Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:10:05
Dear colleagues,
The sitting is open.
I remind members that they should insert their badge before taking the floor. As you begin your speech, please press the microphone “request” button once only.
This morning the Agenda calls for the election of three judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Andorra, Armenia and Slovenia.
The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Documents 16085, 16080 and 16027. The opinion of the Committee is presented in Document 16096 Addendum 2.
The voting will take place in the area behind the President's Chair.
At 1:00 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll. Counting will then take place under the supervision of four tellers, who have been chosen by the political groups. The tellers are:
From the Group of the European People's Party Mr Sergiy VLASENKO
From the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group Ms Agnes Sirkka PRAMMER
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Ms Rian VOGELS
Group of the Unified European Left Mr Berdan ÖZTÜRK
I would like to remind them that they will have to be in the room set aside for this purpose at 1:00 p.m.. The result of the vote will be announced at the beginning of this afternoon’s sitting.
For these first ballots, an absolute majority of the votes is required. If a second round has to be organised, it will take place this afternoon from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
I now declare the ballot open.
We continue our work in the meantime.
The next item of business this morning is the debate on the Report titled “The need for a renewed rules-based international order”, Document 16087, presented by Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
This will be followed by a statement by Mr Marko BOŠNJAK, President of the European Court of Human Rights, whom I thank for being here with us today.
In order to finish by 1:00 p.m., I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 11:55 a.m. to allow time for the reply and the vote.
I now call Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS, rapporteur. You have 7 minutes now – I know that you want 8, I will do my best – and 3 minutes at the end – so you will have 2 at the end.
You have the floor, Dora.
Thank you, Mister President.
Dear colleagues, allow me to begin by honouring the [inaudible, because of mic problems].
OK, I'll start again, I need a minute.
Thank you, Mister President.
Dear colleagues, allow me to begin by honouring the solemn occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Holocaust.
The Holocaust remains one of the darkest chapters in human history, a chilling testament to the catastrophic failure of nations to uphold a rule-based international order.
It serves as a haunting reminder of the nightmares that await us when we sleep on our shared responsibility to humanity.
And today, dear colleagues, the time of dreaming has passed. The alarm has sounded. It is time to wake up and act. The report we are voting on today has as its sole purpose to serve as an alarm bell for all European citizens. It is a stark reminder that we can no longer afford illusions. We must stand on our own feet, face the reality that some of the most critical partners do not share our values and above all, strengthen our unity.
Only through solidarity and shared purpose can we ensure Europe's survival and its rightful place in the world. The time for complacency is gone. Now it's time for action.
I understand that Europe isn't the most charming of concepts. It doesn't have the allure of the countless and often conflicting national myths that the peoples of Europe have cherished and nurtured over the decades. The true glue that binds us together isn't a romanticised history of sentimental nostalgia. It's our shared belief in something greater, in democracy, in human rights, in the rule of law, in freedom.
These are the values that define us, that give Europe its strength and purpose. They may not be flashy, but they are the foundation of everything we stand for.
Dear colleagues, 17th century French poet Nicolas Boileau once wrote "often the fear in one evil leads to a worse".
His words resonate deeply in our current moment. The world in which Europe thrived is shifting rapidly. And it's not error to feel the pressure of being squeezed between the revisionist ambitions coming from both East and West.
But if we allow fear to dictate our decisions, if we resign ourselves to the idea that the united Europe is destined for irrelevance, we will have done our competitors a great favour.
It is evident that global non-European powers do not want a Europe that stands united. The principle of divide and rule remains one of the oldest and most effective strategies in the playbook of big powers. A Europe that speaks with one voice, that defends its values and interest as one, is a formidable opponent for more difficult to challenge than a fractured European consumed by the rise of competing nationalism within its borders.
This is precisely why the leaderships of global non-European powers actively support European political forces that openly oppose unity.
They understand that a divided Europe is a weaker Europe, easier to manipulate, easier to exploit, and incapable of securing its rightful place on the global stage.
We must not fall in this trap.
To protect our shared values, our collective prosperity, and our future, Europe must reject the temptation of nationalism and disunity. Instead, we must reaffirm our commitment to the strength that lies in our unity, standing together as one in the face of external pressures and internal challenges alike.
It is not an easy task. The adversaries of a united Europe and its core values, both within and beyond our continent, are weaponising fake news, advancing algorithms, divisive identity politics to fracture and inflame. They also capitalise on the mistakes we made. Over the past decades, there were moments when we failed to properly explain the profound changes reshaping our societies, moments when we neglected to support local communities grappling within the demands of globalisation, and moments when we prioritised economic metrics over the feelings and concerns of the people. That must change, starting now.
Dear colleagues, in these challenging times, when so many feel adrift, we must offer a vision that resonates with people, one that is both grounded in reason and built on facts.
The solution to a struggling democracy can never be less democracy. It must always be better democracy.
Dear colleagues, the time for complacency is over. The path forward must begin with the Council of Europe. As the guardians of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, we have the responsibility to lead by example. In the face of division and rising authoritarianism, let us reaffirm our unity, purpose, and unwavering commitment to multilateralism.
This report highlights the critical need for the Council of Europe and its member states to stay actively engaged with other countries, international organisations, and partners to tackle shared challenges effectively, to counter threats to the European way of life, safeguard democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and maintain Europe's influence on the global stage. Member states must work toward an open, rules-based international order grounded in realism, instead of becoming an ever shrinking club of like-minded countries.
This is the core message of the report. A stronger Europe begins with us, our decisions, our vision, and our unwavering commitment to a shared future. I look forward to hearing your perspectives and collaborating to achieve our goals.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:20:26
Thank you, Dora.
[Light applause]
Now we come to the statement by Mr Marko BOŠNJAK the President of the European Court of Human Rights.
I welcome him to our Parliamentary Assembly.
And Mister Bošnjak, you have the floor.
President of the European Court of Human Rights
10:20:43
Dear President Rousopoulos,
Dear Secretary General Chatzivassiliou,
Honourable Members of the Parliamentary Assembly,
Dear Ambassadors,
Ladies and gentlemen,
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, a cornerstone of the Council of Europe’s protection of human rights and global human rights architecture.
We have come a long way from the time when here, in the Parliamentary Assembly, the idea of the Convention was born and brought to life. Through the Court’s interpretation of it as a “living instrument”, the Convention now applies to situations that were unforeseeable and unimaginable at the time when it was adopted, including issues related to new technologies, bioethics or climate change. This shows that the Convention can safeguard human rights and address any challenges in a rapidly changing world. Recently those challenges include threats to the rule of law.
This is why today I wish to address you on the unique and essential role of the Court in safeguarding, promoting and inspiring the international order based on the rule of law in Europe and beyond.
The Convention is imbued with the principle of the rule of law which is inherent in all its articles, making it a rule-of-law instrument.
Guided by that principle as a lodestar in its interpretation of the Convention, the Court has reinforced the importance of the rule of law in numerous cases, such as those concerning extraordinary renditions, or in cases of democratic backsliding, such as those concerning judicial reform in Poland.
These examples show that in upholding the rule of law the Court must often work in tandem with the Parliamentary Assembly, other Council of Europe institutions, the European Union and other international organisations.
That requires interpreting the Convention in harmony with other international instruments. Thus, the Court has consistently held that the Convention cannot be interpreted and applied without taking into account relevant rules and principles of international law. For instance, in last year’s landmark case of Ukraine v. Russia (re. Crimea) the Court interpreted the Convention in light of international humanitarian law finding the application of Russian law in Crimea unlawful under the Convention.
This approach, which fosters a harmonious interpretation of international law and prevents its fragmentation, is not a one-way street. Other relevant international instruments and other sources of international law need to be interpreted and applied in harmony with the Convention. For example, the Court has held that UN Security Council resolutions should be interpreted with the presumption that the Security Council did not intend to impose obligations violating human rights.
This is how the Court injects the rule of law into the bloodstream of international law. Being one of the international courts most frequently called upon and a global standard-setter in human rights protection, it should therefore not come as a surprise that the crucial inspiration for a recent judgment on climate change by the South Korean Constitutional Court was our Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz judgment, which will certainly continue to resonate globally and will undoubtedly have an influence on the International Court of Justice in its climate case.
In recent years, a key example of the Court’s commitment to the rules-based international order has been its ability to deal with an unprecedented number of conflict-related cases. Through the exercise of its residual jurisdiction, the Court is currently the only forum in the world holding the Russian Federation accountable for its human rights violations.
This shows that the Court does not succumb to the old Latin dictum Inter arma silent leges (In times of war, the law falls silent). Instead, it demonstrates the importance of the possibility of successfully litigate even in such times and underscores the Court’s role as the judicial arm of the Council of Europe, which is there not only to prevent war but to tame it.
Because of its special contribution to peace and international understanding, the Court was this year awarded the Dresden International Peace Prize which I will have the honour to accept on behalf of the Court this February.
