Final Status of Kosovo: The Role of Human Rights and Minority Rights

In view of the massive human rights violations experienced in Kosovo, the reconstruction of society and the final status of the territory have to be based on human rights and minority rights. Besides universal human rights instruments, European regional standards are of particular importance as Kosovo wants to be fully integrated into Europe. The Article identifies the relevant European and international standards and procedures and finds shortcomings with regard to guarantees on economic, social, and cultural rights, which are an indispensable element of human security. It then compares the role given to human and minority rights in the Constitutional Framework of Kosovo with the reality of a lack of protection as reflected in the reports of the Ombudsperson. Among the problems identified are also the lack of accountability of UNMIK in view of its immunity and the lack of access to the protection mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights, although Serbia and Montenegro has ratified the Convention. The Article further analyzes the role of human and minority rights in the Kosovo Standards Implementation Plan ( KSIP ), which aims at a truly multi-ethnic, stable and democratic Kosovo, which is approaching European standards. Human and minority rights are given a major role in the plan, but the budgetary consequences and the question of human resources do not seem to be properly addressed. The creation of a culture of human rights based on confidence in the rule of law that is needed for the full implementation of the KSIP requires increased efforts of education and training in human rights and minority rights on a wide scale. For this purpose, local institutions that can contribute to these aims, such as human rights centers, need to be strengthened. Furthermore, the responsibilities of the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo should be extended to the crucial areas of justice and law enforcement. As the protection of human and minority rights is a key function of any state vis-à-vis its citizens, their strengthening is a way of moving Kosovo closer to statehood

Kosovo – UNMIK accountability: Human Rights Advisory Panel Finds Discrimination in Privatization Cases

Das menschenrechtliche Beratungspanel, welches 2006 ins Leben gerufen wurde, um die Verantwortlichkeit von UNMIK im Kosovo zu stärken, hat sich bisher hauptsächlich mit Fällen zum Eigentumsrecht und hinsichtlich verschwundener Personen beschäftigt. In zwei aktuellen Fällen, die Mitglieder der ägyptischen bzw. serbischen Minderheit betrafen (Fillim Guga und Nevenka Ristić), setzte es sich nun mit der Privatisierung ehemaliger volkseigener Betriebe auseinander und stellte fest, dass es durch die Sonderkammer des Obersten Gerichtshofs, welche durch UNMIK für eben solche Fälle eingerichtet wurde, zu Diskriminierungen auf ethnischer Basis kam, die in der Verantwortlichkeit von UNMIK lagen. Dabei wandte das Beratungspanel Artikel 14 EMRK (Verbot der Diskriminierung) in Verbindung mit Artikel 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren) an, wobei es die relevante Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte miteinbezog. Das Beratungspanel hob darüber hinaus hervor, dass die Sonderkammer des kosovarischen Obersten Gerichtshofs in den vorliegenden Fällen keine indirekte Diskriminierung prima facie sah und das Prinzip der Beweislastumkehr, wie es vom kosovarischen Anti-Diskriminierungs-Gesetz vorgesehen wäre, nicht zur Anwendung brachte. Im Namen von UNMIK verteidigte der Sonderbeauftragte des Generalsekretärs die Feststellungen der Sonderkammer. Die Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen in der abschließenden Stellungnahme des Beratungspanels sehen UNMIK jedoch als für die festgestellten Menschenrechtsverletzungen verantwortlich an und verlangen umgehende und effektive Maßnahmen inklusive einer Entschuldigung und einer entsprechenden Wiedergutmachung für die immateriellen Schäden. Des Weiteren werden EULEX und andere zuständige Behörden im Kosovo aufgefordert, die Fälle vor der Sonderkammer wieder zu eröffnen. Die Arbeit des Beratungspanels wirft darüber hinaus grundsätzliche Fragen der Verantwortlichkeit internationaler Missionen wie UNMIK auf, wozu es einen wichtigen Beitrag liefert.The Human Rights Advisory Panel (HRAP) established in 2006 to strengthen the accountability of UNMIK in Kosovo so far has dealt mainly with cases regarding property and missing persons. In two recent cases of members of the Egyptian and the Serbian minority (Fillim Guga and Nevenka Ristić) it also dealt with privatization of socially-owned enterprises and found discrimination on ethnic grounds by the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, established by UNMIK for such cases, which raises the accountability of UNMIK. In doing so the panel applied Article 14 of the ECHR on prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR on fair trial in the light of relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It also pointed out that in these cases the Special Chamber did not recognize a prima facie case of indirect discrimination and did not apply the principle of reversal of proof as required by the Anti-Discrimination Law of Kosovo. On behalf of UNMIK, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General defended the findings of the Special Chamber. The conclusions and recommendations in the Opinion of the Panel hold UNMIK accountable for the violations found and require it to take immediate and effective measures including an apology and adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as urging EULEX and other competent authorities in Kosovo to reopen the case by the Special Chamber. The work of the HRAP raises wider issues of accountability of international missions like UNMIK, to which it makes an important contribution.  

