adoption of a full-spectrum mission, the resolution was subsequently withdrawn and never debated. A resolution on adopting a full-spectrum mission in 2007, therefore, completes a course of action agreed upon at the 2001 ICM. 
The issue at the core of this resolution is essentially the same one contemplated by the movement since before 2001. That is, should AI’s statute continue to focus on a few human rights, such as the three identified in the current version, or should the wording of the statute embrace all human rights, without placing any emphasis on particular rights? 
Opponents of full-spectrum have always been concerned with the practical consequences of such an amendment to AI’s statute.  AI’s statute establishes the boundaries of AI’s potential work. It does not determine what actual work AI does. The fear in 2001 was that an expanded mission would allow AI to take on such a broad spectrum of work that the organization would lose its focus, and consequently its identity, its ability to be an expert on work that is undertaken, etc. For better or worse, what we have discovered since 2001 is that a very “broad spectrum of work” is not only possible, but in fact has occurred under the current statutory wording. Practically speaking, AI has already moved far beyond its “traditional” focus. Since 2001, AI has greatly expanded the scope of its actual work. In other words, the significant practical consequences of statute amendment (in terms of expansion of AI’s actual work) have already been determined by the ICM decision in 2001. As such, the question of “going full-spectrum” has become “to some extent symbolic”.
The important symbolism of adopting a full-spectrum mission would be to achieve the goal Philip Alston challenged AI to meet in 2000 - to fully and truly become a human rights organization.  However, adopting a full-spectrum mission would be more than symbolic. Having our statute clearly state that AI has the potential to oppose grave violations of all human rights underscores the principle that all human rights are interdependent and indivisible. Such a statute makes AI more than just a “civil and political rights organization”, in both practice and form. Moreover, the proposed statute amendment would provide clarity to the public and guidance for the movement in relation to the nature and future direction of our work. However one would characterize them, all of these would be extremely important achievements for Amnesty International.  

PrepCom Note	
A similar resolution presented to the 2005 ICM was ruled out of order based on the Chairs Forum decision earlier that year.  It is worthwhile considering if the Chairs Forum decision should hold for the remainder of this Strategic Plan period or if in fact it is the will of the ICM that this be discussed at this point.
	
PrepCom proposes to deal with this resolution in WP on Human Rights Strategy.	

HR Strategy - AI Aotearoa New Zealand 		                    Grave Abuses

The International Council:

DECIDES to begin a process as soon as possible in 2007 to allow the movement to explore and create a widely shared understanding of the concept of “grave abuse” of human rights as the unifying strategic focus and primary measure of accountability for Amnesty International as a multi-national, multi-cultural organization.

Explanatory note

In moving from mandate to mission, Amnesty International has agreed to become active on a wider range of human rights abuses than under the pre-2001 Mandate.  In doing so, however, Amnesty International sought to locate all of its work within the broad parameters of preventing “grave abuses” of human rights.

However, the “grave abuse” concept has proven elusive to define in practice, and attempts to do so remain incomplete.  It may be argued both that a prescriptive definition of “grave abuse” is neither possible, because of the wide range of human rights abuses and circumstances that the concept may cover, and that a prescriptive definition may prove unintentionally limiting for the movement. 

AINZ believes, however, that although “grave abuse” is difficult to provide a normative definition for, this does not make it a meaningless concept.  Indeed it is the members’ mutual abhorrence of the worst violations of human rights that gives Amnesty its unity of purpose across its wide and divergent membership. 

The absence of a focused dialogue and common understanding of “grave abuse” as a concept leaves the movement open to the risk of investing resources in pursuing issues that are not clearly related to grave abuses.

Previous work undertaken by the Standing Committee on the Mandate has argued that AI will need to develop its collective judgment and decision-making processes to address the increasing numbers of “grey areas” the movement will encounter in the context of upholding its mission and focus on grave abuses.

The lack of such a process, and the concern that AI may be moving beyond its mission and universally-agreed human rights perspectives, has been at the heart of concerns expressed in many parts of the movement during the consultation on Sexual and Reproductive Rights.  While there are clearly circumstances where denial of access to abortion can be argued to be a grave human rights abuse, there are many circumstances where this is far from clear, especially in the absence of a mutually understood meaning for the concept of “grave abuse”.

It appears reasonable to suggest that other potential areas of activity and policy covered by the widened Mission will also create challenges of this kind, especially where the development of strategy on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is concerned.

Given that prevention of grave abuses is the fundamental principle for the Amnesty Mission, the greatest risk to Amnesty International in challenges of this kind is to the movement’s meaning, identity and effectiveness in the global community.

The goal of this resolution is therefore to seek a process that would allow the movement to create a widely shared understanding of and commitment to the prevention of “grave abuses”, recognizing this as the fundamental unifying objective for Amnesty International as a multi-national, multi-cultural organization. 

Background documents 

•	Peter Pack discussion document on Grave Abuses
•	Grave Abuse framework document POL 21/001/2003
•	AIUSA 2005 ICM resolution on grave abuses and associated minutes from HR Strategy working group
•	AI Mission Statement
•	Wolf Olins Identity Project report (not at this stage released to the movement)
•	OP2 elements relating to the importance of defining and protecting AI’s Identity

PrepCom Note	
The most recent attempt to define “grave abuses” is found in POL 21/001/2003: Grave abuses - a framework for interpreting AI’s mission, and it does not identify a precise definition.  PrepCom recommends that AI NZ discuss with the IEC their thinking on what would constitute a satisfactory response to the resolution in the light of previous work done on this area.	
This resolution will be dealt with in the WP on Human Rights Strategy. PrepCom would like to deal with the issues raised in a workshop format.	

HR Strategy - IEC Enabling resolution				           SRR

The International Council:
NOTES that the recently adopted policy on:
·	decriminalization of abortion;
·	access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion;
·	legal, safe and accessible abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest, and risk to a woman’s life;
enables AI to tackle the grave violations of women’s human rights that fall within its mission and its SVAW campaign strategy.

DECIDES that AI’s work on these issues needs to be developed, evaluated and discussed across the movement before AI can make an informed decision about further policy development in relation to other aspects of sexual and reproductive rights not covered by existing policies.

Explanatory note
At the time of writing, it is not clear whether the IEC will adopt a policy in March or April 2007 on the three aspects of abortion described in this resolution. If the IEC does not do so, it will bring a recommended policy to the ICM, and it will amend this resolution to replace the phrase “notes that the recently adopted policy” by “adopts the recently circulated draft policy.”
AI’s overall policy on sexual and reproductive rights, within which any new policies on aspects of abortion would be situated, is contained in Statement summarizing AI’s current policy on Sexual and Reproductive Rights (POL 30/046/2006, October 2006). Sections were invited to comment on AI and Sexual and Reproductive Rights: Draft policy statement on selected aspects of abortion and explanatory notes (POL 30/043/2006, October 2006) by 15th January 2007. A summary of key points is contained in Sexual and Reproductive Rights: some frequently asked questions (POL 39/011/2006, November 2006).

PrepCom note	
The issue of SRR will be the subject of a plenary discussion at the ICM.  In addition it will be taken up in the WP on Human Rights Strategy.	
PrepCom recommends that AI Italy, Sweden, Peru and the IEC discuss a merged resolution to bring forward to the ICM.	

HR Strategy - AI Peru 							Abortion

The International Council:
DECIDES to adopt a policy on access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion.

Explanatory note

Amnesty International's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.
The 2005 International Council Meeting (ICM) affirmed AI's commitment to defending and promoting sexual and reproductive rights and decided that by the end of 2006, unless the Chairs Forum opposed such a step, and taking account of the recommendations and results of the consultation process, the ICM could decide whether to adopt a position on:
1) The decriminalization of abortion.
2) Access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion.
3) Legal, safe and accessible abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and risk to a woman’s life.
At the July 2006, a special session of the Chairs Forum discussed aspects of AI policies on sexual and reproductive rights and options for their further development and most sections and structures supported development of AI policy on the three points set out above.
Even though there will be difficulties and there is a long path that Amnesty International has to follow with regard to developing a policy on abortion and decriminalization it is time to take this step. The denial of access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion represents a violation of women's right to health and life.
Adoption of a policy on "access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion" does not signify agreement with abortion or the decriminalization of abortion but regards the right of access to health care that every person should enjoy.

PrepCom note	
The issue of SRR will be the subject of a plenary discussion at the ICM.  In addition it will be taken up in the WP on Human Rights Strategy.	
PrepCom recommends that AI Italy, Sweden, Peru and the IEC discuss a merged resolution to bring forward to the ICM.	

HR Strategy – AI Italy & AI Sweden	        Woman’s decision on pregnancy

The International Council:

DECIDES that the woman's right to physical and mental integrity includes her right to freely decide whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy, and that abortion should therefore be legal, safe and accessible to all women free from coercion, discrimination and violence.

RECOGNIZES that the woman’s access to abortion may be subject to reasonable restrictions.

INSTRUCTS the IEC to develop a policy consistent with such an approach, especially with regard to States' obligation to provide legal, safe and accessible health services to all women.

Explanatory note

The Draft Policy Statement on Selected Aspects of Abortion (as circulated by the IEC on 26th of September 2006) is an important but incomplete step towards a comprehensive position on women's sexual and reproductive rights.

According to such a policy AI would call on States to take all necessary measures to ensure that safe and legal abortion services are available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality for women who require them in cases of unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape, sexual assault or incest, and pregnancy which endangers the life of the woman (including risks of grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman).

Although the policy is an essential move in the right direction to ensure women’s sexual and reproductive rights, we believe there is a need for a more inclusive approach. 

There is a contradiction inherent in advocating for access to abortion only in cases where women are victims, rather than choosers and decision-makers. Such a policy does not take into account that an unwanted pregnancy may put at risk a woman's fundamental rights even if she has not been raped or if there is no proof of sexual abuse and if her life is not in danger because of the pregnancy. As the Decision 3 of ICM 2005 states: “the need for abortion in a large number of cases is a consequence of … a lack of empowerment of women as well as of a lack of access to education and health services like contraception”.

We believe that a coherent Human Rights approach must recognize a woman's right to freely decide whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy, free from coercion, discrimination and violence. The decisions about abortion belong to the pregnant woman without interference by the State or others.

We therefore believe that AI should adopt a policy which aims to provide sufficient protection of all women's right to health, to physical integrity and to have control over and decide freely on all matters relating to their sexuality and reproductive lives, including their right to freely decide to terminate their pregnancy (subject to reasonable gestational limitations). Only with such a policy would AI clearly affirm the women’s right to make decisions freely on all matters relating to their sexuality and reproductive lives and promote equal rights for men and women.

Background documents

POL 39/001/2007: Sexual and reproductive rights. Recommended policy statement on selected aspects of abortion 
POL 39/001/2006: SRR Consultation Paper 1: Policy statement and background information on sexual and reproductive rights

POL 39/002/2006: SRR Consultation Paper 2: possible AI policies on selected aspects of abortion.

POL 39/008/2006: Statement summarizing AI’s current policy on Sexual and Reproductive
Rights

ORG 52/003/2005:  ICM Decision 3 Sexual and Reproductive Rights

PrepCom note	
The issue of SRR will be the subject of a plenary discussion at the ICM.  In addition it will be taken up in the WP on Human Rights Strategy.	
PrepCom recommends that AI Italy, Sweden, Peru and the IEC discuss a merged resolution to bring forward to the ICM.	

HR Strategy - AI Germany 				              Abortion policy

The International Council:

DECIDES
1) Since the question of whether reproductive rights include the right of a woman to decide to end her pregnancy by voluntary induction of abortion is highly divisive, unsolved by international human rights law and embedded in realities in which many factors and motivations can influence a woman’s decision, AI will keep its neutral position on whether or not abortion should be a right of the woman, whether this be enshrined in national or in international law. AI will therefore neither object to nor support national or international legal restrictions regulating access to abortion, or participate in the development of legislation in this area.

AI will, however, continue to speak out against forced abortions, whether such force is exercised legally by states, or by implicit social pressure, and will continue to call for an end to all social practices which promote discrimination, whether before or after birth. AI will work, in all instances, on behalf of women who experience medical complications after they have had an abortion, whether this is legal or illegal, yet are denied treatment or threatened with criminal prosecution should they seek medical treatment. AI will likewise work on behalf of medical service providers who assist these women.

2) AI will call for all restrictions regarding abortion in national laws to be reasonable and non-discriminatory in accordance with existing international human rights law; and that any restrictions must take into full and compassionate account the individual situation of the woman and her “lived experience”.

3) If AI decides to work on individual cases in this area, the IEC will develop a consistent, coherent and credible policy to define under which circumstances AI should take up such cases, and in order to situate any work of AI related to abortion in our mission to work against grave violations of human rights. This policy will take into account existing human rights legislation, but also take into account evolving legal instruments concerning the embryo/foetus such as the convention on bioethics.

4). In the context of its work on SRR in accordance with ICM 2005 Decision 3, AI will put a strong focus on the prevention of situations leading to abortion, in particular by contributing a human rights perspective to the development of suggestions and strategies for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, and by working to end discriminatory political, social and economic structures and laws that can be contributory factors leading to abortion.

Explanatory note

In accordance with international human rights instruments, AI has remained neutral on the (un-)lawfulness of abortion. Consequently AI has neither made negative moral judgements on women who have an abortion nor supported abortion as a matter of personal, conscientious choice.

This position has enabled AI to address issues related to abortion in the context of its vision and mission. For instance, AI has drawn attention to the millions of sex-selective abortions of female foetuses as a form of discrimination against girls, and we have worked against forced abortions including in connection with the death penalty. Our vision and mission also allows us to work against unreasonable punishments, and we can already call for women who have had abortions to have access to medical treatment in case of complications in the context of the right to health. What we could not do until now is pass implicit and general moral judgments on any motive a woman might have to seek an abortion. Research shows that the motives which underlie women's decision to have an abortion are highly diverse and complex, reflecting the many social, cultural, economic, and personal circumstances and experiences of women. 

There are two main reasons why we should not move away from our neutral position.

(I) The first centres around the nature of our organization, mission, resources, reputation and our obligation to choose our policies wisely and accountably. These are mainly strategic questions, questions relating to the effective fulfillment of our vision and mission and our traditional profile, including our profile as a neutral, non-ideological organization. As a human rights organization we have a right to limit ourselves and to choose our areas of work intelligently. To take up an issue like abortion and to frame it not in the context of existing and accepted human rights instruments, but instead to go beyond this into areas which may be seen to affect our impartiality, is problematic.

(II) The second reason involves the question of foetal rights as juxtaposed with maternal rights.
The possibility of foetal rights, irrespective of the extent or limitations of such rights (for instance with respect to gestational maturity), is contentious and has medical, legal, and ethical facets. Experience with decades of discussions around this issue have shown that individuals, societies, and states cannot come to an agreement in the potentially tragic conflict woman-foetus.

As a result, international human rights law is largely silent on the issue, thus affording states their own discretion when it comes to legislation. The high level of diversity from state to state in the type and extent of protection and rights given to unborn life and to pregnant mothers reflects the complexity of this question and the fact that it may be insolvable. Moreover, national legislation, including legislation regulating access to abortion, legal reasons for abortion, protection of pregnant women (e.g. work-related regulations, or health recommendations), population policies, access to pregnancy monitoring, medical procedures for healing or determining foetal impairments, use of foetal tissue in medical research and therapy, fertility treatments etc. are varied, often incongruent and apt to interest-driven legislative processes.

Recent progress in biological knowledge and medical technology such as stem cell research has rekindled the debate on how to deal with pre-birth human beings. Moreover, many members of AI deem the question of foetal rights, including whether a foetus has a right to life, as very important.

Asserting foetal rights is not a “religious” question, albeit some religious communities have been particularly outspoken in this regard. Similarly, assumptions regarding abortion may in some states not be driven by concerns for women's rights, but by other interests of the state. It is unwise of AI to take a stand here, either way.

We should remain neutral on the legal or moral rightness or wrongness, legality or illegality of abortion. We should not be associated with any ideology or state agenda, neither through action nor by implication.

It is beyond AI's remit and competency to make a statement or decision on the existence or non-existence of foetal rights, yet we must remain coherent, consistent, and trustworthy in our goals and our work as a human rights organization. This motion therefore aims to firmly ground any AI policy.

Background documents

ORG 52/002/2005 (Decisions of the 2005 ICM)
ORG 41/007/2006 (Report from the Chairs Forum)
POL 39/008/2006 (SRR-Policy)
ACT 77/005/2006 (on gender-selective abortion)

PrepCom note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Human Rights Strategy.	

HR Strategy - AI Norway                                Control arms – a global campaign

The International Council:
DECIDES that AI will adopt the international campaign Control Arms as a global campaign.

