Resolutions and Statute Amendments Submitted to the 2005 ICM Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 maj 2005

Summary

This circular contains all sections’ resolutions, IEC enabling resolutions, Statute Amendments and amendments to the Standing Orders submitted to the 2005 International Council Meeting. It is divided into four parts each beginning with a cover sheet of a different colour.

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

** Recommendation to OSB only

Working Party HRS – Human Rights Strategy

HRS A - IEC Enabling Resolution Use of Force Resolution 1

The International Council:

DECIDES to rescind 1997 ICM Decision 7 and to replace it by the following policy statement:

OPTION A: Neutral position

Amnesty International takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of military intervention or any form of armed conflict, other than to demand that all participants must respect international human rights and humanitarian law.

OPTION B1: Position of limited opposition to military force

If AI becomes aware of an imminent or ongoing international armed conflict, it may, in exceptional circumstances:

(a) remind all parties of the serious human rights consequences of armed conflict;

(b) remind all parties that under international law force may only be used in conformity with the UN Charter.

(c) oppose the use of military force by parties to the conflict.

In all other circumstances, AI takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of military intervention or any form of armed conflict, other than to demand that all participants must respect international humanitarian law and international human rights standards.

OPTION B2: Position of support for peacekeeping

If AI becomes aware of imminent or ongoing widespread and grave human rights abuses (such as genocide, crimes against humanity, or other abuses of a similar nature), AI may, in exceptional circumstances, call for the deployment of peacekeepers under the UN Charter, if AI believes that such a deployment will help to prevent and end the abuses.

In all other circumstances, AI takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of military intervention or any form of armed conflict, other than to demand that all participants must respect international human rights and humanitarian law.

OPTION C: Flexible position on military force

Taking full account of its country strategies and all other relevant considerations, AI may decide, in exceptional circumstances, either to support the use of military force to alleviate widespread and grave human rights abuses, denounce the use or threat of use of military force that is likely to lead to an increase in human rights abuses.

Explanatory note

This resolution on the use of force sets out a range of options on the use of force and military intervention.

Background note

The 2003 ICM, in Decision 13, called for "a study of the positions open to AI in relation to the use of force and military intervention." Subsequently, there has been widespread international consultation on the issue. Please refer to the International Committee on Policy's Use of Force study papers 1, 2 and 3 (respectively POL 34/001/2004, POL 34/005/2004, and POL 34/002/2005), and to the ICP consultant's study (ICP 2004-19), for comprehensive discussion of these options and extensive background information. Paper 3 includes discussion of the criteria that AI could use in implementing options B1, B2 and C.

HRS B - IEC Enabling Resolution Use of Force Resolution 2

The International Council:

DECIDES to strengthen AI’s work on conflict-resolution and conflict-prevention by creating
a distinctive conflict-prevention program of work that will build on the content of ISP
strategic objectives 4.1 – 4.4, and will supplement them by such measures as:

Build on the “countries at risk” register to develop early-warning systems that enable effective protection of civilians from incipient armed conflicts.
Develop effective ways of acting on “early warning” information.
Work with other NGOs to develop non-military tools for crisis management, and urge states and international organizations to make appropriate investments in these tools.
Press all parties to conflicts to understand the need for adequate post-conflict reconstruction programs; and/or
Highlight the often disproportionate funding of military actions, on the one hand, and post-conflict reconstruction programs, on the other hand.
Highlight the ways in which military actions disproportionately affect women.
Monitor the practical impact of military interventions on human rights to “learn lessons” that can be used in future recommendations to intervening forces.
Criticize the hypocrisy of states that ignore human rights abuses when it suits them to do so, but then use the very same human rights abuses as justifications for military action, particularly in the “war on terror.”
Exposing the political failures that often underlie the use of force.
Calling for (or endorsing) ceasefires.
Urging parties to a conflict to negotiate.
Endorsing (or criticizing) particular peace initiatives, peace processes, or peace agreements.

Explanatory note

Recognizing that armed conflicts inevitably produce human rights violations, this resolution on the use of force seeks to strengthen AI's work on conflict-resolution and prevention.

The 2003 ICM, in Decision 13, called for "a study of the positions open to AI in relation to the use of force and military intervention." Subsequently, there has been widespread international consultation on the issue. During the course of consultation with the movement, especially at the international meeting held in November, it became clear that many members may wish AI to do more work on conflict-resolution and conflict-prevention. This is partly a matter for strategic judgment in the context of the ISP - i.e. is this a priority area of work given our analysis of the external world and is it an area of work in which AI can be effective? It also raises some policy issues. If the ICM judges that conflict-resolution and conflict-prevention meet the tests for inclusion in the ISP, this could be accomplished creating a new strategic objective “4.5 Conflict prevention work,” under ISP Goal 4 on "Defend the rights of people in armed conflict".

The exact scope of the work that would follow would probably vary somewhat depending on which of the policy options in the Use of Force Resolution is endorsed by the ICM. However, there are some aspects of conflict-prevention work that might not fit in with the "neutral" position option. These include: calling for (or endorsing) cease-fires; urging parties to a conflict to negotiate; and endorsing (or criticizing) particular peace initiatives, peace processes, or peace agreements. The ICP study sets out the arguments for and against establishing such a program of work.

Background note

Please refer to the International Committee on Policy's Use of Force study papers 1, 2 and 3 (respectively POL 34/001/2004, POL 34/005/2004, and POL 34/002/2005), and to the ICP consultant's study (ICP 2004-19), for comprehensive discussion of these options and extensive background information.

Please note that – purely in the interests of clarity - the last three points IN THE RESOLUTION have been separated from the others because they may not be compatible with option A in the resolution on the use of military force (the “neutral option”), whereas the other points are compatible with all options. They may also raise questions about AI’s independence and impartiality.

HRS C - AI Germany Use of Military Force

The International Council:

DECIDES that even in situations of grave mass human rights violations of extreme proportions, including possible genocide, AI will put its main focus concerning research and action as well as all resources provided for crisis situations on the promotion of peaceful and non-military means of crisis management, conflict resolution and cooperation with other NGOs.

REQUESTS the IEC to ensure that AI, in particular when implementing ISP Goal 4 in the period up to 2008, will constantly highlight the risks for human rights of the use of military force and will develop and promote innovative strategies for the use of non-violent and non-military means of conflict resolution and prevention.

FURTHER REQUESTS the IEC to initiate a study to be conducted under a movement-wide consultation process which clarify the options open to AI with regard to collapsing state structures and the erosion of the state monopoly on the use of force.

FURTHER DECIDES , that beyond this approach, AI will take no position on the use of military force or any form of armed conflict other than to call on all parties of the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and human rights standards.

Explanatory note

Noting Decision 13 of the 2003 ICM on AI’s position on the use of military force (ORG 52/001/2004), AI has to take a decision regarding the possible change of its existing “no-position” position in the face of complex international developments. These are the so-called “war against terror” and other developments in this context which have led to considerable restrictions of human rights standards and to a drawback regarding the improvement of human rights protection. With reference to a situation of imminent danger some state actors even justify preventive use of force.

In order to implement AI’s human rights strategy AI as one of the largest human rights organizations has to be at the forefront of the countermovement which aims at promoting and improving international human rights law.

In the light of these developments, the German section also calls for a considerable expansion of AI’s conflict prevention work.

The use of military force however, according to AI and other human rights organizations, inevitably leads to human rights violations. Violence cannot resolve conflicts but leads in most cases to an escalation of violence. Furthermore, the recourse to military action is morally questionable because even if it claims to follow a “good cause” it can lead to unpredictable casualties, uncontrollable escalation and the persistence and advancement of military structures which often have negative “side effects” such as trading in women, prostitution and male dominance over women.

Military actions, even if used for so-called humanitarian assignments only, use up enormous resources which could and should be spent on the active support and implementation of human rights.

However, it remains frustrating that in most cases the human rights movement cannot prevent grave human rights violations or even genocide. Calling for an effective military solution in such cases would however be the wrong instrument. On the one hand, human rights violations do not just happen out of the blue, they are the result of irresponsible indifference or even of incoherent or deliberate political decisions based on vested interests. AI must neither remain silent in the face of such grave violations nor must the movement follow the logic of this kind of “international politics”. On the other hand, AI does not have the means to influence any aspect of military intervention, be it its nature, scale or implementation.

In the context of a preventative approach and in coherence with AI’s public appearance it is in our view imperative that AI does not allow for a debate reduced to two positions only but to elaborate more on the complexity and interdependence of dynamic developments and structural causes and to devise concepts for resolving conflicts peacefully.

Efforts for the prevention of human rights violations in the context of armed conflict and the promotion of peaceful conflict solutions can still be intensified. For this purpose AI can rely on the knowledge and mechanisms built up by numerous NGOs worldwide. It would also be worthwhile to elaborate ideas of how human rights work can contribute to the improvement of “early-warning” and “early-action” instruments and to build up capacities for non-military crisis management measures. By doing so, AI does not only support a more effective, more humane and cost-reduced system of conflict resolution but also provides for a more careful use of its own resources, which are not to be saved for the crisis situation only but to be used for a permanent and continuous human rights work on a daily basis. By explicitly supporting non-military conflict resolutions AI can avoid the often evident manipulation of information and the risk of having AI positions misused for military ends.

In the light of this analysis, AI’s credibility and standing, its consistence and coherence, its campaigning capacity and power, identity and strength as a membership organization can in our view only be retained and strengthened if AI retains its “no-position” combined with a call for non-military conflict resolution strategies within the present geo-political context.

Explanatory note on the necessity of a study

AI always urges state actors not only to respect human rights but to promote these rights and protect people from abuses by other actors. Many appeals in our campaigning, including the SVAW-campaign, refer to the lack of political will or inadequate resources of responsible state actors to protect and promote human rights in their countries. Today, most grave human rights violations take place in situations where state structures are no longer capable of fulfilling their obligation to protect their citizens and where the state monopoly on the use of force no longer exists.

In order to help people in such situations and to remain consistent with political developments in other areas, AI has to work on its position and strategy concerning the re-establishment of the state monopoly on the use of force. The study should also cover the question of possible military protection for non-military crisis management, human rights monitoring and humanitarian aid.


HRS D - IEC Enabling Resolution Sexual and Reproductive Rights

The International Council:

Option 1:

(a1) DECIDES that the IEC should develop and extend the movement-wide consultation process which preceded the 2005 ICM to ensure that the next ICM is in a position to take an informed decision on the development of AI’s sexual and reproductive rights policy;

(b1) further DECIDES that AI will not take any new policy initiatives in this area until the next ICM.

Option 2:

(a2) DECIDES that many aspects of sexual and reproductive rights are non-controversial and fit in with AI’s existing mission and priorities, and that AI should aim to support women’s right to make decisions about reproduction free from coercion, discrimination and violence;
(b2) further DECIDES that the IEC should draft a policy on sexual and reproductive rights covering these non-controversial issues, and consult with the next Chairs Forum before finalizing it.

Option 3:

(a3) DECIDES that the IEC should draft a policy on sexual and reproductive rights, including access to abortion, that is in line with the international consensus and that supports women's right to make decisions about reproduction free from coercion, discrimination and violence, and consult with the next Chairs Forum before finalizing it;
(b3) further DECIDES that the IEC should put in place a process for policy development on other issues identified by the international meeting in June 2005 as requiring further decision-making within the movement.

Explanatory note

The International Committee on Policy’s ICM Circular “Amnesty International and sexual and reproductive rights: a discussion document” (POL 30/003/2005) provides background information and analysis for this resolution.

The resolution is an enabling resolution to ensure that a suitable range of options is on the ICM agenda. As all the options make clear, the IEC does not wish to take any decisions on this issue without further consultation with the movement following the ICM.

Following the 2005 Chairs Forum and the international meeting on sexual and reproductive rights policy (which is scheduled for 10-12 June 2005), the IEC may suggest expanding or amending one or more of these options (either with regard to their timescale, or with regard to their substantive policy content), and may recommend one particular option to the ICM.

The options above have been drafted to offer a choice between three broad options. Option 1 calls for further discussion before any changes to AI policy are made; Option 2 proposes some non-controversial changes to AI policy before the next ICM; and Option 3 proposes a more far-reaching change to AI policy before the next ICM.

HRS E - AI Netherlands Amnesty International’s Mission

The 2001 Dakar ICM decided to replace Amnesty International’s mandate with the present mission that is focused around the core of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination. It also decided that ‘the period of the next integrated strategic plan should be used to lay the basis for AI evolving into an organization which may in principle oppose grave abuses of all human rights, should the 2005 ICM choose to do so’.

The main change that the shift from mandate to mission made possible, the development of work on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, has up till now shown that high quality, relevant and effective research and campaigning is very well possible in the context of the present mission and the present ISP. It is also clear that the ISP still leaves plenty of room for further development of this important work.

At the end of 2004 AI is still very much struggling with the changes that were introduced not only by the new mission but certainly also by the huge ambitions of the ‘Globalizing Justice!’ ISP. AI is only beginning to understand the consequences of the change to strategic coverage for Amnesty’s strategic country work and membership activism. The same thing goes for the paradigm-shift related to the active promotion of Work On Own Country. The change from development to ‘Growth’ is accompanied by an equally complex and ambitious agenda. The international movement as a whole is working hard to absorb all these changes but much work remains to be done.

Much of the discussion around the 2001 decision focused on how AI would operationalize this new mission and set clear priorities. We must conclude that the ISP is an inspiring and ambitious framework for AI up till 2010, but it certainly did not narrow the focus of the permissible work that is described in our new and broad mission. Parallel to this the work on the development of Global Campaigns is very much ‘work in progress’. Preparation and implementation of impact-oriented campaigns is in itself a huge challenge for present day AI.

Another aspect of the 2001 discussion focused on the development of mechanisms for international decision-making in between ICMs. As far as this issue is concerned we see that on the one hand the ICM seems to be struggling to keep pace with the rate of change the movement is undergoing. The 2003 ICM had to take decisions in principle about Growth, Strategic Coverage and Campaigns while discussions on these issues were ongoing and the real and practical meaning of the decisions was not entirely clear. At the same time the main building blocks of ‘international space’, the Directors Forum and Chairs Forum are still very much under development and have up till now suffered from lack of proper preparation and support.

Given the above analysis the introduction of further fundamental change to AI seems premature and unwise. With the present mission and ISP AI can be a relevant and high quality actor in the international human rights movement. Towards the end of the duration of the present ISP further discussion on the scope of AI’s mission can be undertaken based on the experiences and assessments we make in the upcoming years.
HRS F - AI Germany Full-Spectrum-Approach (FSA)

The International Council:

DECIDES to defer a vote on any statute amendment that would change AI’s mission until the last ICM of the current ISP-cycle, which shall decide on the mission on the basis of a thorough evaluation of AI’s experience with implementing the ISP 2004-10 and outstanding policy decisions.

Explanatory note

The German Section would like to give the movement enough time to adjust its way of working for human rights to the strategic framework given by the ISP.

Given the broad scope of the ISP there is still a gap between the objectives of the human rights strategy and the actual capacity of sections, structures and IS to meet the requirements for achieving these objectives. The movement should focus its resources on enhancing its capacity to implement the current ISP with the best results possible rather than expanding the scope of AI’s potential work in the mission already now.

On the basis of an evaluation of the ISP-implementation a decision to be taken at the last ICM of the current ISP-cycle will be more reliable and consensual than it would be at present.

HRS G - IEC Enabling Statute Amendment Going Full Spectrum?

The International Council:

DECIDES to amend Article 1 of the Amnesty International Statute to read as follows:

VISION AND MISSION
Amnesty International’s vision is of a world in which every human being enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of these human rights.


Explanatory note

The IEC as yet takes no position on the “going full spectrum” debate. The ICM circular “Going full spectrum – for and against” (POL 21/001/2005) lays out the arguments for and against a change from the present statute to a full spectrum statute. This circular includes discussion of the merits of alternative forms of wording (e.g. “grave abuses” vs. “abuses”), as well as discussion of the broader issues underlying any change to the statute.