President of the European Court of Human Rights
10:26:00
Ladies and gentlemen,
The harmonious interpretation of international law and the effective functioning of the Convention system, based on shared responsibility, require both judicial dialogue and knowledge sharing. The main pillars of this exchange within the Convention system are requests for advisory opinions under Protocol 16, our knowledge-sharing platform and our Network of Superior Courts, which includes not only courts from all Council of Europe member states, but also three regional observer courts: the Court of Justice of the European Union and the two regional human rights courts, namely the Inter-American and the African. In December 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada expressed its wish to become an observer court. Even more recently, last week, the Supreme Court of Mexico also expressed its wish to join the Network.
This shows that our judicial dialogue extends beyond Europe. In 2018, the Court, together with the other two regional courts, adopted the San José Declaration and created the Permanent Forum for Institutional Dialogue, which meets every two years.
The Court also engages in dialogue with United Nations bodies. Last year, meetings were held with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the President of the International Mechanism to carry out the residual functions of the Criminal Tribunals. This year, a delegation from the Court will visit the International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Committee.
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is necessary to renew and reinvigorate the rules-based international order. The Court will play its part, as it has done to date, but strengthening the Court's bilateral and multilateral relations and dialogue beyond Europe requires resources.
What's more, the Court's legitimacy in guaranteeing the rule of law and promoting it beyond Europe depends on the effective implementation of its judgments, for which it needs the co-operation and support of the Council of Europe and its institutions. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has a powerful role to play, and you are already doing a great deal in this respect.
As part of the renewed commitment to the Convention, the Reykjavík Declaration invited you to strengthen the political dialogue with your respective national interlocutors on the question of implementing the judgments.
You are the "political engine" of the Organisation and the political guardians of human rights and democracy. You speak for 675 million Europeans and, thanks to your dual role as Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe members and national parliamentarians, you have the invaluable opportunity to inform, decide, influence and enlighten on the vital work being done in the service of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, both here in Strasbourg and at home in your national capitals. The value of your work cannot be underestimated as it concretely strengthens co-operation between the national and international levels and enables us to better understand one another.
That's why I'm counting on you and appealing for your renewed support.
In conclusion, Mister President, I join you in expressing the hope that this year, the rule of law will prevail over the reign of force, in keeping with the vision of our founders: to place international law above the power of arms and to put the power of law before the "law" of the powerful.
Ladies and gentlemen, deputies of this High Assembly, I assure you that the Court will play its part in making this wish a reality.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:31:04
Thank you, Mister President.
Dear colleagues, I will now open the list of speakers and I will call Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party to take the floor. Yelyzaveta.
Ukraine, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group
10:31:23
Hello, dear colleagues. Yes, it's working.
Dear colleagues,
Let me congratulate our rapporteur on raising this incredibly timely, important topic. All of us, we need an absolute rethinking of the international order. And as is rightly said in the report, we have unprecedented challenges for different international organisations. I don't need to name them, they are all in the report.
But what do we see now? We see that some of these organisations, including the United Nations, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and many others, are going through crises internally of not being able to deliver their work, but also of a certain distrust that is coming from society. We're working here on a number of initiatives of actually restoring trust in this organisation. But we need to be very honest that these organisations need reforms. They need to have the mechanisms and everything possible to face and address the challenges that we currently have.
I will not be opening your eyes by saying that unfortunately, some of these organisations, because of the full scale invasion of Russia in Ukraine, are not able to deliver their standard functions unfortunately. Which means what?
We need to make sure that over the next years, we in this Parliamentary Assembly create not only a platform, but a good example of how we can work together to create the mechanisms that will matter. And we do have a number of mechanisms that we have already created. I just want to name the Register of Damage, the compensation mechanism that we voted for in this Parliamentary Assembly.
And then in the UN we also had a vote. It created an important, very important pillar for justice for the future. It gives a lot of Ukrainians the big hope that one day we will finally have justice.
And there are many more opportunities that we can use now to create platforms for the facilitation of the exchange of prisoners of war, of civilians, of children, on all the humanitarian functions that the United Nations and other organisations actually do have in their mandate.
We need to make sure that these functions are restored, but which address the current real challenges, not the ones from 70, 80 years ago, but the ones that exist right now.
And I really hope that in the next session we will again be reflecting on what we did in this period. And I just want to wish that we don't stop on this.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:34:35
Thank you, Yelyzaveta.
On behalf of the European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance Mr Zsolt NÉMETH.
You have the floor.
Hungary, EC/DA, Spokesperson for the group
10:34:45
Thank you, Mister President, dear colleagues, Secretary General, dear Dora,
Congratulations for this important report.
I think we know that we need to look outside the Council of Europe. We need to look outside Europe under present global circumstances. Our attention every day is focusing today on Washington D.C., what's happening there. I think this report is extremely important from this perspective. It helps us to look outside Europe I am glad we have this report in front of us. I would like to congratulate the President of the European Court of Human Rights.
We have two important guiding lines when we talk about international law. The European Convention on Human Rights. Important what we have heard from the President. I think it was important to listen to him in this hemicycle. It would be useful to do that exercise in the future more often. And the other one is the UN Charter. As the previous speaker said, the UN is in a serious crisis because the Security Council doesn't work.
And now I think we need to pay attention to the UN. What's going to happen with the UN in the future, how the international actors, how America, how Europe, how the Council of Europe elect. I think our office in New York would be very important, as the recommendation suggests, to put in place our New York office of the Council of Europe.
But the values of the UN are important and the values, the founding values of the UN Charter are valid. I think it's important that our rapporteur was focusing on this. It's important that the new American administration is reinforcing the fundamental values of the UN. So I think peace in Ukraine and the war of the aggression of Russia is coming closer. The rule of law instead of the rule of force, is coming closer. It is a fundamental value. The new concept of security vis-a-vis migration, for example, is coming closer. The new and classical understanding of human rights, conservative understanding of basic human rights, the non-interference, the sovereign equality of nations is coming also close. A new form of Atlanticism. And it was reflected in the report. NATO, NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Finally a global responsibility, the global good. Paying attention to the Global South.
However, I may not share the differentialisation in the report of Global East and Global South. The Global East and the Global South are quite close to each other. But anyway, I think the most important message of the report is that we need unity, unity inside Europe, unity inside the West and engagement with the external world, especially with the Global South.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:38:27
Thank you, Mister President of the European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance. And now I give the floor to Ms Larysa BILOZIR on behalf of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Larysa.
Ukraine, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group
10:38:50
Dear Mister President,
Dear fellow colleagues,
I want to express my gratitude on the behalf of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to the rapporteur for addressing the need to uphold the rules-based international order. That lies in the heart of preserving peace, security and stability, particularly when its principles are under constant threat.
The war in Ukraine underscores this urgency. Russia assaults the principles upon which the UN and Council of Europe were founded by destroying people's lives, by destroying our sovereign countries, killing civilians, abducting people, children, and daily bombing houses, maternity hospitals, the nursing homes for the elderly people. Russia's invasion of Ukraine systematically deports over 40 000 children annually. Can you imagine? Now those children who live in occupied Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions are forced to fight in the Russian army against their motherhood, with high readiness to fight against the West if needed.
Impunity is dangerous. And Russia has already replaced international law with the rule of force. While the UN fails to combat this violation, Russia's appetite is growing each day.
I also want to remind you that the UN Secretary-General Antonio GUTERRES did not participate in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine in Switzerland. Instead, he went to Russia for the BRICS Summit, met with the war criminal PUTIN, and shook his hand. Such steps of the UN Secretary-General do not contribute to peace.
I want to remind you that Russia didn't go through the procedure of the UN's Statute Charter. It illegally occupied the Soviet Union's place in the Council that doesn't let the UN take decisive steps and Russia uses its position to shield itself from accountability.
Dear colleagues, it's high time we demonstrate our unity. We have to ensure adherence to international law, create a special tribunal for the crime of aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, support the work of the International Criminal Court and uphold the ruling of the International Court of Justice.
It is important to reconsider the membership of Russia that violates international law by invading sovereign states and to reconsider the use of veto power by permanent members.
Believe me, colleagues, Ukraine, like no other nation, understands the importance of raising the Council's global influence, as well as the cost of inaction. Let us choose action. Let us choose reform. Let us choose a future rooted in justice, accountability and rules.
Thank you very much indeed.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:42:03
Thank you, Madam Bilozir.
And now we'll call Mr Alexis TSIPRAS on behalf of the United European Left.
Thank you. Thank you, Mister President.
Today's resolution is very timely, but I believe we need to speak clearly.
We live in a multipolar world, with multiple crises and huge inequalities.
And Mr Donald Trump after his reelection tells us that in this world – where authoritarian regimes are becoming stronger – it is not in the interests of the US to agree new, more inclusive rules based on international law, as it did in 1945 or 1990, but to replace these rules with one rule: “might makes right”.
The United States will act to its immediate benefit, even if that means not respecting borders, the internal affairs of states and international organisations. Politics will be based on the power not of politicians, but of billionaires who became richer during the economic crisis, the wars and the pandemic.
As Hannah Arendt said of imperialism: "Businessmen became politicians and politicians were only taken seriously when they spoke like businessmen".