Explanatory note
Decision 10 of the 2001 ICM determines that AI will have up to seven permanent global campaigns; 
Status as global campaign ensures prioritization by the global movement as well as allocation of resources at the international secretariat which enables continued popular campaigning, research and lobbying;
The experience and results to date of the campaign has shown the ability of NGOs including AI to raise public concern about the uncontrolled arms trade's devastating impact on human rights and to mobilize this concern into achieving a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly adopted by a majority of 156 states; 
AI has been the driving force in Control Arms to campaign on human rights issues and ensuring that human rights language is included in government texts; 
The Control Arms campaign has been an overwhelming success with members in both North and South through the Million Faces petition and as such also has contributed to growth; 
Whilst much has been achieved to date, continued civil society involvement through campaigning and lobbying is necessary to ensure that governments remain focused on achieving an Arms Trade Treaty based on human rights and international humanitarian law; 
Decision 10 of the 2001 ICM decides that AI will have up to seven permanent global campaigns of which Stop Violence Against Women is one, and the forthcoming Human Dignity campaign (economic, social and cultural rights) presumably will be one. Status as a global campaign ensures the allocation of resources at the International Secretariat for e.g. research, lobbying and tools for popular campaigning. A global campaign on arms would complement the existing campaigns on women and poverty. 
AI has been part of the international campaign Control Arms since 2003. The aim of the campaign is an international, legally binding Arms Trade Treaty to control the trade in conventional arms. Small arms are used in 2/3 – 3/4 of all grave human rights violations; without contributing to controlling the international trade in arms, AI will be unable to prevent human rights violations. 
To date, the campaign has been instrumental in securing a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly; the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of 156 states. Only one state (USA) voted against the resolution. The resolution paves the way for a process to start negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty within the framework of the United Nations.
It is in this perspective that AI’s continued involvement in the campaign is crucial. During the three years of the campaign, AI has been instrumental in highlighting the human rights consequences of the uncontrolled arms trade and has contributed to several states considering human rights in questions regarding the arms trade. AI’s lobbying at national and international level has been successful largely due to international popular campaigning through e.g. Million Faces. The campaign has been a great success in mobilizing members within the movement, and has also contributed to growth through new members. 
It is crucial that AI continues to demand respect for human rights as a condition for the international arms trade, and so ensuring that the final Arms Trade Treaty will in fact save lives and prevent human rights abuses. AI’s members are an essential part of this work. To secure the necessary resources, AI must adopt Control Arms as a global campaign. 
Should Control Arms not be adopted as a global campaign, there is a danger that AI will no longer participate in the campaign. Doing so will be a strong signal to the international community that AI is not concerned with the final outcome of an Arms Trade Treaty. We have not yet achieved an Arms Trade Treaty based on human rights and international humanitarian law, and it is therefore necessary that AI adopts Control Arms as a global campaign to ensure that we reach our goal.
Background documents
1	UN-resolution: Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N06/567/84/PDF/N0656784.pdf?OpenElement

PrepCom Note	
This resolution will be dealt with in the Human Rights Strategy working party. It could also be dealt with in a general discussion on campaigning for the remaining two years of this ISP.	

HR Strategy - AI Norway				         Cluster munitions

The International Council:
DECIDES that AI will support and campaign for an international ban on cluster munitions and as such oppose the manufacture, transfer and use worldwide of cluster munitions.

Explanatory note
In 1995 the ICM (Decision 12) gave a mandate to AI to oppose weapons leading to indiscriminate killings (in a strict sense), and at the same ICM AI decided to oppose anti-personnel landmines (resolution A 10.7/8), which was referred to the IEC;
At the 1997 ICM it was decided to oppose the manufacture, transfer and use of indiscriminate weapons (resolution A4.6 “Weapons of Warfare”). Within this general policy, AI supports the campaign for a worldwide ban on anti-personnel landmines. The decision also mandates the International Executive Committee to consult within and outside AI on which other weapons of warfare should come within the remit of this policy;
The experience and results to date of the international campaign for a ban on anti-personnel landmines has shown the ability of NGOs to raise public concern about the indiscriminate effect of anti-personnel landmines and to mobilize this concern into achieving an international ban on such weapons;
In addition have the international campaign for an Arms Trade Treaty, shown the ability of NGOs to raise public concern about the uncontrolled arms trade's devastating impact on human rights and to mobilize this concern into achieving a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly 2006;
AI's policy on Military, Security and Police transfers allows the organization to oppose the transfer of weapons which are likely to be used to commit human rights violations within AI's mandate;
The use of cluster munitions have a devastating impact on human rights as witnessed in the Israel-Lebanon war 2006, and that international research supports the view that cluster munitions have an indiscriminate effect; 
International law prohibits or places restrictions on the use of weapons which have indiscriminate effects on civilians and weapons which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to combatants;
There is an increasing international state support for an international ban on cluster munitions led by the Norwegian government, and supported by 24 states through the Declaration on cluster munitions, Geneva 17. Nov 2006;
Cluster munitions have been used by States and a limited number of non-state armed groups in at least 23 countries. Globally, 34 States are known to have produced more than 200 different types of cluster munitions. Over 70 States stockpile cluster munitions, which contain sub-munitions that number in the billions worldwide. Cluster munitions pose severe risks to civilians’ lives and livelihoods both at the time of their use and after hostilities have ended. This is due to the wide-area effect of cluster munitions and the large number of sub-munitions they leave unexploded. Unexploded sub-munitions have long-term impacts; hinder humanitarian assistance, peace operations, cause human rights violations, post-conflict reconstruction and development efforts. Unless practical international steps are taken, the hazards to civilians from cluster munitions will increase as cluster munitions continue to proliferate and the numbers being used rise globally.

To date there is no universally accepted definition of cluster munitions, but it is generally accepted that a cluster munition is a container from which explosive submunitions are scattered. Sub-munitions are the dangerous components of a cluster munitions, causing casualties and damage through blast, incendiary effects and fragmentation. Cluster munitions are often designed to be multipurpose weapons, effective against a range of targets including armour, materiel and personnel. They may be deployed from aircraft or ground-launchers, for instance by rocket or artillery shell. 
 
Cluster munitions were originally developed to break up concentrations of armoured vehicles and infantry - battlefield environments devoid of civilians - during the Second World War, and were later refined during the Cold War. In practice, however, cluster munitions have very frequently been used in proximity to civilian populations, making use of the weapon highly indiscriminate. Thus, cluster munitions have killed and maimed civilians at the time of use in most armed conflicts the past four decades, including in Cambodia, Laos, The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. 
 
In areas where cluster munitions have been used, unexploded sub-munitions continue to cause humanitarian and socio-economic problems for years and even decades after the conflict has ended, as seen in for example in South-East Asia, posing a threat to people who come into contact with them, whether accidentally or deliberately. The toy-like appearance of some unexploded sub-munitions also make them particularly attractive to children. They can be highly unstable and likely to be lethal to those in their vicinity if they explode. Clearance of areas with mixed AP-mine and sub-munitions contamination are more complex to clear and increase costs compared to ordinary mine-clearance operations.  

Humanitarian mine action programmes have for decades tried to cope with challenges posed by unexploded sub-munitions, as well as AP mines, because all forms of unexploded ordnance must be dealt with in order to transform contaminated land to safe use. Moreover, survivor assistance activities, or the design of mine risk education programs do not discriminate between those injured by landmines, cluster munitions or other types of explosive remnants of war (ERW). There has been little recognition from governments of these practical realities, and few targeted and effective steps have been taken by producers or users of cluster munitions to prevent their hazards to civilians. 
 
Background documents
1	DECLARATION on CLUSTER MUNITIONS, Geneva, 17 November 2006: http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/CE790A60A9C88746C125722F005C9DEA/$file/CCW+CONF.III+WP.18+E.pdf
2	Press release no.: 149/06, date: 17.11.06: Norway takes the initiative for a ban on cluster munitions; Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://www.odin.dep.no/ud/english/news/news/032171-070945/dok-bn.html
2	CLUSTER MUNITIONS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: THE NEED FOR BETTER COMPLIANCE AND STRONGER RULES; Human rights Watch July 2004: http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/clusters0704/clusters0704.pdf
3	
PrepCom Note	
This resolution will be dealt with in the Human Rights Strategy working party. It could also be dealt with in a general discussion on campaigning for the remaining two years of this ISP.	

HR Strategy - AI Japan		 		Depleted uranium weapons

The International Council: 

RESOLVES that AI opposes the use of depleted uranium weapons, given their indiscriminate nature.

Explanatory note

According to Circular 13 of the 2005 ICM, AI has called on governments to "consider refraining from the transfer or use of depleted uranium weapons" because of continuing uncertainty about their long-term health effects, but this stance is no longer sufficient. The indiscriminate nature of depleted uranium has been on the agenda of the European parliament, and is now understood globally.

The European parliament made the fourth call for a DU ban, including white phosphorus shells, on 22 November 2006. (See paragr.11 of http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2006-0493+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN)

Injuries to veterans of the Gulf War are also recognized. A New York judge decreed on 26 September 2006 that veterans can sue the US government for exposing them to DU in Iraq. (See http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/docs/3.pdf)

Allegedly, since the 1991 war in Iraq, there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia, other cancers and birth defects. Many suspect these increases are related to the use of DU weapons. For example, "In Basra, in southern Iraq, there have been striking reports for a number of years about the rise in local childhood cancers and birth deformities seen there. The findings of a leading Iraqi epidemiologist, Dr Alim Yacoub, were presented in New York in June 2003 and suggest there has been a more than five-fold increase in congenital malformations and a quadrupling of the incidence rates of malignant diseases in Basra". (DU Info Pack, P6, the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, Oct 2006,
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/docs/9.pdf )

Should we wait for "the authoritative studies" in order to oppose the use of DU weapons?
The UN organs' survey on the health problems caused by Chernobyl disaster has been heavily criticized for ignoring significant facts. We believe that AI can take the position as above by making use of a lot of supportive evidence.

AI takes no position on whether a new treaty is necessary to ban DU weapons, while such move continues. 

PrepCom note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Human Rights Strategy.	

HR Strategy - AI Chile    Sobre el matrimonio de personas del mismo sexo

DECIDE que

1	Amnistía Internacional reconoce que es un derecho humano el contraer matrimonio con una persona del mismo sexo;

2	Amnistía Internacional apoye por todos los medios a su alcance, las iniciativas legislativas conducentes al derecho a contraer matrimonio a las personas del mismo sexo;

3	Amnistía Internacional investigue, denuncie y actue respecto de las legislaciones que impidan u obstaculicen el matrimonio de personas del mismo sexo.

Información adicional

Amnistía Internacional procura que todas las personas, independientemente de su identidad sexual, disfruten de todos los derechos humanos consagrados en la DUDH y otros instrumentos de Derechos Humanos. AI ha realizado durante muchos años investigación y, documentación de abusos basados en la identidad sexual y en la identidad de género; y campañas a favor de los derechos de las personas LGBT (1);

AI ha realizado de forma oficial una declaración conjunta con Humans Right Watch, en abril de 2004, para promover el debate y la adopción de la resolución “los derechos humanos y la orientación sexual”, con motivo de la 60º sesión de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas (2);

AI se ha pronunciado en un informe para respuesta verbal “Declaración de AI sobre el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo(3)”, para consulta y referencia de la membresía sobre la postura de la organización en dicha materia, aprobada por el Comité  de Política Internacional en marzo de 2004, donde reconoce que el matrimonio civil para personas del mismo sexo constituye una cuestión de derechos LGBT prioritaria, y que su negación impide el disfrute de muchos otros derechos humanos.

AI ha publicado en 2005 “Los derechos LGBT son derechos humanos: integrar los derechos de personas LGBT en la estrategia de derechos humanos para 2006-2008(4)”, el primer plan de acción de la Organización sobre las cuestiones de derechos LGBT prioritarias a escala nacional, regional e internacional, donde se reconoce la importancia del matrimonio o unión civil entre personas del mismo sexo en la erradicación de la discriminación fundada en la identidad sexual.

AI ha declarado -a propósito del debate del tema del matrimonio civil entre personas del mismo sexo- que aun cuando no se propone una campaña activa sobre el tema, existe consenso en cuanto que la posibilidad debería estar abierta a las personas adultas LGBT; que existe discusión en la prioridad del tema en las futuras campañas, primando el interés de focalizar aquéllas hacia las graves violaciones como la criminalización, encarcelamiento y ejecuciones, libertad de expresión y asociación.   	
	
AI participa en la implementación de las convenciones para erradicar la discriminación racial y la discriminación contra la mujer, por lo que el desarrollo de políticas para erradicar toda discriminación fundada en la identidad sexual es una tarea prioritaria que debe asumir la organización; en atención a la actualidad del debate a escala internacional; en atención a los formas de discriminación y de vulneraciones gravísimas que existen; y en atención al tamaño de la población afectada. 

No participar activamente en la demanda ciudadana de reconocimiento del derecho al matrimonio de las personas LGBT podría implicar una desvalorización al trabajo realizado por AI; y un eventual perjuicio o daño para AI en el sentido que las personas u organizaciones LGBT desconfíen de las razones por las cuales no atiende este tema, prioritario y principal en las reivindicaciones de derechos humanos de las personas LGBT, en una amplia gama de países.   

El derecho al matrimonio o unión civil para personas del mismo sexo tiene una gran envergadura en el debate internacional, y desde la perspectiva de la promoción y defensa de los derechos humanos para las personas LGBT,  es estratégico y prioritario que Amnistía Internacional adopte oportuna y prontamente una postura oficial favorable al respecto.
El Consejo Internacional:

Las previsiones de los siguientes instrumentos internacionales podrían ser fundamentos sustantivos para la decisión: 

1	La Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 1948;
2	La Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre la eliminación de todas las formas
de discriminación racial,  1963; 
3	El Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, 1966;
4	El Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 1966;
5	La Proclamación de Teherán,  1968; 
6	La Declaración sobre el derecho y el deber de los individuos, los grupos y las instituciones de promover y proteger los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales universalmente reconocidos,  1999; 
7	La Convención sobre el consentimiento para el matrimonio, la edad mínima para contraer matrimonio y el registro de los matrimonios, 1964; 

Información adicional

“AI Chile – Informe en derecho sobre el matrimonio de personas del mismo sexo” disponible directamente de AI Chile info@amnistia.cl

1)	AI: ACT 79/001/2004; AI: POL 30/020/2004; AI: IOR 40/004/2005
2)	AI: IOR 41/011/2004; AI: POL 30/020/2004; E/CN.4/2003/L.92 ; AI : IOR 41/013/2003
3)	AI: POL 30/025/2004 
4)	AI: ACT 79/002/2005

HR Strategy - AI Chile 				                     Same sex marriage

The International Council:
DECIDES
1 Amnesty International will recognize that marriage with a person of the same sex is a human right;
2 Amnesty International will support through all available means, any legislative initiatives that uphold the right of people of the same sex to get married;
3 Amnesty International will investigate, denounce and act against any legislation that prevents and obstructs people of the same sex from marrying.

Explanatory note
Amnesty International upholds that all people, irrespective of their sexual identity, should be able to exercise all human rights codified in the UDHR and other Human Rights covenants. For many years, AI has investigated and documented prejudices and discrimination based on sexual and gender identity; and has led campaigns in support of the rights of LGBT people;
In April, 2004, AI released an official declaration in conjunction with Humans Right Watch, with the aim of stimulating the debate on and the adoption of the “human rights and sexual orientation” resolution, and to mark the occasion of the 60th session of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights; AI has stated its opinion, in the form of a verbal response approved by the International Policy Committee in March, 2004, in the report entitled, “AI’s Declaration on Same-Sex Marriage”, as a source of consultation and reference for AI members regarding the organization’s stance on this subject, in which it recognizes that civil marriage for people of the same sex constitutes a matter of priority for LGBT rights, and that by denying these rights, those people are prevented from exercising a great number of other human rights.
In 2005, AI published "LGBT Rights are Human Rights: Integrating LGBT Peoples’ Rights in the Human Rights Strategy for 2006-2008”, the Organization’s first plan of action on a national, regional and international scale treating the high priority subject of LGBT rights, in which the importance of same-sex marriage or civil union and the elimination of discrimination founded on sexual identity is recognized.
AI has declared -regarding the debate on same-sex civil marriage- that even though an active campaign has not still not been proposed in this area, it is agreed that the possibility should be open to LGBT adults; and that discussions have taken place about this topic being a priority for future campaigns, with real interest in focusing these campaigns on serious violations such as criminalization, imprisonment and executions, freedom of expression and association.
AI participates in the implementation of conventions in order to eradicate racial discrimination and discrimination against women, for which the development of policies aimed at eliminating any form of discrimination based on sexual identity constitutes a priority task for the organization; this is in view of the current state of this debate at an international level; the different forms of discrimination and extremely serious violations that exist; and the number of people affected by this.
By not actively participating in the civic demand for recognition of the right to marriage of LGBT people, the work carried out by AI would be greatly devalued; and this could cause harm or damage to AI in the future, in the sense that LGBT people or organizations would distrust the reasons for the organization remaining indifferent to a topic of major and primordial importance to the human rights demands of LGBT people in a wide range of countries. The right to marriage or civil union for people of the same sex is of great importance in international debate and from the perspective of the promotion and defence of human rights for LGBT people; it is both strategic and quintessential for Amnesty International to adopt a favourable and appropriate official stance regarding this matter in the near future.
The provisions of the following international instruments may be regarded as substantive founding for the decision:

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948;
2. The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1963;
3. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966;
4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966;
5. The Proclamation of Teheran, 1968;
6. The Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Institutions to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1999;
7. The Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages, 1964;

Background Documents
“AI Chile - Legal study on Same Sex Marriage.pdf” (available directly from AI Chile) info@amnistia.cl

PrepCom Note	
PrepCom is prepared to deal with the resolution in the WP on Human Rights Strategy. It will be dealt with alongside a similar resolution by AI Mexico. PrepCom urges AI Chile and Mexico to bring forward a merged resolution.	