The IEC has tabled this amendment:

(a) to satisfy the requirements of 2001 ICM Decision 6 (which stated that “the IEC should propose an appropriate statute amendment to the 2005 ICM” on the full spectrum option);

(b) to meet the deadline for statute amendments, ensuring that a suitably worded resolution appears on the ICM agenda.

HRS H - AI USA AI’s DEFINITION OF “GRAVE ABUSES”


The International Council:

DECIDES to instruct the IEC to conduct a consultation before the next ICM on the definition of "grave abuses" of human rights and to circulate a paper discussing several proposed definitions and the impact of each on AI's scope of work.


Explanatory note
Concern has been expressed within the movement that the term “grave abuses” is not adequately defined. At the 1995 ICM, Amnesty defined “grave abuse” of freedom of expression as:
"a pattern of military, police, administrative and/or judicial persecution by means of arbitrary use of procedures and other forms of harassment which gravely disrupt the targeted person's daily life or his/her privacy, effectively barring him/her from acting in public life".

There are no other “grave abuse” definitions that have been agreed upon by the movement. In fact, AI has not been able to come up with a definition of “grave abuses” of freedom from discrimination and of the rights to physical and mental integrity since the adoption of the organization’s new mission at the 2001 ICM.

Some people have suggested that AI should not try to concretely define “grave abuses” as this may preclude the organization from addressing emerging issues and unforeseen events. Rather, “grave abuses” should be defined by AI's ongoing jurisprudence, and thereby contain all of AI's past work yet remain flexible enough to address those emerging issues and events.

Others have suggested that AI needs a working definition of “grave abuses” in order to provide proper parameters to its work, and that such parameters will assist IS and section staff as well as members in their human rights advocacy.

The goal of this resolution is to call for the IEC to circulate a brief paper outlining how several different definitions of “grave abuses” might impact the scope of AI’s work and to ensure that there is a movement-wide debate of these alternative definitions prior to the next ICM.

HRS I - AI Belge (Francophone) les peines manifestement disproportionnées

Décision:

Le Conseil international d’Amnesty International charge le Comité exécutif international de faire en sorte que le concept de peine manifestement disproportionnée fasse l’objet, sous son égide, d’une étude juridique au sein du mouvement, confiée au Secrétariat international.

Le Comité exécutif international, sur la base des conclusions de cette étude, pourrait, le cas échéant, proposer au prochain Conseil international des moyens concrets de lutte contre les dispositions qui peuvent conduire à des peines manifestement disproportionnées vis-à-vis de l’acte qui les motive, incluant un soutien aux individus victimes de telles dispositions.


Note explicative:

Il existe, dans certaines législations, des dispositions qui peuvent conduire à des peines manifestement disproportionnées vis-à-vis de l’acte qui les motive. De telles dispositions peuvent n’être pas en contradiction, stricto sensu , avec la lettre de la Déclaration universelle des Droits de l’Homme et les normes internationalement définies en matière de garanties pour le justiciable, notamment parce que ces dispositions s’inscrivent dans un système juridique qui garantit les droits de la défense et la possibilité pour un condamné d’interjeter appel de sa condamnation.

Or, ces dispositions et les effets concrets qu’elles sont susceptibles d’entraîner peuvent amener une autorité judiciaire à infliger une peine que l’on pourrait assimiler, en se référant à l’article 5 de la DUDH qui proscrit de tels traitements, à un traitement cruel, inhumain et dégradant. De plus, une telle peine prononcée par une juridiction d’appel pourrait être exécutée en dépit de son caractère manifestement disproportionné.

Rappelons que tout individu a le droit d’être jugé équitablement, en fonction des faits qui lui sont reprochés, et que toute automaticité de peine, en fonction de faits antérieurement jugés, est de nature à compromettre gravement l’équité.

Il apparaît certes difficile de définir précisément le concept de peine manifestement disproportionnée; cependant, Amnesty International a vocation à promouvoir l’application de la DUDH, tant dans sa lettre que dans son esprit. Il convient dès lors d’intégrer le concept de peine manifestement disproportionnée dans les préoccupations d’Amnesty International. L’étude pourrait utilement tenter de procéder à un recensement des victimes éventuelles de telles peines.

Portée de la résolution:

Cette résolution est bien de nature stratégique car elle pourrait conduire à terme à des actions politiques au niveau international, menées grâce à la panoplie habituelle de techniques déployées par AI. Pour l’heure, elle propose que soit menée une étude sur le thème des peines disproportionnées.

La résolution ne vise pas à changer les buts et objectifs stratégiques du PSI, ni les « puces » y afférant. Elle s’inscrit pleinement dans les buts 2 (Exiger la justice et lutter contre l’impunité) et 3 (Défendre l’intégrité physique et mentale de tous) du PSI et, plus particulièrement, dans les objectifs stratégiques 2.2 (Renforcer le système de défense des droits humains – Puce: Promouvoir le droit à un procès équitable) et 3.3. (Torture et mauvais traitements – Puce: remettre en cause les arguments sociaux et culturels utilisés pour justifier la torture et les traitements cruels, inhumains et dégradants).

HRS I - AI Belgium Francophone Manifestly Disproportionate Punishment

Decision:

The International Council of Amnesty International charges the International Executive Committee with ensuring that, under its aegis, the International Secretariat conducts a legal study within the movement into the concept of ‘manifestly disproportionate punishment’.

Based on the conclusions of that study, the International Executive Committee could, if appropriate, make concrete proposals for opposing provisions that might lead to punishments that are manifestly disproportionate to the acts in respect of which they are imposed, including support for individuals who are the victims of such provisions.”


Explanatory note

Some legislation contains provisions which could lead to punishments that are manifestly disproportionate to the acts in respect of which they are imposed. Such provisions may not, strictly speaking, be in conflict with the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and internationally-defined standards with regard to guarantees for defendants, notably because these provisions form part of a legal system that guarantees the right to a defence and the opportunity for the convicted person to appeal against his conviction.

These provisions, and the specific effects they are likely to have, could lead a judicial authority to impose a punishment that could be regarded as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, according to article 5 of the UDHR, which prohibits such treatment. Moreover, a punishment of this kind, imposed by an appeal court, could be enforced in spite of its being manifestly disproportionate.

We should not forget that everyone has the right to a fair trial in respect of the offences of which he stands accused, and that any automatic imposition of punishment for previously-tried offences is likely to seriously compromise the concept of fairness.

There appears to be some difficulty in clearly defining the concept of manifestly disproportionate punishment; however, it is Amnesty International’s remit to promote application of both the letter and the spirit of the UDHR. Consequently, the concept of manifestly disproportionate punishment is a subject with which Amnesty International ought to concern itself. The study could usefully attempt to identify the potential victims of such punishment.

Scope of the resolution:
This resolution is clearly strategic in nature, since it could lead to political action at international level, given the panoply of techniques customarily used by AI. For the time being, it proposes a study on the subject of disproportionate punishment.

The resolution does not aim to change the goals and strategic objectives of the ISP, or their “bullet points”. It is fully compatible with goals 2 (Demand justice and combat impunity) and 3 (Uphold the physical and mental integrity of all people) of the ISP and, more particularly, with strategic objectives 2.2 (Oppose attacks on the human rights framework) – bullet point: Promote the right to a fair trial) and 3.3. (Torture and ill-treatment – bullet point: challenge social and cultural justifications for torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment).

HRS J - AI Canada (Anglophone) Economic Development, Forced Displacement and Human Rights Abuses

Note explicative

La revendication « Publiez ce que vous payez » peut constituer un outil important en faveur d’une plus grande responsabilisation de certaines entreprises et, surtout, de certains gouvernements au profit des droits humains. Elle implique également les acteurs qui peuvent exercer une influence sur les Etats concernés, notamment les OIG, les IFI, les pays donateurs et les banques internationales privées qui financent des programmes ou des projets dans les pays producteurs de ressources naturelles.

La résolution proposée n’oblige pas AI à rejoindre la coalition internationale « Publiez ce que vous payez » (certaines sections d’AI font partie de plates-formes nationales liées à cette coalition) mais demande qu’AI prenne position sur ce sujet et intègre cette revendication dans son travail et ses recommandations. Pour l’information de l’ensemble du mouvement, il serait d’ailleurs utile de disposer d’un état des lieux sur les positions du SI et des sections autour de cette thématique et sur les actions qui ont pu être conduites sur ce sujet, en lien ou non avec la coalition « Publish what you pay ».

« Publiez ce que vous payez » vise à obtenir des acteurs privés et publics concernés qu’ils révèlent publiquement les revenus qu’ils ont versés - sous forme d’impôts, de taxes, de redevance ou de bonus - aux Etats détenteurs de ressources naturelles, notamment énergétiques et minières, que ces entreprises exploitent ou espèrent exploiter à l’avenir. L’objectif est que la « société civile » soit informée de façon précise des recettes financières que ces Etats ont collectées et puisse demander des comptes aux gouvernements sur l’utilisation de ces recettes. Faute de cette information cruciale, plusieurs Etats producteurs de ressources naturelles ont pu dissimuler une partie importante de leurs recettes alors que celles-ci auraient pu être, au moins en partie, utilisées pour faire progresser le respect des droits humains, notamment les DESC. L’exemple de l’Angola, qui a pu ainsi dépenser hors budget et sans aucun bénéfice pour sa population plusieurs milliards de dollars provenant de ses revenus pétroliers alors que la situation des DESC, y compris le droit à ne pas souffrir de la faim, était catastrophique, avait débouché sur le lancement de la campagne «Publiez ce que vous payez » il y a quelques années.

La question de la transparence des revenus provenant de l’exploitation des ressources naturelles est à présent à l’ordre du jour de diverses instances internationales telles que le G8 et les autorités britanniques ont lancé l’Initiative sur la transparence dans les industries extractives (EITI) qui est maintenant un processus international (même si l’EITI ne répond pas à tous les objectifs de « Publiez ce que vous payez »). Le moment est donc bien choisi pour qu’AI apporte sa contribution à la satisfaction de cette exigence.

Le sujet de cette résolution peut être rattaché aux objectifs 2 (objectif stratégique 2.3. sur la responsabilité des acteurs non étatiques) et 7 (faire progresser les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels - DESC) du plan stratégique intégré 2004-2010 (PSI) d’Amnesty International.

HRS K - AI FRANCE “Publish what you pay"

The International Council Meeting:

· DECIDES that Amnesty International will formally take a position in favour of transparency with regard to revenue from the exploitation of natural resources, thus reinforcing the efforts of the international “Publish what you pay” coalition. Amnesty International will endeavour to exert appropriate pressure in this connection on the businesses and States concerned as well as on the intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) – and in particular the international financial institutions (IFIs) – of donor countries and international banks.

· CALLS ON the IEC to ensure that this decision is implemented.

Explanatory note

The demand “Publish what you pay” could be an important tool in making certain companies and, in particular, certain governments more responsible with regard to human rights. It also implicates the actors who can influence the States concerned, in particular the IGOs and IFIs, donor countries and international private banks that finance programs or projects in countries which are producers of natural resources.

The proposed resolution does not oblige Amnesty International to join the “Publish what you pay” international coalition (some sections of Amnesty International are part of the national platforms associated with this coalition) but calls on Amnesty International to take a position in this matter and include this demand in its work and its recommendations. For the information of the movement as a whole, it would also be useful to have an update on the positions of the IS and the sections on this topic and on action taken in relation to this subject, whether in cooperation with the “Publish what you pay” coalition, or not.

The aim of “Publish what you pay” is for public and private actors to disclose publicly what they have paid - in the form of taxes, levies, royalties or bonuses - to States which own the natural resources, notably energy and mining resources, that these companies are exploiting, or hope to exploit at some time in the future. This is so that “civil society” can have detailed information about the financial revenue these States have taken and can call such governments to account for the use of such revenue. Because this crucial information has not been available, several resource-rich States have been able to conceal a considerable proportion of their revenue, when at least part of this could have been used to promote the respect of human rights, and in particular ESC rights. The “Publish what you pay” campaign was launched a few years ago, triggered by the example of Angola, which spent several billion dollars of its oil revenues, unaccounted for in the budget, and from which the population drew no benefit at all, while the ESC rights situation, including the right to freedom from hunger, was catastrophic.

The issue of transparency of revenues from the exploitation of natural resources is currently on the agenda of several international bodies, such as the G8, and the British government has launched the Extractive Industries' Transparency Initiative (EITI) which is now an international process (even though the EITI does not meet all the objectives of "Publish what you pay"). This is therefore an appropriate time for AI to make its contribution to meeting this requirement.

The subject of this resolution can be related to objectives 2 (Strategic objective 2.3 on the accountability of non-state actors) and 7 (Promote economic, social and cultural – ESC – rights) from Amnesty International’s Integrated Strategic Plan 2004-2010 (ISP).





HRS L - AI Israel Elimination and Prevention of All Forms of Religious, Ethnic and Racial Intolerance

The International Council:

INSTRUCTS the IEC and the IS to review the policies and actions of the movement in the struggle against religious, ethnic and racial intolerance and impunity for its perpetrators and to adopt a comprehensive and consistent policy in this area.

ASKS the IEC and the IS to initiate a firm action in areas in which the level or the nature of AI activity or policy is found wanting, to make the necessary changes and to intensify the proactive efforts of the movement to put an end to the acceptance, tolerance and nurturing of these actions, with the aim of mobilizing governments and civil society to take firm and positive steps to apprehend and bring before the bar of justice all persons and organizations who carry out, incite or advocate acts of violence, driven by prejudice, against members of a specific ethnic group, race or religious sect.

REQUESTS sections and structures to adopt and implement policies against religious, ethnic and racial intolerance in their local environments.

Explanatory note
In recent years the world was witness to a precipitous rise in the frequency and intensity of violence driven by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Christianophobia and other forms of xenophobia, racial hatred and religious intolerance throughout the world. Unfortunately our response as a movement has been and is inconsistent and hesitant.

This inconsistency shows up in the uneven citation of incidents of prejudice. For example, while AI cites attacks on mosques, churches and Hindu temples as part of its ongoing reporting; its response to destruction of synagogues and desecration of Jewish cemeteries has been ambivalent and slow. It has failed to recognize that these actions are not simple vandalism, but deliberate attacks on Jewish communities and their human rights.

The cynical use of international conflicts to promote an agenda of bigotry, hatred and violence has become rampant, without an appropriate response from AI. A wave of Islamophobia has swept across the western world since the attacks of September 11 2001 and has caused great suffering to innocent Muslim communities in the United States and Europe. Similarly, the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has caused anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe and in Muslim societies in the Middle East and Asia, to take on new and ugly forms. In Asia and Middle East countries, there has been an upsurge in outright anti-Semitic propaganda and distribution of anti-Semitic forgeries such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with the connivance of local governments. The rabid anti-Semitic speech of the former president of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, at the Islamic summit in October 2003 before an audience of scores of heads of state and government officials, failed to elicit a statement of condemnation from AI.

In light of AI's Integrated Strategic Plan, and especially the strategic objective number 1.3, the time has come for AI to recognize the severity of the human rights violations inherent in such incidents, and to become aware of the pervasive culture of impunity enjoyed in many countries by the perpetrators of these actions. While it is true that many of these prejudices have deep roots in the cultures of many countries, nonetheless AI must take a firm stand against the spurious use of criticism of the policies and actions of governments and organizations as a justification for anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Christianophobia and other forms of religious, racial and ethnic intolerance and persecution, on the part of state or non-state actors, in particular in the wake of the recent UN General Assembly Third Committee resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.

The recent proposed regional action, as it appeared in the 2005 IS Campaign Planning Bulletin, for combating racism and discrimination in Europe and Central Asia is a step in the right direction and should be extended throughout the world.

We believe it is time for AI to conduct a comprehensive review of its work in this area - an internal thematic review, which will include the sections and IS work, across the relevant regions and would provide a ledger of how the movement research and campaigns have been responding to this human rights challenge. It would also make it possible to develop a comprehensive and consistent policy and set of recommended actions at the IS level and for membership action within the Strategic Plan.