All this, however, did not come out of nowhere.
The rise of far-right populism is based on the contradictions of neoliberal globalisation, that led to a global economic crisis and huge inequalities.
It is based on the fact that there was no fair transition to the green agenda and the costs were paid by consumers, while big companies became richer.
It is based on our double standards when we rightly condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but are afraid to speak about the thousands of deaths by Israel in Palestine.
And we are afraid to talk about peace in Ukraine and let Mr Donald Trump and Mr Viktor Orbán speak about it first.
It is based on the hypocrisy of those who wanted foreign workers, but are unwilling to support their rights; who supported wars, but are unwilling to accept refugees.
We see today the shameful images of the violent deportation of people who have lived for decades in the United States.
So what we need today I think is a broad coalition of governments, movements and citizens: a “European alliance of democracy and justice” that promotes our values while having learnt the lessons of the last 30 years.
The Council of Europe must send the message: that we accept a new multipolar world in which the West will have a strong role without dominating, that we want – together with the UN, and EU, and regional organisations from around the world – to discuss a new international architecture, on the basis of the UN Charter.
And that our relationship with the United States can only be based on mutual respect, respect for our borders and the clear message that we will not accept interference in our political systems.
Thank you very much.
[Light applause]
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:46:13
Thank you Mister Tsipras.
On behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, I call Ms Marietta KARAMANLI.
Ms Marietta KARAMANLI.
France, SOC, Spokesperson for the group
10:46:23
Thank you, Mister Chairman.
Madame rapporteur,
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I would like to thank Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS, the rapporteur, for this timely work in uncertain times, balanced by a reminder of the importance of the law, and which also puts into perspective the acceptance of common rules, vectors of multilateralism, and the efforts of the United Nations to improve the acceptability of international bodies seen as platforms for global relations between states.
Both the UN and our own Assembly are, by their very nature, institutions that transcend national or regional interests alone. Among other things, the rapporteur rightly points to the need to work more closely with the United Nations as a partner in strengthening rules-based multilateralism.
I would like to make three additional observations.
Firstly, as Chair of our Assembly's Sub-Committee on External Relations, I had the pleasure and responsibility, along with the Chair of the Committee on Democracy and Political Affairs, of leading a delegation from our Assembly last November to hold numerous talks at UN headquarters with UN representatives. A wide range of subjects were discussed, including peacekeeping, the fight against terrorism, human rights and economic development.
The conclusion is clear: there is clearly a democratic offensive to be waged today to defend and promote multilateralism, understood as states joining together to resolve their differences peacefully and pursue common goals. On the one hand, multilateralism has concrete results that need to be better publicised. I hope that our Assembly can support initiatives aimed at ensuring that national parliaments take greater ownership of such successes.
On the other hand, UN bodies must also be more inclusive of the diversity of the world's states and regions. This is a major project currently underway. At the same time, the UN, the Council of Europe and our Parliamentary Assembly have a culture of human rights and peace.
And on this last point, as a group, we would like to stress the priority that we must share: that lasting peace should be more rewarding for everyone in a world that is increasingly interdependent, not only through economic and human exchanges, but also in the face of the scientific and social challenges that our world is already facing, including climate change and sustainable development.
What's at stake here is culture, ideas to be shared and commitments to be fulfilled. The recognition of the Council of Europe as a regional organisation, the strengthening of links between the General Secretariats of our Organisation and the UN, and the presence of a permanent delegation, as mentioned in the report, are all elements that will enable us to promote the culture and its well-understood benefits.
The Socialist, Democratic and Green Group, whose speaker in this debate I am, supports and will vote in favor of this draft report.
Thank you for your attention.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:49:53
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Karamanli.
And with Ms Marietta KARAMANLI we have closed the first round of the representatives of the parties.
I open now the list and I give the floor to Ms Petra BAYR.
Dear Petra, you have the floor.
Thank you. Yeah, thank you.
Thank you very much, Theodoros. Mister President of the Court, Mr Marko BOŠNJAK.
The UN framework for a sustainable future, the Sustainable Development Goals in their goal 16, focus on strong institutions, including access to justice, which is key in institutions, but also key to meet all the other goals.
Also the pact of the future of the UN is clear on this and well functioning courts are substantial in this regard.
Knowing other international courts and how they are composed and how the judges are selected, I think I can say that the democratic standards we follow when we elect the judges for the European Court of Human Rights are very high. We have a saying in Austria, "the good is the enemy of the better". So it's always possible to improve what you are doing, even if it's already good.
And I would like to take the chance to tell you that the Committee for the Election of Judges is not only hearing, interviewing the judges, and then making recommendations to the plenary whom you should vote. And we of course hope that you follow our suggestions. We are also working on the improvement of this election procedure. I'm very grateful for the openness of all the important stakeholders, for their openness to debate with us and to exchange and identify where we should turn screws in our proceeding to become even better. So I just can tell that we just this morning had an exchange with the President and the Bureau of the Court and it was indeed very fruitful. And we decided to continue because there is still a lot to debate. So thank you once more, Mister President Bošnjak.
We also have had exchanges with former judges, with the panel of experts from the Committee of Ministers who screens the lists and the CVs beforehand. And we will have many more debates with other important stakeholders.
As the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, we have an important role in upholding and renewing a well functioning rules-based international order. And I think that we really should take this opportunity by guaranteeing an effective European Court of Human Rights and also to work on the implementation of its sentences on the national level. Because both a well functioning Court and a well functioning implementation of its decisions is substantial on the one hand, in the trust in the Convention and of course, also to the protection of the human rights of all citizens from all our constituencies and countries.
I'm happy that we have the opportunity to make it better than we already do it today.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:53:23
Thank you, Petra.
Mr Hayk MAMIJANYAN is next.
Thank you Mister President. Ladies and gentlemen,
All the countries in the world, all the nations have to pay a price for the new world order to be established.
Armenians paid that price in the beginning of the 20th century by facing a genocide in the Ottoman Empire. Afterwards, we paid that price with the victims of more than 300 000 of our soldiers who fought the Nazis. It was for the previous world order. Unfortunately, we have already paid a very high price for the new world order as well. We paid that price in 2020 by facing the Azerbaijani aggression. And we faced that price by the ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is too high a price for our nation.
Well, all of us are legislators here. And we do know that the core, the center of the law is the people, the human being who believes in the strength of that law. Well, people in Nagorno-Karabakh believed in international law. Unfortunately, they were fooled. They were betrayed by the current Armenian government and by the world. And they were left alone with the dictators.
The world must not let the story be repeated. The new world order must be based on values and rules, not on oil and geopolitical interests. Well, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I do believe that I'm not the only one.
There is no rule in the world that says that it's okay for the Armenians to be humiliated and imprisoned in Baku. There is no rule in the world that says that it's okay for the people of Nagorno Karabakh, for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, to be forcefully moved away from their homeland. There is no rule that says it is okay to live each day under the danger of aggression from Azerbaijan, under the threats of the dictator of Azerbaijan. So we, the Armenians, are the gatekeepers of the Christian world. We shouldn't be left alone. And please believe we do need the help and the support of the world.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:56:30
Thank you, Hayk.
Ms Victoria TIBLOM is next.
Thank you, Mister President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
This report concerns the urgent need for the world to counteract the current erosion as regards to our long-standing international rules. Rules for how we should deal with each other as countries. For example, how we shape our foreign policies in order to preserve and strengthen peace; or our efforts to expand our trade to make it available and fair to all parties. Simplified, how we go about making this a better, rather than a worse world in which to live.
The Council of Europe has made an outstanding contribution to strengthening rules-based multilateralism by promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law and contributing to creating a single European legal space.
But the "wear and tear" of time is always there. It puts under strain both international rules as such and the institutions there to uphold them.
By way of example, a former Council of Europe member country, Russia, has over the past three years been breaching a founding principle of ours and of international law, namely the invasion of another country – indeed accompanied by the wholesale killing of the civilian population. This is in utter and total violation of international law.
The need for a renewed rules-based international order arises from the failure of the current multilateral framework to effectively address and advance the broader interests of humanity. The world is currently facing the highest number of conflicts since the end of the Second World War and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is struggling to fulfil its primary responsibility of ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security due to the irreconcilable positions and interests of its permanent members.
Thank you, Mister President.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
10:59:05
Mister Claude Kern, you are next.
Thank you, Mister President.
Mister President of the European Court of Human Rights,
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I would like to congratulate our colleague Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS on her report, which provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges and risks posed by the current upheaval in the international order.
The undermining of the rule of law and the rise of nationalism around the world are having terrible consequences. The war in Ukraine has been going on for almost three years now, without the United Nations having succeeded in bringing the conflict to an end. The UN has also been powerless to put an end to the conflicts in the Middle East.
In a fractured world where new powers are emerging that do not necessarily share our values, or even want to call them into question with brutality, Europe must uphold its vision of international order, based on rules and respect for human rights. This is why the Council of Europe is essential.