HR Strategy - AI Mexico		Legal reconigition of same sex couples

The International Council:
DECIDES to ask the IEC to carry out a study into the various options open to Amnesty International with regard to taking a position on the legal recognition of same-sex couples and to submit the results of the study to the 2008 Chairs’ Forum so that a position on the legal recognition of same-sex couples can be taken at the next ICM in 2009.			

Explanatory note
The study proposed in this resolution will enable Amnesty International to take a position on the legal recognition of same-sex couples and thereby comply with the commitment it made under strategic objective 1.2 of the Integrated Strategic Plan to promote and protect the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people not to suffer discrimination.
The discrimination that LGBT people suffer through the absence of legal recognition of [same-sex] couples is not only a violation of the right to marry but also impedes enjoyment of a wide range of other rights, including the right to housing, social security, tax benefits, immigration, payment of various types of insurance, to visit one’s partner in hospital, conjugal visits in prisons and inheritance rights. This can lead to serious injustices. For example, there have been cases of couples who have lived together for 40 years but when one of them dies, the surviving member loses everything: their home, their income and other property. 
In September 1991, Amnesty International took the decision to include people imprisoned solely because they were homosexual as prisoners of conscience. Since then, the world has witnessed a great deal of progress in the field of LGBT rights, especially as far as legal recognition of same-sex couples and their ability to adopt children are concerned. 
Starting with Denmark in 1989, many countries, states and provinces have adopted various mechanisms to recognize same-sex couples and give them some or all of the rights and obligations that married couples have.  Some jurisdictions have wanted to not only reduce the injustices faced by same-sex couples but also to eliminate all forms of discrimination of  LGBT people by granting them the right to a civil marriage and to adopt children in order to achieve full legal equality between LGBT people and heterosexuals.  The first country to recognize civil marriage between persons of the same sex was the Netherlands in April 2001.  Since then, Belgium, Canada, Spain and the State of Massachusetts in the United States have also done so. 
With these advances, Amnesty International has come under more and more pressure to take a position on these issues. In March 2004, the International Policy Committee (ICP) of AI approved a position statement on civil marriage between same-sex couples (POL 30/025/2004) as guidance for Sections and Structures which had expressed a need to be able to give AI's position on the issue. In its statement, the ICP said that: “Denial of equal civil recognition of same-sex relationships prevents many people from enjoying a whole range of other rights, such as rights to housing and social security, and stigmatizes those relationships in ways that can fuel discrimination and other human rights abuses against LGBT people”. Nevertheless, the ICP also said that “the International Secretariat is not proposing any proactive campaigning on this issue” because it could only be undertaken with the backing of an ICM decision. The purpose of this resolution is to facilitate such a decision.

PrepCom Note	
PrepCom is prepared to deal with the resolution in the WP on Human Rights Strategy. It will be dealt with alongside a similar resolution by AI Chile.  PrepCom urges AI Chile and Mexico to bring forward a merged resolution.	

HR Strategy - AI France 			               	la prostitution enfantine

Le Conseil International:

DEMANDE au CEI de mener une étude sur la prostitution enfantine pour que le mouvement puisse déterminer une position sur cette question.

L’étude devra porter en particulier sur les points suivants : 

1	le statut de l’enfant face à la prostitution
2	La responsabilité pénale des mineurs et la détention des mineurs pour prostitution
2	L’incrimination de l’utilisation de mineurs à des fins sexuelles
3	L’incrimination des clients des mineurs prostitués
4	La pornographie mettant en scène des enfants
5	Les mesures devant être prises par les Etats

Après consultation des sections et structures, les résultats de l’étude seront présentés au mouvement  pour décision au plus tard au CI 2009

Définitions

Définition du mineur
On entend par mineur toute personne âgée de moins de 18 ans (article 1er de la Convention Internationale relative aux Droits de l’Enfant) (CIDE)

Définition internationale de la prostitution des enfants : On entend par prostitution des mineurs le fait d’utiliser un enfant aux fins d’activités sexuelles contre rémunération ou toute autre forme d’avantage (article 2-b du Protocole facultatif à la CIDE, concernant la vente d’enfants, la prostitution des enfants et la pornographie mettant en scène des enfants, nommé ci-après le « Protocole »).

Définition internationale de la pornographie mettant en scène des enfants : On entend par pornographie mettant en scène des enfants toute représentation, par quelque moyen que ce soit, d’un enfant s’adonnant à des activités sexuelles explicites, réelles ou simulées, ou toute représentation des organes sexuels d’un enfant, à des fins principalement sexuelles (article 2-c du « Protocole »).

Définition du client : On entend par client toute personne se livrant à des activités à caractère sexuel avec un mineur contre rémunération ou toute autre forme d’avantage. 

Note explicative

Premier point : L’absence de position d’Amnesty International sur la question de l’exploitation sexuelle des enfants

L’absence de prise de position d’AI sur la prostitution des mineurs ne permet pas aux militants de mener des actions sur le sujet. AI doit prendre conscience de la gravité et de l’augmentation de la prostitution des enfants à l’échelle internationale, ainsi que des souffrances immenses que la prostitution et la pornographie enfantine leur infligent. 

Deuxième point : Le soutien d’AI aux textes internationaux

La défense des droits de l’enfant fait partie de la mission d’AI. Dans cette logique, elle soutient les articles 34 et 35 de la CIDE qui condamnent toutes les formes d’exploitation et d’abus sexuels sur les enfants et sont très clairs en ce qui concerne les obligations des Etats. Il en est de même pour le Protocole facultatif concernant la vente d’enfants, la prostitution des enfants et la pornographie mettant en scène des enfants : entré en vigueur le 18 janvier 2002 pour renforcer les dispositions de la Convention dans le domaine de l’exploitation sexuelle des enfants.

Selon la Convention 182 de l’OIT (C182), article 3b, « l’utilisation, le recrutement ou l’offre d’un enfant à des fins de prostitution, de production de matériel pornographique ou de spectacles pornographiques » est considérée comme une des pires formes de travail des enfants.

Troisième point : la spécificité de la prostitution enfantine

Le Comité des droits de l’enfant a insisté sur le fait « qu’un enfant touché par la vente, la prostitution ou la pornographie mettant en scène des enfants, devra être essentiellement considéré comme une victime et que toutes les mesures qui seraient adoptées devraient lui garantir le plein respect de son intégrité, ainsi qu’une protection et un soutien appréciables au sein de la famille et de la société »

Au vu de ces éléments, l’enfant ne peut en aucun cas être considéré comme consentant à un acte de prostitution ou de pornographie. Ces mineurs doivent toujours être envisagés comme des victimes. Qu’ils soient vendus par des proxénètes ou qu’ils se prostituent par choix, les enfants ne peuvent en aucun cas subir des sanctions pénales. La notion de volontariat dans le cas de la prostitution enfantine n’implique pas celle de responsabilité pénale puisque les enfants se prostituent pour subvenir à leurs besoins et survivre. Quelle que soit la situation, ils seront toujours considérés comme utilisés par des adultes, leur éventuel consentement restant sans valeur juridique.

Textes Amnesty International pertinents :

Pour le Kosovo : 
EUR70/010/2004: rapport public 
EUR70/011/2004 : circulaire d'action  (annexe F)
EUR70/012/2004: CP 
ACT77/033/2004: Q&A

Pour l'Asie du Sud :
ACT/76/14/99 : "Les Droits de l'enfant, l'avenir en dépend" (p.42)
ASA04/001/1998 

HR Strategy - AI France 			               	                     child prostitution

The International Council Meeting:

CALLS on the IEC to conduct a study on child prostitution to enable the movement to take a position on this issue.

The study should address the following points, in particular: 

6	The status of children with regard to prostitution
7	The criminal responsibility of minors and the holding of minors for prostitution
8	Making the use of minors for sexual purposes an offence
9	Criminalisation of the clients of child prostitutes
10	Child pornography
11	Measures that need to be taken at State level

After consultation with sections and structures, the results of the study will be presented to the movement for a decision not later than the 2009 ICM.

Definitions

Definition of a minor
Minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years (article 1 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

International definition of child prostitution: child prostitution means the use of a child in sexual activities for remuneration or any other form of consideration (article 2-b of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution
and child pornography, hereafter called the “Protocol”).

Definition of child pornography: Child pornography means any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes (article 2-c of the “Protocol”).

Definition of client: Client means any person engaging in activities of a sexual nature with a minor for remuneration or any other form of consideration. 

Explanatory note

Point one: Amnesty International has not taken a position on the issue of the sexual exploitation of children.

The fact that AI has not taken a position on child prostitution means that activists are unable to conduct campaigns on this subject.  AI should be aware of the seriousness of child prostitution and its increase on an international scale, and of the immense suffering that prostitution and child pornography inflict on children.  

Point two: AI’s support for international law

Defending the rights of the child is part of AI’s mission.  With this in mind, it supports articles 34 and 35 of the CRC, which condemn all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children and are very clear with regard to the obligations which are incumbent upon States. This also applies to the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which came into force on 18 January 2002 to reinforce the provisions of the Convention in relation to the sexual exploitation of children.

According to ILO Convention 182 (C182), article 3b, “the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performance” are considered to be some of the worst forms of child labour.

Point three: the specific nature of child prostitution

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has stressed that “the child affected by situations of sale, prostitution and pornography should be considered mainly as a victim and that all measures adopted should ensure full respect for his or her human dignity, as well as special protection and support within the family and society”

In view of the foregoing, no child may, under any circumstances, be considered to have consented to an act of prostitution or pornography. These minors must always been considered victims. Whether they are sold by procurers or engage in prostitution by choice, children may not, under any circumstances, be subjected to any criminal sanction.  The concept of free will in the case of child prostitution does not imply criminal responsibility, because children prostitute themselves to support themselves and in order to survive.  Whatever the situation, they will always be considered to have been used by adults and any consent they may give is of no legal value.  

Relevant Amnesty International texts:

For Kosovo: 
EUR 70/010/2004: public report 
EUR 70/011/2004: action circular (annex F)
EUR 70/012/2004: PR 
ACT 77/033/2004: Q&A

For Southern Asia:
ACT 76/14/99: "Children’s Rights: the future starts here" (p.42 – in French version)
ASA 04/001/1998 

PrepCom note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Human Rights Strategy. It may also be discussed in relation to studies requested by other resolutions.	

HR Strategy – AI Italy				               	Life imprisonment

The International Council:

INSTRUCTS the IEC to ensure that, under its aegis, a legal study be conducted within the movement on the penalty of imprisonment for life considered as “inhumane or degrading punishment”, and that, based on the conclusions of such a study, concrete proposals, if appropriate, be made to the next ICM for developing a policy consistent with such an approach.

Explanatory note

The unlimited duration of the penalty of life imprisonment clashes with the aims of rehabilitation and social re-integration of individual offenders and it permanently restricts the right to physical and mental integrity of the offenders.

Respect and protection of human dignity are amongst the basic and fundamental principles upon which Amnesty International founds its action. Such principles require a clear policy on life imprisonment.

A coherent Human Rights approach must tackle the issue of life imprisonment to consider whether it is an appropriate form of punishment or it is contrary to the principles of humanity of penalties.

PrepCom note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Human Rights Strategy. It may also be discussed in relation to studies requested by other resolutions.	

HR Strategy - AI Mexico				Transnational Companies

The International Council:
DECIDES to request the IEC to carry out a study into human rights violations committed by transnational corporations in relation to patents on genetically modified organisms to be submitted to the next International Council meeting.
The study should include the following:
1	The responsibility and role of transnational corporations in the protection, promotion and observance of human rights (right to food, health, development, an adequate standard of living, etc). 
2	The obligation incumbent on such corporations to fund impartial, independent and public studies into the possible damage caused by human consumption of genetically modified organisms. 
3	The right of farmers to free, prior and informed consent 
Transnational corporations have secured agreement packages with which the governments of participating countries are committed to complying. One of the most important agreements is respect for intellectual property (patents) concerning genetically modified (transgenic) seeds. The corporations use these laws in the country where they are marketing their products in order to obtain the projected profits and they violate the human right to food by using economic, psychological and legal pressure to force farmers into becoming dependent solely on GM seeds, thereby gaining absolute control of food cultivation, depriving them of their physical freedom and freedom of action and destroying the biodiversity of their crops, with no remedy available within domestic law allowing them to protect themselves.
In some cases, crops have been contaminated with GM grains by air-born pollen, or by various other means, without the farmers’ knowledge. In such cases, the corporations sue farmers for having used patented seeds without paying for them, thereby committing an abuse of authority with the support of the international laws that protect them, even sending their private police to intimidate them, forcing them to sign contracts granting the corporation sole use and lastly putting them at risk of losing their land. 
When cultivated land is contaminated and invaded by genetically-modified grains, the original stock is destroyed (for example, maize production in Mexico), wiping out the centuries-old culture of cultivation and diet, and farmers and communities lose their independence. 
There is very little research into the damage to health that consumption of genetically-modified seeds may cause. The corporations producing GM seeds have an obligation to carry out thorough research into any possible health risks.
Another agreement transnationals have taken advantage of is the Investment Protection Law signed with NAFTA in 1994. Under it, the government of the country concerned must protect the profits of the companies, regardless of whether there is evidence that the agreed project breaches human rights, which violates citizens’ right to health.
Considering that AI has incorporated ESCR (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) into its mission, it is clear that the above violates these rights. 
Background documents
http://info.juridicas.unam.mx/inst/evacad/eventos/2004/0902/mesa11/271s.pdf#search=%22Metalclad%20corte%20supranacional%

PrepCom note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Human Rights Strategy. It may also be discussed in relation to other studies requested by other resolutions.	

HR Strategy - AI Germany				Conflict Prevention

The International Council:

DECIDES that
AI will constantly highlight the peaceful resolution of conflicts being a prerequisite for the full realization of human rights, armed conflicts inevitably producing human rights violations, and the importance of respecting human rights at all stages of armed conflicts. 

To this end, the IEC will develop detailed strategies for an effective, human-rights based approach towards responding to and resolving the root causes of such conflicts. In the context of the upcoming Global Dignity Campaign, AI will also develop and promote its work on ESC rights as a contribution to conflict prevention.

AI will urge governments to develop and to refine existing early warning systems, e.g. on the UN and EU level, by integrating human rights-relevant indicators. In parallel, AI will draw attention on all levels of its lobby and public relations work to the great importance of local human rights defenders and civil society for effective conflict prevention.

Acutely aware that armed conflicts inevitably produce human rights violations, AI will develop a strategy to enable it to call more coherently for the development and strengthening of instruments for peaceful crisis management, and will assist with the development of improved human rights monitoring missions as an component of peaceful crisis management operations.

AI will monitor armed conflicts in which it has called for armed intervention in line with the guidelines for an exceptional position in Decision 2 of the ICM 2005, with a view to being able to suggest strategies for a peaceful resolution at any given point in these conflicts.

In post-conflict phases, AI will urge all stakeholders to acknowledge that human rights violations are one of the root causes of conflict and to respect the human rights of all conflict parties as a constitutive element in any demobilization, reconciliation and reconstruction process. The eradication of root causes in the field of ESC rights shall be emphasized as an effective means to prevent a recurrence of armed conflicts.

A report on steps taken to implement this decision, based on strategies developed in accordance with OP 1 and OP 3, will be presented to the next Chairs’ Forum.