Effectiveness of Tools of the Council of Europe against Democratic Backsliding

Der "griechische Fall", der zur Suspendierung Griechenlands im jahnr 1969 führte war ein besonderer Teil der Geschichte des Europarates hinsichtlich des Schutzes von Menschenrechten und Demokratie. Dieser auf einem Vortrag bei einer Konferenz in Athen basierende Beitrag stellt die Frage, ob der damalige Geist und politischer Wille gegen massive Menschenrechtsverletzungen vorzugehen im Europarat von heute noch immer anzutreffen ist. So soll sein Einfluss auf die damalige Arbeit des Europarates untersucht und Schlussfolgerungen was daraus für heute gelernt werden kann gezogen werden. In diesem Kontext soll auch die Rolle der damals agierenden Persönlichkeiten hervorgehoben  werden.  Weiters soll die Bedeutung der zwischenzeitlich erfolgten  Erweiterung der Mitgliedschaft des Europarates für das Hochhalten seiner Werte in der Gegenwart untersucht werden. Die Einrichtungen und Instrumente gegen demokratische Rückschritte des Europarates als das demokratische Gewissen Europas  sollen hinsichtlich ihrer Effektivität einst und jetzt verglichen werden. In diesem Zusammenhang werden die Beispiele Russlands und der Türkei bezüglich der Herausforderungen durch anti-liberale Kräfte und den Autoritarismus für Demokratie und Menschenrechte wie auch die Verwendung des Ausnahmezustandes angesprochen. Welche Faktoren beeinflussen die sog. "Sozialisierung " von Mitgliedstaaten als Wächter über gemeinsame europäische Werte? Kann der Europarat seine Verantwortung gegenüber den europäischen Bürgern wahrnehmen? Dies führt zu einigen Schlussfolgerungen hinsichtlich des Erbes des "griechischen Falles" für eine angemessene Antwort auf die Herausforderungen der demokratischen Rückschritte und des schrumpfenden Raumes für Menschenrechte und die Rechtsstaatlichkeit im Europarat von heute sowie einige Empfehlungen für die Zukunft.The “Greek Case” which led to the de facto suspension of Greece in 1969 was a very particular part of the history of the Council of Europe in the protection of human rights and democracy. This contribution, based on a keynote given at a pertinent conference in Athens, will ask whether the spirit and political will to confront major human rights violations existing at that time can still be found in the Council of Europe of today. It will investigate the impact on the work of the Council of Europe at the time and draw some conclusions on lessons learned for today. In this context it will highlight the role of personalities acting on behalf of the Council of Europe at the time. It will also analyse the impact of its enlarged membership on the upholding of its values today. The institutions and tools at the disposal of the Council of Europe as the democratic conscience of Europe against democratic backsliding then and today will be compared with a view to the question of their effectiveness. In this context the examples of the Russian Federation and of Turkey regarding the challenges from anti-liberal forces and authoritarianism for democracy and human rights will be addressed as will be the use of the state of emergency. Which factors influence the “socialization” of member states to become guardians of common European values? Is the Council of Europe able to meet its accountability towards the citizens of Europe? This will lead to some conclusions on the legacy of the “Greek Case” for a proper response to the challenges of democratic backsliding and a shrinking space for human rights and the rule of law in the Council of Europe today as well as some recommendations for the future

Kosovo – UNMIK accountability: Human Rights Advisory Panel Finds Discrimination in Privatization Cases