Our organisation has succeeded in sharing the values on which it is founded with the states of Eastern Europe and those that became independent following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many of the conventions initiated by the Council of Europe have been signed by non-member states. The Istanbul Convention, for example, has been signed by Tunisia and Jordan. Finally, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights plays a major role in implementing the values upheld by the Council of Europe in each of its member states. To further promote the work of our Organisation and strengthen its role in global governance, I would like to see the Council of Europe recognised as a regional organisation within the meaning of the United Nations Charter.
While we must, of course, work to develop dialogue with all the relevant institutions in order to organise a new international order based on the rule of law, we must also ensure that we have sufficient resources for security and defence, as well as for combating foreign interference in our democratic processes.
The election of Donald TRUMP as President of the United States and his repeated criticism of NATO mean that we must shoulder our responsibilities in the area of defence. Negotiations are currently underway at European Union level to develop the European defence industry and joint defence procurement. States must be proactive in this area, to affirm the EU's strategic autonomy. Defending our values also means being able to defend ourselves autonomously.
We also need to make our electoral processes more secure to combat disinformation and the manipulation of information or results, in line with the resolutions we have adopted on this subject.
Thank you for your attention.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:02:04
Thank you, Claude.
Mr Yunus EMRE is next.
Thank you, Mister President.
The functioning of a rules-based international relations system is of significant importance, particularly when reflecting on past conflicts and experiences.
Therefore, I would like to extend my gratitude to the rapporteur and all those who contributed to the report.
At the same time, I believe we must critically examine the rule-based approach to international relations. While such a system can help organise global affairs, it can also normalise power imbalances under the guise of rules. These rules may ultimately protect the long-term interests of the powerful. Thus, rather than focusing solely on the existence of rules, we must assess how effectively these rules promote justice. Even in the most oppressive systems, rules and authority exist. What truly matters is whether those rules serve justice.
Furthermore, we should reconsider the view of multipolarity as a problem. There are a number of references to the shift towards multipolarity in the report. Multipolarity is not inherently less stable than unipolarity or bipolarity.
The issues raised in the report, such as authoritarianism, isolationism, unilateralism, and extreme nationalism, are not the result of the shift towards multipolarity or the presence or absence of rules and a rules-based system. Rather, they stem from the failure of these rules to be perceived as just.
Dear colleagues, the discussion naturally leads us to the United Nations. When we reflect on the state of anarchy that prevails in interstate relations before the UN, it is important to acknowledge that despite its shortcomings, the UN marked a significant step forward. Compared to the failure of the League of Nations, the UN's inclusivity and longevity stand out.
However, a pressing question remains: what relevance does being on the winning side of the Second World War have in addressing today's practical challenges? We all recognise that this distinction is no longer meaningful and that in itself is the problem. The question of why five permanent members of the Security Council hold veto power remains unanswered for billions of people in Africa, the Islamic world and Latin America. Given the international law principle of sovereign equality of states, this question is also more significant.
Finally, in discussions about abnormalities in international relations, there is often a focus on extremism outside of Europe. While this is a valid observation, the real issue today lies within Europe – the very birthplace of democratic values. The rise of anti-democratic movements and extremism within Europe challenges these values. As parliamentarians, we are also democracy activists. We have a vital role to play in addressing these issues.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:05:40
Alain Milon, you have the floor.
Mister Chairman,
Mister President of the European Court of Human Rights,
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I would like to thank our colleague Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS for her report, which sheds light on the prospects for multilateralism and potential changes in the international order, at a time when the rules of international governance put in place at the end of the Second World War are being called into question.
Indeed, at the end of the last century, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world was dominated by a single great power: the United States of America. States promoting democracy and respect for human rights were models to be emulated, and the Council of Europe welcomed many new members eager to share these values.
Today, new major powers have emerged on the economic front and aspire to play a role in the management of world affairs. These include China, India and Brazil. At the same time, Russia is once again asserting itself as a great power, and is showing great hostility towards democratic Europe. As for the United States, it is becoming unpredictable and, under Donald TRUMP's new presidency, is calling into question many of the rules and institutions of the international order, as witnessed by its decisions to leave the World Health Organization and the years-long stalemate at the World Trade Organization.
Faced with this situation, we need to promote a fairer world, based on the rule of law, to prevent the law of the strongest prevailing. This is why the Council of Europe was created, and why the European Union was created for its member states. We have chosen to share values and rules of law, and in particular a strict vision of human rights.
The values we defend here must remain our compass for conducting a demanding dialogue with other regimes and regions of the world. To achieve this, they must continue to be upheld by the member states of our organisation, by all the member states of our organisation. Including, I would stress, by complying with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
The values we defend here, which have universal value, must be forcefully reaffirmed. When I look at developments in Azerbaijan and Georgia, I can't help but be concerned. The impetus we were expecting after the Reykjavík Summit is unfortunately not enough to face up to the headwinds that are blowing and calling multilateralism into question. That's why we all need to get involved.
Thank you all very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:08:40
Thank you, Alain.
Meryem Göka, you are next.
Thank you.
Dear President and colleagues,
It is an honour to address this Assembly on the urgent need for a renewed, equitable, and inclusive international order.
From the outset, the architects of the post-World War II international order, – operated under a perception of superiority, particularly certain Western states, – positioning themselves as rule-makers, while excluding much of the world from meaningful participation.
How can we build a world where peace, justice, and prosperity are not privileges for the few – but rights for all?
Today's global challenges require urgent and resolute action.
From Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan to Yemen, and Syria to Lebanon, – the wounds of conflict all over the world, reveal a harsh reality: the international order, designed to champion justice and peace, – often failed as a silent witness or, at times, even as a complicit architect – leaving countless lives shattered and unprotected.
Syria stands as a nation marked by 13 years of relentless conflict, where nearly 1 million lives have been lost, half the population forced to become refugees, and countless survivors endure unimaginable suffering.
Where was the international community when torture echoed through the prison walls?
Israel's genocide in Gaza also stands as a stark reminder of the failures of the international community.
Is it possible to justify the unjustifiable?
Now, we see that 96% of the population faces severe malnutrition.
Did it really take the massacre of 50 000 people and the conscience of humanity protesting worldwide for a long-overdue ceasefire to be announced?
To allow these crimes to go unchallenged is to undermine the very principles upon which the rules-based system was built.
The dysfunction and silence of international actors in these crises highlight the significance of President Erdoğan’s statement: “The world is bigger than five.” and “A fairer world is possible.”
This is not just a critique of the UN Security Council, but a call for reforming international institutions to be more democratic, inclusive, and effective.
A Security Council paralysed by the political and ideological interests of a few veto powers cannot serve as a guardian of global peace and stability in today’s world.
From hosting millions of refugees to brokering the Black Sea Grain Initiative, Türkiye has shown that leadership is about creating pathways to sustainable peace.
The crisis in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond demands a system that prioritises the rights of the oppressed over the interests of the powerful.
As we confront these crises, let us commit to building a system rooted in justice, humanity, and equality.
Thank you.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:11:50
Thank you for your contribution.
Madam Bartos, you have the floor.
Madam President, thank you for the floor.
In one of his statements, the Secretary General said that one of the most important common concerns of the Council of Europe and the UN is the maintenance of international peace and security. Indeed, this is the mission of all international organisations, to create a framework for the well-being of humanity on the basis of international law, through multilateralism. However, the world has changed since the creation of international organisations, so they need to be reformed.
Thank you to the rapporteur for reviewing the process so far, drawing conclusions and making suggestions. Thank you for your work. I would like to reflect on a few points.
The UN is a key partner of the Council of Europe and an ideal platform for global engagement. It is important to further deepen the co-operation between the two organisations.
The co-operation between the United Nations and the Council of Europe holds exceptional importance, as these are united by a shared commitment to universal values and principles, which is vital in the face of today’s increasingly complex and growing geopolitical challenges.
In particular, the risk of polarisation of the international community as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian war, which could destroy the existing mechanisms of co-operation between 'East and West', justifies this.
Our challenges are interconnected and can only be addressed through multilateralism. The UN must be at the centre of this effort and provide the framework for this work.
Hungary is convinced that the membership criteria of the UN’s main executive body has to be adapted to the 21st century’s political and economic realities and shall be guided by the principle of equitable geographical representation.
In our opinion, the UN Security Council has all the necessary tools to guarantee international peace and security, however, it is important to bear in mind that this toolkit should not be misused at the expense of the political agenda of some states.
Hungary also supports efforts for increasing the effectiveness of the work methods of the Security Council.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) system, adopted by the UN member states in 2015 and in which Hungary, as co-chair of the working group, actively participated, is a tool to alleviate, or in the best case eliminate, the problems that are pressing humanity. The UN and the Council of Europe can work closely together to achieve this goal.
Thank you.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:15:06
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Fassino, you have the floor.
"Thank you, Mister President" [Spoken in French].
"I speak in Italian" [Spoken in English].
I would like to thank Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS for her report, which is full of indications that we will have to work on.
I believe that we have to start with one consideration. We are living through a phase of international anarchy that is characterised by the profound crisis of multilateralism, the crisis of international institutions, the strong re-emergence of a temptation of autocracy that challenges democracy and its liberal values.