Explanatory note

This proposal aims to further develop and substantiate AI’s conflict prevention policy as laid down in Decision 2 of the ICM 2005. Five main threads are named which follow the evolving stages of military conflicts:
Part 1 calls for the strengthening of AI’s work on the root causes of armed conflicts;
Part 2 aims to establish more systematic mechanisms for AI’s work in the early stages of conflicts;
Part 3 calls for the promotion of instruments for the peaceful management of conflicts;
Part 4 aims to ensure that AI will be able to name exit strategies for military intervention it had advocated under the exceptional position of Dec. 2 of 2005;
Part 5 highlights the importance of AI’s work on ESCR as a contribution to peaceful conflict prevention.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 
ORG 52/002/2005 (Decisions of the 2005 ICM)
ORG 41/007/2006 (Report from the Chairs Forum)
POL 34/009/2006 (Guidelines and Procedures on the Use of Armed Force and Military Intervention)

PrepCom Note	
This resolution will be dealt with in the WP on Human Rights Strategy. PrepCom would like to deal with the issues raised in a workshop format.	

HR Strategy – AI Austria						      Use of Force 

Referring to Decision 2 of the 2005 ICM “The Protection of Human Rights through Conflict Prevention, Intervention and Condemnation of Force” (ORG 52/003/2005 ICM (Circular 67-Revised), and the Guidelines which were produced by the IEC as a result,

The International Council:

DECIDES to amend the “Guidelines and procedures on the use of armed force and military intervention” (POL 34/009/006) so that they contain the following criteria for “Exceptional cases where AI may support the use of armed force:”

The use of armed force is a UN-authorized peacekeeping deployment, or one with a similar level of legitimacy, oversight, and rules of engagement, and the legal authority of the ICC is accepted by all countries sending peacekeeping troops.

AND INSTRUCTS the IEC to ensure that in its decision making, the decision is based on AI’s own research results.

FURTHER INSTRUCTS the IEC to define human rights control mechanisms concretely in the guidelines.

Explanatory note

AI Austria is pleased that the guidelines have been made more detailed than the original draft.  We understand the need for guidelines to be flexible, given that each exceptional case will be unique. If AI has to take a decision like that, we want AI to take an independent position on military intervention, based on our own information. We are also concerned about the lack of more detailed criteria on the armed forces to be deployed.  It will be essential for accountability that those forces be ultimately answerable to the International Criminal Court.

PrepCom Note	
‘Guidelines and procedures on the use of armed force and military intervention' (POL 34/009/2006), were prepared by the IEC in response to ICM 2005 Decision 2 and have been discussed with the movement over the past two years.  The Guidelines have not been forwarded to the ICM for general discussion or adoption.
	
PrepCom is concerned that this resolution is not appropriate for the ICM as the Guidelines are not the result of an ICM decision.  

HR Strategy– AI España 	  	       Procedimiento sobre uso de la fuerza

El Consejo Internacional:
DECIDE modificar el punto 4 del Apéndice II: “Procedimientos para considerar la postura excepcional de AI sobre intervenciones militares y el uso de la fuerza armada” del documento “Directrices y procedimientos sobre el uso de la fuerza armada y la intervención militar” (POL 34/009/2006) 
Dicho punto quedaría:  
4.-  La presidenta o presidente del CEI invitará a todos los miembros del Foro de Presidentes y Presidentas a expresar su opinión sobre la propuesta de acción. La invitación ofrecerá el máximo tiempo que sea posible para consultas y debate. Normalmente, el CEI no tomará decisiones que sean contrarias a las opiniones recibidas de la mayoría de las Secciones y Estructuras. Posteriormente se notificará lo antes posible al Movimiento Internacional toda acción que se emprenda.

Nota aclaratoria

La Decisión 2 de la RCI del 2005, tras adoptar una decisión de gran alcance sobre la protección de los derechos humanos mediante la prevención de conflictos, la intervención y la condena del uso de la fuerza, solicitaba al CEI que elaborase “unas directrices y procedimientos detallados sobre las situaciones en las que se harán estas peticiones, y ultime la redacción de las directrices tras una consulta con el próximo Foro de presidentes y presidentas”.

En el Foro de presidentes y presidentas de Lisboa se discutió de forma pormenorizada tanto el proyecto de directrices sobre el uso de la fuerza armada y la intervención militar (POL 34/002/2006) como el proyecto sobre procedimientos para la toma de decisiones sobre el uso de la fuerza armada y la intervención militar (POL 34/003/2006). 

Durante dicho debate parte de las secciones manifestaron que, dado la enorme controversia que este tema ha tenido dentro del Movimiento en los últimos años, era de suma importancia que cualquier toma de decisión sobre el uso de la fuerza armada se tomase tras un proceso de consulta con el Movimiento, a través del Foro de Presidentes y Presidentas. Sin embargo, las “Directrices y procedimientos sobre el uso de la fuerza armada y la intervención militar” (POL 34/009/2006) aprobadas por el CEI recogen en el punto 4 del apéndice II: “Procedimientos para considerar la postura excepcional de AI sobre intervenciones militares y el uso de la fuerza armada” el siguiente párrafo: 

“4.- A menos que la urgencia de la situación lo impida en la práctica, la presidenta o el presidente del CEI invitará a todos los miembros del Foro de Presidentes y Presidentas a expresar su opinión sobre la propuesta de acción. La invitación ofrecerá el máximo tiempo que sea posible para consultas y debate. En cualquier caso, se notificará lo antes posible a todos los miembros del CEI y del Foro de Presidentes y Presidentas toda acción que se emprenda. Normalmente, el CEI no tomará decisiones que sean contrarias a las opiniones recibidas de la mayoría de las Secciones y Estructuras.”

La Sección española siente cierta preocupación sobre el inicio de este punto (“A menos que la urgencia de la situación lo impida en la práctica”) ya que consideramos que sería contrario a la decisión 24 de la RCI del 2005 en la que el Consejo Internacional:

“…DECIDE que, entre Reuniones del Consejo Internacional, los asuntos relativos a:
1	la identidad de AI (p.e., campañas globales),
2	prioridades concernientes a todo el movimiento (p.e. PO-SI 2),
3	cuestiones controvertidas que exigen atención inmediata, y
4	aspectos que no responden claramente a la misión de AI

Serán remitidos al Foro de Presidentes para consulta.”

Sin duda, la postura sobre el uso de la fuerza sigue siendo una cuestión muy controvertida dentro del Movimiento como se demostró durante el debate de la reunión del Foro de presidentes y presidentas de Lisboa (y se reconoce en las propias directrices aprobadas por el CEI). Igualmente sigue siendo un tema controvertido dentro fuera de AI. 

Asimismo, no entendemos en que tipo de situaciones la “urgencia de la situación” puede impedir la consulta al Foro de Presidentes y Presidentas. Este tipo de decisiones se tiene que tomar en relación con situaciones en las que la decisión de intervenir militarmente no surge casi nunca de improviso. Por el contrario, suelen producirse intensos debates políticos y jurídicos dentro de la Comunidad Internacional sobre la conveniencia, legitimidad y legalidad de una concreta intervención militar ya que se ven afectados principios centrales del Derecho Internacional (soberanía, no intervención, prohibición del uso de la fuerza, derechos humanos, etc.,) por lo que habría tiempo más que suficiente para consultar. Además, según las directrices, AI se posicionaría a favor del uso de fuerza armada sólo en casos en los que intervenga el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas lo que daría tiempo a realizar la consulta. Y en los casos en los que un estado intervenga de forma unilateral, resulta difícil imaginar una situación en la que el movimiento no pueda esperar unos días para realizar la consulta antes de adoptar una postura sobre si se opone a dicha intervención militar. 

Por otra parte, consideramos que SIEMPRE debe consultarse al Foro de Presidentes y Presidentas y si realmente los plazos fueran tan urgentes que impidan una consulta, el CEI no debería adoptar ninguna decisión. Debe tenerse en cuenta que la postura general es que AI no se pronuncia sobre la conveniencia de la intervención militar y que se trata de un tema muy controvertido donde puede haber grandes riesgos a la credibilidad, imparcialidad y neutralidad de AI. Aspectos que pueden ser mejor sopesados en un proceso de consulta a todo el movimiento. 

8)	
HR Strategy - AI Spain    		  	           Procedure on the use of force

The International Council:
DECIDES to amend point 4 of Appendix II: “Procedures for considering AI’s exceptional position on military interventions and the use of armed force” in the document entitled “Guidelines and procedures on the use of armed force and military intervention” (POL 34/009/2006) 
as follows:
4.  The Chair of the IEC will invite all members of the Chairs Forum to give their views on the proposed action. The invitation shall allow as much time as possible for consultation and discussion. The IEC will not normally take a decision that is contrary to the views received from the majority of sections and structures. The International Movement will be informed of any action taken as soon as possible afterwards.
Explanatory note

Decision 2 of the 2005 ICM,  after adopting a wide-ranging resolution on the protection of human rights through conflict prevention, intervention and condemnation of the use of force, asked the IEC to draw up “draft detailed guidelines and procedures on situations in which such calls will be made, and to finalize the guidelines after consultation with the next Chairs Forum”.

At the Chairs Forum in Lisbon a detailed discussion was held both of the draft guidelines on the use of armed force and military intervention (POL 34/002/2006) and the draft decision-making procedures on the use of armed force and military intervention (POL 34/003/2006). 

During the discussion, some sections said that, given the enormous controversy that this issue had generated within the movement over the past few years, it was extremely important that any decisions on the use of armed force be taken following consultation with the movement via the Chairs Forum. However, the “Guidelines and procedures on the use of armed force and military intervention” (POL 34/009/2006) approved by the IEC include under point 4 of Appendix II: “Procedures for considering AI’s exceptional position on military interventions and the use of armed force” the following paragraph

4.	“Unless the urgency of the situation makes it practically impossible, the Chair of the IEC will invite all members of the Chairs Forum to give their views on the proposed action. The invitation shall allow as much time as possible for consultation and discussion. In any case, all IEC members and all members of the Chairs Forum will be notified of any action taken as soon as possible. The IEC will not normally take a decision that is contrary to the views received from the majority of sections and structures.”

The Spanish Section is somewhat concerned about the beginning of this point (“Unless the urgency of the situation makes it practically impossible”) because we believe that it would be contrary to decision 24 of the 2005 ICM in which the International Council:

“…DECIDES that between International Council Meetings matters relating to:
5	AI identity (e.g. global campaigns),
6	priorities that concern the whole movement (e.g. OP-SI2),
7	controversial issues that require immediate attention, and
8	aspects that do not fall clearly within AI’s remit

shall be referred to the Chairs’ Forum for consultation.”

The position on the use of force is undoubtedly still a very controversial issue within the movement as demonstrated during the discussion held at the Chairs Forum in Lisbon (and recognized in the guidelines themselves approved by the IEC). It is also still a controversial issue outside of AI. 

We also fail to understand in what type of situations the “urgency of the situation” might prevent consultation with the Chairs Forum. These kinds of decision ought to be taken in relation to situations in which the decision to intervene militarily hardly ever arises unexpectedly. On the contrary, there are usually intense political and legal discussions within the international community about the advisability, legitimacy and legality of any particular military intervention since core principles of international law (sovereignty, non intervention, prohibition of the use of force, human rights, etc) are involved and so there would be more than enough time to consult. Furthermore, according to the guidelines, AI would take a position in favour of the use of armed force only in cases in which the United Nations Security Council is involved which would give time to carry out a consultation. And in cases in which a state intervenes unilaterally, it is hard to imagine a situation in which the movement cannot wait a few days to carry out a consultation before adopting a position on whether it opposes the military intervention in question.  

We also believe that the Chairs Forum should ALWAYS be consulted and if the time pressures are so great that consultation is impossible, the IEC should not adopt any decision at all. It should be borne in mind that the general position is that AI takes no position on the advisability of military intervention and that it is a very controversial issue in which there may be huge risks for AI’s credibility, impartiality and neutrality. Aspects which can be best weighed up by consulting the whole movement. 

PrepCom Note	
‘Guidelines and procedures on the use of armed force and military intervention' (POL 34/009/2006), were prepared by the IEC in response to ICM 2005 Decision 2 and have been discussed with the movement over the past two years.  There was no call in Decision 2 to have the guidelines forwarded to the ICM for general discussion or adoption.
	
PrepCom is concerned that this resolution is not appropriate for the ICM as the Guidelines are not the result of an ICM decision.

Working Party – Growth

Growth –  IEC	Language Strategy	44	
			
Growth – AI Canada (ES) & AI UK	International Youth Strategy	45	

	

Growth – IEC enabling resolution	  	                     Language strategy
The International Council: 

DECIDES to adopt the International Language Strategy.

Explanatory note 
This enabling resolution is a placeholder to facilitate discussion of the language strategy at ICM 2007. It is expected that it will be amended to reflect the substance of the International Language Strategy once feedback from the consultation has been taken into account. 
Recognition was given to the need to effectively align language strategy with our human rights and growth strategies at the ICM in both 2003 and 2005. Decision 17 of ICM 2005 committed AI to putting in place a new language strategy. A Language Strategy Working Group (LSWG) was set up in April 2006 with the objective of developing, in collaboration with the International Executive Committee and the International Secretariat, a draft language policy and strategy. 
Between June and October 2006, the LSWG developed the draft International Language Strategy (incorporating the language policy), which was circulated for movement consultation in November 2006. See: Amnesty International Language Policy and Strategy ‘The Language of Human Rights’ First Draft for Consultation - AI Index: 33/002/2006. 
The language strategy is relevant to many aspects of the Integrated Strategic Plan, including: 
Strategic Objective 8.3: Maintain content and quality in human rights research as the hallmark of the organization. 
Strategic Objective 9.6: Respond rapidly, flexibly and creatively to human rights crises. 
Strategic Objective 10.1: Commit to innovative and responsive communication. 
Strategic Objective 10.2: Target internal as well as external audiences. 
Strategic Objective 10.4: Prioritize cultural diversity in all communications strategies. 
Strategic Objective 11.1: Strategically diversify, strengthen and mobilize our activists. 
Strategic Objective 11.2: Generate sustainable growth across the movement, with particular emphasis on the global South and East. 
Strategic Objective 12.1: Build a dynamic architecture to ensure the delivery of our human rights strategy 

PrepCom Note	
The Language Strategy will be discussed in plenary before going to the Working Party on Growth for a recommended decision.	

8)	
9)	
10)	
Growth - AI Canada ES & AI UK                             International Youth Strategy

The International Council:

REAFFIRMS Decision 18 of the 2005 ICM to adopt the International Youth Strategy (IYS) (ACT 76/009/2005) for all levels of the movement; and

CALLS ON the Sections, Structures, and the International Executive Committee to:

1.	Ensure a more thoroughgoing and robust implementation of the IYS in a way that integrates its three prongs, namely Participation, Activism, and Engagement by: 
·	instituting ways to significantly enhance youth participation within the decision-making processes of the Movement, and
·	as stated in Objective 18 of the IYS, developing plans to meet the target of ensuring that ¼ of all delegates to the 2009 ICM are young people; and

FURTHER CALLS ON the International Executive Committee to:

1.	Ensure that an International Youth Advisory Body, as outlined in Objective 19 of the IYS, is constituted well in advance of the 2008 Chairs Forum, and that such a body be fully supported in its tasks, as outlined in the IYS;

2.	Ensure that youth work within the movement is fully resourced to support the robust implementation of objectives under all three categories – Participation, Activism, and Engagement – of the IYS;

3.	As part of resource, put in place a staffing plan at the International Secretariat to:
·	assist sections and structures in the development and carrying out of their youth strategies; 
·	actively support the Youth Advisory Body in its work; and 
·	collaborate with the Youth Advisory Body in ensuring the implementation of the International Youth Strategy; and 

REQUESTS the IEC to:
1.	Present to the 2008 Chairs Forum a progress report outlining steps taken to date in the implementation of the International Youth Strategy, and of this resolution, together with a long-range, comprehensive implementation plan including resource provisions, for discussion and feedback; and

2.	Invite members of the Youth Advisory Body to attend and participate in relevant sections of the 2008 Chairs Forum.

Connection to the ISP
This resolution is intended to assist the achievement of growth, through increasing, supporting, and empowering youth. 

ISP Goal 11 – Implementation of the International Youth Strategy (IYS) supports the Objectives of Goal 11, mobilizing people. Youth are a crucial sector of our membership and a growing force in civil society. Young activists are drawn by opportunities to engage in dynamic and relevant activism and by being valued and engaged members of the organization. Thoroughgoing implementation of the IYS will demonstrate our commitment to investing in youth, and ensure that youth have an established means to participate in all aspects of the movement. 

ISP Goal 12 – The establishment and commitment to a Youth Advisory Body (YAB) will contribute to building a dynamic architecture through supporting and developing leaders. 

Explanatory note

Youth and students make up more than half of our membership.  Because of their insights, energy, and passionate commitment to AI’s mission, strong and vibrant support for youth participation will benefit the whole movement. Consistent support for youth is essential to fulfilment of our growth objectives.  

This importance of building youth participation and activism has been repeatedly affirmed by ICMs: decisions in 1995, 1997, 2003 and 20052 affirmed our commitment to facilitate youth participation at all levels of the movement, and recognized the resources required. Adoption of the IYS in 2005 was the culmination of this process; the expectation was that active implementation would follow. Since the 2005 ICM, inadequate resources and a failure to implement key components of the strategy have resulted in a failure to achieve the benefits envisaged, despite the creation of the Youth Major Project as a framework for implementation. 