HRS M - AI Spain UNA ESTRATEGIA MUNDIAL DE AI SOBRE GRUPOS ARMADOS

La Reunión del Consejo Internacional:

Pide al Comité Ejecutivo Internacional que apruebe e impulse en los próximos dos años una estrategia de trabajo global a medio y largo plazo sobre grupos armados de oposición basada en el marco del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y las normas internacionales de derechos humanos, que contenga objetivos específicos, resultados mesurables, medios adecuados, y calendario específico de puesta en marcha.

1. Esta estrategia debe estar sólidamente instalada en nuestro trabajo sobre justicia global, en el marco de sucesivas decisiones de la RCI sobre grupos armados, y debe reflejar claramente la posición contra la impunidad de AI con el tripe ángulo de verdad, justicia y reparación a las víctimas.
2. Esta estrategia debe reflejar también posibilidad de investigación independiente, y acción de miembros con las técnicas adecuadas para poder tener impacto sobre estos grupos, así como posibilidades de interlocución con los mismos si fuera posible.
3. Esta estrategia también debe revisar nuestras estrategias locales de trabajo con grupos armados para revisar su impacto sobre derechos humanos en población civil, local, regional y globalmente.

Nota explicativa

De acuerdo al informe anual de AI del año 2004 ( Pol 10/004/2004) existen tres grandes los desafíos a los que se enfrenta hoy el movimiento global en favor de los derechos humanos:

a) Debemos afrontar la amenaza que representan los actos despiadados, crueles y criminales cometidos por individuos y grupos armados.

b) Tenemos que resistir la reacción contra los derechos humanos producida por la aplicación resuelta de una doctrina de seguridad global que tiene al mundo profundamente dividido.

c) Y debemos luchar para remediar la inoperancia de los gobiernos y de la comunidad internacional en el cumplimiento de las exigencias de justicia social y económica.

En opinión de la Sección Española, nuestro movimiento está enfrentando con seriedad y claridad el segundo de ellos, con una prioridad claramente establecida en el Plan Estratégico del movimiento (especialmente Objetivo estratégico 2.2 Oponerse a los ataques contra el marco de protección de los derechos humanos) y, desde el 11 de septiembre, en que se agudizó este recorte de libertades, nuestra organización ha producido investigación y acción global. Debe continuar de esta manera.

En nuestra opinión, desde la asunción de una misión de AI mas amplia con incidencia en derechos económicos, sociales y culturales el año 2001, AI ha comenzado a trabajar, con investigación y acción, especialmente en el marco local de países, sobre algunos de estos derechos. Globalmente va a existir también en el cercano futuro del 2007 una campaña sobre DESC que nos va a permitir empezar a enfrentar, junto a otras ONGs, el tercer reto: cumplimiento de las exigencias de justicia social y económica.

Sin embargo nuestra organización ha avanzado muy poco en la amenaza global a la seguridad que representan los actos despiadados y crueles de los grupos armados globalmente y que en opinión de AI es uno de los grandes retos al que nos enfrentamos como activistas de derechos humanos.

Desde el año 1991, en que su asumió el mandato de trabajar contra los abusos de derechos humanos de grupos armados de oposición con el marco del derecho internacional humanitario en relación a secuestro, tortura y toma de rehenes y homicidios indiscriminados (Decisión 5 de la RCI de Yokohama),AI ha trabajado en investigación y acción limitada sobre estos abusos localmente.

Otro ejemplo es la decisión número 9 del Consejo Internacional de Boston de 1993 que pedía que AI trabajara por la liberación de personas detenidas por sus ideas políticas personas únicamente a causa de sus convicciones políticas, religiosas o de cualquier otro tipo, o bien en razón de su origen étnico, sexo, color o idioma, siempre y cuando la persona encarcelada no haya hecho uso de la violencia ni haya abogado por ella; las personas así encarceladas serán consideradas presos de conciencia.

En ese mismo Consejo Internacional, en su decisión número 14 también permite “oponerse a las transferencias MSP no sólo a otros gobiernos sino también a las Entidades No Gubernamentales, e incluso al apoyo económico o logístico demostrado del que se pueda considerar razonablemente que contribuye al abuso de los derechos humanos abarcados por el mandato de AI”.

En la decisión 12 del Consejo Internacional de 1995 AI también da un paso más y reafirma que “AI debería recurrir al derecho internacional de derechos humanos en relación con los gobiernos y, cuando proceda, con las entidades no gubernamentales”.

Así como que AI debería oponerse a los homicidios que son al mismo tiempo «deliberados» (selectivos) e «ilegítimos» (arbitrarios) así como a los «homicidios indiscriminados» en sentido estricto , es decir, cuando no se tiene la intención de distinguir entre objetivos legítimos e ilegítimos.

Es decir AI, dentro del marco internacional de derechos humanos, se ha dotado, con sucesivas decisiones, de un marco de trabajo para enfrentar los abusos contra los grupos armados en el ámbito local.

Sin embargo la amenaza de una parte de estos grupos armados contra la seguridad de millones de personas civiles ahora comparte los atentados locales con atentados que intentan golpear a civiles en otras partes del mundo de forma regional y global , como la propia AI ha establecido en relación a los atentados del 11 de septiembre en Nueva York, o los atentados del 11 de marzo en Madrid, los atentados de diciembre del año 2004 en Arabia Saudita, o también Afganistán, Iraq, Kenia, Marruecos, o la región de los Grandes Lagos.

Además AI, desde el año 1991, ha dejado en manos de los gobiernos todo el trabajo de apoyo y reparación a estas víctimas sin que haya estado con visibilidad en nuestra agenda de movimiento de derechos humanos el apoyo a éstas salvo declaraciones genéricas, especialmente en el marco de conflictos armados. Incluso ese trabajo pasivo en relación a víctimas de grupos armados se encuentra reflejada en la decisión 15 del Consejo Internacional de Boston que indica lo siguiente: “que la política de ayuda humanitaria de AI con respecto a las víctimas de abusos cometidos por ENG sea, en principio, reflejo de la política dirigida a las víctimas de los gobiernos, aunque en circunstancias normales, AI espera que sean los gobiernos quienes se ocupen de las necesidades de las víctimas de abusos cometidos por ENG”.

Por lo tanto AI debe enfrentar la tercera amenaza global a millones de ciudadanos con una estrategia revisada en relación a grupos armados de oposición sobre las siguientes líneas:

a) Creación de una estrategia global a medio y largo plazo basada en el marco del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y las normas internacionales de derechos humanos, que contenga objetivos específicos, resultados mesurables, medios adecuados, y calendario específico de puesta en marcha.
b) Esta estrategia debe estar sólidamente instalada en nuestro trabajo sobre justicia global y debe reflejar claramente la posición contra la impunidad de AI con el tripe ángulo de verdad, justicia y reparación a las víctimas.
c) Esta estrategia debe reflejar también posibilidad de investigación independiente, y acción de miembros con las técnicas adecuadas para poder tener impacto sobre estos grupos, así como posibilidades de interlocución con los mismos si fuera posible.
d) Esta estrategia también debe revisar nuestras estrategias locales de trabajo con grupos armados para revisar su impacto sobre derechos humanos de población civil, local y globalmente.

HRS M - AI Spain World Strategy on Armed Groups

The International Council:

REQUESTS the International Executive Committee (IEC) approve and implement, during the next two years, a medium and long term global strategy on opposition armed groups, within the framework of International Humanitarian Law and international human rights standards, and containing specific objectives, measurable results, adequate resources and a specific timetable for implementation.

1. This strategy should be firmly rooted in our work on global justice, conform to successive ICM decisions on armed groups, and clearly reflect Amnesty International (AI) opposition to impunity, with its triple commitment to truth, justice and reparations for victims.
2. This strategy should also allow for independent research and action by members, using techniques that are able to have an impact on these groups, as well as maintaining contacts with them, should this prove possible.
3. This strategy should also review our local strategies for work with armed groups and their impact on the human rights of the local, regional and global population.

Explanatory note

The AI Annual Report for 2004 (POL 10/004/2004) states that the global human rights movement faces three major challenges today.

a) We must confront the threat posed by callous, cruel and criminal acts of armed groups and individuals.
b) We must resist the backlash against human rights created by the single-minded pursuit of a global security doctrine that has deeply divided the world.
c) We must campaign to redress the failure of governments and the international community to deliver on social and economic justice.

The Spanish Section believes that our movement is confronting the second of these in a serious and clear manner, in accordance with the priorities established by the movement’s Strategic Plan (especially Strategic Objective 2.2 Strengthen the human rights framework and oppose attacks on it). Since 11 September, when this attack on rights became more acute, our organization has conducted global research and taken global action. This should continue.

Since AI broadened its remit in 2001 to include economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR), it has begun to conduct research and take action on some of these rights, especially at the local level. In the near future (2007), a global campaign on ESCR will allow us to begin to confront, together with other NGOs, the third challenge: social and economic justice.

However, our organization has made very little progress with regard to the threat that the callous and cruel acts of armed groups pose to global security, which AI has identified as one of the major challenges faced by human rights activists.

Since 1991, when Amnesty International extended its remit to include work, within the framework of international humanitarian law, against human rights abuses by armed opposition groups, including kidnapping, torture, hostage taking and indiscriminate killings ( Yokohama ICM Decision 5), it has conducted limited research and action at the local level.

Another example is Boston ICM Decision 9, in 1993, which requested AI to work for the release of individuals detained because of their political, religious or other convictions, or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour or language, if they had not used or advocated violence; individuals imprisoned in this way are considered to be prisoners of conscience.

At that same ICM, decision 14 opposed “MSP transfers, not only to other governments, but also to non-state actors, and also to economic or logistic support that could reasonably considered to contribute to human rights abuses covered by AI’s mandate.”

ICM Decision 12, 1995, also took a step forward by reaffirming that “AI must use international human rights law against governments and when appropriate, non-state actors.”

It also established that AI should oppose “deliberate” (selective) and “illegitimate” (arbitrary) killings as well as “indiscriminate killings” in the strict sense of the term , that is to say, when there is no intention to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate objectives.

So successive decisions of AI, taken with reference to the international human rights framework, have provided the organization with a framework within which to confront abuses against armed groups at the local level.

However, the threat from some of these armed groups against the security of millions of civilians now combines local attacks with attacks that strike at civilians in other parts of the world, at the regional and global levels, as AI has itself established in relation to the attacks of 11 September in New York, 11 March in Madrid, December 2004 in Saudi Arabia and also in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kenya, Morocco and the Great Lakes region.

In addition, since 1991 AI has left all the work of support and reparations for victims, especially those of local armed conflicts, in the hands of governments, without giving this issue any kind of prominence on the movement’s human rights agenda, and has made only general statements. This passive attitude to work with victims of armed groups is reflected in the Boston ICM Decision 15, which states that: “AI’s humanitarian aid policy to victims of abuses committed by non-state actors are, in principle, a reflection of government policy towards victims, although in normal circumstances, AI hopes governments will deal with the needs of victims of abuses committed by non-state actors.”

Therefore, AI should confront the third global threat to millions of people with a revised strategy on armed opposition groups, along the following lines:

a) Creation of a medium and long term global strategy, within the framework of international humanitarian law and international human rights standards, and containing specific objectives, measurable results, adequate resources and a specific timetable for implementation.
b) This strategy should be firmly rooted in our work on global justice, and should clearly reflect AI opposition to impunity, with its triple commitment to truth, justice and reparations for victims.
c) This strategy should also reflect the possibility of independent research and action by members, using techniques that are able to have an impact on these groups, as well as maintaining contacts with them, should this prove possible.
d) This strategy should also review our local strategies for work with armed groups and their impact on the human rights of the local, regional and global population.


HRS N - AI Section suisse Droit à l’eau

Le Conseil International :

Décide que le travail sur le droit à l’eau sera progressivement développé dans notre organisation au niveau de la recherche, des stratégies pays et régionales ainsi que dans le cadre de la prochaine campagne globale portant sur les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels.


Note explicative

Nous sommes gravement préoccupé-e-s par le fait que plus d’un milliard d’êtres humains dans le monde n’ont pas accès à l’eau potable, la plupart provenant de pays en développement et de communautés marginalisées telles que les couches les plus pauvres des populations, les peuples autochtones, les femmes et les fillettes. Chaque année plus 2,2 millions de personnes meurent de maladies dues à l’eau contaminée, en grande partie des enfants de moins de 5 ans.
L'adoption en mars 2003 de l’observation générale n°15 (E/C. 12/2002/11) du Comité des Nations Unies pour les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels portant sur le droit à l’eau représente un important progrès normatif. Ce texte, qui définit de manière très précise le droit à l’eau ainsi que les obligations qui en découlent, représente pour notre organisation une base solide pour développer un travail de recherche et de campagne sur ce sujet.

Les premiers travaux de notre organisation portant sur le droit à l'eau sont très prometteurs. Amnesty International a officiellement pris position en faveur de la mise en œuvre de ce droit en tant que droit humain, lors du Forum Mondial de l'Eau qui s'est tenu à Kyoto en mars 2003. Amnesty International a, depuis lors, publié plusieurs rapports qui ont abordé la question du droit à l'eau, notamment, "Nigéria : Exploitation pétrolière et droits humains sont-ils compatibles ?" (AFR 44/020/2004) et "Inde : Les nuages de l'injustice - la catastrophe de Bhopal, vingt ans après" (ASA 20/015/2004).

Le Plan Stratégique Intégré (PSI) adopté par Amnesty International lors du CI de 2003 offre un cadre idéal pour développer un travail sur le droit à l'eau. Ce droit constitue un enjeu universel majeur et possède, à ce titre, d'importants liens avec les sept objectifs de droits humains du PSI, en premier lieu avec l'objectif n°7 portant sur les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels (DESC).

Trois caractéristiques bien particulières font du droit à l'eau un excellent point d'entrée pour notre organisation dans ce nouveau domaine que sont les DESC : il possède une définition légale claire, il se réfère à une matière très concrète et il permet de promouvoir aisément l'idée que les DESC peuvent être justiciables.
1. Une définition légale claire. Amnesty International a tout intérêt à intervenir sur des DESC qui ont une définition légale la plus claire possible. Ce choix permet de valoriser notre rôle particulier en temps qu’organisation de droits humains par rapport aux rôles que jouent les organisations de développement ou environnementales qui travaillent aussi sur ces thèmes. Nous avons ainsi l’occasion d’être un partenaire complémentaire par rapport à ces organisations avec lesquelles nous pouvons construire des coalitions puissantes.
2. Une matière concrète. Le concept du droit à l'eau porte sur une matière parmi les plus communes de la planète. L'ensemble de l'humanité partage ce bien commun et chaque individu a besoin d'en consommer quotidiennement. Les revendications en faveur du droit à l’eau sont donc très concrètes, comme dans le rapport publié à l'occasion des 20 ans de la tragédie de Bhopal ( ASA 20/015/2004 ) où notre organisation appelle les gouvernements de l'Inde et du Madhya Pradesh "à veiller à ce que les populations affectées puissent avoir un accès régulier à une eau saine pour leur usage domestique". Cet aspect concret du droit à l’eau facilite la présentation de nos revendications auprès du public mais également la formation de nos membres. La démonstration de l’indivisibilité et de l'interdépendance des droits humains est également très explicite entre le droit à l’eau, le droit à la santé et le droit à la vie, notamment.
3. Une justiciabilité simple à promouvoir. Les obligations immédiates en matière de droit à l’eau, avant tout supportées par les États, sont clairement définies notamment dans l’observation générale n°15 du Comité. Plusieurs États ont déjà introduit des normes constitutionnelles voir législatives qui garantissent le droit à l’eau.

HRS N - AI Switzerland Right to water

The International Council:

Decides that work ensuring the right to water will be developed gradually within our organization in terms of research and country-/region-specific strategies, as well as within the context of the next global campaign on economic, social, and cultural rights.

Explanatory note

We are deeply concerned by the fact that over one billion human beings throughout the world do not have access to safe water; most of these individuals live in developing nations and represent such marginalized communities as the poorest classes of these nations, indigenous peoples, women, and girls. Each year more than 2.2 million people are dying from disease due to unsafe water consumption and a large amount of them are children less than 5 years old.

The adoption, in March 2003, of General Comment no.15 (E/C. 12/2002/11), which was set forth by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and concerns the right to water, represents significant normative progress as well as the hope that this issue may be addressed using effective human rights tools. This text, which provides a precise definition of the right to water and the obligations that this right entails, represents a solid basis on which our organization can develop its campaign and research work devoted to this issue.