Added to this is the fact that more and more non-political actors are also influencing the life of the world and political decisions. I am thinking for example of the enormous growth of the intrusion of digital communication into the life of institutions, politics, and society.
I think of the great weight that economic powers related to globalisation have. I am thinking of the resurgence in many places of a tendency toward nationalistic closure, whereby the idea is asserted that in the face of the challenges of the world each country can solve them on the basis of its own policies.
Here, I think all of this is what challenges that multilateral, democratic system based on common values with which we have governed the world to date. And added to that is the fact that a part of the world, I am referring to the Global South, is increasingly explicitly contesting the fact that the world can be run simply by the West. So I believe that we need to come to terms with all this, starting, however, with a basic problem. From 1945 to the present, the world has been governed by democratic and liberal values that were universally recognised. Even the most bloodthirsty dictator tended to claim that he was a democrat, organised sham elections, organised, let's say, some makeup of his own regime, because, as it were, he could not bear to be denounced as undemocratic and dictatorial.
Well, those common values that have held up the world so far are not recognised today as universal as they have been for a long time. More and more, there are situations in which, when you call for respect for democratic rights and liberal values, which Dora BAKOYANNIS talked about, we receive the answer, "Yes, but those are your values; they are not ours".
So, I think there is this underlying issue: the reconstruction of a common platform of values on which to rebuild a system of world government. From this point of view, the Council of Europe has an important role in the relationship with the United Nations, in the relationship with the other international institutions, but above all because those values that have to be reaffirmed and on which we have to rebuild a global consensus are our values. So, I believe that the indications that are indicated in Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS' report have to be picked up, and we will have to work on these.
Thank you.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:19:18
Thank you for your contribution.
Madam Dimic, you have the floor.
Dear colleagues,
At this critical moment in history, when we face the rising tides of conflict, instability, and geopolitical tensions, it is more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to international law.
This is not just a matter of principles, but of practical necessity.
If we are to reverse the negative trends we see today, we must act decisively. A renewed commitment to international law, coupled with bold reforms to the multilateral system, is the only path forward.
The rule of law serves as the bedrock for peace and co-operation between nations, and we must work collectively to ensure that it is upheld in every corner of the globe.
I agree with the rapporteur - it is clear that the current structure of international rules-based order, with its outdated power dynamics and imbalances, is inadequate for addressing today’s complex global challenges.
As suggested in the report, we must advocate for more inclusive and representative institutions, that better reflect the realities of the 21st century, where all nations— large and small —have a voice in the decisions that shape our shared future.
Reforming the international political, financial and economic institutions must remain a priority, ensuring they serve the interests of all nations and not just a selected few.
At the same time we must continue to stand firm and defend the values that define Europe’s commitment to peace, justice, and equality, where the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights should also in the future hold a pivotal role.
With this in mind, I would particularly like to welcome today's address of the President of the Court of Human Rights.
To address the rising conflicts across the globe, we must not only work to reform existing structures but also seek new avenues for co-operation, including the strengthening of regional diplomatic channels and creating stronger platforms for dialogue. Building confidence between nations, preventing the escalation of disputes, and investing in sustainable peace are actions that must stay our priorities.
Thank you.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:22:11
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Tan, you have the floor.
Mister Tan, from Türkiye? You have the floor.
You must insert your badge.
Madam Chair,
Honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly,
The world is facing a profound transformation. Economic inequalities, shifting power dynamics, climate change, and persistent conflicts are straining the very foundations of the global system.
At a time when multilateral cooperation is more essential than ever, we are instead witnessing growing fragmentation and a worrying reliance on unilateral measures.
The use of unilateral sanctions exemplifies this troubling trend. While sanctions are often justified as tools to enforce international law or promote human rights, too often they reflect the interests of the powerful rather than the principles of justice.
They bypass multilateral institutions, disregard the sovereignty of states, and can have devastating consequences for innocent civilians.
Unilateral sanctions may create a system where might makes right, where economic and political power can dictate global norms without accountability.
If we allow this trend to continue, we risk undermining the very values this Assembly upholds.
No country, no matter how powerful, should have the unchecked authority to act as both judge and executioner.
To this end, we must strengthen the multilateral mechanisms that were established to ensure fairness and collective decision-making.
Institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and our Council must be revitalised and reformed to reflect contemporary realities.
Their credibility depends on their ability to enforce rules impartially and equitably.
We must also foster greater dialogue and diplomacy as alternatives to coercion.
Instead of sanctions, let us prioritise mediation and confidence-building measures.
Instead of unilateralism, let us embrace inclusive approaches that ensure even the smallest nations have a seat at the table.
Dear colleagues,
This is not just a plea for fairness: it is a call to action.
The world is watching, and our citizens expect us to rise above narrow interests and lead with vision.
If we are to secure a peaceful and prosperous future for the next generation, we must reaffirm our collective commitment to an inclusive, just, and resilient international order.
Let us ensure that fairness, justice, and multilateralism are not mere words in documents, but the guiding light of our actions.
Let us work together to rebuild trust, re-establish legitimacy, and renew our shared commitment to the values that unite us all.
Thank you.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:26:25
Thank you for your contribution.
Madam Dalloz, from France, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam President,
Madam rapporteur, thank you for your report.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Eighty years after the creation of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, the multilateral system and global governance set up after the Second World War to consolidate peace are under threat. International relations are evolving in an increasingly polarised environment, with an unfortunate rise in authoritarianism, nationalism, isolationism and power struggles. The number of conflicts is at an all-time high.
Against this backdrop of heightened tensions, the temptation to turn inward, while understandable, would be totally counterproductive. In the same way that social networking algorithms end up confining users to single-minded groups, isolationism would lead to countries being compartmentalised into restricted, hermetic geopolitical groups opposed to each other. The solution does not lie in rejecting others but, on the contrary, in a policy of openness to others.
On 22 September 2024, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution aimed at modifying certain rules governing the international order. Among the measures proposed, I believe that enlarging the composition of the UN Security Council, to make it more representative, and modifying the way in which the veto right of permanent members is used, would make it possible to bypass a number of deadlocks and include states that have until now been excluded.
Defending and strengthening multilateralism does not rely solely on the United Nations. The Council of Europe also has a vital role to play, particularly in asserting its position and weight within European and international bodies.
Recognition of the Council of Europe as a regional organisation within the meaning of Article 52 of the United Nations Charter is self-evident. The establishment of a Council of Europe representation at the United Nations headquarters could be considered, provided that the financial implications are kept to a minimum. Intensifying dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice also seems to me to be a good proposal.
Council of Europe member states that are also members of the European Union obviously have a specific role to play at EU level. Nonetheless, when you call for the enlargement process to be speeded up, I think we need to be cautious and ascertain the European Union's capacity for integration beforehand. Let's not break this momentum.
It is by developing exchanges and dialogue that the Council of Europe will work to defend democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and contribute to the emergence of a renewed and consolidated international order.
Thank you for your support.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:30:00
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Goncharenko, you have the floor.
"Thank you, Madam President" [Spoken in French]
Dear friends, we're speaking about international order, rules-based international order. Let us be frank. Rules-based international order does not exist anymore. That is the truth, that is the real situation today. We can try to be blind to this, but this will not help us. Because it is destroyed by Russia, by its aggression, it is destroyed by our or their regimes. And we can just say a lot of words, but the words don't work today. We need actions.
Europe should be really strong, really strong. We have said millions of words during the last two days. I haven't heard one word – Greenland. And we need to say this word – Greenland. Let us talk about the elephant in the room. And we should be with Denmark and Greenland's people. Whatever they will decide, that's up to them what to do. But we should say clearly, "We are with you". Un pour tous, tous pour un – one for all, all for one. That is the moment. And we need to be clear about this. If not, nobody will respect us. Nobody will respect our resolutions. It's just a piece of paper, nothing else. It should be missiles under this. It should be the army under this.
What made Europe great? It was a great military power – the great military power of European states. Yes, it was a problem too because these states were fighting with one another. Let us take another step. Let us make a common strong European army which will be very strong on the world stage, which will never fight with one another but which will be ready to protect us, our values, all of us.
Just look at what's happening. China is making new artificial intelligence, ChatGPT in America, where is Europe? My question is where is Europe? We are just here talking, making some resolutions and speaking "blah, blah, blah". It doesn't work. The United States is building the biggest data centre in human history – $500 billion. What are we building? Monuments and beautiful resolutions? It's good but we need to build other things. We need to build data centres. We need to build artificial intelligence. We need intellect. We need to build a really strong army. That's the most important, really, a very, very strong army and the Ukrainian army can be one of the bases. And let us build around and let us be so strong that we will be able to protect our history, our resolutions, our views, our rules, and our future. If not, we will remain just in the museums where there will be a story about some people who were very beautiful, with beautiful ideas and a lot of talking but in the end, it would disappear. Europe should not disappear. Europe should be the number one force in the world and we can do this together.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:33:33
Thank you for your contribution.