The IYS was developed after thorough global consultation with youth members and focuses on three complementary strands: Participation, Activism, and Engagement. It demands holistic implementation, and central to its success is involvement of youth and those who work with them. However, there has been a lack of progress in strengthening youth participation. The international Youth Advisory Body has not been established, even though previous coordinating structures have been discontinued, leaving no international body to guide the continuing development of youth work. 

Youth Participation at ICMs – The IYS stipulates that a quarter of delegates to the 2009 ICM should be youth. With the inclusion of International Youth Assembly (IYA) participants, the 2003 and 2005 ICMs young people constituted 15% of delegates for the first time. Without an IYA at the ICM, and without attention to youth involvement between ICMs, these numbers will be difficult to maintain. 

Youth Coordination at International Level – The International Youth Coordinating Committee (IYCC) was created in 1995 as the representative structure of the International Youth Network – a network made up of all Youth and Student Coordinators. The IYCC’s task was to promote, develop, and support youth, and to ensure that youth became an integral part of the movement. The IEC approved IYCC terms of reference in 1999, yet since 1995 there was only one additional meetings of Youth Coordinators.

We have made key commitments to supporting youth activism and participation within AI, but have yet to fulfill them. Indeed we have stepped backwards. With the adoption of the IYS all existing youth structures were to be replaced, but the key Youth Advisory Body has not been created. As a result there is no coordinating body for youth members, or Youth & Student Coordinators, nor is there a representative body for youth membership.  The creation of the YAB would facilitate our commitment to fulfilling the goals of the movement’s stated priorities.

IS staffing levels –Whilst past resource allocation has not enabled the movement to realize its full potential, until recently youth work has been a component of key staff responsibilities, which have been clear and well communicated. During development of the IYS and OP2, staffing was boosted with a full-time staff member focused on developing youth work. Since then, dedicated staff support for developing youth work has ended. The impact of this has been felt by Youth Coordinators and members across the movement.

 International Youth and Student Inventory Report, ACT 76/002/2001; May 2001.
2 Decision 21 of the 1995 ICM; Decision 41 of the 1997 ICM; Decision 25 of the 2003 ICM; Decision 18 of the 2005 ICM.

PrepCom Note	
The ICM resolution compels the movement to deal with the Youth Strategy by developing forms of implementation within the framework of the 19 Objectives of the strategy.  There was no ICM discussion nor agreement on the 60+ bullet points that constitute the remainder of the strategy and they are seen as indicative of the work that could be carried out to fulfill the objective. The staffing proposal is an operational matter that is not appropriately in the remit of the ICM.
	
PrepCom recommends that the issue of the implementation of the Youth Strategy as a whole be discussed in a broader discussion format (World Café style).  The resulting Chair’s Statement identifying shared commitments and agreements would be a formal part of the ICM Report. 

Working Party– Accountability 

Accountability – IEC	ICM Cycle	49	
			
Accountability – AI Spain	Transparency	51	
			
Accountability – AI Italy	Working Party Standing Order Amendment	53	
			
Accountability – AI Sweden	Democracy	54	
			
Accountability – AI USA	Working group on governance and decision-making	55	
			
Accountability – AI Netherlands	From adoption to agency	56	
			
Accountability – AI Denmark	Planning & Prioritizing	57	
			
Accountability – AI Sweden	Limited ISP	58	
			
Accountability – AI Germany	ISP – Accountability and assessment	59	
			
Accountability – AI Switzerland	Strengthening AI’s Internal Democracy and Accountability	62	
			
Accountability – AI Sweden	IMT Preparations	64	
			
Accountability – AI Italy	2001 Campaign Review Audit	65	
			
Accountability – AI Paraguay	Optimizing Research	67	
			
Accountability – AI France	Impartiality and independence	72	
			
8)	

8)	
9)	
10)	

Accountability – IEC Statute Amendment     			            ICM Cycle

The 2007 ICM:

Wishing not to move to a 3-Year ICM cycle, rescinds Decision 25 of the 2005 ICM and accordingly rescinds the amendments to the Statute in that decision. 

Explanatory note

The 2001, 2003 and 2005 ICMs considered statute amendments to have ICMs 3 years apart rather than 2 years. The proposals were defeated in 2001 and 2003, but the 2005 ICM (Decision 25) agreed to introduce a 3-Year cycle commencing in 2009 (that is, we would have ICMs in 2009, 2012, 2015 and so on).
There have always been arguments for and against the change. The IEC proposed and supported the resolution leading to decision 25, recognizing that there was a “cooling off” period between 2005 and 2009 that would allow the implications of the decision to be reviewed.
The IEC and the Secretary General have since considered the impact of this decision very carefully, and are unanimous in recommending to the ICM and the movement that we continue with a 2-Year cycle for the foreseeable future.
These are our reasons.
One thing that makes AI special is that it requires the participation and involvement of members in leadership and in activism. It is part of AI’s identity that its political leadership is voluntary and elected, and that leadership and governance are grounded in rights and opportunities that extend to the whole of AI’s membership.
Leadership and governance in a world-wide organization of two million people requires leaders who are informed, who know each other, who are committed on the basis of information and understanding to the current directions of the movement, and who have their leadership grounded in the collective will of the movement.
We recognize the importance and unique role that meetings of the International Council have in AI’s leadership and governance. The ICM is the only forum that brings together nearly all the current leaders of AI. As a result it is possible to have the whole leadership group share the same knowledge and commitment; to reach a common mind on issues where there has been disagreement; to agree on priorities; to be part of leading AI as a whole and to be better equipped to lead the parts of AI for which they are immediately responsible. Only an ICM permits all of these things for the whole of AI’s leadership group.
The role of the ICM will become greater as it evolves. Under the leadership of PrepCom and the IEC, we are moving to a structure for the ICM which more closely matches its primary functions as set out in the Statute. These are: to focus on strategy; to set AI’s vision, mission and core values; to determine AI’s Integrated Strategic Plan including its financial strategy; to establish systems and bodies of governance and delegation for the movement, to elect members to those bodies, and to hold those bodies and their members accountable; to evaluate the movement’s performance against its agreed strategies and plans; and to hold sections, structures and other bodies accountable. In particular, while it will always remain important for ICMs to make decisions on strategic issues, future ICMs will be looking less at making decisions, and much more at reaching common understanding and agreement about how to respond to and address the external world, and at acquiring the knowledge and skills for effective leadership and governance.
The ICM is even more important in a period of change. The world is changing, and AI is necessarily and willingly changing with it—but change is hard work, and requires especially from the leaders shared vision and shared competencies. The leadership group needs to gather more often than every 3 years if it is to be effective at such a time. In fact, people could come into and leave leadership roles as Chairs and Vice-Chairs of sections without ever attending an ICM if they were 3 years apart.
Other “decision-making” bodies are not an adequate replacement for an ICM. There has been considerable investment in considering how to have decision-making bodies other than the IEC between ICM meetings—for example, in the Chairs Forum or in through some standing Board. Increasingly, however, we are recognizing that what AI needs is not more decisions, or more decision-makers, but more leadership and more opportunities for democratic involvement. We would actually identify two immediate challenges for AI: improving involvement and participation and improving the quality of decision-making (that is, making the right decisions for the right reasons and with the right information). In our view, proceeding now to create more decision-making bodies would not address either of these challenges. 

A 3-Year cycle will put more strain on those in elected positions. The change envisages that those elected and appointed to offices (the IEC, Chair and Vice-Chair of the ICM, Membership Appeals Committee, Financial Control Committee and others) would be elected for three years. For volunteers this is a long period of time—indeed, 2 years is a long period for some. A 3 year cycle could reduce the number of people willing to make such a commitment. It means that those who have made a commitment that they can’t see through are left in a harder position. If there are resignations then we will inevitably leave ourselves with a less democratic process than one which has election at the ICM.
The loss of the advantages can be managed. Of course, we recognize some of the advantages that would have come from a move to a 3-year cycle. When these were last articulated (see ORG50/006/2003, resolution P3) the reasons put forward were:
Cost—the savings could fund a large number of other global meetings
The limited time in practice between ICMs in a two-year cycle for undertaking studies and reviews
With a six year ISP, it would make sense to plan for 3 years rather than 2.
 The first of these concerns the best use of resources. It is true that ICMs are very expensive. The costs can be reduced (eg, by shorter meetings, and by using the same site a number of times), but they are still considerable. The question is whether an ICM is the best use of that money relative to the other ways of strengthening democratic leadership and building consensus and capacity. We consider that it is.
The second has always been a concern, and remains the best argument for a longer cycle. However, increasingly we have moved away from trying to fit everything into a two-year cycle. ICMs are part of how projects are undertaken, not static events outside other processes. In addition, experience suggests the only an ICM is authoritative in determining whether to continue with a project, change course, or abandon it altogether—and in that context, 3 years is a long time to wait!
The experience of working with the current ISP as a three stage process—preparation, sowing, reaping—has been a positive one.

PrepCom Note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Accountability (Organizational Strategy).  It will be dealt with in the cluster of resolutions regarding the ICM.  	

Accountability – AI Spain	        		Transparencia

EL CONSEJO INTERNACIONAL DECIDE: que se modifique el Reglamento para la Reunión del Consejo Internacional en su artículo 11, añadiendo un nuevo párrafo 7, cuyo texto será el siguiente:

"Los vocales de la mesa electoral anunciarán los resultados de las elecciones detallando el número de votos obtenidos por cada candidato o candidata en el momento previsto para tal fin por el/la Presidente/a durante el desarrollo del Consejo Internacional".

Nota explicativa:

Considerando que la transparencia es la base fundamental de todo sistema democrático y una garantía esencial para un buen funcionamiento democrático en cualquier organización, la Sección Española ya presentó en el Consejo Internacional de Dakar una resolución similar, que no prosperó al alcanzar un número insuficiente de votos, si bien obtuvo un apoyo digno de consideración.

Al tratarse de una cuestión de principios democráticos, la Sección, en su Asamblea General Anual de 2006 decidió volver a presentar esta propuesta de incorporar una medida de transparencia elemental que forma parte del procedimiento de Asambleas de la gran mayoría de las Secciones y Estructuras que componen el Movimiento Internacional.

La Sección Española sigue opinando que no hay justificación real para que el Consejo Internacional sea una excepción en materia de transparencia en el seno del movimiento internacional. El anuncio de los resultados en ningún caso puede ser indicativo, en los casos en que un/a candidato/a no es elegido, de menosprecio alguno ni del/de la candidato/a en cuestión, ni de la sección o estructura de la que procede.  Por el contrario, el anuncio público de los votos obtenidos por cada candidato es, además de una garantía democrática, una herramienta útil y valiosa para todo/a candidato/a individual a la hora de evaluar el grado de aceptación obtenido por su quehacer durante la RCI así como por su labor realizada en otros órganos y comités del movimiento y puede ser un buen indicador de si sus ideas han convencido poco o si no han convencido por escaso margen, o por el contrario, si el apoyo de sus tesis es amplio o masivo.

Accountability – AI Spain	        		Transparency

The International Council:

DECIDES to amend article 11 of the Standing Orders of the International Council Meeting, adding a new paragraph 7 to read as follows:

"The members of the electoral board shall announce the results of elections by giving details of the number of votes obtained by each candidate at an appropriate moment specified by the Chair during the International Council".

Explanatory note

Considering that transparency is fundamental to any democratic system and an essential guarantee of the good democratic functioning of any organization, the Spanish Section already submitted a similar resolution to the Dakar International Council which was not passed because, although it received considerable support, it did not obtain enough votes. 

Given that it is a question of democratic principles, the Section, at its 2006 Annual General Meeting, decided to resubmit this proposal to incorporate a measure of basic transparency that forms part of the procedure for meetings in the vast majority of Sections and Structures that make up the international movement.

The Spanish Section still believes that there is no real reason why the International Council should be an exception as far as transparency within the international movement is concerned. In the event that a candidate is not elected, announcing the results would in no way indicate contempt for either the candidate in question or for the section or structure they come from. On the contrary, publicly announcing the number of votes obtained by each candidate, apart from being a guarantee of democracy, is a useful and valuable tool for each individual candidate when it comes to assessing how successful his or her work during the ICM and in other bodies and committees of the movement has been and it can be a good indicator of whether his/her ideas had little support, only just failed to gain sufficient support or, on the contrary, had widespread and large-scale support. 

PrepCom Note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Accountability (Organizational Strategy).  	

Accountability – AI Italy               Working party Standing Order Amendment

The International Council:

DECIDES to amend its Standing Orders as follows:

Article 4.8
A working party usually appoints one or more drafting consultants. The role of the drafting consultants is to assist with the drafting of resolutions or amendments to resolutions and of the working party report in order to ensure that they are written in clear, concise language.

should read instead:

A working party usually appoints one or more drafting consultants. The role of the drafting consultants is to assist with the drafting of resolutions or amendments to resolutions and of the working party report in order to ensure that they are written in clear, concise language in all official languages of AI and to make sure that active participation in the drafting process is made possible for all delegates speaking one of the official languages who might want to join the drafting groups.

Explanatory note:

Drafting committees during the ICM work mainly in English. Working in only one language might discourage the participation of those delegates who do not speak English well even if their sections or structures might be very interested in particular resolutions. This amendment is not aiming to formalize an efficient and mostly informal process but we believe that one-language drafting groups sometimes might not fully respect the first principle of the Standing Orders that is to "make the procedures, processes and structure of meetings of the International Council as accessible, readily understood and friendly as possible." (Art. 1.1). Participation in the drafting process should be encouraged and communication between language groups should be enhanced by using liaison interpreting during the meetings if requested. This form of interpreting could be done by bilingual volunteers or delegates who are able to draft resolutions in languages other than English.

PrepCom Note
PrepCom considers this amendment to the Standing Orders to be friendly and will instruct WP chairs accordingly.

Accountability – AI Sweden	        	     	             Democracy

The International Council:

DECIDES that the ICM preparatory Committee improves the process of the preparation of the ICM by ensuring the dispatch of all relevant ICM documents in relevant language to all sections and structures at least three months previous to the ICM and verifies the receipt of all documents.

Further DECIDES that the ICM preparatory committee makes sure that all longer documents are complemented by a eloquent executive summary.

Explanatory note

Amnesty International is a unique activist organization due to sections and structures with tremendous different conditions. The credibility and accountability of the democratic process within the movement is fundamental; all members should be given the equal opportunities and possibilities to participate in the movements democratic processes.   

The democracy for AI is not only a matter of assisting each other financially but also to improve the language use and the culture within AI to make it easily available for more persons to participate in the decision making processes.
 
The International movement is committed to holding an effective and productive ICM, the spirit of the ICM is a global participation of all sections and structures in the interest of action and activism.

For efficient and representative participation at the ICM, it is required that the relevant materials are distributed to all participating sections and structures in due time for the timely preparation ICM requires. The adequate preparations for ICM are vital for the global growth and activism of the movement.

ICM preparations and participation have been challenging for many sections and structures especially due to technological standards and late arrival of documents. The challenges to prepare for the ICM also arise due to difficulties in reading the often long and complicated ICM documents. 

By improving the delivery and distribution of all materials in applicable language and in time improves the chances for smaller sections and structures with limited resources to be able to organize their resources for the optimal preparation for ICM, hence increasing their chances to influence and have an impact at ICM. 

Amnesty International, Sweden & Amnesty International, Sierra Leone

PrepCom Note	
While sharing the concern regarding the timeliness of ICM documents, PrepCom is concerned that this resolution is too operational and therefore not appropriate for the ICM.  

Accountability – AI USA                                                    Working group on governance & decision making

BE IT RESOLVED that the IEC shall establish a working group to review the adequacy of existing systems for consultation and decision-making between ICMs (including but not limited to the functioning of the Chairs' Forum), with an eye towards strengthening these systems and ensuring that the role of the ICM in the overall decision-making process not be reduced; and that this working group shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations regarding intra-ICM decision-making to the movement by August 2008.

Explanatory note
 
Intent:
 
Although previous ICM decisions have called for the investigation and strengthening of decision-making processes, there is concern that the move to a three-year cycle will weaken the role of the ICM, of sections/structures, and of the membership, and further centralize decision-making authority.  
 
The 2009 ICM is scheduled to be the last held before the shift to the three-year cycle.  It is critical that the movement be confident that the role of the ICM and the capacity for movement-wide involvement in decision-making between ICMs are strong.  
 
To that end, this resolution seeks to ensure that the movement is presented with an assessment and recommendations well in advance of the 2009 ICM, so that there is time for consultation within sections/structures and at the Chairs' Forum, as well as adequate time and information for sections to prepare to address this issue (if need be) at the 2009 ICM.
 