Das menschenrechtliche Beratungspanel, welches 2006 ins Leben gerufen wurde, um die Verantwortlichkeit von UNMIK im Kosovo zu stärken, hat sich bisher hauptsächlich mit Fällen zum Eigentumsrecht und hinsichtlich verschwundener Personen beschäftigt. In zwei aktuellen Fällen, die Mitglieder der ägyptischen bzw. serbischen Minderheit betrafen (Fillim Guga und Nevenka Ristić), setzte es sich nun mit der Privatisierung ehemaliger volkseigener Betriebe auseinander und stellte fest, dass es durch die Sonderkammer des Obersten Gerichtshofs, welche durch UNMIK für eben solche Fälle eingerichtet wurde, zu Diskriminierungen auf ethnischer Basis kam, die in der Verantwortlichkeit von UNMIK lagen. Dabei wandte das Beratungspanel Artikel 14 EMRK (Verbot der Diskriminierung) in Verbindung mit Artikel 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren) an, wobei es die relevante Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte miteinbezog. Das Beratungspanel hob darüber hinaus hervor, dass die Sonderkammer des kosovarischen Obersten Gerichtshofs in den vorliegenden Fällen keine indirekte Diskriminierung prima facie sah und das Prinzip der Beweislastumkehr, wie es vom kosovarischen Anti-Diskriminierungs-Gesetz vorgesehen wäre, nicht zur Anwendung brachte. Im Namen von UNMIK verteidigte der Sonderbeauftragte des Generalsekretärs die Feststellungen der Sonderkammer. Die Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen in der abschließenden Stellungnahme des Beratungspanels sehen UNMIK jedoch als für die festgestellten Menschenrechtsverletzungen verantwortlich an und verlangen umgehende und effektive Maßnahmen inklusive einer Entschuldigung und einer entsprechenden Wiedergutmachung für die immateriellen Schäden. Des Weiteren werden EULEX und andere zuständige Behörden im Kosovo aufgefordert, die Fälle vor der Sonderkammer wieder zu eröffnen. Die Arbeit des Beratungspanels wirft darüber hinaus grundsätzliche Fragen der Verantwortlichkeit internationaler Missionen wie UNMIK auf, wozu es einen wichtigen Beitrag liefert.The Human Rights Advisory Panel (HRAP) established in 2006 to strengthen the accountability of UNMIK in Kosovo so far has dealt mainly with cases regarding property and missing persons. In two recent cases of members of the Egyptian and the Serbian minority (Fillim Guga and Nevenka Ristić) it also dealt with privatization of socially-owned enterprises and found discrimination on ethnic grounds by the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, established by UNMIK for such cases, which raises the accountability of UNMIK. In doing so the panel applied Article 14 of the ECHR on prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR on fair trial in the light of relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. It also pointed out that in these cases the Special Chamber did not recognize a prima facie case of indirect discrimination and did not apply the principle of reversal of proof as required by the Anti-Discrimination Law of Kosovo. On behalf of UNMIK, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General defended the findings of the Special Chamber. The conclusions and recommendations in the Opinion of the Panel hold UNMIK accountable for the violations found and require it to take immediate and effective measures including an apology and adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as urging EULEX and other competent authorities in Kosovo to reopen the case by the Special Chamber. The work of the HRAP raises wider issues of accountability of international missions like UNMIK, to which it makes an important contribution.  

Observation of Dirac Charge Density Waves in Bi2_2Te2_2Se

While parallel segments in the Fermi level contours, often found at the surfaces of topological insulators (TIs) would imply "strong" nesting conditions, the existence of charge density waves (CDWs) - periodic modulations of the electron density - has not been verified up to now. Here, we report the observation of a CDW at the surface of the Bi$_2$Te$_2$Se(111), below $\approx 350\,$K by helium atom scattering, and thus experimental evidence of a CDW involving Dirac topological electrons. Deviations of the order parameter observed below $180\,$K and a low temperature break of time reversal symmetry suggest the onset of a spin density wave with the same period as the CDW in presence of a prominent electron-phonon interaction originating from the Rashba spin-orbit coupling

Inelastic Helium Atom Scattering from Sb2Te3(111): Phonon Dispersion, Focusing Effects and Surfing