Mr George LOUCAIDES has the floor.
Okay, I would like to start with a comment.
You are great not when you call yourself great, when others consider you great.
And Europe will be considered as great by others only when we promote with deeds our values and principles.
Dear colleagues,
As we reflect on this resolution and recommendation, it’s crucial to address the assumptions that underline the call for a “renewed rules-based international order.” While the document rightly identifies the challenges of the increasing global instability, we must question whether the current international system has served the real interests of justice, democracy, and human rights, or whether it merely reinforces the existing power structures.
Let us be clear: the rules-based order, as it has been articulated in recent decades, is not an impartial system, it is one that has disproportionately benefitted powerful states and multinational corporations, often at the expense of the Global South, marginalised communities, and the environment. It is one where double standards, hypocrisy prevail, as we have most recently seen in relation to the genocide in Gaza. That is why we should not be asking for a renewal of this order, we should be demanding a system rooted in international law and the UN Charter, one that sets as a priority the protection of people’s rights over the interests of states and corporations.
The resolution’s call for the reform of the UN Security Council and the enlargement of its membership is a step in the right direction, but this is not enough. The UN is often paralysed by the veto power held by its five permanent members, which includes major military powers responsible for countless violations of international law. Reforming the Security Council without addressing the fundamental inequality embedded in its structure will not lead to a fairer or more just global order.
Furthermore, the resolution speaks of strengthening dialogue with the Global South, but we must ask: how can the Council of Europe, an institution rooted in the values of the European states, effectively assist countries that have historically been excluded from these structures?
This dialogue must move beyond symbolic gestures and include real power-sharing and the redistribution of resources. The global governance system cannot be merely “reformed” to accommodate the Global South, it must be fundamentally restructured to ensure that those who have been historically oppressed and marginalised can shape the decisions that impact their lives.
Finally, the resolution’s focus on the governance of emerging technologies like AI is commendable, but without a commitment to global justice and the redistribution of power, these technologies will continue to exacerbate inequalities. We cannot allow the same corporate interests that dominate the global economy to dictate the rules on AI and technological regulation.
Thank you.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:37:31
Thank you for your contribution.
Mr Stéphane BERGERON has the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dear colleagues,
A few moments ago, I heard Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO speak about Greenland. I would ask my colleagues to spare a thought for Canada too, which the new American President also seems to have his eye on.
Rapporteur BAKOYANNIS's insightful and succinct report reminds us that a new world order is gradually taking hold. After the Second World War, a bipolar geopolitical system took hold. After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, a unipolar system dominated by the United States took over. Today, we are dealing with a multipolar world.
In this new reality, an axis of authoritarian powers – Russia, China, North Korea and Iran – seems intent on overturning the rules-based international order that has been the cornerstone of the multilateral global system for over eighty years. By flouting human rights, scorning the concept of sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states, these disruptive powers are working to discredit democratic institutions, so much so that they are being emulated, even in some democracies that are turning into authoritarian regimes that pay lip service to democracy. These are what I call "démocratures" (democratorships).
Now that the United States, self-proclaimed champion of the free world, seems to have embraced this disturbing trend, the world's democracies, which the new American President and his entourage seem to have in their sights, are in real peril. But aren't we reaping the rewards here of our double standards on questions of international law and our reluctance to reform the multilateral institutions, which have fed a corrosive narrative, patiently nurtured by this authoritarian axis, that we are moralising hypocrites still driven by a colonial mentality?
But is it possible to reverse this trend? I'm afraid it's only possible if we recognise the flaws and inequalities of the rules-based international order, and are prepared to give up some of our gains to remedy them. Indeed, if we fail to do so, I fear that resentment in the global South will only grow, and we'll see more and more countries drawn to the sirens of the authoritarian axis.
The report focuses on the Compact for the Future of the United Nations, which proposes a reform of the UN Security Council and the international financial architecture.
In conclusion, allow me to share with you an anecdote told to me by one of my Canadian colleagues. During a meeting with a counterpart from a developing country, this colleague was told: "When the Chinese visit us, they offer us a port, whereas you only have sermons to offer us." That speaks volumes.
If we want to preserve the rules-based international order we hold so dear, it's time to act. Our fine words are no longer enough.
Thank you for your attention.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:40:42
Thank you for your contribution.
Madam Kravchuk, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam President.
Dear colleagues, Dear Miss Bakoyannis, rapporteur,
I think this resolution is actually one of the most important of this session. And look how many people signed for speeches: 60 people. I think it's one of the absolute records for this Assembly.
And we are discussing a very important issue about the need of renewed rules-based international order.
And of course, the war on the European continent that Russia waged against Ukraine is one of the most destabilising factors in this century. And it is the biggest conflict after the Second World War on this continent, after the United Nations were created, and they were created to avoid such wars.
But also the issue lies not only in the aggression itself, but also in the response, in the way the international organisations respond to this challenge. And organisations that were supposed to be guarantors of the global order have proven powerless in the face of such a challenge.
And if the organisation created to uphold peace becomes a hostage to a single aggressor, the Russian Federation, its structures need an urgent reform. We must immediately review the functioning of the Security Council. And, most importantly, the veto power can no longer remain a tool of abuse of an aggressor. It must be strictly regulated.
Another critical aspect of this war is its global consequences. The energy crisis, food insecurity, economic hardships that heed the most vulnerable countries underscore how connected we all are.
Also, we're all closely monitoring the developments in the United States. And of course, European countries should and will develop contacts and strategic partnerships with the new administration of United States. But also it reminds us that Europe must be strong itself. A united Europe must become a pillar of stability, regardless of the political situation across the ocean. The ability to defend ourselves independently is the lesson we have already learned.
Dear colleagues, I do believe that democracy is not a weakness, but a strength. But that democracy has to be strong and the democracy will not waver even in the face of the big challenges. The resolution is a big step forward. It's important to support it.
Many thanks for accepting some of the amendments we proposed from the Ukrainian delegation. Some of them were not. And it's a pity that we still think that Russia can be a normal member of United Nations.
But I think at the end of the day, the situation will change and justice will prevail.
Thank you so much.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:44:00
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Marie, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam President.
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I would like to thank our colleague Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS for her report, the main conclusions of which I share.
Today, the international order and multilateralism are under attack from all sides. Firstly, by authoritarian regimes that challenge the values we uphold here and no longer hesitate to use force to invade neighbouring territories. My thoughts go out to our Ukrainian colleagues as their soldiers valiantly defend their country in the face of Russian aggression.
Today, international order and multilateralism are also decried by a growing number of countries belonging to what is sometimes referred to as the Global South. Some of these countries are influenced by powers hostile to our model of liberal democracy and are tending to challenge our values, seeing them not as universal, but as an instrument of domination that goes unnoticed.
Finally, I am concerned about seeing the United States, under President Trump, joining the camp of disrupters of international order. I worry when he withdraws the United States from the Paris Agreement or the World Health Organization. I worry when he raises the possibility of taking over the Panama Canal or Greenland, even by force. I worry when he wants to annex Canada and make it his country's 51st state. I worry when he arrests and deports migrants, calling them criminals. But I'm even more worried by the lack of a strong, collective European reaction.
It's as if we were tetanised, as if our law-based model were weak or incapable of resisting these threats. In my view, it is neither weak nor incapable of resisting; it can only do so if it has the political will, if we have the political will. It's up to us, as parliamentarians, to carry this message here, to carry it within our respective assemblies and, for those of us who are members of them, within the bodies of the European Union.
I also share the rapporteur's concerns about the current functioning of the United Nations. She rightly highlights the difficulties encountered by the Security Council, the abusive use of the veto and the difficulties of peacekeeping missions. The composition of the Security Council should evolve to take better account of the upheavals the world has undergone since 1945.
Some countries claim to be members of the Council, and rightly so. Africa should be better represented. Brazil, India, and Japan are knocking at the door. A great deal of thought is being given to the matter. But unfortunately, I fear that a rapid reform of the Security Council, given the procedures involved, will not be immediate.
I support the call to strengthen the Council of Europe's role in the European multilateral architecture and in global governance. As our colleague suggests, we must play our part to the full.
Thank you very much.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:47:23
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Brico, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam President.
I would also like to congratulate Ms BAKOYANNIS on her excellent report, but I must begin by expressing a regret. The very fact that this report exists is basically an admission of failure. Admittedly, not a complete failure; admittedly, not a total failure: but a failure nonetheless. What makes it all the more worrying is that the European continent has already experienced the failure of multilateralism.
I'd like to quote a great French politician, Aristide Briand, who said in September 1930 before the League of Nations, "It is a question of founding world peace on a legal order, of making a legal reality of this international solidarity which appears as a physical reality. The ideal was already there. And yet, this project failed."
So, the project we've been living with since 1945 mustn't fail either, because the consequences, as we know, are war. Some of them are already here. Much has already been said about this, but I'd like to come back to two points.
The first is the constancy of the states' signatures. Our colleague mentioned the Paris Agreements, and this is an almost caricatural example since they were signed by President OBAMA; President TRUMP withdrew from them in 2017; President BIDEN returned to them in 2021; and President TRUMP withdrew from them last week, once again. What is the consistency and value of the American signature under such conditions?