The working group may be a sub-committee of the Chairs' Forum and/or the IEC, both of which are tasked with strengthening consultation and decision-making, or may be a separate group selected by the IEC.  
 
Past decisions: 
 
The 2003 ICM decided that it is desirable to work towards a three year cycle for the ICM, with effect from the close of the 2009 ICM; and
 
Decision 24 of the 2005 ICM instructed the IEC, “in close collaboration with the Chairs’ Forum Steering Committee, to evaluate the role and development of the Chairs’ Forum in the period 2003-2007, and, (if necessary) propose specific measures to ensure international democratic consultation as well as measures for a decision-making procedure between ICMs, and to inform the next (2007) ICM.

PrepCom Note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Accountability.	

Accountability – AI Netherlands	        From Adoption to agency – Preparing for the next ISP

The International Council:

discussed the fundamental transitions Amnesty International is going through as it reorients itself towards its primary stakeholders, as analyzed in the explanatory note From Adoption to Agency: Preparing for AI to be a healthy 50 years old. 

The IC is aware of the urgency to start re-designing or re-directing AI’s activities and planning mechanisms, using resources globally where they can be most effective for achieving progress on human rights, and calls for the following steps to be taken in preparing for and implementing work in the coming OP3 period (2008-2010):

1	Strengthen AI’s International Operational Planning.

2	Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and spending policies of sections and structures, with a view to identify the most cost-effective approaches and to identify where resources can best be spent;

3	Reassess AI’s decision-making practices with the aim of making AI more impact-oriented and accountable;

4	Structurally strengthen AI’s internal evaluation and assessment practices;

5	Structurally grow AI’s strategizing capacity.

A separate Explanatory Note to this resolution will be circulated in due time.

PrepCom Note	
Several resolutions deal with issues of planning, priority setting, decision-making and thinking about the next Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP).  PrepCom proposes that this topic be considered in plenary and in other formal discussion sessions, in order to enrich the discussion and limit the strict focus on the text.  The resulting Chair’s Statement representing the ICM’s thinking on this issue would become a part of the formal ICM report.	
PrepCom also recommends that AI Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden discuss their concerns with an eye to treating these related resolutions in this new format.	

Accountability - AI Denmark			Planning & prioritization

The International Council:

DECIDES that more realistic, accountable and transparent methods of planning and prioritization are developed for the purpose of the next ISP and its planning cycle. The main aim of the more realistic, accountable and transparent methods of planning and prioritization is to ensure in the next ISP cycle a better match between the movement’s campaigning strategies, growth strategies and financial strategies.

ASKS the IEC before the next ICM to report to the Chairs’ Forum on the development of new methods of planning and prioritization 

ASKS the IEC to ensure that the new methods of planning and prioritization are used in the development of the next ISP

Explanatory note

The financial envelopes decided at the ICMs seem to bear little or no relation to the movement’s discussions and decisions on campaigns, research, growth, etc. Extremely important projects, such as the tactical campaign on torture, crisis response, such as on Darfur, and the central, strategic growth projects are underfunded or unfunded, relying instead on special appeals to sections. 

Some sections are fortunate to have the financial opportunity to contribute to these important projects. However, continuous special appeals make it more difficult for sections to plan, budget and prioritize.

The delays and/or cancellations of activities due to a lack of responsible budgeting and planning cause frustration among members and staff alike. In addition the situation clouds the transparency of the decision-making process. It makes it very difficult for many to comprehend prioritization and the reasoning behind it and it causes friction and a lack of trust between some sections and the IS/IEC. In short, the current methods of planning and prioritizing are in conflict with movement’s ambitions of accountability and transparency. 

The aim of this resolution is to develop realistic, accountable and transparent methods of planning, budgeting and decision-making to be used in the development and implementation of the next ISP. 

PrepCom Note	
Several resolutions deal with issues of planning, priority setting, decision-making and thinking about the next Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP).  PrepCom proposes that this topic be considered in plenary and in other formal discussion sessions, in order to enrich the discussion and limit the strict focus on the text.  The resulting Chair’s Statement representing the ICM’s thinking on this issue would become a part of the formal ICM report.	
PrepCom also recommends that AI Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Sweden discuss their concerns with an eye to treating these related resolutions in this new format.	

Accountability – AI Sweden	        	                             Limited ISP

The International Council:

DECIDES that the next Strategic Plan shall provide clear prioritization of the movement’s activities, either by omitting certain parts of the mission or by giving expressed priorities to the different areas of the mission;

FURTHER DECIDES that the goals stated in the next Strategic Plan shall be expressed so that non-arbitrary evaluation is made possible.

Explanatory note

In 2001, the mandate was replaced by our mission, as the limit of our activities. Throughout the existence of Amnesty International, our mission has been expanded. In the 1990’s it was obvious that the mandate had grown so large that AI no longer had the capacity to cover it in its entirety. An instrument for prioritization was needed. The need is no less today, considering that the mandate/mission has expanded far more than our resources have grown. The International Strategic Plan (ISP) is intended to be this prioritization instrument. The process of bringing about a strategic plan for an international movement requires tremendous efforts, time and resources. Hence it is an absolute requisite that the result be useful. 

The present ISP covers more or less the entire mission. Useful as it may be for categorizing our areas of work, it does not function as a prioritization instrument. The very wide frame of the ISP gives very little guidance to the International secretariat (IS) and the international executive committee (IEC) as to what priorities to make when forming the International Secretariat’s Operational plans (ISOP). In addition the ISP is of modest use for the sections’ planning processes. The priorities that are made at section level are instead determined by the ISOP. 
Moreover, the absence of measurable goals in the ISP makes it challenging to evaluate our work.

Therefore, an ISP with a limited scope and clear, well-defined goals would have several important advantages. It would:

•	give increased transparency to both the prioritization process and to the accountability process;
•	create an improved democratic influence over the movement’s actions.
•	enable synchronized planning throughout the movement and thereby improve utilization of our resources.
•	facilitate follow-up, paving the way for a learning organization.

PrepCom Note	
Several resolutions deal with issues of planning, priority setting, decision making and thinking about the next Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP).  PrepCom proposes that this topic be considered in plenary and in other formal discussion sessions, in order to enrich the discussion and limit the strict focus on the text.  The resulting Chair’s Statement representing the ICM’s thinking on this issue would become a part of the formal ICM report.	
PrepCom also recommends that AI Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden discuss their concerns with an eye to treating these related resolutions in this new format.	
	
Accountability - AI Germany					Accountability
The International Council:

1. DECIDES that the ICM is and will remain the primary decision-making body of AI, and that implementation of decisions taken by the ICM must have the highest priority for this very reason.

2. ASKS THE IEC to establish a mechanism or bodies to monitor, follow-up, revise and assess the implementation of ICM decisions and the ISP. This mechanism will include regular reporting at every ICM and on the status of implementation to the Chairs Forum and the Directors Forum. The IEC is to monitor and assess decisions in co-operation with other decision-making bodies and is finally accountable to the internal and external stakeholders of AI's human rights work in this regard. The IEC should be allowed to make and revise decisions and priorities in good time if the assessment of policies and practices requires it.

3. FURTHERMORE DECIDES that the implementation status of a number of ICM decisions relating directly to the scope and focus of AI's research into human rights abuses will be closely monitored in the future. This applies in particular to the decision in the area of human rights research to move from minimum adequate coverage to strategic coverage with global monitoring, since this represents a fundamental change in AI's manner of working.

4. ASKS THE IEC to prioritize work on conflict prevention (Decision 2 of the 2005 ICM). 

5. REQUESTS, in order to ensure monitoring of the human rights situation in all countries and making full use of all available resources, including in sections and structures, to achieve this, 
a. that the IEC develop and implement an effective concept of global monitoring as requested by Decision 17 of the 2003 ICM, as an essential component of and complement to strategic coverage, as a prerequisite for the movement’s commitment to early conflict prevention and to work on refugees, and furthermore to increase AI's transparency and accountability to its external stakeholders;

b. that the IEC review, as required by  Decision 17 of the 2005 ICM, the impact of the policy of strategic coverage; this review should include (i) an in-depth analysis of the applicability and actual application of the criteria included in the Draft Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) - Discussion Papers (POL 50/006/2003) - section 2, (ii) an evaluation of the regional balance and of resource allocation (iii) consideration of the impact of strategic coverage on NGOs and human rights defenders in countries which are not currently research priorities for AI, and also on sections which have extensive expertise on countries not currently covered;

c. that the IEC improve the transparency of its planning processes and ensure the involvement in them of sections and structures, especially in the case of regional plans.

6. FURTHERMORE REQUESTS that the IEC ensure that, in line with Human Rights Strategy Goal 5 of ISP 1, AI’s refugee work as coordinated and led by the IS will be strengthened in the following ways: (i) the IS should fully consider the needs of sections and structures engaged in refugee work when formulating regional plans and making decisions regarding research priorities, as an essential element to strengthening the work on individual refugees as laid down in Decision 15 of the ICM 2003 (ii) the refugee and migrants team in the IS should be consolidated and expanded (iii) the IEC should consider forming an international committee on refugee policy drawing on the expertise in sections and structures, with a view to supporting and advising the IS on strategic policy development in this area.

Explanatory note

(on 3, 5a) As laid down in its statute, AI "espouse(s) the principles ... of global coverage". According to the ISP, this core value is to be ensured under strategic coverage by "maintaining timely monitoring of countries not considered strategic" (ISP strategic objective 8.1). Endorsing this, Decision 17 / 2003 demanded the establishment of a monitoring and evaluation function as well as an evaluation of the implementation of strategic coverage. Until now, no monitoring system has been implemented, making it impossible to establish whether monitoring has been applied appropriately. For example, there was no indication that AI considered massive HRV in Egypt or recent executions in Japan. Examples like these should be considered when the evaluation of strategic coverage is carried out. It is imperative that global monitoring be implemented, along with guidelines and mechanisms for decision making and appropriate reaction, also taking into account Decision 12 of the ICM 2005 regarding work on behalf of persons at risk. Resources in sections and structures can and should be used where appropriate to ensure the successful implementation of global monitoring. Furthermore, the evaluation of strategic coverage should be extended to give special attention to the continuity of AI's work, as emphasized by Decisions 11 and 19 (2005).

(on 5c) In order to fulfill their planning and coordination tasks in co-operation with the IS, sections and coordination groups, they should be involved in the planning process at the earliest possible stage and receive the finalized regional plans in order to implement them adequately.
Strategic choices need to be explained in order to ensure the motivation and capacity to work for coordination groups. It is not self-evident why AI reacted to four draft laws intending to extend the death penalty in Peru submitted to Congress within six months with an urgent action only, or why AI is hardly working on North Korea, a country with very grave human rights violations.

[6i]: The 2003 ICM decided in its decision 15 that the work for the rights of individual refugees is a necessary and indispensable part of AI’s activities for the prevention of human rights violations and hence of the ISP, and that research strategies should reflect this. So far this ICM decision has not been implemented properly, at least not in a way which takes account of the needs of sections and structures engaged in the work towards individual refugees and with specific demands regarding research activities on human rights violations in refugees’ countries of origin.

[6 ii]: The IS has difficulties in fulfilling its strategic tasks with regard to the movement’s refugee work. One reason for this is the insufficient staffing of the refugee and migrants team, which today has no more staff members than before ISP 1 and ISOP 1 when the migrants issues were not yet an area of work for the team. If a team is allocated additional tasks with high priority this has to be reflected in a respective additional allocation of personnel.

[6 iii]: Governments and IGOs have been trying to find "new and lasting solutions" to migration and refugee protection issues for several years, and have developed and are still developing new strategic approaches on how to prevent migrants from reaching countries with a better economical perspective for them, and refugees from reaching safe countries. It is a matter of priority for AI likewise to develop responses to and statements on these new approaches. Though governmental approaches are in most cases the result of genuinely international or at least regional political cooperation, there are no concerted procedures or even consultation processes inside AI designed to find relevant "global" counterpolicies. Rather, it is left up to sections and structures and some regional associations such as the EU association to develop such strategic policies decentrally, which makes it difficult to provide for an appropriate, generalized AI policy development. Moreover, AI also runs the risk of the parallel development of different policy approaches by different sections, structures, or regional associations. For this reason, it seems necessary and useful to establish some kind of centralized guidance organ to ensure the coordinated development of strategic answers to governments' new approaches to migrants and refugees.

PrepCom Note	
This resolution addresses a series of issues:  decision-making, accountability, planning, strategic coverage, and AI’s work on refugees.  	
PrepCom recommends that the concerns regarding decision making, accountability and planning can be taken forward through the discussion on planning, priority setting and decision making.  PrepCom will seek to address the other issues in the appropriate working party and expresses concern that the more operational issues may not be appropriate for the ICM.	

8)	
9)	

Accountability – AI Switzerland    	Strengthenng AI’s Internal democracy & accountability

The International Council:

DECIDES that between International Council Meetings decisions on major issues affecting the whole movement shall be preceded, as a matter of routine, by a broad, transparent, movement-wide consultation process.

DECIDES that the outcome of each consultation, including of international meetings, shall be communicated to the movement together with clear indications about the next steps in the process, including a timetable.

DECIDES that between International Council Meetings major decisions concerning AI’s allocation of resources (e.g. setting or shifting of movement-wide priorities, operational plans etc.) and AI’s identity (e.g. themes and key objectives of new global campaigns) will only be made after broad consultation of the movement and with the consent of the Chairs Forum. 

DECIDES that the IEC and sections and structures will report to the movement once a year on the progress made in implementing ICM decisions in their respective areas of responsibility. 

Explanatory note

The democratic character of AI is deemed an important and distinctive feature of our organization. Internal democracy is one of our core values, but it also ensures a high level of acceptance of, and compliance with, the decisions made by the movement. Formal democracy by itself, however, allowing everybody to vote and the majority to decide, is not the only reason for its crucial value for AI. Democracy also means the ability to participate in a meaningful way in decision-making processes. It means inclusion and that decision-making processes are made transparent. It means that people are accountable for the implementation of decisions made.

By moving to a three-year ICM cycle AI is trying to bring the costs and the efficiency of our formal decision-making process in line with present day requirements. In order to preserve the benefits of our democratic culture it is therefore paramount that we ensure that between ICMs the level of movement-wide participation and inclusion in decision-making processes remains as high as possible. The Chairs Forum has already been identified as a potentially powerful means to achieve this. Broad, open and transparent consultation processes have proven in the past to be essential participation tools as well. While we have seen outstanding examples of excellent consultation processes that were able to create commitment, support, passion and sometimes even consensus prior to any voting (e.g. ISP key decisions), we have also seen less successful consultation processes (e.g. SRR discussions prior to the 2005 ICM). While preparing to move to a three-year ICM cycle, movement-wide, well-timed and transparent consultations on major issues should become a self-evident routine for the IEC, the IS, sections and structures. While this may seem obvious and the case already, it should be our aim to achieve a consistent pattern in this respect. This does not necessarily mean that we need more (and expensive) consultations or more (and even more expensive) international meetings, but it means that we should strive for excellence in this area and ensure that all consultations are really meaningful, participatory and inclusive. As a minimum this requires full transparency with regard to the consultation and decision making process including its timing, and as to who expressed what view, whether it was taken into consideration and the rationale for the decision. This will allow sections, structures and its members to understand and accept decisions and to feel empowered to implement them even if they did not formally have a say on them.

Some of the major decisions that will need to be made between ICMs will have a particularly substantial impact on the movement as a whole, especially if they concern the fundamental allocation or re-allocation of important resources (e.g. ISOP) or if they can potentially shape AI’s public image in a decisive manner (e.g. global campaigns). While broad consultations should become a matter of routine and best practice on any major issue, in these specific areas, in view of their importance and the specific need for acceptance and support in the movement, they should be mandatory and the Chairs Forum should confirm in each case by its consent that the decision making process was sufficiently inclusive and transparent.

Finally, a yearly, meaningful reporting mechanism on the progress made in implementing ICM decisions appears to be the minimum we should be prepared to put in place, if we take democratic decisions and accountability seriously.

PrepCom Note	
Several resolutions deal with issues of planning, priority setting, decision-making and thinking about the next Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP).  PrepCom proposes that this topic be considered in plenary and in other formal discussion sessions, in order to enrich the discussion and limit the strict focus on the text.  The resulting Chair’s Statement representing the ICM’s thinking on this issue would become a part of the formal ICM report.	
PrepCom also recommends that AI Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden discuss their concerns with an eye to treating these related resolutions in this new format.	

Accountability – AI Sweden	        	       IMT Preparations

The International Council:

DECIDES that a special training package on grant application from the International Mobilization Trust (IMT) and on the subsequent follow up and evaluation procedure should be provided to all sections and structures.

Further DECIDES that such training should be part of the Chairs’ and Directors’ forum. 