The initial projects concerning the right to water that our organization has undertaken have turned out to be very promising. Amnesty International officially adopted a position in favour of implementing this right as a human right during the World Water Forum that took place in Kyoto in March 2003 (IOR 10/002/2003). Since then, Amnesty International has published a number of reports that have tackled the issue of the right to water, namely "Nigeria: Are human rights in the pipeline?" (AFR 44/020/2004) and "India: Clouds of injustice –the Bhopal disaster, 20 years on" (ASA 20/015/2004).

The Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) adopted by Amnesty International during the 2003 ICM serves as an ideal framework for developing work towards ensuring the right to water. This right constitutes a major universal challenge and, as such, is significantly related to the seven human rights objectives set forth by the ISP, most importantly to objective no. 7, which concerns economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCRs).

There are three specific characteristics that make the right to water an excellent entry point for our organization in the new field that is encompassed by these ESCRs: the right to water is backed by a clear legal definition; the right refers to a very practical concern, and it enables us to promote the idea of the legal enforceability of ESCR.

1. A clear legal definition . It has been in the best interest of Amnesty International to ensure that the legal definition of ESCRs is as clear as possible. This choice has meant that our specific role as a human rights organization can be enhanced alongside the roles adopted by the development or environmental organizations that are also tackling these issues. We thus have the opportunity to act as a partner that can complement these organizations so that, together, we can form powerful coalitions.

2. A practical issue . The concept of the right to water concerns one of the planet’s most common resources. All of humanity shares this common resource, and every individual must consume it on a daily basis. No other resource can replace water in order to ensure our survival. Demands for the right to water are thus very practical, as has been demonstrated in the report published to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the Bhopal disaster (ASA 20/015/2004), in which our organization calls on the governments of India and of Madhya Pradesh to "ensure regular supply of adequate safe water for the domestic use of the affected communities." This fact that the right to water is so practical makes it easier for us to present our demands to the public and also to train our members. The demonstration of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights is also shown to be very explicit here between the right to water, the right to health and the right to life.

3. Legal enforceability can be easily promoted. The core obligations of the right to water that are borne, first and foremost, by the States are clearly defined, namely in General Comment no. 15, as set forth by the Committee. Several States have already enacted constitutional or even legislative standards that ensure the right to water.

OSA A - IEC Enabling Resolution Work On Own Country

The International Council:

DECIDES :

1. to confirm the policy statement adopted by Decision 13 of 2001 ICM

2. OPTION A: to continue the practice of WOOC “pilot projects” and related guidelines until the end of the 2004-2010 ISP cycle. At that point a further evaluation will be conducted to decide if to generalize the practice or not.

3. OPTION B: whether to generalize the practice of WOOC pilot projects through the development of a more flexible WOOC Research and Campaigning Protocol to improve coordination and communication between the different parts of the movement.



Explanatory note

This draft enabling resolution is partially based on the WOOC evaluation and study currently carried out and not yet completed at the time of resolutions presentation deadline. The study is expected to be approved by 2005 April IEC meeting and then circulated to the movement. So this resolution is expected to be substantially amended following the evaluation and study input, as well as section comments to the WOOC questionnaire (ORG 20/003/2004) circulated to sections last November.

OSA B - AI DENMARK UNIVERSAL GUIDELINES FOR AI´S RESEARCH

The International Council,

REQUESTS the IEC to establish universal guidelines for AI’s research and the use of research produced by other organizations upon which AI bases its activities.

The guidelines should take into account the results of the evaluation of the pilot projects and must include criteria and procedures, which ensure:

- The quality, relevance, accuracy and timeliness of AI research
- A balanced, strategic coverage, which takes the varied resource levels of sections and structures into account and promotes international solidarity
- Quality training of both central and decentralised researchers
- That research contributes to the implementation of AI’s regional and global strategies
- That research undertaken is disseminated and can be used for action by the movement
- Clarification of who authorises and initiates research on particular countries or themes

Explanatory note
Utilising the research capacity of sections/structures and other NGOs while maintaining and strengthening the quality and ethical standards of our research (timeliness, relevancy, accuracy, impartiality, independence) requires a set of universal guidelines and a commitment to training.

The 2003 ICM and the ISP recognised the importance of quality research to the work undertaken by the organisation and reaffirmed the main principles of quality research: “Amnesty International’s research strengths have been our balanced coverage, our accuracy, impartiality and independence.” Based upon the Research Review (POL 40/001/2003) Decision 17 and the ISP sought to redress the inherent weaknesses resulting from insufficient resources on some countries and human rights crises. The lack of resources made it impossible for AI to fulfil its Minimum Adequate Coverage (MAC) policy and weakened Amnesty’s campaigning and influence in human rights crises.

ICM 2001 replaced the WOOC-policy with a decision to allow a limited number of research on own country projects. “During a specified trial period, the IEC will select from interested sections a limited number to commission or produce research and campaigning materials dealing with specified issues in their own countries and to use them in accordance with their strategic plans, provided that their plans have been approved by the IEC. The IEC/section agreement shall specify the process for approval of materials. It is desirable that to the extent possible, other sections participate in these campaigns originating in own country work. These pilot projects will be selected on the basis of merit and aim to include diverse sections of varying size from different regions. The pilot projects will be fully evaluated and the results brought back to the 2005 ICM, at which time a decision will be made to discontinue or extend the pilot projects, authorize new pilot projects or generalize the practice.”

The decision furthermore asks the IEC to evaluate the pilot projects and conduct a study by 2005 that includes:
· a particular focus on effective monitoring, strategising and planning of own country work
· the means to ensure adequate integration of work on own country with movement-wide strategic planning.

ICM 2003 Decision 17 aimed at strengthening Amnesty’s research and included:
1. Policies and tools to support strategic alliances for joint research projects with other NGOs
2. A less centralised approach to research, including better use of resources relating to themes and countries existing within sections and structures.
3. Replacement of the Minimum Adequate Coverage policy with an improved tool to define research priorities and the implementation of AI’s commitment to global coverage. In particular, this tool should:
a) provide global monitoring on early warning signs
b) ensure strategic coverage in order to take effective actions that lead to changes.
c) maintain the principle of global coverage and be effective in prioritizing and defining work under the agreed ISP HR strategy.
4. The establishment of a monitoring and evaluation function for AI’s research


OSA C - AI France La politique linguistique

Le Conseil International demande au CEI :

- d’informer le mouvement sur le budget consacré au multilinguisme et de préciser celui alloué à la couverture linguistique en identifiant les ressources affectées aux divers programmes ;
- de développer l ‘accès au matériel dans différentes langues en améliorant la conception et la présentation des documents dans un style clair et concis afin de les rendre accessibles à un vaste public ;
- de soutenir la croissance en répondant aux besoins linguistiques du mouvement par le maintien, au moins à leur niveau actuel, des programmes dans les langues de base et le développement de nouveaux programmes dans d’autres langues.


Note explicative

Cette résolution est en lien direct avec :

- l’objectif 10.1 du PSI « vaincre les barrières linguistiques et les obstacles qui empêchent l’accès au matériel de communication d’Amnesty International »;
- l’objectif 10.4 du PSI « intégrer la diversité culturelle à tous les messages de communication interne et externe » ;
- la décision 22 du Conseil International de 2003 sur la couverture linguistique.

La priorité donnée à la croissance dans nos plans d’actions doit se traduire par un effort réel pour répondre aux besoins du mouvement en matière de traduction, d’adaptation et de rédaction dans les langues de base et les autres langues.

· La dispersion des financements actuels vers différents programmes (SI, unités décentralisées, sections) ne permet pas d’évaluer, de contrôler et d’adapter le budget du multilinguisme aux attentes du mouvement. Il est désormais primordial d’avoir une vision claire et de préciser les budgets alloués au multilinguisme pour pouvoir émettre un jugement sur leur pertinence et sur les équilibres nécessaires entre l’offre et la demande.

· Toutes les études et les décisions antérieures sur la politique linguistique demandent au personnel du SI des efforts pour écrire clairement et succinctement en accordant plus d’attention à la présentation et à la longueur des textes. Des progrès sont encore à réaliser dans ce domaine. Améliorer de façon significative la clarté et la concision de notre matériel en anglais contribue grandement à l’amélioration de tous les autres programmes linguistiques.

· Le développement de la traduction et de la production du matériel dans différentes langues est un moyen de croître, d’entrer en contact avec une diversité de personnes et d’avoir un impact plus fort sur les droits humains. Cette politique doit se traduire par le maintien, au moins au niveau actuel, des acquis liés aux programmes dans les langues de base et le développement de nouveaux programmes linguistiques à partir de critères tels que les priorités stratégiques, la capacité de gestion, les ressources et l’obligation de rendre des comptes.


OSA C - AI FRANCE Language Policy

The International Council:

REQUESTS the IEC:

- to provide the movement with information on the budget devoted to multilingualism and to give details of the budget allocated to linguistic cover, identifying the resources allocated to the different programmes;
- to broaden access to material in different languages by improving the design and presentation of documents in a clear and concise style to make them accessible to a broad public;
- to support growth by responding to the linguistic requirements of the movement by at least maintaining at their current level programmes in the core languages and developing new programmes in other languages.


Explanatory note

This resolution relates directly to:

- objective 10.1 of the ISP “overcome language and political barriers to accessing Amnesty International’s communication materials”;
- objective 10.4 of the ISP “include cultural diversity in all creative briefs for internal and external communication”;
- Decision 22 of the 2003 ICM on linguistic cover.

The priority accorded to growth in our action plans must be reflected in a genuine effort to meet the needs of the movement with regard to translation, adaptation and drafting in the core languages and other languages.

· The dispersal of current financing to different programmes (IS, decentralized units, sections) makes it difficult to evaluate, control and adapt the multilingualism budget to the expectations of the movement. It is therefore essential to be clear and to give details of the budgets allocated to multilingualism in order to be able to form an opinion on their relevance and on the necessary balance between supply and demand.

· All previous studies and decisions on linguistic policy call on IS personnel to strive to write clearly and succinctly, paying greater attention to presentation and to the length of texts. There is still some progress to be made in this area. Significantly improving the clarity and conciseness of our material in English goes a long way to improving all other linguistic programs.

· Improving translation and the production of material in different languages is one means of achieving growth, entering into contact with a variety of persons and having a greater impact on human rights. This policy must be reflected in the maintenance, at least at the current level, of progress associated with programs in the core languages and the development of new linguistic programs based on criteria such as strategic priorities, management capacity, resources and the obligation to be accountable.






OSA D - IEC Enabling Resolution International HRE Strategy

The International Council:

DECIDES to adopt the following strategic goals and objectives of a Human Rights Education strategy As the strategy is currently in consultation with the broader movement, a final draft strategy will be approved by the IEC and issued as an ICM circular in May 2005. The resolution will then be amended to reflect the final draft.
for all of the international movement, in line with the priorities of the Integrated Strategic Plan decided on in 2003.

Goal 1: Use education to build a global culture of human rights:
· Enable a broad spectrum of individuals, groups and communities to understand and express their personal concerns in human rights terms;
· Inspire people to integrate human rights values/principles in both their individual lives and their social institutions;
· Incite people to act to demand, support and defend human rights and use them as a tool for social change.

Strategic Objective 1.1: Target opinion-makers and through them mainstream audiences, especially to educate about VAW and ESC rights and to encourage a rights-based understanding of social issues.
Strategic Objective 1.2: Provide HRE for humanitarian workers and peacekeepers.
Strategic Objective 1.3: Engage activist communities and through them grassroots and marginalized communities, especially to educate about VAW, ESC and a rights-based approach to advocacy.
Strategic Objective 1.4: Influence formal education institutions and through them rising generations.

Goal 2: Build the competence of Amnesty International to conduct effective education.

Strategic Objective 2.1: Identify the complementary aspects of the movement that contribute to HRE and maximize their mutual effectiveness.
Strategic Objective 2.2: Develop and implement programmes to build the HRE competence of AI activists.
Strategic Objective 2.3: Develop and implement tools and methodologies, including new technologies, that contribute to the growth of new constituencies of human rights activists, especially among youth and marginalized groups.
Strategic Objective 2.4: Improve funding and resource management for HRE across the movement.
Strategic Objective 2.5: Develop and promote tools to evaluate the effectiveness of HRE initiatives.

Explanatory note

Following Decision 18 of the 2003 ICM which called for the revision of the International Strategy for human rights education (HRE), a consultant was invited to write a draft strategy for endorsement at the 2005 ICM. The review process began with the convening of a Specialists Meeting, comprising internal and external participants. The meeting centred around 7 key opinion papers written by selected participants, on the issues of the role of HRE in social change, key global trends, HRE and campaigning, methodology, evaluation, funding, and information technology.

This strategy was formulated according to the outcomes of the Specialists’ Meeting and amendments and inclusions have since been made through ongoing consultation with key AI individuals from Sections, Structures and the IS. A draft was submitted to the IEC in December which was approved and further consultations are to take place amongst the HRE Co-ordinator’s network at their International Forum in Morocco before going back to the IEC for final approval in June.

This strategy will define HRE within AI and set clear directions for AI’s HRE work which will act as a guide not only for HRE coordinators and the HRE IS teams, but should also be reflected on by Sections and Structures and Programs at the IS when devising regional/national/thematic strategies.

OSA E - AI Germany Research

The International Council:

ASKS sections and structures to contribute to AI’s research within the framework of less centralized research by providing research results on their own country (WOOC) as well as on other countries, according to their capacities.

REQUESTS the IEC to initiate and adopt guidelines for research, to be developed in consultation between IS and sections/structures and possibly in co-operation with other NGOs, which define criteria and procedures applicable to the whole range of research done by the IS, sections/structures and other NGOs in order to ensure
· the quality of research, including its objectivity, impartiality and independence;
· that all major research activities are integrated into a consistent strategic planning at the IS and in the sections/structure and fully contribute to the implementation of the OPs ( ISOP, NOPs) resulting from the ISP approved at the 2003 ICM; ;
· that research activities by sections on their own country or other countries do not lead to a regional imbalance within the activities of the section/structure.
· that research results can be used for action on a broad scale.

DECIDES that the Regional Planning will take into account the research capacities of the entire organization – both of the IS and of sections/structures.

ASKS sections/structures proposing research projects to indicate the extent of their own quality control for these projects.

DECIDES that less centralized research will be supported by central training programmes.

Explanatory note

“Less centralized research” has been a core concept of the “Research Review” endorsed by decision 17 of the ICM 2003. According to this concept, new partners of the IS - sections/structures and other NGOs – may deliver research results that shall be used by the entire movement.
In order to guarantee the quality of research which is essential for AI´s effectiveness and reputation:
(a) common standards for quality control have to be defined,
(b) the researchers in the sections/structures have to be trained.

The planning process has to take into consideration the overall themes as well as all kinds of resources. Sections/structures proposing research projects have to explain how the themes of these projects fit into the overall plans of the movement (ISOP, GIGs) and – in the case of WOOC projects – the NOPs. Moreover, sections/structures should indicate to what extent they are able to perform quality control and supervision on their own in order to facilitate the final approval process in the IS.
The development of regional plans should take into account all resources of the movement.
This resolution is the natural offshoot of ISP Strategic Objectives 8.1 and 8.3 aiming to develop a strategic approach to research as well as to guarantee content and quality standards.


OSA F - AI FrancE Droit à l’Education


Le Conseil International demande au CEI/SI:

· qu’AI entreprenne des actions concrètes et suivies pour favoriser l’accès à l’éducation des femmes et des filles dans le cadre de la Campagne violences contre les femmes dans quelques pays où l’inégalité filles/garçons en la matière est particulièrement préjudiciable à la pleine jouissance de l’ensemble des droits humains

· que la future Campagne DESC fasse du droit à l’éducation l’un des instruments prioritaires d’accès à l’ensemble des droits humains, notamment pour les populations marginalisées.


Note explicative

Le droit à l’éducation est un droit fondamental et universel. C’est un instrument capital dans la lutte contre la pauvreté et pour un développement durable. Son respect relève de la responsabilité des Etats tout autant que de l’engagement des instances internationales.