The second point is for us to explain to our populations. Multilateralism requires effort. It's not natural. Everyone wants to defend their nation, their village, their city. Multilateralism means defending others, too, in an order on which we all agree.
And that's why I'm going to conclude with another quotation from Marcus Aurelius, who said: "Whoever lives at peace with himself lives at peace with the universe. That's what I wish us all.
Thank you all very much.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:49:40
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Brenner, you have the floor.
Mister Blencathra, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I congratulate the rapporteur on her valiant efforts here. But I regret that the rules-based international order she wishes for here no longer exists.
First, there is no single international order. There are multiple international orders. The United Nations and the UN Charter provide a general foundation but there are a variety of multilateral but not global institutions that co-ordinate or regulate members' conduct, providing some limited rule-based order such as the European Union, the BRICS, the G7, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, OPEC and, of course, we here in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
I'm afraid the United Nations is a complete failure and I doubt it will be reformed. At our recent meeting in New York, the Under-Secretary for Peace Operations in South Lebanon said the UN was doing a brilliant job even though they allowed Hezbollah to build missile stations within a few metres of their UN bases. He said it was everyone else who was at fault for not behaving properly and not the UN. What has the Secretary-General said about the evil Putin regime and their attack on Ukraine? They've allowed the Chinese Communist Party to dictate their policy on the World Health Organization and numerous other world organisations.
But let's be honest colleagues. The rules-based international order we love was invented by the West to boost our trade. In 2000, at the Davos Summit, President Clinton said after some anti-globalisation process, "We will and we must support the rules-based system". The UK minister said, "There is no alternative to a rules-based system for international trade". And to quote from the socialist New Statesman magazine, it says "Politicians used the rules-based moniker to shield their trade policies from political opposition. Western leaders presented the World Trade Organization not as a neoliberal trade regime, but as an impartial rules-based one. The idea was to render international trade as an abstract, non-political domain that was best administered by technocrats, a dull and complicated field, not of any real concern to the average citizen".
Like it or not, we have no international organisation which can stop China from gaining complete military, economic and political superiority and world domination. China is committing genocide against its own people, building the largest military the world has ever seen, infiltrating our universities and institutions, stealing our commercial secrets, threatening its neighbours and seeking complete domination of all the liberal democratic norms we hold dear. And like it or not, colleagues, the only one who can challenge Chinese domination, is not the United Nations, the EU, or any other international rules-based organisation, but is the one you all love to hate, and that is President Trump.
I dearly hope he will not sell out Ukraine, but I also know that he is the only one at the moment who can defend us from the complete collapse of our international rules, which is the aim of the four countries which comprise the new axis of evil – China, North Korea, Russia and Iran.
That's not a happy message, not a popular message, but I'm afraid it's a realistic one at the moment.
Thank you.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:53:14
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Chaillou, you have the floor.
Madam President,
Mister President of the European Court of Human Rights,
Ladies and gentlemen,
The report presented to us today by our colleague Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS gives us the opportunity to discuss the upheavals the world is experiencing today, and I would like to thank her for this. Many speakers have referred to the upheavals in the international system, marked by the questioning of Western domination, the emergence of new powers, notably India and China, the authoritarian drift of certain regimes, notably Russia, marked by this unacceptable aggression, and the accelerated development of certain countries that clearly do not share all our values. All of this calls into question all the balances on which we have lived until now.
This fragmentation has been accompanied by a questioning of multilateralism, as has been pointed out, and of the institutions that are supposed to ensure global governance, including by the United States, with President Trump championing power relations in international relations and criticising certain United Nations organisations. This vision, as many of us have stressed this morning, is the antithesis of the vision we hold in Europe, and especially here, where we defend regulation by law, the rule of law and universal human values.
At a time when the President of the United States has just announced, once again, the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, I would like to highlight the theme of sustainable development and the link between human rights and the environment, to which our Assembly has been very committed at the initiative of President DAEMS.
A former President of the French Republic once used a shocking phrase, "The world is burning and we're looking the other way". Never has this phrase seemed so apt, at a time when Los Angeles is going up in flames and the United States is calling global climate objectives into question. Now, more than ever, international co-operation is essential to meet the challenges of global warming.
In this respect, the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly last September of the Pact for the Future represents a major step forward. This Pact brings together 56 measures to which the member states of the United Nations have committed themselves in areas such as sustainable development, international security, and digital co-operation. It is essential that we support the implementation of this pact in our respective countries.
I also believe it is essential to continue to reflect on the link between the environment and human rights in the light of recent case law. Like the French Constitutional Council, the European Court of Human Rights has introduced a first reference to future generations in its new climate jurisprudence and has confirmed that Article 8 encompasses a right for individuals to effective protection, by state authorities, against the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives. This is an important step.
There can be no international order without respect for the rules laid down and the institutions responsible for applying them. In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the need for our states to respect and implement the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
Thank you for your attention.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
11:56:38
Thank you for your contribution.
Madam Schou, from Norway, you have the floor.
Then it's okay. Yeah, OK, thank you.
Thank you, Madam President,
I congratulate Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS on this important and well-written report.
Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS explains how the rules-based international order with binding conventions is under pressure by the rise of autocratic regimes with a growing preference for bilateral and nationalistic solutions.
More and more we see a world governed by the rule of force and less by the rule of law.
Russia and its illegal war of aggression on Ukraine is one example. The horrendous terrorist attack by Hamas and the proportional use of military force in Gaza by the Netanyahu government are two others.
On a different scale we have member countries deviating from binding conventions. Azerbaijan and Türkiye refusing to follow instructions by the European Court of Human Rights to free political prisoners are two examples of this.
And since the 20th of January, the new American administration is actively joining this trend.
This is contradictory to the values of our organisation and the result is a more unpredictable and uncertain world for all of us.
The Council of Europe was only one of several important international organisations established after the Second World War, for states to solve difficulties and challenges by concerted actions, and not through armed conflicts and war.
The fundamental idea was to provide platforms for dialogue and co-operation within the frame of democracy and agreed rules. Rules that we today know as human rights, rule of law, international law, humanitarian law, and more.
For 80 years democracy and multilateral co-operation have been the bedrock of our freedom, peace, prosperity and security in Europe.
Let us not lose sight of this, and resort to short-sighted and less sustainable solutions.
Madam President,
I would like to end by reminding us all of the Reykjavík declaration where all member states recommitted to the values and principles of the Council of Europe.
In the first chapter of the declaration, it says:
"We remain determined to strengthen the free and open international order based on the rule of law, respect for the United Nations Charter, the Sovereignty and territorial integrity, within internationally recognised borders, of all States and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms."
Our continued commitment to this is more important than ever before, both in Europe and beyond.
Thank you, Madam President.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
12:00:19
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister MacCleary, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam President.
I wish to talk today about the challenges facing the rules-based international order and the profound implications for global security and stability.
At its core, the rules-based order is the framework of laws, agreements and institutions established to uphold sovereignty, prevent conflict and protect fundamental freedoms. It is the system that ensures co-operation triumphs over chaos, and fairness supersedes brutal force. However, the order is fraying.
The rise of authoritarianism, the weaponisation of economic systems, and flagrant violations of international law – such as Russia’s unprovoked aggression in Ukraine – test its resilience. And Ukrainian colleagues should be in no doubt that the UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes and that should include the seizure of frozen Russian assets held across Europe and the UK. They should be given to Ukraine to support its war and its reconstruction efforts.
We face a world where the principles of sovereignty and human rights are under siege, and where democratic norms are increasingly disregarded.
I speak to you five years on from the UK’s exit from the European Union: the first major shockwave in the destabilisation of the liberal international order. While the vote reflected a democratic decision, its repercussions went far beyond the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. Brexit symbolised a growing shift away from multilateralism and co-operation, emboldening national movements across Europe and beyond. It challenged the notion of shared sovereignty that underpins much of the international rules-based order and signalled a retreat from the collaborative frameworks that have historically promoted stability and security.
This fragmentation weakened the EU’s collective ability to respond to global challenges, from climate change to geopolitical threats – like Donald TRUMP – and marked a turning point in the perceived cohesion of Western democracies.
As we grapple with the further strains on this order today, the lessons of Brexit remind us of the costs of disengagement and the need to reinvigorate our commitment to global partnerships. That is not just a theoretical debate but a lived reality. I have seen firsthand the consequences of these challenges through my engagement with the Georgian opposition leaders and non-governmental organisations, who have spoken passionately about their fight to preserve democracy and their belief in a European future. They look to institutions like the Council of Europe for leadership, and they depend on nations like ours to uphold the principles of fairness and accountability.
The strength of the rules-based order lies not in rhetoric but in our collective ability to enforce its principles. This means holding violators accountable, whether they are state or non-state actors, and addressing the new frontiers of conflict, from digital threats to climate insecurity. It also means adapting multilateral institutions to better represent today’s interconnected and interdependent world.