Explanatory note

The International Mobilization Trust (IMT) is a new unit within the organization, with the focus on funding and support toward the mobilization and growth of the Amnesty International movement worldwide. The IMT’s mission is to provide resources for growth and enable AI sections and structures and related bodies to increase their impact on human rights worldwide.

The new way of making applications to the IMT is perceived as a complicated process. In order for an application to be approved by the IMT, a number of technical and professional standards must be fulfilled. In addition to the grant application, those who receive grants also have a responsibility to illustrate that the money has been spent properly and well. Hence the grantees´ have to evaluate their own work, through regular reviews and through financial accounts. Even though such procedures may seem complex and time consuming, they are necessary to ensure accountability and transparency. 

However, the complexity of the process renders some sections and structures not qualified for major funding and thus reduce their local impact and relevance. An in-depth training in IMT application and follow up procedures as well as in the evaluation process would facilitate the application procedure for those sections and structures in development, and improve their chances of receiving grants from the IMT. 

Amnesty International, Sweden 
Amnesty International, Sierra Leone

PrepCom Note	
Such materials and opportunities already exist so it is clear that greater effort need to be made to broaden their circulation. Frida Kruijt, IMT Grants Officer, and Samuel Zan, IMT GC member visited Sierra Leone for one week in August 2006 to work with the board and staff on IMT application preparation and financial management. Site visits are also planned for 2007.   
In cooperation with AI France, a three day workshop was held for all Francophone directors (including Tunisia and Algeria) in order to address difficulties with the process.  A series of materials was prepared and distributed – most recently they were referenced in IMT Newsletter Vol. 2.
	
PrepCom is concerned that this resolution is too operational and therefore not appropriate for the ICM.  

Accountability – AI Italy	2001 campaign review audit

The International Council:

INSTRUCTS the IEC 

- to conduct a movement-wide audit and evaluation of the state of implementation of the recommendations of the 2001 campaigning review in broad terms but with a special attention to the following issues:	
- the number, the choice and the duration of global campaigns and their relation with the ISP planning and its human rights strategy;
- the development of specific campaigning projects within global campaigns (“The projects should have clearly defined, realizable objectives, with their own ‘critical path’”) and the involvement of sections in planning and managing them;
- the impact of the review so far on the workload of local groups;
- the efficiency and the effectiveness of the current system, with a special attention to the number of campaigning projects actually signed-up by sections and structures.

to present such evaluation, with proper proposal of changes and adjustments of current system if needed, at next ICM especially in light of next ISP planning and discussion.

Explanatory note

The campaigning review approved by the 2001 ICM (Decision 10) was a landmark decision for the movement, modifying deeply the previous campaigning mode of operation of AI. Partially it was also anticipatory of the organizational strategy adopted by the movement two years later (“Releasing energy”). Moreover the recommendations arising from the research review (2003) and WOOC evaluation (2005) have added new elements to the campaigning framework of AI as well as the on-going debate about “Globalizing AI”.

However, despite the big efforts done by the IS and sections implementing it, it appears quite clear that the model proposed is difficult to be fully implemented. As the Secretary General wrote to the 2005 ICM “there is evidence of a troubling gap between AI: expectations, commitment and capacity. Participation in campaign, crisis response, CAPs and thematic works varies enormously across the movement and the overall coverage of works produced by the IS is patchy”. A 2005 survey shows that the average number of sections “signing-up” a campaigning projects proposed by the IS is around 5-6 sections, a number which poses a serious problem of efficiency and effectiveness of the whole system. In a recent message (December 2006) the Secretary General once again warned again the “mismatch between IS outputs and the movement’s priorities for and capacity to undertake effective action”.

Various key aspects of the campaigning review appear in trouble. 

The concept of “global campaigns” seems to be gradually shifting (“Amnesty should select four to seven issues that capture most of the global human rights concerns that the organization is concerned with.”, as stated in ACT 30/006/2001). Being the long-term campaigns intrinsically linked to AI’s identity and its strategic plan, we think it is important to discuss this issue before to approve next ISP. Formally, since 2001, we had just one global campaign, the SVAW. AI undertook also a “second priority campaign” (Control Arms) plus other various initiatives (the tactical campaign against torture in the context of War on Terror and, more recently, the irrepressible.info campaign). But, as again stated by the Secretary General “Although the 2001 Campaigning Review recommended 5-7 long-term campaigns for AI, the IS as well as many sections and structures are already overstretched with the SVAW and Control Arms campaigns and barely able to cope with the development of a third campaign on ESCR”. Moreover the fact the new “Human Dignity” campaign will extend over the whole next ISP cycle, without any discussion yet in place about the contents of the next ISP, poses additional complications to the current system in terms of decisions making.

At the same time the original campaigning review stressed the need to phrase the global campaigns (and other campaigning work) through campaigning projects: “the projects should have clearly defined, realizable objectives, with their own ‘critical path’”. Despite the efforts done, if we check the examples given in the campaigning review (a long-term campaign against torture with, in one year, three campaigning projects like “ending trade in electro-shock weapons from the USA and other countries to Turkey”) with what we realized so far it seems clear we have not always been able to focus on precise realizable objectives. Paradoxically one of the more focussed (and having currently more momentum) campaign promoted by AI (“Close Guantanamo!”) seems to have determined more by the (bad) circumstances than by a standard practice to select defined and realizable objectives.

Having said all that, the proposed resolution doesn’t intend to promote a new global review of campaigning with the risk to reinvent the wheel neither to judge negatively the impressive amount of work done during last 6 years. As requested by the resolution we believe that an audit and evaluation of the state of implementation of the recommendations of 2001 Campaigning Review with proper IEC oversight is the more adequate tool to move forward and decide, eventually, needed adjustments to current scheme.

PrepCom Note	
This resolution will be dealt with in the WP on Accountability (Organizational Strategy)	

8)	
9)	
10)	
11)	
12)	
13)	
14)	
15)	
16)	
17)	
18)	
19)	
20)	
21)	
22)	
23)	
24)	
25)	
26)	
27)	
28)	
29)	
30)	

Accountability - AI Paraguay                       	     Optimizar la Investigación

El Consejo Internacional:

RECONOCE que la labor investigativa de AI resultará potenciada si todas las instancias que componen el Movimiento Internacional se comprometen a dotar de mayores recursos, tanto humanos como financieros e insumos, a los equipos de investigación del SI.

SOLICITA al CEI el arbitrio de los medios necesarios que garanticen la optimización de los recursos, tanto humanos como financieros e insumos, con que cuentan los equipos de investigación del SI, estableciendo políticas que tiendan a asegurar una distribución equitativa del número de investigadores por países o regiones y un equilibrio adecuado entre la investigación sobre los países en crisis o en situación de crisis inminente y la investigación sobre los demás.

SOLICITA TAMBIÉN a las Secciones y Estructuras que contribuyan al trabajo de investigación de AI dentro del marco de una labor de investigación descentralizada, aportando recursos (en metálico; mediante la actividad a nivel de la Sección o Estructura; y/o mediante el apoyo en especie al componente internacional) o resultados de investigaciones realizadas sobre sus propios países así como sobre otros países, según permita su capacidad, en consonancia con los lineamientos del Movimiento Internacional.

Y SOLICITA POR ÚLTIMO a la Secretaria General que, a través del SI, se establezcan herramientas de capacitación para investigadores pertenecientes a Secciones y Estructuras, de manera a que estos adquieran la formación que les permita colaborar estrechamente con los equipos de investigación del SI en temas puntuales de la agenda de derechos humanos y facilitar una mejor gestión de la información sobre abusos a los mismos.

Nota Aclaratoria

Investigación y acción son motores que impulsan a AI. Cobertura equilibrada, exactitud, imparcialidad e independencia, sus puntos fuertes y señas de identidad. No obstante, la labor investigativa de AI se ve amenazada por la falta de recursos, tanto humanos como financieros e insumos, con los cuáles atender a las innumerables situaciones de violaciones a los derechos humanos que se suscitan en el mundo. La capacidad de acción de los equipos de investigación del SI, y de todo el Movimiento Internacional, es sobrepasada debido al continuo incremento de casos e informaciones sobre abusos graves a los derechos humanos a los que se precisa dar respuesta efectiva e inmediata. En ocasiones, debido a limitaciones económicas, no han existido investigaciones de campo ni trabajos con los medios de comunicación suficientes. Asimismo, esas limitaciones económicas debilitaron la acción y la influencia de AI ante las crisis de derechos humanos. 

En el 2003, la Decisión 17 de la RCI y el PEI pretenden corregir las debilidades resultantes de la falta de suficientes recursos en algunos países y de las crisis de derechos humanos. Asimismo, la RCI de 2003 instaura el concepto de “trabajo de investigación menos centralizado”, basado en la Revisión del Trabajo de Investigación y respaldado por la Decisión 17 de la RCI. Según este concepto, los nuevos aliados del SI (Secciones y Estructuras y otras ONG) pueden aportar resultados producto de su propia labor de investigación para ser utilizados por todo el Movimiento Internacional. AI Paraguay cree que lo anterior será posible toda vez que exista una capacitación y acompañamiento constantes provenientes del SI.

En Morelos, en su discurso de inauguración de la RCI de 2005, el Presidente del CEI solicita al Movimiento Internacional que haga contribuciones adicionales al presupuesto global internacional para dar cumplimiento a lo establecido en el PEI.
 
Posteriormente, el CEI requiere a la Secretaria General la elaboración, además de un PO–SI–2 totalmente financiado, de una serie de proyectos centrados en áreas en las que, si se consigue reunir fondos adicionales, podría lograrse un éxito significativo en la consecución de las metas del PEI. Finalmente, el CEI aprueba este trabajo (además de un PO–SI–2 de presupuesto equilibrado, Índice AI: POL 50/001/2006), al que se denomina “Grandes Proyectos” del PO–2. 

Uno de estos grandes proyectos es el de “garantizar una investigación de calidad” (Meta 8 del PEI):

Meta 8 del PEI	Garantizar una investigación de calidad	
Metas del proyecto	·1	Desarrollar en todo el movimiento un programa de investigación estratégico integrado, con cobertura equilibrada.
·2	Implantar en todo el movimiento un plan de acción para desarrollar nuevas políticas, procedimientos y mecanismos que garanticen la coordinación de la investigación, su calidad y su coherencia con el mensaje de AI. 
·3	Aumentar la capacidad de las Secciones de participar en la investigación.
·4	Aumentar la capacidad del SI de gestionar la investigación llevada a cabo por las Secciones.
·5	Mejorar la calidad de la investigación de Secciones y del SI.	

AI Paraguay es consciente de que este proyecto no puede ponerse en práctica plenamente sin fondos complementarios proporcionados directamente al SI o al IMT. No obstante, es consciente también de que las Secciones pequeñas y las Estructuras, debido a sus limitaciones económicas, se verán imposibilitadas de contribuir en metálico y que a la vez sería injusto que sólo las Secciones grandes absorbieran los costos de este proyecto. Por lo expuesto, y de manera a superar asimetrías, algunas Secciones pequeñas y Estructuras podrían colaborar destinando personas o equipos de trabajo dirigidos a apoyar efectivamente las tareas que realizan los equipos de investigación del SI.

Es así que AI Paraguay está absolutamente convencida que la labor investigativa de AI se verá potenciada toda vez que el Movimiento Internacional, a través del CEI, elabore una estrategia de acción tendiente a optimizar los recursos, tanto humanos como financieros e insumos, existentes dentro de AI para cumplir con sus labores de investigación y anime a todas las Secciones y Estructuras a colaborar con las mismas, a través de la inversión solidaria de mayores recursos, tanto humanos como financieros e insumos, a los equipos de investigación del SI y de las Secciones y Estructuras capacitadas.

Finalmente, invertir recursos y comprometer voluntades según las disponibilidades propias de cada Sección o Estructura (en metálico; mediante la actividad a nivel de la Sección o Estructura; y/o mediante el apoyo en especie al componente internacional), facilitará enormemente el trabajo de investigación que realiza AI, ya que el mismo se verá optimizado al existir un mayor número de agentes y herramientas de trabajo articulados hacia un fin común. De esta manera, se incrementarán los niveles de calidad y cantidad de documentos de investigación producidos y se obtendrá un verdadero equilibrio adecuado entre la investigación sobre los países en crisis o en situación de crisis inminente y la investigación sobre los demás, lo cual redituará en el mantenimiento de la eficacia, eficiencia y reputación con que cuenta AI. Todo lo anterior repercutirá satisfactoriamente en la credibilidad de las Secciones o Estructuras de AI dentro de los países sobre los que se está realizando una investigación, ya sea que estos se encuentren o no en crisis o en situación de crisis inminente.

Accountability - AI Paraguay	           	                 Optimizing Research 

The International Council:

RECOGNIZES that AI's research work will be strengthened if all the bodies that make up the international movement commit themselves to devoting greater human, financial and material  resources to the IS research teams;

REQUESTS the IEC to decide what is required to ensure that the human, financial and material resources available to IS research teams are optimized, by establishing policies that are designed to ensure fair distribution of the number of researchers by country or region and an appropriate balance between research on crisis and pre-crisis countries and research on other countries. 

ALSO REQUESTS sections and structures to contribute to AI's research work within a decentralized research framework by contributing resources (in cash, through activity at section or structure level and/or by way of support in kind to the international movement) or the findings of research they have conducted, in accordance with international movement guidelines, on their own countries as well as, depending on their capacities, other countries.

AND FURTHER REQUESTS the Secretary General to establish, through the IS, training tools for researchers from sections and structures so that they can acquire the skills that would allow them to work closely with IS research teams on specific issues on the human rights agenda and facilitate better management of information concerning any such abuses. 

Explanatory note

Research and campaigning are the motors that drive AI forward. Nevertheless, AI's research work is under threat owing to the shortage of human, financial and material resources at its disposal with which to address the innumerable situations throughout the world where human rights are being violated. The ability of the IS research teams and the whole international movement to take action is outstripped by the ever-growing number of cases and reports of serious human rights abuses that require an effective and immediate response. In some instances, financial constraints have prevented adequate field research or media work from being done. Those financial constraints have weakened AI's work and influence when confronted with human rights crises.  

In 2003, ICM Decision 17 and the ISP sought to correct the weaknesses that stem from the inadequacy of resources in some countries as well as from human rights crises. The 2003 ICM also established the idea of “less centralized approaches to research”, based on the Research Review and supported by Decision 17 of the ICM. The idea was for the IS’s new allies (sections and structures and other NGOs) to be able to contribute the findings of research they had carried out themselves to be used by the whole international movement. AI Paraguay believes that this is possible as long as training and support is being provided by the IS on a permanent basis. 

In Morelos, during his opening speech at the 2005 ICM, the Chair of the IEC asked the international movement to make additional contributions to the global international budget in order to fulfil the ISP.

Subsequently, the IEC asked the Secretary General to draw up, in addition to a fully funded ISOP2, a series of projects focused on areas where, if additional funds become available, significant success could be achieved in delivery of the ISP goals. Lastly, the IEC approved work (in addition to a balanced budget ISOP2, AI Index: POL 50/001/2006) referred to as “the Major Projects” for OP2. 

One of these major projects is to “guarantee quality research” (Goal 8 of the ISP):

Goal 8 of the ISP	Guarantee quality research	
Project goals	·1	An integrated strategic research agenda, with balanced research coverage, will be developed across the movement
·2	A plan of action for developing further policies, procedures and mechanisms to ensure research coordination, quality and coherence of AI’s message will be implemented across the movement 
·3	Capacity for sections to engage in research will increase
·4	Capacity for the IS to manage research by sections will increase.
·5	Quality of research by sections and the IS will improve	

AI Paraguay is aware that this project cannot be fully implemented if supplementary funds are not given directly to the IS or the IMT. Nevertheless, it is also aware that it is impossible for small sections and structures, given their financial constraints, to make a monetary contribution but that at the same time it would be unfair for the large sections to absorb the costs of this project on their own. Therefore, in order to overcome any inequality, some small sections and structures could contribute by allocating people or work teams to provide effective support with the tasks being carried out by IS research teams. 

AI Paraguay is therefore absolutely convinced that AI's research work would be strengthened if the international movement, through the IEC, drew up an action strategy that is designed to optimize the human, financial and material resources available to AI for carrying out research and encouraged all sections and structures to collaborate in it by jointly investing greater human, financial and material resources in IS research teams and those sections and structures that have the necessary capacities.

Lastly, the investment of resources and the willingness of each section or structure to commit themselves in whatever way they can (in cash, through activity at section or structure level and/or by way of support in kind to the international movement) would greatly facilitate the research AI undertakes because it would be optimized through having a greater number of actors and work tools geared towards achieving a common end. In this way, the research documents produced would increase in quality and quantity and a genuine appropriate balance would be achieved between research on crisis and pre-crisis countries and research on other countries, thereby leading to the maintenance of AI's effectiveness, efficiency and reputation. All of this would have a beneficial effect on the credibility of AI sections and structures in the countries on which research was being undertaken, whether or not the country in question was in a state of actual or imminent crisis. 