We present an experimental study of inelastic scattering processes on the (111) surface of the topological insulator Sb2Te3 using helium atom scattering. In contrast to other binary topological insulators such as Bi2Se3 and Bi2Te3, Sb2Te3 is much less studied and the as-grown Sb2Te3 sample turns out to be p-doped, with the Fermi-level located below the Dirac-point as confirmed by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. We report the surface phonon dispersion along both high symmetry directions in the energy region below 11 meV, where the Rayleigh mode exhibits the strongest intensity. The experimental data is compared with a study based on density functional perturbation theory calculations, providing good agreement except for a set of additional peculiar inelastic events below the Rayleigh mode. In addition, an analysis of angular scans with respect to a number of additional inelastic events is presented, including resonance enhancement, kinematical focusing, focused inelastic resonance and surfing. In the latter case, phonon-assisted adsorption of the incident helium atom gives rise to a bound state where the helium atom rides the created Rayleigh wave.The authors are grateful for financial support by the FWF (Austrian Science Fund) within the project P29641-N36, as well as by NAWI Graz. We would like to thank the Aarhus University Research Foundation, VILLUM FOUNDATION via the Centre of Excellence for Dirac Materials (Grant No. 11744) and the SPP1666 of the DFG (Grant No. HO 5150/1-2) for financial support. M. Bremholm acknowledges financial support from the Center of Materials Crystallography (CMC) and the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF93)

Governing information flows during war : a comparative study of content governance and media policy responses after Russia's attack on Ukraine

Media governance has changed substantially after Russia's attack on Ukraine. A digital Iron Curtain was put up, as social media companies withdrew or were banned in Russia and Russian state sponsored news outlets were the targets of EU sanctions and deplatforming. This study analyses how 29 states, including 18 EU members, have dealt with the media governance questions related to the informational dimension of Russia's war on Ukraine. It appears that in only one country Finland did large private media outlets act quickly on their own initiative after the start of the military aggression against Ukraine to suspend the distribution of Russian news channels. There are examples that some companies in Austria and Latvia took similar actions, but the scale is smaller. In five countries Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland the national authorities issued instructions to suspend Russian media outlets shortly after the invasion, prior to the 1 March 2022 Council Regulation 2022/350 and even before the President of the European Commission announced on 27 February 2022 the intention to implement such a measure across the EU. Given the shortness of this "time window" it would be overly formal to give too much meaning to the question "Who acted first?" private media companies or national governments. What matters is that access to certain Russian and Belarussian media outlets was suspended within a very short period as a result of coordinated activity between national authorities and private actors. There are no reports of non-compliance with the respective state instructions. Most EU Member State responses were confined to the transposition of the sanctions imposed against Russia at the supranational level, including the ban on Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik, without taking further, more wide-ranging action. The transposition of Council Regulation 2022/350 was typically accompanied by communications by the respective regulatory agencies in EU Member States to media companies and internet providers on their new duties emanating from the sanctions. Hence, the role of regulatory agencies was mostly confined to informing norm addressees of the new European legislation. The majority of non-EU states, (in our survey Albania, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Iceland, Israel, Moldova, Norway, Serbia, South Africa, and Turkey), have not imposed any sanctions at all. Outside the EU, the United Kingdom stands out: the media regulator Ofcom opened 27 investigations against RT, and the UK’s public service broadcaster, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), halted all content licensing with its Russian customers. In contrast, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina chose to rely on general liability regulations for spreading disinformation and not conforming with the journalistic principles of objective information and transparency. Most governments did not propose or introduce domestic legislation aimed at regulating platforms, social media accounts or TV channels in response to the war in Ukraine. A small number of states located within geographical proximity to Russia or Belarus introduced legislative changes; for example, via amendments to existing laws, such as Estonia and Latvia; by introducing a state of emergency that extends to the control of broadcasting and social media, such as Lithuania; or by conferring additional powers on security agencies to monitor the media coverage of the war, such as Moldova. In addition, several governments asked their respective national regulators to ban or block access to Russian TV stations. For example, in Belgium, the Flemish (regional) parliament asked the government to take all possible measures against Russian disinformation, and to advocate for a stronger EU-wide framework against disinformation