Les engagements du millénaire tout comme la lutte contre l’analphabétisme donnent comme objectif prioritaire l’élimination de la disparité entre les sexes en matière d’éducation. « ….Investir dans l’éducation des filles se traduit par une réduction de la pauvreté, une amélioration de la production agricole et des moyens d’existence, une amélioration de la santé et de la nutrition, une baisse de la fécondité et de meilleures perspectives pour les générations futures. » (Rapport mondial de suivi sur l’éducation pour tous 2003/4)

Cette résolution s’appuie sur les Objectifs 6.2, 7.2 et 7.3 du PSI

OSA F - AI FRANCE Right to Education

The International Council:

REQUESTS the IEC/IS:

· to see that Amnesty International undertakes specific, sustained action to promote access to education for women and girls within the framework of the Violence against Women Campaign in some countries where inequality between girls and boys in this area is particularly prejudicial to the full enjoyment of human rights

· that the future ESC Rights Campaign makes the right to education one of the priority instruments for access to human rights, in particular for marginalized populations.


Explanatory Note

The right to education is a fundamental and universal right. It is an essential instrument in the fight against poverty and for sustainable development. It is incumbent upon both States and international bodies to uphold this right.

Both the Millennium commitments and the anti-illiteracy campaign identify eliminating the disparity between the sexes in relation to education as a priority objective. “ … Investment in the education of girls is reflected in a reduction of poverty, an improvement in agricultural production and the means of subsistence, an improvement in health and nutrition, a fall in fertility and improved prospects for future generations." (Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2003/4)

This resolution is based on Objectives 6.2, 7.2 and 7.3 of the ISP.


OSA G - AI Sweden Action Files

The International Council:

DECIDES to maintain, adapt and develop action files as the most important long-term method of action on behalf of individuals, in order to mobilize more activists and promote/sustain long-term group activism.



Explanatory Note

Amnesty International started as a movement of members who acted for the release of POC. Since then, case-based research and action has been the trademark of AI. Amnesty groups have been acting on information about individual victims on case sheets, which now have been remodelled into action files and include POC as well as victims of other human rights abuses. The number of new active action files has decreased since 1990, when the number was 1,700, to be compared with 108 action files in year 2000. However, abuses of human rights are still abundant and more action files are needed to combat these.

Action files are urging Amnesty groups to sustain long-term action and it is therefore one of the best method to make our members stay active for long time. An action file is something that unites many Amnesty groups together. The commitment to act for another identified human being is an important driving force that makes groups continue their work and not to give it up. Action files are also important for recruiting new active members and starting new groups. The direct impact on other human lives, a clear and easily understandable goal, possibilities for direct response and feedback, are some other positive features of an action files. To be able to sustain a high level of activism also in the future, it is therefore of utmost importance that more action files are produced in the future, to meet the demand of the groups, and that support is maintained for continued work on active action files.

The Swedish section is therefore concerned at both the closure of action files which haven’t been solved, as well as at the decreased production of new action files. We would like AI to further develop action file as a method and to continue to produce action files as our main long-term method of action on behalf of individuals.

An evaluation of action files is planned, or under way. Based on the results of this evaluation, we think that action files should be further developed and adapted to our campaigning needs. Work on action files should remain as an important campaigning method also in the future.

The Swedish section suggests that the wording “maintain, adapt and develop action files as the most important long-term method of action on behalf of individuals, in order to mobilize more activists and promote/sustain long-term group activism.”, should be added under strategic objective 9.3, 11.1, or 11.3 in the ISP.

OSA H - AI France Resolution Accord général sur le commerce des services et droits humains

Le Conseil International :

Demande au Comité Exécutif International de faire en sorte qu’une attention particulière soit apportée à l’examen de l’impact de l’Accord général sur le commerce des services (AGCS), qui relève de la compétence de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (OMC), sur les droits humains et que les actions appropriées de lobbying soient conduites si Amnesty International estimait que certaines dispositions de cet Accord pourraient menacer des services de base et déboucher sur de graves violations des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels.


Note explicative

La décision 11 du CI de Dakar en 2001 prévoit qu’AI devra soutenir les initiatives visant à faire en sorte que les activités de l’OMC et d’autres organisations intergouvernementales soient conformes aux normes internationales en matière de droits humains, que l’ensemble de nos techniques pourra être utilisée vis-à-vis de ces organisations et que, lorsque cela est possible, des actions pour les membres d’AI soient conçues et mises en œuvre. La décision 19 du CI de Morelos en 2003 demande que notre mouvement commence rapidement à mener un travail soutenu sur les liens entre économie, investissement et droits humains. L’objectif stratégique 7.1. de notre plan stratégique intégré 2004-2010 stipule qu’AI considérera de multiples acteurs comme responsables au regard du respect, de la protection et de la réalisation des droits humains.

De nombreuses ONG estiment que l’AGCS, ou en tout cas plusieurs des articles de l’Accord, constitue une menace pour plusieurs DESC via, notamment, la libéralisation de certains services de base dont dépend l’accès à certains droits fondamentaux et les dispositions concernant les mouvements de personnes physiques (ce que l’on appelle le mode 4 de fourniture de services). Il est important pour AI d’étudier si elle estime que ces craintes sont fondées et, dans ce cas, de développer les actions appropriées auprès de l’OMC et de ses Etats membres en vue de rappeler la primauté du droit international des droits humains.

OSA H - AI FRANCE Resolution on General Agreement on Trade in Services and Human Rights

The International Council Meeting:

CALLS ON the International Executive Committee to ensure that particular attention is paid to studying the impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which falls within the competence of the World Trade Organization (WTO), on human rights and that appropriate lobbying is carried out if Amnesty International takes the view that some of the provisions of that Agreement could threaten basic services and lead to serious violations of economic, social and cultural rights.


Explanatory note

Decision 11 of the 2001 ICM in Dakar provides that AI must support initiatives designed to ensure that the activities of the WTO and other intergovernmental organizations comply with international human rights standards, that all of our techniques can be used vis-à-vis these organizations and that, wherever possible, action will be devised and implemented for AI members. Decision 19 of the 2003 ICM in Morelos calls on our movement to make an early start on a study of the links between the economy, investment and human rights. Strategic objective 7.1 of our Integrated Strategic Plan 2004-2010 stipulates that AI will hold multiple actors responsible for respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights.

Many NGOs take the view that the GATS, or in any event several of the Agreement's articles, constitutes a threaten to several economic, social and cultural rights through, in particular, the liberalization of certain basic services on which access to certain fundamental rights is dependent and the provisions concerning the movement of natural persons (what is called mode 4 of the provision of services). It is important for AI to look into whether it considers these fears to be well-founded and, if so, to devise appropriate action vis-à-vis the WTO and its Member States with a view to recalling the primacy of international human rights law.



OSA I - AI France Politique d'investissement des entreprises

Le Conseil International :

Demande au CEI d’étudier la question de la position qu’Amnesty International pourrait adopter à l’égard de compagnies qui ont investi ou qui envisagent d’investir dans des pays qui seraient caractérisés par des violations massives et systématiques des droits humains et de présenter les résultats de cette étude au prochain CI.


Note explicative

Le sujet du désinvestissement est extrêmement complexe et nécessite une étude approfondie portant sur les aspects juridiques et factuels (la présence dans certains pays ne se traduit-elle pas forcément par une complicité ou une implication dans des violations des droits humains ?) et prenant en compte les conséquences en termes d’efficacité, d’image et de cohérence pour AI. L’étude devrait passer en revue les différentes options pour le mouvement, y compris le maintien de la politique actuelle selon laquelle AI ne met pas en cause une entreprise du seul fait de sa présence dans un pays quelles que soient l’ampleur et le gravité des violations des droits humains qui y sont pratiquées. Les autres options pourraient inclure l’opposition d’AI à l’investissement dans certains pays sur la base de critères à définir ou l’opposition à certains types d’investissement jugés plus sensibles au regard des droits humains ou encore la détermination de conditions à remplir pour les compagnies qui voudraient investir. Ces options ne sont indiquées qu’à titre illustratif et ne sont évidemment pas exclusives d’autres positions.

Lors de l’adoption de la décision 11 en 2001 à Dakar, qui prévoyait notamment qu’AI pourrait dans certaines conditions recourir au boycott ou à l’appel au désinvestissement - au sens de cession par les investisseurs des actions qu’ils détiennent dans le capital d’une entreprise qui serait impliquée dans de graves violations des droits humains auxquelles AI s’oppose - le CI avait demandé au CEI d’étudier la question du désinvestissement - au sens de retrait d’une compagnie d’un pays - et de rendre compte au CI de 2003. Des situations telles que celles de Talisman Energy au Soudan ou de Total au Myanmar avaient alors été évoquées à titre d’exemples (la société canadienne Talisman s’est depuis retirée du Soudan). Cette étude n’a pas été effectuée.

Outre le rappel de la décision de 2001, le sujet de cette résolution peut être rattaché à l’une des questions transversales identifiées dans le plan stratégique intégré 2004-2010 (PSI) d’AI (s’assurer que les acteurs économiques, notamment les entreprises, respectent les normes internationales en matière de droits humains) et à l’objectif stratégique 2.3. du PSI sur les acteurs non étatiques et les violations des droits humains.

OSA I - AI France Investment Policy of Companies

The International Council Meeting:

CALLS ON the IEC to study the issue of the position that Amnesty International could adopt with regard to companies that have invested, or intend to invest, in countries characterized by systematic mass violations of human rights and to present the results of that study to the next ICM.



Explanatory note

The subject of disinvestment is extremely complex and requires a detailed study into the legal and factual aspects (is not presence in some countries automatically interpreted as complicity in, or involvement with, violations of human rights?), taking account of the consequences in terms of effectiveness, image and coherence for Amnesty International. The study should review the various options for the movement, including maintaining the present policy whereby Amnesty International does not challenge a company simply on the grounds of its presence in a particular country, regardless of the extent and seriousness of human rights violations that take place there. The other options could include Amnesty International opposing investment in certain countries on the basis of criteria yet to be defined, or opposing certain types of investment which are considered to be more sensitive with regard to human rights, or even laying down conditions to be met by companies wishing to invest there. These options are given by way of example only and clearly are not exclusive of other positions.

When Decision 11 was adopted in Dakar in 2001, making provision notably for Amnesty International to have recourse, in certain circumstances, to a boycott or to call for disinvestment - in the sense of investors transferring the shares they hold in the capital of a company involved in serious violations of human rights opposed by Amnesty International - the ICM had asked the IEC to study the issue of disinvestment - in the sense of a company withdrawing from a country – and report back to the ICM in 2003. Situations such as those involving Talisman Energy in Sudan or Total in Myanmar were raised at the time by way of example (the Canadian company Talisman has since withdrawn from Sudan). This study was never carried out.

Apart from recalling the 2001 decision, the subject of this resolution may be related to one of the cross-disciplinary issues identified in Amnesty International’s Integrated Strategic Plan 2004-2010 (ISP) (ensuring that economic actors, notably companies, comply with international standards on human rights) and to strategic objective 2.3 of the ISP on non-state actors and violations of human rights.

The draft strategy has been consulted on widely with a focus on seeking input from young people.

The strategy covers three inter-related areas: the participation of young people in AI; AI’s engagement with young people and youth organizations and activism for, by and with young people towards human rights impact.

An International Youth Congress is proposed for 2006 and an international Youth Advisory Council will be formed to aid implementation of the strategy.

All parts of the movement should reflect the strategy in operational plans and strategies and provide appropriate resources to do this. Regular feedback on implementation should be provided to the IEC. In line with the recommendations of the strategy, young people should be centrally involved in developing and implementing associated national plans.



OSB B - IEC Enabling Resolution Promoting Diversity

The International Council:

Recognizing that the movement has committed itself to promoting diversity within AI in a series of ICM resolutions starting with Decision 59 of the 1985 ICM;

Remembering that Decision 33 of the 1999 ICM encouraged all sections and leadership within AI to develop and implement a multicultural plan seeking to ensure a membership drawn from every community and culture in each section and structure and ensuring that policy-making and decision-making processes reflect that diversity and respect for multiculturalism, especially for minority communities and cultures within each country;

Believing that multiculturalism, diversity and gender equity within AI is a crucial part of the Growth agenda agreed upon at the 2003 ICM;

Finding that it is especially important that AI's decision-making processes at all levels, including the ICM and Chairs Forum, reflect the diversity of the societies in which AI has sections and structures; therefore

DECIDES that every section and structure shall develop and implement a plan to achieve diversity in all aspects of the section and structure's activities, especially its plans for growth, in the next cycle;

FURTHER DECIDES that all sections and structures shall make their plans available to all other sections by the end of 2006 so that a discussion of diversity at the 2007 Chairs Forum may be based on a review of these plans and their implementation;

FURTHER DECIDES that the IEC is authorized to deny international funds to ICM delegations from sections with active female members that consistently send delegations lacking gender equity to the ICM and requests that the IEC work with small sections to achieve the goals set forth in this resolution.



OSB C - AI USA AI’S WORK ON PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS


The International Council:

1 DECIDES to amend AI's "Global Impact Goal 3: Protect the Right of Activists" in the IS Operational Plan 1 for 2004-2006 (known as ISOP1) and all subsequent Operational Plans to assert AI's commitment to working both for the release of prisoners of conscience and for the protection of human rights defenders, as called for in the Integrated Strategic Plan’s (ISP’s) Strategic Objective 3.2; and

2 DECIDES to amend the ISP to ensure that the IS maintains enough research capacity on all non-CAP countries in order to prepare summary reports for as many countries as possible in the annual AI Report.



Explanatory Note for Clause (1):
The ISP’s Strategic Goal 3 and Objective 3.2 state:

Goal 3. Uphold the physical and mental integrity of all people

Strategic Objective 3.2: Work for the release of prisoners of conscience and the protection of human rights defenders.

The IS Operational Plan 1 for 2004-2006 states in Global Impact Goal 3:

Global Impact Goal 3: PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ACTIVISTS

AI will use the term “human rights defender” to include those from all walks of life and all sectors of society who work for human rights in many different ways including the work of social activists. (For example, in today’s world, journalists and other members of the media or dissidents who are willing to stand up for the truth in the face of systematic repression) While the work of human rights activists is intrinsic to the delivery of all our goals and objectives, attention to their security, well being, and development is critical and warrants explicit attention by AI.

Our objectives are to:
· Engage defenders from all sectors of society, building coalitions, skills and greater visibility for women
· Highlight how defenders contribute to the strengthening of security for society at large and address abuses impacting on their rights, including those arising from security measures
· Promote the protection and safety of human rights defenders and counter the misuses of the judicial system to persecute them
· Widen and deepen the use of the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, and support the work of UN and regional protection mechanisms

While the IS OP1 does reflect the ISP's Strategic Objective 3.2 to protect human rights defenders, it does not explicitly address AI's work on behalf of prisoners of conscience (POCs), which is also called for by Strategic Objective 3.2 of the ISP. A paper entitled "Implementation of the ISP Through the OP1" (POL 50/001/2004) does contain a brief reference to POCs, but the OP document that was approved by the IEC and circulated to the movement (POL 50/003/2004) does not.

Amnesty International's work on behalf of Prisoners of Conscience has been one of the few rays of hope in grim lives of Prisoners of Conscience. AI has promised over the decades never to let the "forgotten prisoners" be truly forgotten and a central element in building its reputation has been its unique work on behalf of POCs. The IS OP1’s lack of a specific mention of work on behalf of POCs has been perceived by some in the membership as a de-emphasizing of AI’s historic principle of freeing POCs as a worthwhile end in and of itself.

The first clause of this resolution seeks to clarify and reaffirm AI’s commitment to its work for the immediate and unconditional release of POCs. The goal is to more explicitly reflect AI’s ISP Strategic Goal 3 and Objective 3.2 in IS OP1 GIG 3 and subsequent OPs.

The approval of this resolution should allay any membership concerns regarding AI’s continued work on behalf of POCs in the future by explicitly incorporating the full substance of AI’s ISP Strategic Goal 3 and Objective 3.2 into the Global Impact Goals of ISOP1 and subsequent OPs.