PrepCom note	
While most of the content is already being implemented and perhaps requires broader circulation, the request for additional resources for research cannot be considered in isolation nor determined by the ICM. 
	
PrepCom recommends that instead of being treated as a resolutions this issue be a part of a discussion session that also takes into account WOOC and Strategic Coverage as a package of research related concerns in the movement.  The resulting Chair’s Statement would identify a shared understanding of these issues.	

Accountability - AI France		             Impartialité ET independence

Le Conseil International:

DEMANDE au CEI d’établir dans un délai d’un an un mécanisme international indépendant chargé de procéder à l’évaluation de l’ensemble de l’action, des prises de position, de la communication et du financement du mouvement au regard des principes fondamentaux que sont l’indépendance et l’impartialité d’Amnesty International. 

Toute mise en cause de l’indépendance ou de l’impartialité du mouvement devra lui être communiquée. 

Le mécanisme devra rendre compte annuellement de son activité et de ses conclusions par un rapport sur l’impartialité et l’indépendance d’Amnesty International diffusé à l’ensemble du mouvement. 

Le CEI informera le forum des présidents de la mise en œuvre de cette décision. 

Note explicative 

La décision 7 du CI 2003 demandait au CEI de préparer un document de travail sur l’impartialité et l’indépendance d’AI à soumettre aux sections et structures en vue d’une discussion au Forum des présidents de 2005. Le comité international sur la politique (ICP) a produit en 2004 un document qui n’a cependant pas été largement diffusé ni soumis au forum des présidents. 

Par la suite, le CEI a diffusé le document POL 30/020/2005 sur « impartialité et indépendance » en juin 2005. Cette étude suggère notamment de confier à une structure appropriée le soin de mettre en place un dispositif permettant d’évaluer le respect de l’impartialité et de l’indépendance et d’examiner tout grief à ce propos. 

L’étude rappelait que ces deux principes fondamentaux doivent être constamment réaffirmés et réévalués et qu’une vigilance continue est nécessaire. A notre connaissance, aucune suite n’a, en l’état, été donnée à cette recommandation. 

Cette résolution participe de la mise en œuvre des objectifs 8 et 13 du PSI. 

Accountability - AI France		          Impartiality and independence

The International Council:

CALLS on the IEC to establish, within a period of one year, an independent international mechanism charged with evaluating all action, position-taking, communication and financing of the movement from the perspective of Amnesty International’s fundamental principles of independence and impartiality. 

This mechanism should be informed of any eventuality which calls into question the independence or impartiality of the movement. 

It should give an annual account of its activities and conclusions in a report on the impartiality and independence of Amnesty International, for distribution throughout the movement. 

The IEC will inform the Chairs Forum of the implementation of this decision. 

Explanatory note 

Decision 7 of the 2003 ICM called on the IEC to draft a discussion paper on the impartiality and independence of AI and to submit it to sections and structures for discussion at the 2005 Chairs Forum.  The International Committee on Policy produced a document in 2004 which was not, however, widely distributed, nor was it submitted to the Chairs Forum. 

Subsequently, in June 2005, the IEC distributed document POL 30/020/2005 on “impartiality and independence”.  This study suggests, inter alia, that an appropriate structure should be assigned the task of setting up a mechanism to assess compliance with the principles of impartiality and independence and to look into any complaints in this regard.   

The study recalled that these two fundamental principles should be constantly reaffirmed and reevaluated and that there was a need for constant vigilance. To our knowledge, this recommendation has not, to date, been acted upon. 

This resolution relates to the implementation of goals 8 and 13 of the ISP. 

PrepCom Note	
This resolution will be dealt with in the Working Party on Accountability (Organizational Strategy)	

Working Party– Finance

Finance – AI Austria 	Financial Control Committee 	75	
			
Finance – AI France	Finance	78	
			
Finance – IEC	Assessment to Contribution	80	
			
Finance – IEC	Financial Architecture	81	
			
Finance – UK		Review of Corporate Fundraising
	82	
8)	
9)	
10)	
11)	
12)	
13)	
14)	
15)	
16)	
17)	
18)	
19)	
20)	
21)	
22)	
23)	
24)	
25)	
26)	
27)	
28)	
29)	
30)	
31)	
32)	
33)	
34)	
35)	
36)	
37)	
38)	
39)	
40)	
41)	
42)	
43)	
44)	
45)	
Finance - AI Austria		              Financial control committee

The International Council: 

CONFIRMS the need for an independent committee elected by the ICM to oversee the financial management of Amnesty International;

DECIDES to change the name from Financial Control Committee to Financial Control and Risk Management Committee, FCRM.

DECIDES to set aside the following  decisions: Decision No 20, ICM 1973 – Vienna; Decision No 18, ICM 1976 – Strasbourg, Decision No 45, ICM 1981 – Montreal, Decision No 63, ICM 1982 - Rimini, Italy, Decision No. 71; ICM 1985 – Helsinki, Decision 50, ICM 1993 - Boston.

DECIDES to adopt the following Terms of Reference.

Introduction 
The purpose of the Financial Control and Risk Management Committee, FCRM, is to contribute to a financial and risk management reporting and control environment that is appropriate to the movement's needs, provides disclosure and accountability, and minimises risk to operations and risk of financial mismanagement, misstatements and/or fraudulent financial reporting.
The responsibility of the FCRM is to review the financial reports and assess their quality, the appropriateness of the applied accounting policies, disclosure and accountability. This includes both the IS accounts and the aggregated accounts, including financial reporting from Sections and Structures to the IS.  The FCRM shall review the "Section Review" process and reports.
The goal is to have a committee that supports the organisation in areas concerning financial control and risk management. Understanding that fiduciary responsibility for AI rests with the IEC, the FCRM has only a reporting and advisory responsibility. 

The FCRM,
Scope
1.	Routinely reviews international financial control and risk management issues and makes recommendations and reports on these matters directly to the movement at ICMs and to sections and structures between ICMs. A report is also sent to the IEC for comment. 
2.	Reviews financial control and risk management issues of the whole movement, which includes Sections and Structures. 
3.	May perform tasks requested by the IEC or IS as appropriate.
4.	Monitors implementation of ICM resolutions related to financial control and risk management.
5.	Designs and monitors the implementation of the IEC reimbursement scheme.
6.	Does not deal with personnel issues. 
7.	Does not deal with operational issues.

Responsibilities
8.	Is directly responsible to the movement, therefore to the ICM.
9.	Will report to the movement on a regular basis, usually after each meeting. The FCRM will prepare and present a report to the ICM.
10.	Has access to all information, staff and volunteers needed to perform its duties. In the event of a disagreement over access to information, the IEC chair will arbitrate. 
11.	Will exercise care and discretion regarding sensitive matters.
12.	Can discuss issues of concern directly with the external auditors.

Structure:
13.	Is elected by the ICM according to the ICM standing orders.
14.	Consists of 4 members - 3 regular members and one alternate.
15.	The term of office will coincide with the ICM cycle, currently two years - total number of terms of office not to exceed three consecutive terms.
16.	No more than one member of any section shall hold office at any one time. 
17.	Membership of the FCC is inconsistent with the office of treasurer of any section. Therefore the treasurer of any section elected to the FCC shall resign from that office at the next AGM of their section or within one year, whichever is earlier.
18.	Regular members will attend all meetings. The alternate will receive all documents, stand in for any regular member who cannot attend a meeting, and may be called upon to perform specific tasks if considered necessary by the FCRM.
19.	The alternate member will replace a regular member who resigns.
20.	Members should have sound knowledge on financial issues and risk management.
21.	Will be allocated a sufficient budget to carry out its functions and may utilize additional resources in performance of its duties.
22.	Meets regularly at its own discretion, minimum four times per year. Three members will attend the ICM and two will attend other meetings. 
23.	Elects a chair from its members to be the primary contact person for the committee.

Explanatory note

The Austrian Section believes that AI should have an independent financial control committee elected by the ICM and that its scope should be defined in Terms of Reference rather than a patchwork of various ICM decisions. 
In its previous form, the FCC derived authority from separate ICM-decisions dating back as far as 30 years. The FCC was established as a watchdog committee as a result of Decision 20, ICM 1973. The responsibilities of the committee have evolved over time and should now be reflected in a new ToR.

The terms of reference reflect both the history and content of these decisions, and propose revised responsibilities reflecting our thinking of current needs of Amnesty International. These ToR will help the FCRM and other bodies have clarity about responsibilities and scope of work. To reflect these evolved responsibilities we are suggesting a change of name to Financial Control and Risk Management Committee (FCRM).

The FCC came to the conclusion that the current “terms of reference” are neither adequate nor reflect the present needs of the movement. The proposed Terms of Reference presented here were originally drawn up by the FCC. Because the Financial Control Committee (FCC) cannot of its own accord present a resolution to the ICM, the Austrian Section wishes to enable an ICM discussion of the FCC’s Terms of Reference.

PrepCom Note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the Working Party on Accountability (Financial Strategy).	

8)	
9)	
10)	
11)	

Finance - AI France					      	                 Finances

Actuellement, le CI se prononce sur les recettes prévisibles d’Amnesty International pour les deux exercices suivants le CI mais ne vote pas la répartition des dépenses, ce qui ne lui permet pas d’avoir une vue d’ensemble sur les budgets futurs.

Dans le cadre du passage de la cotisation à la contribution, le Conseil International demande au CEI, dès le prochain CI, de présenter dans le budget général les prévisions des recettes et des dépenses du SI ainsi que les prévisions de coûts pour les projets majeurs et la part qui sera prise en charge par le SI.

Note explicative 

Ce document permettra :

1	d’informer plus précisément les militants, les sympathisants, les donateurs et le grand public sur les projets de dépenses du SI et plus particulièrement sur celles liées à l’action.
2	De faire connaître aux sections et structures la part de financement qu’elles devront assumer pour que l’ensemble des projets majeurs, définis dans le PSI et prévus dans le PO2, soit réalisé.

But 13.1 du PSI : renforcer la confiance du public

Accountability - AI France						Finances

At present, the ICM takes decisions on Amnesty International’s anticipated income for the two financial years following the ICM, but does not vote on the distribution of expenditure, which means that it does not have an overview of future budgets.  

In the context of passing from subscriptions to contributions, the International Council Meeting calls on the IEC, with effect from the next ICM, to include in the general budget the anticipated income and expenditure of the IS, as well as the anticipated cost of major projects and the proportion for which the IS will be responsible.

Explanatory note 

This document will:

2	Enable activists, supporters, donors and the general public to be more accurately informed about planned IS expenditure and, more particularly, about expenditure involved in taking action.
3	Enable sections and structures to be informed of the proportion of financing for which they will be responsible so that all major projects defined in the ISP and provided for in the OP2, can be implemented.

Goal 13.1 of the ISP: enhance our public trust.

PrepCom Note	
The IS budget alone would not have a meaningful impact on AI expenditure plans or give the ICM any overview of future budgets, as it covers only 25% of the total income of the entire movement. The movement has requested a focus on aggregated accounts that allow the building of effective mutual accountability.   Allocation of resources across the movement in support of priorities identified in the ISP would produce a more meaningful information tool. That is what is expected to happen through the discussions on “assessment to contribution”. 
	
PrepCom recommends that this issue be discussed in the context of Assessment to Contribution.  If that does not satisfy the concerns in this resolution, it is assigned to the WP on Accountability (Financial Strategy).	

Finance – IEC Enabling Resolution	                 Assessment to Contribution
The International Council:
DECIDES that:
•	Each AI entity shall submit, as a prospective report, a Standard Planning Report, in which is described key aspects of the global ISP that are to be implemented locally and which gives details of the resources that will be allocated to these activities.  Detailed income forecast and projections must also be included. 
•	Each AI entity will submit, on a six-monthly basis, a précis financial report to the IEC showing income and expenditure compared to budget. This information should be amalgamated and a summary report distributed to the movement each six months. 
•	Each AI entity shall submit, as a retrospective report, a Standard Action Report (SAR) which will accompany their Standard Financial Report.  The SAR will contain information on the relevant entity’s activities, focussing in particular on human rights campaigns, growth and accountability (as per Decision 1 of the 2003 ICM) and will include reports on agreed key performance indicators.
ASKS for the IEC to report on the movement's progress in these areas

ASKS the IEC, taking into account the information to be provided above,  to develop a proposal, to be brought to the next ICM, for a global contribution system that will enable the effective and efficient re-distribution of AI's resources and activity so as to maximize AI's Human Rights Strategy.

Explanatory note

The 2005 ICM asked for a study of how AI could move from an "assessment based" to a "contribution based" approach to the distribution of its resources.   The work done on this to date makes it clear that for this shift to succeed, particularly in terms of human rights impact, it must be broadened to include non-financial issues such as planning and reporting processes across the movement as a whole.  This is a broader scope for this work than was envisaged by the 2005 ICM.  The 2007 ICM, therefore, is asked to agree a series of practical steps for the movement to take that in turn will enable this broader approach to develop ensuring that the movement is in a position to develop and agree an effective and efficient "contribution" system.

PrepCom Note	
PrepCom has assigned this resolution to the WP on Accountability (Financial Strategy).	

Finance – IEC Enabling Resolution	Enhancing AI’s Financial Architecture

The International Council:
DECIDES that in the context of the work towards improved global approaches to planning and prioritization and to enable a shift from "assessment to contribution", the following systems will be explored and developed on a global scale: 
•	  The creation of a standard information base for all AI entities
•	  A system for transfer, collation and analysis of information
•	  A process for setting and reviewing income forecasts and targets
•	  Systems to enable both global and local priority setting
•	  Improved reporting mechanisms to strengthen internal and external accountability. 
•	  Systems to evaluate the impact of AI’s work.

Further DECIDES that in order to strengthen accountability and transparency, the Financial Control Committee shall be disbanded and be replaced by an Accountability and Control Board (terms of reference to be advised) that will report to the ICM on the financial progress of AI's various entities and on their achievements under agreed operational plans.  This Board will be empowered to recommend changes in resource allocation as need arise.
Asks the IEC: to reinforce the existing tools and mechanisms that enable global financial management such as Aggregated Accounts; Investment and Cashflow Management; Currency Hedging; Reserves Management; Fundraising Skill Share etc.
ASKS the IEC to report to the next ICM, on their progress in the implementation of these changes

Explanatory note

Global systems of reporting and analysis will be needed to support both enhanced movement-wide or global approaches to planning and prioritization and to enable an effective move from "assessment to contribution”.

PrepCom Note	
This resolution has been assigned by PrepCom to the WP on Accountability (Financial Strategy).	

	

Finance – AI UK                                                Review of corporate fundraising

The International Council: 

DECIDES that the IEC should review the impact of the international policy on corporate fundraising and report on its findings to the 2009 ICM, and to each ICM that follows. This review should pay particular attention to the impact of the policy on our campaigning work and reputation, particularly on our ability to campaign effectively to change the behaviour of corporations.

Explanatory note

The 2003 International Council Meeting called on the IEC to review AI’s corporate fundraising policy. A Task Force was subsequently convened and research commissioned to inform policy development. This research revealed a wide range of views in the movement about the merits and risks of corporate fundraising. However, there was a shared view of the need for consistent policy. A draft policy was circulated to sections and structures in 2006 and the IEC discussed policy in December 2006. 

The development of a consistent policy is to be welcomed. This resolution does not seek to revise or amend that policy through an ICM decision, even though AIUK would advocate a more cautious approach to corporate fundraising than the draft policy (ORG 20/001/2006) proposed. The resolution does however imply that corporate relationships can be problematic and controversial, posing real or perceived threats to the organization’s impartiality, independence and campaigning effectiveness at a time when engagement and scrutiny of business impact on human rights is likely to become of increased importance to the movement. 

The process of periodically reviewing the policy’s impact, starting with a report to the 2009 ICM, will help ensure that the policy is ensuring greater consistency across the movement, that it is supporting movement growth and that it is not compromising AI’s campaigning effectiveness. The reviews will help to develop the policy and ensure it remains appropriate to AI’s needs and will assist the movement in demonstrating that it will take a transparent approach to corporate relationships.

The resolution relates to ISP Goal 14 (to grow financially) as well as a number of other objectives, including:
1	2.3: Hold non-state actors accountable for human rights abuses
2	7.1: Promote economic, social and cultural rights, including recognition of these rights as enforceable and justifiable (which envisages holding multiple actors responsible for respecting, protecting and fulfilling economic, social and cultural rights)
3	12.4: Strengthen accountability to all parts of the movement and to the Integrated Strategic Plan
4	13.2: Ensure that all our activities meet best practices for dealing with individuals and organizations within and outside AI
5	13.3: Hold ourselves to best practice in conducting all internal and external business

PrepCom Note	
This resolution it will be dealt with in the Accountability Working Party (Financial Strategy).