Explanatory Note for Clause (2):
The recently completed "Review of the Amnesty International Report" noted that Amnesty’s annual report is considered very useful by policy makers, human rights advocates, and others around the world. The review recommends that “Country entries, including CAP and non-CAP countries, must remain an important feature of the AIR.” The review also states, “… governments of countries included in the AIR take the publication seriously. There is evidence of false positive inference drawn when a country ‘disappears’ from the AIR list.” This resolution seeks to ensure that the Annual Report continues to provide as near-comprehensive global information as has been possible in the past.

PEST/SWOT ANALYSIS
This resolution does not seek to substantially alter the ISP. Clause 1 of the resolution seeks no change at all in the ISP. Rather, it points out an apparent lapse (at least in language) between the goals set out in the ISP and those outlined in the ISOP1. Clause 2 would adjust the ISP to ensure that AI maintains sufficient research capacity to monitor and report on human rights concerns in both countries covered by Country Action Programs (CAPs) and those not covered by CAPs, at least to the extent needed to produce an annual report similar to the traditional annual Amnesty International Report. The following PEST/SWOT analysis focuses primarily on those considerations pertinent to the issues proposed in this resolution.

PEST Analysis

Political Trends :

Many of Amnesty’s traditional concerns, including the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience, torture and extrajudicial executions, continue to occur in countries around the world. Several countries that had experienced improvements in these areas, such as a number of the former Soviet republics, have seen an alarming resurgence of these types of violations in recent years. In various parts of the world, countries that had been moving toward multi-party political systems have instead reverted to or retained virtual or literal one-party states where political dissent is regularly met with repression. Demands for political reform are likely to increase in coming years from opposition groups, the NGO community and other actors. In the post 9/11 world, many governments have sought to roll back human rights advances that had previously helped to prevent the occurrence of such abuses. Civil society organizations in many countries face virtually insurmountable legal restrictions on their activities or even their existence. Two countries that in many ways epitomize this assault upon civil society groups would be Belarus and Eritrea, neither of which is covered by one of AI’s CAPs (Country Action Programs). In each of these countries, journalists, activists, politicians and others have been detained, ill-treated and “disappeared” in an effort to silence their real or perceived opposition. This pattern of repression can be found in many other countries as well.

Economic Trends :
The dominance of the free trade globalization trend will continue to have an impact on the human rights of many people. Concerns around land, water, health and housing issues are relevant not only from an ESCR perspective but also from a civil and political rights perspective, as those opposed to the ill effects of globalization become targeted by government authorities or non-state actors in an effort to silence their opposition. Already, we have documented the harassment, torture, imprisonment or killing of land rights advocates and others as a result of their activities. In such disputes, one does not even have to be an activist to be targeted, as individuals have been threatened or attacked simply on account of their identity as a member of a particular ethnic, racial, or other group. Economic upheaval resulting from market shifts will also likely lead to the rise of organized groups who mobilize in opposition to government economic policies. The increasing role of women in economic and political positions of power will offer opportunities for them, while at the same time making them vulnerable to threats and harassment from authorities and non-state actors.

Social Trends :
The proliferation of new interest groups and identity-based organizations taking action on a range of human rights concerns has led to new opportunities for working toward change in many countries. At the same time, however, these groups may clash with authorities seeking to maintain the status quo, and as a result, their members may be targeted for harassment, detention or worse. While some countries have taken steps toward greater acceptance and respect for the rights of minority groups, other countries have continued or even increased the repression of minority groups within their borders.

Technological Trends :
New technology will continue to open new means of communicating and disseminating information. But the use of this new technology is severely restricted in many countries. Use of the internet to express opinions, distribute information, or even read information unwelcome by the ruling powers has led to the arbitrary detention and imprisonment of people in several countries. Prisoners of conscience, some of them in countries not covered by an Amnesty CAP, have received long prison terms in connection with their use of the internet. Governments have managed to block access to websites or other sources of internet information, and some are now reportedly seeking to control text messaging via mobile phones.

At the same time, technology has opened avenues for increased human rights activism, offering the opportunity to involve many more people in our work in coming years. Our reporting, as demonstrated through the AI Report and other documentation, can now be readily accessed, reviewed and utilized by millions of people around the world.

SWOT Analysis

Internal Strengths:
· AI possesses in-depth expertise on a wide range of countries and issues
· Excellent reputation and record on research and campaigning
· Long-term, consistent and impartial monitoring of and reporting on human rights violations in countries around the world
· The ISP’s stated commitment to AI’s core values of “effective action on behalf of individuals” and to “global coverage.”
· Good cooperation with international and local NGOs
· Strong coordinator and membership capacity for casework and other campaigning

Internal Weaknesses:
· Limited resources to develop new, effective methods of campaigning
· The process for creating and approving POC cases at the IS can be lengthy and bureaucratic and could be streamlined.
· Work on individuals can be diffused if not properly coordinated
· Demands on AI pose challenges for the organization to sufficiently meet expectations
· Regional/country specialists are largely located in the north
· Can be difficult to focus attention on countries that are not in the media eye

External Opportunities
· Proven ability to influence governments and IGOs
· AI may be the only human rights NGO working on certain countries or areas
· Work on behalf of POCs continues to be a strong draw for members and the public in terms of recruitment, campaigning and fundraising
· The growth of new human rights organizations provides new opportunities for collaboration
· Globalization may lead to new rules and constraints on governments and new actors that can provide new points of leverage
· Growth in use of new technology gives new opportunities for activism, dissemination of information, and mobilization of people
· The recent review of the annual AI Report (AIR) found that the report has tremendous political and symbolic value. The review recommended that “Country entries, including CAP and non-CAP countries, must remain an important feature of the AIR.” The review also states, “… governments of countries included in the AIR take the publication seriously. There is evidence of false positive inference drawn when a country ‘disappears’ from the AIR list.”

External Threats
· Limited access to some countries poses challenges to AI’s ability to undertake effective research, campaigning and activism.
· Totalitarian and authoritarian-oriented governments continue to repress their populations.
· Widespread impunity, weak judiciaries and lack of accountability continue to plague many countries.
· Crackdowns on freedom of expression and the targeting of suspected dissenters or of particular categories or groups of people can be found in all regions.
· Participants in civil society organizations continue to be targeted in many countries for harassment, detention, torture, etc.

OSB D - IEC Enabling Resolution ICM Section representation determined by number of members

The International Council:

AMENDS Article 17 of the Statute of Amnesty International by deleting the following:

10 – 49 groups 1 representative
50 – 99 groups 2 representatives
100 – 199 groups 3 representatives
200 – 399 groups 4 representatives
400 groups and over 5 representatives

Sections consisting primarily of individual members rather than groups may as an alternative appoint additional representatives as follows:

500 – 2,499 members 1 representative
2,500 members and over 2 representatives

and inserting instead:

More than 250 members 1 representative
More than 5,000 members 2 representatives
More than 15,000 members 3 representatives
More than 50,000 members 4 representatives
More than 80,000 members 5 representatives


Explanatory note

Decision 29 of the 2003 ICM asked the International Executive Committee to review the voting rights contained in the Statute and to propose the necessary amendments to the Statute at the 2005 ICM. The review was undertaken for the IEC by the International Committee of Governance with a large measure of the work being done by a team in AI Canada (E). This is one of two resolutions to come from the review (the report of the review, ORG 50/IEC04/04, is available from the IS on request).

The key intention of this resolution is to make the number of members a section has the sole criterion for determining the number of votes it can hold at an ICM.

The change has been made possible by a clear definition of member for the purposes of Article 17 of the Statute at the 2003 ICM.

As a matter of policy, it reflects the growing diversification in the ways in which individual people can become AI activists: group membership is now only one of a number of ways in which people can express their activism. There is no policy reason to privilege group participation over those other forms of activism: indeed, it is possible that privileging one form of activism might discourage sections from encouraging and promoting other forms of activism.

Equally importantly, it reflects a recognition that membership itself is a valid form of activism.

A further consideration is a democratic one: if the objective is to connect members of AI with AI’s democratic processes at all levels, then the relative number of votes should be linked in some way with the relative number of members. Importantly, this shifts “the number of ICM votes” away from being seen an instrument of some other policy (for example, success in raising money, or success in recruitment in the particular state or territory, or success in a particular form of activism) and towards being simply an unadorned reflection of the number of people to be represented in the democratic process.

The thresholds for each level have been determined so as to have least impact on the number of votes held by each section. On the basis of the 2003 ICM there would be a net gain of six votes at the ICM. Eight sections would lose one vote, 37 would remain unchanged, five would gain one vote, three would gain two votes, and one would gain three votes.

Of course other thresholds could be reached, and certainly ones with greater mathematical regularity. However, the objective of this resolution is not to bring about change in the relative voting strengths of those represented at an ICM, but only to change the basis used for determining that relativity.


OSB E - IEC Enabling Statute Amendment Voting rights of structures

The International Council:

AMENDS the Statute of Amnesty International as follows:

(a) in Articles 16 (where twice appearing), 21, 25 (where twice appearing) and 47 (where last appearing), for “sections” substitute “sections and structures”;
(b) in Article 17, for “All sections shall have the right to appoint one representative to the International Council and in addition may appoint” substitute “All sections and structures shall have the right to appoint one representative to the International Council. In addition, sections may appoint”;
(c) in Articles 19 and 47, for “section” substitute “section or structure”;
(d) in Article 47, for “sections” (where first appearing) substitute “sections or structures”.

FURTHER AMENDS the Standing Orders of the International Council as follows:
(a) in Standing Order 4.5, for “section” substitute “section and structure”;
(b) in Standing Orders 5.1, 10.6 (where first appearing), 10.7, 10.8, 10.10 (where first appearing), 10.11, 12.1 (where twice appearing) and 12.7, for “section” substitute “section or structure”;
(c) in Standing Orders 2.10, 2.11, 3.1, 6.1, 8.4, 10.2 and 11.3 (where twice appearing), for “sections” substitute “sections and structures”;
(d) in Standing Order 5.1, for “sections” substitute “sections or structures”,
(e) in Standing Orders 5.2 and 14.1, for “section” substitute “section or structure,”;
(f) in Standing Order 10.6, at the end of the Standing Order, insert, “The total size of any structure delegation is limited to 3 participants.”.

Explanatory note

The current Statute gives every section one vote, and in addition gives between one and five extra votes on the basis of the number of groups in the section or either one or two extra votes depending on the number of AI members in the section.

Therefore, only recognized AI sections may vote.

This resolution would give each structure one vote. A structure could not have more than one vote.

It would mean that a structure has the same number of votes as the smallest sections. That is not unfair: the smallest sections have fewer members and less local impact than many structures.

There are also a number of contentious consequences to granting structures voting rights. Sections are currently required to pay assessments and if they do not do so, they might lose their right to vote. There is no requirement to pay assessments from structures. This could therefore result in the unfair treatment of sections if structures are granted the right to vote. In this regard, it should be noted that the resolution addresses only the voting of structures, not their other rights and responsibilities. The 2003 ICM deliberately included structures in some parts of the statute (eg, their right to appeal against suspension) but not others (eg, their duty to follow the ISP), and this resolution does not seek to revisit those choices.

Decision 29 of the 2003 ICM asked the International Executive Committee to review the voting rights contained in the Statute and to propose the necessary amendments to the Statute at the 2005 ICM. The review was undertaken for the IEC by the International Committee of Governance with a large measure of the work being done by a team in AI Canada (E). This is one of two resolutions to come from the review (the report of the review, ORG 50/IEC04/04, is available from the IS on request).

Structures as well as sections should be charged with the responsibility of helping the organization function effectively and efficiently to carry out our mission. Structures as well as sections should take part in organizational decision making in order to help the movement make the best decisions and in order to build overall consensus and buy-in regarding those decisions. We should work from the basis of inclusiveness, believing that those who are affected by decisions have the right to be involved in the decision making; resulting in higher levels of commitment to implementing the decision.

AI has always strived for diversity of involvement in decision making. Seeing things from the perspective of democratic functioning shifts the emphasis towards ensuring that the key activists in our movement are present and participating in decision making forums such as the ICM. This diversity of involvement in decision making will lead to an AI that is more diverse in terms of membership involvement and policy decisions.

Although ICM voting rights have not been changed for over 10 years, the recent 2003 ICM took major steps to prepare the framework for change by formalizing statute definitions of structures, international networks and international members, allowing the movement to consider other options for voting rights based on the existence of these definitions.
Both the Decision-Making and Accountability Working Group (DAWG) and the former Standing Committee on Organization and Development felt that clear international statute definitions were required for structures if they were to have voting rights: this has now been achieved. The Statute now states that the purpose of a structure is to coordinate a sustained program of human rights activities and to consolidate its national or regional organization, and that a structure must consist at least of a board and active volunteers.

It flows from the definition of a structure as contained in the Statute and from the historical realities of AI development that not all structures will become sections. Large numbers of AI members will therefore remain permanently disenfranchised if structures are not granted the right to vote and do not have the option to elect an ICM representative as international members. Since the movement has recognized the leadership of structures as committed and serious enough to allow them to operate a structure and to be invited to ICMs, the movement also has a responsibility to involve structures in the ICM decision-making process for reasons of transparency, multiculturalism, and leadership development.


OSB F - IEC Enabling Statute Amendment Three Year Cycle for the ICM


The International Council:

Noting that the 2003 ICM decided that it is desirable to work towards a three year cycle for the ICM,

AMENDS the Statute of Amnesty International as follows :

(a) In Article 16, for “The International Council shall consist of the members of the International Executive Committee and of representatives of sections and shall meet at intervals of not more than two years on a date fixed by the International Executive Committee” substitute “The International Council shall consist of the members of the International Executive Committee and of representatives of sections and shall meet at intervals of not more than three years on a date fixed by the International Executive Committee.”
(b) In Article 17, for “Only sections having paid in full their annual fee as assessed by the International Council for the two previous financial years shall vote at the International Council.” substitute “Only sections having paid in full their annual fee as assessed by the International Council for the three previous financial years shall vote at the International Council”
(c) Further in Article 17, for “If a section has not provided its standardized financial report to the International Secretariat within three months of the final date for submission on each of the last two occasions such a report was required, the section is not entitled to vote at the International Council.” substitute “If a section has not provided its standardized financial report to the International Secretariat within three months of the final date for submission on each of the last three occasions such a report was required, the section is not entitled to vote at the International Council.”
(d) In Article 30, for “Members of the International Executive Committee shall hold office for a period of two years and shall be eligible for re-election for a maximum tenure of three consecutive terms.” substitute “Members of the International Executive Committee shall hold office for a period of three years and shall be eligible for re-election for a maximum tenure of two consecutive terms.”

AMENDS the ICM Standing Orders as follows:

(e) At Standing Order 6.4 for “Only sections that have paid in full their annual fees as assessed by the International Council for the two previous financial years can vote at the International Council.” substitute “Only sections that have paid in full their annual fees as assessed by the International Council for the three previous financial years can vote at the International Council.”
(f) At Standing Order 6.5 for “Only sections that have provided their standardized financial reports to the IS within three months of the final date for submission, both when the report was last due and the time immediately before that, are entitled to vote at the International Council.” substitute “Only sections that have provided their standardized financial reports to the IS within three months of the final date for submission, both when the report was last due and the two times immediately before that, are entitled to vote at the International Council.”
DECIDES that these changes shall take immediate effect and that the next ICM shall be held in 2008;

FURTHER AMENDS the Statute as follows:

(g) Adds a new Article 48: “ TRANSITIONAL: Despite any other provision in these Articles, a member of the International Executive Committee elected by the International Council who was first elected to the International Executive Committee in 2001 is eligible to remain a member of the International Governance Committee until 2008.”
FURTHER EXTENDS, in keeping with this decision:

(h) the terms of office of the other positions elected by the ICM which are the Financial Control Committee and the Membership Appeals Committee.
RESCINDS all decisions of previous ICMs that are inconsistent with anything in the adjustment from a two year interval between ICMs to a three year interval

Explanatory note

At the 2001 and 2003 ICMs, the movement contemplated the length of the ICM cycle and discussed at what intervals ICMs might best be held. In 2001, the context for this was the discussion was the work of DAWG Decision Making and Accountability Working Group which led to Decisions 4 & 5 of the 2001 ICM but did not include acceptance of DAWG’s recommendation that the period between ICMs be extended from two to three years. In 2003, the ICM once again considered this question but resolved to ask the IEC to prepare a possible Statute amendment for its consideration in 2005.

The impact on the elections and terms of office for the Membership Appeals Committee and the Financial Control Committee are required to be the same as those for the IEC by virtue of Article 44 of the Statute and Decision 63 of the 1982 ICM respectively.

The IEC has taken advice on the practical implications of this extension to the interval between ICMs and knows of no insurmountable practical impediments to a three yearly ICM cycle. The movement has made such adjustments previously, as was noted at the 2001 ICM when we recalled that from 1961 to 1983 ICMs were held annually. Decision-making, communication and contact, accountability and information exchange are all relatively dynamic processes. If the ICM moves to every three years, the particular needs it once fulfilled on a two yearly basis may be well served by other mechanisms, forums and processes, including through multilateral forums such as the Chairs Forum.

OSB G - AI Belgium (Flemish) Determining the Limits of AI’s Field oF Work

The International Council:

DECIDES that, if a certain issue does not clearly fall within the scope of AI's mission or other ICM decisions, a transparent decision-making procedure needs to be followed;

URGES the IEC to develop, as a matter of priority, such a decision-making procedure, outlining who is entitled to make such decisions and according to which criteria such decisions are to be made.


Explanatory note

1. The trigger for this resolution : controversial AI positions recently taken, implied or announced

AI Belgium (Flemish) is worried. We have been confronted with policy papers in which AI seemed to take positions or to suggest taking positions on rather controversial subjects. We do not think that AI should avoid controversial subjects, nor do we take a position pro or contra. We only strongly believe that, if certain issues are not clearly covered by our mission, positions on those issues should be the result of a transparent decision-making procedure.

By way of illustration:

- AI position on the relations between developed and developing states (debt, trade) and the use of genetically modified organisms

In "Going Full Spectrum" (POL 21/002/2003), the IEC indicates that, given AI’s concern to promote economic, social and cultural rights, "AI might wish to comment on the right to food security". “Going Full Spectrum”, POL 21/002/2003 , §7.4. This implies "commenting on scientific and trade-related issues". Which, like "almost all campaigners for the right to food security do", implies "taking positions on some aspects of trade liberalisation and related matters, including the effects of genetic modification and related patent rights". Idem .

- AI position on the prohibition of abortion and the criminalization of adultery

The IEC has decided to campaign against the criminalization of adultery in the framework of the VAW Campaign. Moreover, according to the "Summary of the consultation meeting with VAW Campaign Policy Experts", the only reason for AI not to be able to speak on the right to abortion as a part of the so-called "reproductive rights", is the fact that "AI's members have not been consulted about this controversial and highly emotive debate". “Summary of the consultation meeting with VAW Campaign Policy Experts” , §V. For the rest, the following reasoning is used: first, at two world conferences (Cairo and Beijing), the concept of reproductive rights was confirmed to be "rooted in core human rights" (while these kinds of conferences are not a source of international law). Second, "there is an emerging human rights consensus that women's right to choose to terminate their pregnancies is part of reproductive rights". Idem . Therefore, AI can "affirmatively embrace women's right to choose termination" if a collective moral conviction can be ascertained at an ICM.

2. Our concern: who decides what issues fall within the scope of our mission?

Again, we do not mean to say that AI should or should not work on those issues. We are just concerned that there has never been a clear decision justifying the inclusion of those issues in our work. They do not clearly fall within the scope of our mission. Our mission consists of undertaking "research and action focussed 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". This implies that, not surprisingly, AI deals with human rights – which will not change in case the ICM would adopt the "full spectrum" mission.

However, the examples given are not clearly human rights issues in accordance with "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other international human rights standards" (as put forward in AI's vision). Regarding the relations between developed and developing states (debt, trade) and the use of genetically modified organisms: at least the question should be asked how far the "right to food" can be stretched as a human rights issue. A look must be taken at the usual human rights sources to interpret the extent of such human right. In "Going Full Spectrum" (POL 21/002/2003), the IEC is apparently guided by what other organizations do – even if those organizations do not have a human rights agenda.

Regarding the prohibition of abortion: which human rights sources can be cited for this purpose? Where is the so-called “emerging human rights consensus”? Not every right is a human right.

Regarding the criminalization of adultery: this is not a human rights issue within the current mission (and what is the grave abuse in this matter). The IEC rightly points to the fact that in practice it could be a grave and systematic form of discrimination, if only women and not men are prosecuted. Thus, AI’s action should be based on the freedom from discrimination, which has nothing to do with a position or an action on the incrimination of adultery as such. However, the IEC states that “imprisoning women for CHROM [consensual heterosexual relations outside marriage ] violates their right to free expression” (STOP VAW Campaign – Progress Update 2, ACT 77/011/2003, § II). We believe that this is a remarkably broad interpretation of the freedom of expression.



We do not think that AI should not be proactive. We believe that international law should not be static. But we are convinced that AI should stay within its own mission. Genetically modified food is not an issue that is self-evidently covered by our mission.

So our question is simple: who has decided that AI can take a certain position regarding those issues? And, even more importantly: who will decide this in the future?

3. Our proposal

This resolution wants to make sure that the IEC and/or the IS do not take or suggest a position on issues that do not clearly fall within the scope of our mission. We urge the IEC to develop a decision-making procedure that outlines who can make decisions in this matter, and which criteria are used to make the decision. These criteria might range from having an ICM decision or a positive answer resulting from the "democratic decision-making procedure in crisis situations" (established by 2003 ICM Decision 34) to having the fiat from the SG. We would suggest the involvement from sections/chairs when deciding on these issues.

OSB H - AI Netherlands International Democratic Decision-Making

Explanatory note

Despite its short history, it has on several occasions been suggested that the role of the Chair’s Forum be expanded; Cf. e.g. decision 30 of ICM 2003; Circular 42 to the ICM 2001 (ORG 50/014/2001); The matter is also discussed in POL 10/03/2004.

We strongly believe that an increased representation in the decision process between ICMs would be beneficial to the movement. Several factors indicate that this is the case:

· The expansion of the mandate and the very wide frames of the ISP give very little guidance to the IS/IEC as to what priorities to make. A further expansion of the mandate to the “full spectrum” is subject to decision at the present ICM. The rapid expansion of our field of activities has increased the span of possible courses of actions. A close involvement from the movement is necessary when decisions on different course of actions are to be taken, in order to ensure a common view on priorities.

· Less frequent ICMs were suggested at the ICM 2003. It was generally acknowledged that from many points of view, it would be advantageous to increase the intervals between ICMs to three years. However, the reduced democratic influence was seen as a major obstacle. With this influence exercised through the Chair’s Forum, three years intervals between ICMs would seem more feasible.


OSB K - AI Spain Sobre Compromiso Internacional al Desarrollo de AI En Movilización Internacional y crecimiento

La Reunión del Consejo Internacional:

Pide al CEI que asegure que todos los fondos y recursos y experiencias disponibles en AI para contribuir al desarrollo y al activismo en el sur, tanto en el SI como en las Secciones, se coordinen adecuadamente sobre la base de las prioridades del movimiento establecidas en el Plan Estratégico.

Esto significará necesariamente:

a) Un punto de información donde se recoja toda la información disponible en el movimiento para promover el desarrollo de AI en el sur.
b) Compromiso de las Secciones en informar sobre sus proyectos y posibilidades de desarrollo de AI en el sur y revisar estos proyectos teniendo en cuenta las prioridades del movimiento y los criterios estratégicos establecidos por el Comité Internacional de Crecimiento.
c) Sistemas comunes de evaluación y rendición de cuentas.

Nota explicativa

Aunque todavía no hay resultados alentadores en el desarrollo de AI en el sur, Amnistía Internacional, en especial el CEI y el SI, ha intentado cambiar la situación con variadas reformas muy profundas en relación con el desarrollo internacional

Desde el año 1995 al menos AI ha intentado crecer en el sur y ha plasmado este intento a través de sucesivas resoluciones, por ejemplo la Decisión 1 de la RCI de 1995, que reafirma el compromiso de AI con la pluralidad cultural y su compromiso de incrementar la presencia del Movimiento en todas las regiones del mundo; la Decisión 1 de la RCI de 1999, por la que el movimiento se compromete a crecer en todo el mundo, pero solo en el año 2001, a través de la decisión 19, se da un primer impulso para establecer que hay países y secciones estratégicamente prioritarias, se pide un gran estudio sobre el desarrollo de AI y se pide que se exploren nuevo modelos de desarrollo.

Este resolución ya pedía a las Secciones que “incluyan en su planificación estratégica, operativa y económica posibilidades de cooperación en iniciativas de desarrollo internacional”.

En el año 2003 de la RCI en su Decisión 24 sobre “Crecimiento” se ponía un mayor énfasis en el uso de nuevos modelos para el crecimiento, creando incentivos y apoyos específicos, estudiar los obstáculos al crecimiento y donde se crea el Comité Internacional de Crecimiento Organizativo y se pedía a “todas las partes del movimiento internacional implantan estrategias eficaces de crecimiento sostenible.”

Hemos conocido también el rediseño organizativo del desarrollo dentro del Secretariado Internacional cambiando 23 puestos de trabajo (ver carta de Secretaria General de AI de 8 de diciembre 2004) enfocado a un concepto estratégico del desarrollo a través de formas flexibles(por ejemplo activismo de individuos y no necesariamente estableciendo secciones)y con el fin de lograr un crecimiento real.

También hemos podido comprobar alentados el inicio de trabajo conjunto del SI y Secciones financiadoras (Reunión de 12 y 13 de noviembre).

Sin embargo todavía es ampliamente conocido que las Secciones y el Secretariado Internacional no trabajan juntos en el desarrollo y el crecimiento de AI en el sur. Muchas Secciones disponen de fondos, recursos y contactos que utilizan, con la mejor intención, para promover el desarrollo de manera bilateral basado en los contactos y sin que haya un marco común de trabajo.

Estamos hablando de miles de euros para desarrollo internacional que se da por parte de secciones a otras sin prioridades claras y comunes y sin que, en muchas ocasiones, ni siquiera, informar al Secretariado Internacional o a los comités permanentes.

Además, en el SI, tampoco se han creado los recursos necesarios, que permitan coordinar y facilitar este trabajo de desarrollo.

Por lo tanto es necesario que tanto los recursos disponibles centralmente como aquellos disponibles local o regionalmente se coordinen para lograr los mejores resultados para el crecimiento de AI especialmente en el sur.

Esta propuesta, además, puede contribuir a desarrollar el objetivo estratégico 11.2 de nuestro plan común: “Generar un crecimiento sostenible en todo el movimiento, poniendo particular énfasis en los países del Sur y del Este”.

OSB K - AI Spain AI’s Commitment to the Organization’s Development Of International Mobilization and Growth

The International Council:

REQUIRES the IEC to ensure that all Amnesty International (AI) funds, resources and experience available for contributing to development and activism in the South, in both the International Secretariat (IS) and the Sections, will be adequately coordinated in order to implement movement priorities set out in the Strategic Plan.

This will involve:

d) Creating an information point where all the information available in the movement to promote AI development in the South can be centralized.
e) Commitment by the Sections to provide information about their projects and AI development possibilities in the South, and to revise those projects to take account of movement priorities and strategic criteria established by the International Growth Committee.
f) Uniform evaluation and reporting systems.

Explanatory note

Although attempts to promote AI development in the South have not yet had encouraging results, the International Executive Committee (IEC) and the IS have tried to change the situation by introducing various major reforms in relation to international development.

Since at least 1995, AI has tried to grow in the South, as illustrated by successive resolutions. ICM Decision 1, 1995, reaffirmed AI’s commitment to cultural plurality and its commitment to increase the movement’s presence in all regions of the world. ICM Decision 1, 1999, expressed a commitment to growth throughout the world. However, it was only in 2001, with ICM Decision 19, that AI moved towards establishing that some countries and sections are strategic priorities, requesting the organization to conduct a major study on AI development and requesting it to explore new development models.

That resolution asked Sections to “options for cooperating in international development initiatives in their strategic, operational and economic planning .”

In 2003, ICM Decision 24 on Growth put a greater emphasis on the use of new growth models, establishing incentives and specifying support, requesting the organization to study obstacles to growth, creating the International Committee for Organized Growth and requesting “all parts of the international movement to establish effective sustainable growth strategies.”

We have also witnessed the reorganization of development work in the International Secretariat, with changes to 23 jobs (see letter from the AI General Secretary, 8 December 2004), focusing on a strategic concept of development involving flexible forms (for example, individual activism and not necessarily establishing sections) and with the aim of real growth.

We were also encouraged to see the beginning of joint work between the IS and financing sections (meeting of 12-13 November).

However, it is still widely known that the Sections and the International Secretariat do not work together in the development and growth of AI in the South. Many sections have funds, resources and contacts that they use, with the best intention, to promote development bilaterally, based on their contacts, outside a common organizational framework.

This involves Section donations of thousands of euros for international development, made without establishing clear organizational priorities and without, on many occasions, even informing the IS or the permanent committees.

Neither has the IS created the necessary resources that would allow coordination and facilitation of this development work.

It is therefore necessary that resources at local, regional and central levels are coordinated to achieve better results for the growth of AI, especially in the south.

In addition, this proposal could contribute to the development of strategic objective 11.2 of our joint plan: “Generate sustainable growth across the movement, with particular emphasis on the global South and East.”

* Recommendation to HRS only

** Recommendation to OSB only

FS A - IEC Enabling Resolution Enhancing AI’s Reporting to Stakeholders Aggregated Financial Accounts


The International Council:

DECIDES to undertake a pilot of the aggregation of the accounts with participation of the five largest sections by income and of the international budget;

ASKS the IEC to circulate feedback to the movement before any external dissemination of the associated financial information;

ASKS the IEC to apply as soon as possible a system of aggregated accounts once adjustments have been made based on the lessons learned arising from the pilot.

Explanatory note
Recent developments in the external world mean that AI needs to put greater emphasis on transparency in reporting its activities and financial affairs. This is an obligation under the ISP goal on the improvement of transparency and on progress on good governance.

There is a growing interest in the financial performance and impact of NGOs in general, and over the past few years the number and range of questions pertaining to accountability addressed to AI in particular has increased significantly. This interest is not only from amongst AI members and supporters, but also from the media and other organizations which are increasingly critical of the roles and performances of NGOs. This level of scrutiny will continue as the size and public profile of NGOs increase. Greater interest in NGOs’ public reporting will be generated as organizations such as AI increase pressure on businesses and governments to improve their corporate social responsibility, reporting of corporate policy, and their impact in these areas. As pressure is increased on businesses to improve transparency in corporate reporting, the spotlight will increasingly fall on organizations such as AI to meet similar standards.

Currently, financial statements are produced for AI Ltd, AI Charity Ltd, and combined accounts for both together. These comply with relevant UK company and charity legislation, but until this year gave little information on AI’s activities. In addition, the sections of AI produce individual audited financial statements in compliance with local legislative requirements. These are not consolidated and thus no overview of the financial results or position of AI is available. The external world is probably unaware of the individual status of local sections, and is likely to regard AI as a single organization. Whilst the current system properly reflects AI’s organizational structure, its complexity is potentially confusing to external stakeholders, and the resultant feeling of a lack of transparency and accountability in our financial and operational activities presents a risk to AI’s image and reputation.

The overall aims of our work to aggregate our financial reports are:

- To implement best practice in governance: publicly sharing information about AI’s resources and spending patterns;
- To be able to answer requests by stakeholders about how AI’s money is raised, from whom it is raised and how it is spent on a global basis;
- To develop greater transparency with AI’s funders and donors on our global and local activities and our associated use of the monies we receive.


FS B - IEC Enabling Resolution International Reserves Policy

The International Council:

DECIDES that:
- the target reserves at the international level should be based on a risk assessment at the movement level and based on the consideration of the aggregated reserves, the target will be revised periodically;
- the target liquidity requirements should be greater than 1 for the liquidity ratio and greater than 2 for the current ratio, and will be revised based on periodic risk assessments.

DECIDES that the IEC will report systematically to the ICMs.


Explanatory note

The reserves policy is required by decision of previous ICMs. Following the 2003 ICM, a reserves task force was established to review the existing policies and propose an international policy on reserves. The report of this task force will be discussed at the International Finance Meeting.

A key risk at the international level is that of a major financial crisis in one of the larger sections, and our reserves target should be built taking into account this risk. If a section covers the risk of a financial crisis and the risk of non payment of the contribution to the international budget then there is no need to build reserves at the international budget level and vice versa.

FS C - IEC Enabling Resolution Contribution Incentive

The International Council:

DECIDES to amend the formula for determining section contributions to the international budget by reducing by half the rate of any financial contribution additional to net revenue above the agreed revenue growth target;

DELEGATES to the International Treasurer the decision making with regards to each specific case;

ASKS for a progress report, including evaluation of the implementation of this decision, to be presented at the next ICM.

Explanatory note

The ISP makes the movement’s financial growth a major priority so as to ensure AI has the resources needed to implement our Human Rights strategy. It sets a global average target and innovates by asking sections and the movement as a whole to agree on adequate growth targets section by section, according to the local context

At the initiative of AIUSA, a small group of sections, representatives of the SG and the International Treasurer met in mid 2004 to consider incentives for financial growth. It was agreed that “assessment” is to be considered as a contribution to the international movement and that a 50% reduction in relation to the contribution for any additional net resources would be a good incentive for sections to invest in growth.

FS D – AI USA Fundraising Assessment

The International Council:

Noting that the Integrated Strategic Plan (ISP) calls for all sections to substantially expand their fundraising and fundraising capacity

Recognizing that such an increase in fundraising requires major up front expenditures by the sections which when coupled with the assessment on the increased fundraising frequently leaves little or no operating funds for section use. Thus the assessment system serves as a disincentive to major fundraising initiatives. Further the Fundraising Initiative Fund (FIF) helps only with the cash flow.

DECIDES that any increase in assessable income in excess of the prior year’s inflation adjusted assessable income shall be assessed at 50% of the normal assessment rate. There will be no adjustment for any year when the inflation adjusted assessable income does not exceed the highest previously achieved assessable income.


Explanatory note and example of how system would function
The preambular clauses set out the rationale for this resolution, however it should be noted that this resolution guarantees that both the section and the international budget will benefit from any increase in fundraising. This adjustment to the assessment system would benefit both large and small sections. Lastly the adjustment is easily calculable and does not require any information not already supplied in the Standardized Financial Report (SFR) and will apply automatically.

Example:
2003 assessable income 1,000,000
2004 assessable income 1,200,000
total 2,200,000
divide by 2 =
2005 assessable income 1,100,000
assumed inflation rate 4% 44,000

Base for 2005 adjustment 1,144,000
Actual assessable income 1,244,000 Adjustment 100,000 x 44% assumed assessment rate x 50%

2004 assessable income 1,200,000
2005 assessable income 1,244,000
total 2,444,000
divide by 2 =
2006 assessable income 1,222,000
assumed inflation rate 3% 36,660

base for 2006 adjustment 1,258,660

FS E - AI France «Publiez ce que vous payez »

Le Conseil International :

· Décide qu’Amnesty International prendra formellement position en faveur de la transparence des revenus provenant de l’exploitation de ressources naturelles, renforçant ainsi les efforts de la coalition internationale « Publiez ce que vous payez » (« Publish what you pay »). AI cherchera à exercer des pressions appropriées en ce sens sur les entreprises et Etats concernés ainsi qu’auprès des organisations intergouvernementales (OIG) - notamment les institutions financières internationales (IFI) - des pays donateurs et des banques internationales.

· Demande au CEI de veiller à la mise en œuvre de cette décision.

Note explicative

La revendication « Publiez ce que vous payez » peut constituer un outil important en faveur d’une plus grande responsabilisation de certaines entreprises et, surtout, de certains gouvernements au profit des droits humains. Elle implique également les acteurs qui peuvent exercer une influence sur les Etats concernés, notamment les OIG, les IFI, les pays donateurs et les banques internationales privées qui financent des programmes ou des projets dans les pays producteurs de ressources naturelles.

La résolution proposée n’oblige pas AI à rejoindre la coalition internationale « Publiez ce que vous payez » (certaines sections d’AI font partie de plates-formes nationales liées à cette coalition) mais demande qu’AI prenne position sur ce sujet et intègre cette revendication dans son travail et ses recommandations. Pour l’information de l’ensemble du mouvement, il serait d’ailleurs utile de disposer d’un état des lieux sur les positions du SI et des sections autour de cette thématique et sur les actions qui ont pu être conduites sur ce sujet, en lien ou non avec la coalition « Publish what you pay ».

« Publiez ce que vous payez » vise à obtenir des acteurs privés et publics concernés qu’ils révèlent publiquement les revenus qu’ils ont versés - sous forme d’impôts, de taxes, de redevance ou de bonus - aux Etats détenteurs de ressources naturelles, notamment énergétiques et minières, que ces entreprises exploitent ou espèrent exploiter à l’avenir. L’objectif est que la « société civile » soit informée de façon précise des recettes financières que ces Etats ont collectées et puisse demander des comptes aux gouvernements sur l’utilisation de ces recettes. Faute de cette information cruciale, plusieurs Etats producteurs de ressources naturelles ont pu dissimuler une partie importante de leurs recettes alors que celles-ci auraient pu être, au moins en partie, utilisées pour faire progresser le respect des droits humains, notamment les DESC. L’exemple de l’Angola, qui a pu ainsi dépenser hors budget et sans aucun bénéfice pour sa population plusieurs milliards de dollars provenant de ses revenus pétroliers alors que la situation des DESC, y compris le droit à ne pas souffrir de la faim, était catastrophique, avait débouché sur le lancement de la campagne «Publiez ce que vous payez » il y a quelques années.

La question de la transparence des revenus provenant de l’exploitation des ressources naturelles est à présent à l’ordre du jour de diverses instances internationales telles que le G8 et les autorités britanniques ont lancé l’Initiative sur la transparence dans les industries extractives (EITI) qui est maintenant un processus international (même si l’EITI ne répond pas à tous les objectifs de « Publiez ce que vous payez »). Le moment est donc bien choisi pour qu’AI apporte sa contribution à la satisfaction de cette exigence.

Le sujet de cette résolution peut être rattaché aux objectifs 2 (objectif stratégique 2.3. sur la responsabilité des acteurs non étatiques) et 7 (faire progresser les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels - DESC) du plan stratégique intégré 2004-2010 (PSI) d’Amnesty International.

FS E - AI FRANCE “Publish what you pay"

The International Council Meeting:

· DECIDES that Amnesty International will formally take a position in favour of transparency with regard to revenue from the exploitation of natural resources, thus reinforcing the efforts of the international “Publish what you pay” coalition. Amnesty International will endeavour to exert appropriate pressure in this connection on the businesses and States concerned as well as on the intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) – and in particular the international financial institutions (IFIs) – of donor countries and international banks.

· CALLS ON the IEC to ensure that this decision is implemented.

Explanatory note

The demand “Publish what you pay” could be an important tool in making certain companies and, in particular, certain governments more responsible with regard to human rights. It also implicates the actors who can influence the States concerned, in particular the IGOs and IFIs, donor countries and international private banks that finance programs or projects in countries which are producers of natural resources.

The proposed resolution does not oblige Amnesty International to join the “Publish what you pay” international coalition (some sections of Amnesty International are part of the national platforms associated with this coalition) but calls on Amnesty International to take a position in this matter and include this demand in its work and its recommendations. For the information of the movement as a whole, it would also be useful to have an update on the positions of the IS and the sections on this topic and on action taken in relation to this subject, whether in cooperation with the “Publish what you pay” coalition, or not.

The aim of “Publish what you pay” is for public and private actors to disclose publicly what they have paid - in the form of taxes, levies, royalties or bonuses - to States which own the natural resources, notably energy and mining resources, that these companies are exploiting, or hope to exploit at some time in the future. This is so that “civil society” can have detailed information about the financial revenue these States have taken and can call such governments to account for the use of such revenue. Because this crucial information has not been available, several resource-rich States have been able to conceal a considerable proportion of their revenue, when at least part of this could have been used to promote the respect of human rights, and in particular ESC rights. The “Publish what you pay” campaign was launched a few years ago, triggered by the example of Angola, which spent several billion dollars of its oil revenues, unaccounted for in the budget, and from which the population drew no benefit at all, while the ESC rights situation, including the right to freedom from hunger, was catastrophic.

The issue of transparency of revenues from the exploitation of natural resources is currently on the agenda of several international bodies, such as the G8, and the British government has launched the Extractive Industries' Transparency Initiative (EITI) which is now an international process (even though the EITI does not meet all the objectives of "Publish what you pay"). This is therefore an appropriate time for AI to make its contribution to meeting this requirement.

The subject of this resolution can be related to objectives 2 (Strategic objective 2.3 on the accountability of non-state actors) and 7 (Promote economic, social and cultural – ESC – rights) from Amnesty International’s Integrated Strategic Plan 2004-2010 (ISP).

Please note this resolution is to be discussed by WP-FS to provide recommendations only to WP-HRS.



FS F - AI Spain Sobre Compromiso Internacional al Desarrollo de AI En Movilización Internacional y crecimiento

La Reunión del Consejo Internacional:

Pide al CEI que asegure que todos los fondos y recursos y experiencias disponibles en AI para contribuir al desarrollo y al activismo en el sur, tanto en el SI como en las Secciones, se coordinen adecuadamente sobre la base de las prioridades del movimiento establecidas en el Plan Estratégico.

Esto significará necesariamente:

g) Un punto de información donde se recoja toda la información disponible en el movimiento para promover el desarrollo de AI en el sur.
h) Compromiso de las Secciones en informar sobre sus proyectos y posibilidades de desarrollo de AI en el sur y revisar estos proyectos teniendo en cuenta las prioridades del movimiento y los criterios estratégicos establecidos por el Comité Internacional de Crecimiento.
i) Sistemas comunes de evaluación y rendición de cuentas.

Nota explicativa

Aunque todavía no hay resultados alentadores en el desarrollo de AI en el sur, Amnistía Internacional, en especial el CEI y el SI, ha intentado cambiar la situación con variadas reformas muy profundas en relación con el desarrollo internacional

Desde el año 1995 al menos AI ha intentado crecer en el sur y ha plasmado este intento a través de sucesivas resoluciones, por ejemplo la Decisión 1 de la RCI de 1995, que reafirma el compromiso de AI con la pluralidad cultural y su compromiso de incrementar la presencia del Movimiento en todas las regiones del mundo; la Decisión 1 de la RCI de 1999, por la que el movimiento se compromete a crecer en todo el mundo, pero solo en el año 2001, a través de la decisión 19, se da un primer impulso para establecer que hay países y secciones estratégicamente prioritarias, se pide un gran estudio sobre el desarrollo de AI y se pide que se exploren nuevo modelos de desarrollo.

Este resolución ya pedía a las Secciones que “incluyan en su planificación estratégica, operativa y económica posibilidades de cooperación en iniciativas de desarrollo internacional”.

En el año 2003 de la RCI en su Decisión 24 sobre “Crecimiento” se ponía un mayor énfasis en el uso de nuevos modelos para el crecimiento, creando incentivos y apoyos específicos, estudiar los obstáculos al crecimiento y donde se crea el Comité Internacional de Crecimiento Organizativo y se pedía a “todas las partes del movimiento internacional implantan estrategias eficaces de crecimiento sostenible.”

Hemos conocido también el rediseño organizativo del desarrollo dentro del Secretariado Internacional cambiando 23 puestos de trabajo (ver carta de Secretaria General de AI de 8 de diciembre 2004) enfocado a un concepto estratégico del desarrollo a través de formas flexibles(por ejemplo activismo de individuos y no necesariamente estableciendo secciones)y con el fin de lograr un crecimiento real.

También hemos podido comprobar alentados el inicio de trabajo conjunto del SI y Secciones financiadoras (Reunión de 12 y 13 de noviembre).

Sin embargo todavía es ampliamente conocido que las Secciones y el Secretariado Internacional no trabajan juntos en el desarrollo y el crecimiento de AI en el sur. Muchas Secciones disponen de fondos, recursos y contactos que utilizan, con la mejor intención, para promover el desarrollo de manera bilateral basado en los contactos y sin que haya un marco común de trabajo.

Estamos hablando de miles de euros para desarrollo internacional que se da por parte de secciones a otras sin prioridades claras y comunes y sin que, en muchas ocasiones, ni siquiera, informar al Secretariado Internacional o a los comités permanentes.

Además, en el SI, tampoco se han creado los recursos necesarios, que permitan coordinar y facilitar este trabajo de desarrollo.

Por lo tanto es necesario que tanto los recursos disponibles centralmente como aquellos disponibles local o regionalmente se coordinen para lograr los mejores resultados para el crecimiento de AI especialmente en el sur.

Esta propuesta, además, puede contribuir a desarrollar el objetivo estratégico 11.2 de nuestro plan común: “Generar un crecimiento sostenible en todo el movimiento, poniendo particular énfasis en los países del Sur y del Este”.

FS F - AI Spain AI’s Commitment to the Organization’s Development Of International Mobilization and Growth

The International Council:

REQUIRES the IEC to ensure that all Amnesty International (AI) funds, resources and experience available for contributing to development and activism in the South, in both the International Secretariat (IS) and the Sections, will be adequately coordinated in order to implement movement priorities set out in the Strategic Plan.

This will involve:

j) Creating an information point where all the information available in the movement to promote AI development in the South can be centralized.
k) Commitment by the Sections to provide information about their projects and AI development possibilities in the South, and to revise those projects to take account of movement priorities and strategic criteria established by the International Growth Committee.
l) Uniform evaluation and reporting systems.

Explanatory note

Although attempts to promote AI development in the South have not yet had encouraging results, the International Executive Committee (IEC) and the IS have tried to change the situation by introducing various major reforms in relation to international development.

Since at least 1995, AI has tried to grow in the South, as illustrated by successive resolutions. ICM Decision 1, 1995, reaffirmed AI’s commitment to cultural plurality and its commitment to increase the movement’s presence in all regions of the world. ICM Decision 1, 1999, expressed a commitment to growth throughout the world. However, it was only in 2001, with ICM Decision 19, that AI moved towards establishing that some countries and sections are strategic priorities, requesting the organization to conduct a major study on AI development and requesting it to explore new development models.

That resolution asked Sections to “options for cooperating in international development initiatives in their strategic, operational and economic planning .”

In 2003, ICM Decision 24 on Growth put a greater emphasis on the use of new growth models, establishing incentives and specifying support, requesting the organization to study obstacles to growth, creating the International Committee for Organized Growth and requesting “all parts of the international movement to establish effective sustainable growth strategies.”

We have also witnessed the reorganization of development work in the International Secretariat, with changes to 23 jobs (see letter from the AI General Secretary, 8 December 2004), focusing on a strategic concept of development involving flexible forms (for example, individual activism and not necessarily establishing sections) and with the aim of real growth.

We were also encouraged to see the beginning of joint work between the IS and financing sections (meeting of 12-13 November).

However, it is still widely known that the Sections and the International Secretariat do not work together in the development and growth of AI in the South. Many sections have funds, resources and contacts that they use, with the best intention, to promote development bilaterally, based on their contacts, outside a common organizational framework.

This involves Section donations of thousands of euros for international development, made without establishing clear organizational priorities and without, on many occasions, even informing the IS or the permanent committees.

Neither has the IS created the necessary resources that would allow coordination and facilitation of this development work.

It is therefore necessary that resources at local, regional and central levels are coordinated to achieve better results for the growth of AI, especially in the south.

In addition, this proposal could contribute to the development of strategic objective 11.2 of our joint plan: “Generate sustainable growth across the movement, with particular emphasis on the global South and East.”

Please note this resolution is to be discussed by WP-FS to provide recommendations only to WP-OSB.

Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street, WC1X 0DW, London, United Kingdom