The rules-based order is not an abstract ideal but a lifeline for nations striving for fairness, freedom and stability. Let us reaffirm our commitment to these principles and ensure that this Council remains a steadfast champion of democracy and the rule of law.
Thank you, Madam President.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
12:03:29
Thank you for your contribution.
Mister Jensen, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Dear colleagues, as already many of you have mentioned, we stand in a crossroad when it comes to global governance.
The rule-based international order, established to uphold peace, justice, and co-operation, is facing unprecedented challenges.
We have witnessed, all of us, the tragic consequences of power politics, authoritarianism and unilateralism, such as the war of aggression against Ukraine, and also the escalating violence and war in the Middle East.
The threats are clear and pressing.
And in addition to the military conflicts we face challenges that transcend borders, climate change, rising inequalities, mass migration, and rapid technological advancements. These issues demand collective action.
Yet, as we see today, institutions like the United Nation's Security Council struggled to function effectively due to divisions among its members. This paralyses weakens the very foundations of the international order and threatens the progress of democracy and human rights.
Also, the election of Mr Trump as president of the United States brings great concern about the future for the multinational and multilateral political system. And we certainly know that and feel that at the moment in Denmark and Greenland.
The global community must now decide whether to protect and adapt the principles that have sustained us for decades or allow instability to threaten the future of humanity.
The Council of Europe has played a pivotal role in advancing democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It has shown that multilateral co-operation is not only possible, but essential.
As we align ourselves with the UN resolution packed for the future, we must embrace reform and innovation to address today's challenges.
A renewed commitment to a rules-based international order is not only desirable, it is necessary.
Action is, of course, imperative. We must reform the multilateral system, including an expanded United Nations Security Council that reflects the realities of our diverse world.
We must empower under-represented regions such as Africa and Latin America, ensuring that all voices are heard in decisions that affect us all.
Equally important is revisiting international financial institutions, making them fairer and more accessible to developing nations.
Moreover, the Council of Europe can take the lead in fostering partnerships with the United nations, particularly in areas like democratic security, conflict prevention, and the rule of law. Such co-operation ensures that our efforts to strengthen governance extend beyond Europe to engage with the Global South, building on trust and shared responsibility.
Only embracing reform and reaffirming our commitment to the values of multilateralism, we can build a future rooted in co-operation and resilience.
Thank you very much.
Andorra, ALDE, President of the Assembly
12:07:29
Thank you, Mister Jensen.
I now call on Mr Morten WOLD.
Please proceed.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:10:21
Thank you.
Now I call Mr Serhii SOBOLIEV.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Dora Bakoyannis for your possibility to discuss very openly and honestly a new international order.
But first of all we had to understand when it's changed, everything that we name is a new international order.
The times after the World War II it was very realistic, cynic but understandable: two main blocks, the forming of new organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, European Union, our organisation, so-called Soviet Camp, but then something happened. The collapse of Soviet Union and the new forming of new organisations and strengthening of old organisations, but then again, new times.
What are these times? Without the definition of this year when new order began to form after the collapse of Soviet Union, it's not even the invasion of Russia against Ukraine. It was 2008, when Russia occupied a big territory of independent Georgia.
And we find a new international order when such huge allies of Georgia, the United States, as the European Union, as our organisation keep silence, or not keep silence, only announce strong speeches and that's enough. After this it was the occupation of Crimea, part of Ukraine, then the invasion of Russia in Ukraine.
So without the meaning of a new international order, where the main idea of a new international order how to save our planet from a total collapse, we can't answer the main ideas what we need to put here.
The United Nations is like a toy in the hands of five big countries.
NATO: we see that now NATO is not fulfilling its main role for what it was built.
European Union: sanctions of the European Union it's nothing in comparison with the allies of Russia, as northern Korea, as China, as Iran.
Remember these old countries surrounding China or, for example, North Korea, they have international sanctions. Now they are all in this new order trying to fulfil their own task of dictator regimes.
So I think it's only the beginning.
And thank you for the start of this discussion.
I think that we need more and more discussion in order to answer what means and how we can save new international order and our planet.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:13:35
Thank you Mister Soboliev.
Now I call Mr Mustafa CANBEY. The floor is yours.
Dear President,
Dear colleagues,
I would first like to thank the rapporteur for her timely and comprehensive work in presenting the simple, yet frightening reality before us.
Current global governance mechanisms are inefficient and not fully equipped to address global challenges in a timely and effective manner.
To achieve a truly effective international system, we should not only advocate but also resolutely pursue comprehensive reforms to make the order more representative, democratic, equitable and transparent. This is especially relevant for the United Nations Security Council.
Dear colleagues,
As correctly identified in the report, we live in an increasingly multipolar and interdependent world, facing complex and interconnected challenges that are often exacerbated by one another.
Moreover, the current international order and its institutions were not created solely by the West. Other and older parts of the world have also played a major role and contributed to the evolution of the current order. And they will – and should – continue to do so in the future. But what we are witnessing is exactly the opposite.
Therefore, if the international system and its institutions are to be renewed, it is imperative to move beyond a Western-centric approach and to consider the ideas, concerns and interests of other regions in an inclusive approach.
In the interest of preserving and promoting international co-operation, peace, security and the protection of human rights, it is essential to develop rules and principles that facilitate mechanisms and institutions consistent with this philosophy. They should be neither exclusionary nor declaratory, but provide a basis on which we can find at least a minimum of common ground.
In the meantime, the West should reflect on its own actions and consider how to address and resolve its missteps and shortcomings.
This should include avoiding the application of double standards in international conflicts, adopting an inclusive approach to avoid inflaming ongoing crises, and respecting the views and values of other parties in international relations rather than imposing its own.
Finally, I refer to the statement of our President Erdoğan underlining this need: "The world is bigger than five and a fairer world is possible". The question is whether there is the political will to act in such a way.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:16:58
Thank you, Mister Canbey.
Now the floor is for Ms Dunja SIMONOVIĆ BRATIĆ.
Thank you, Chair.
Dear colleagues,
First I want to congratulate the rapporteur on this challenging subject and on her courage to summarise the biggest issues in world politics today.
Reading this report, I have even recognised a glimpse of hope. And for a moment, I felt really good. Let me share this feeling with you.
The rapporteur has grave concerns about international order, multilateral organisations, peace and justice.
The rapporteur urges to respect the UN and UN Charter, strongly condemns the replacement of international law with a rule of force, and strongly supports respect, sovereignty and territorial integrity within internationally recognised borders of all states.
Members of parliament from the Republic of Serbia are telling you the same since Kosovo is trying to become a member of the Council of Europe. In April last year, the very same rapporteur loudly advocated for the Kosovo membership. A lot of you voted for Kosovo to become a member of this organisation. I will remind you also that Kosovo has no recognition as a state in the UN. Also, we could read from this report that the first aggression on European soil after the Second World War was on Ukraine three years ago. But that is not true. Twenty-five years ago, the US administration and NATO – without approval from the UN Security Council – attacked my country and took away its southern part, which we call Kosovo and Metohija.
That was the momentum when the international order in Europe collapsed.
Let's be clear. If you want to renew the international order or to establish the new world order, you must return to the basics and admit that you made a huge mistake. After doing so, you should all start to advocate the UN Charter and territory, integrity and sovereignty of every single country in the world.
Finally, the circle would be closed and a new era would begin.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:19:32
Thank you, Madam Simonović.
Now the floor is for Mr Claude KERN.
Sorry, sirs. I see. OK.
So, shall we go to Ms Arusyak JULHAKYAN?
The floor is yours.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dear colleagues, let me express my gratitude and extend my congratulations to the rapporteur, honourable Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS, for this extremely important report.
Last year, the Armenian Prime Minister, Mr Nikol PASHINYAN, stated that an additional measure to ensure security for Armenia is the legitimacy, the legitimate expectations, the alignment of the Republic of Armenia's actions with international law and the global order.
This statement sparked widespread discussion.
Is international law still viable?
Is it wise to cling to a world order that is visibly collapsing before our eyes?
Sceptics argued that discussing the importance of international law is unreasonable when we see that more than 200 square kilometres of Armenia's sovereign territory are occupied by Azerbaijan, when we witness burning conflicts in various corners of the world, and when we see that the rule of force prevails, allowing the mighty to do whatever they want regardless of the global order. Can we speak about international order, about importance on the international law when we see that the rulings of the international courts, the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, are not implemented? When we see that the rulings of the International Court of Justice are not implemented, the ones of the International Criminal Court are ignored?
International law is not perfect. Indeed, it has numerous shortcomings, particularly issues related to its enforcement given the lack of effective mechanisms to compel adherence to international law.
But can this become a reason to abandon international law and global order?
To answer this question, I often make a comparison between international and domestic laws. Just as we adopt domestic legislation to regulate relationships within society, international law and the global order are designed to regulate relations between the states. Within our countries we never debate abolishing the entire legal system because a law, a legal provision, does not function as intended. Instead, we either amend the law or improve the mechanism for its enforcement.
What do we do when judicial acts ruled by domestic courts are not implemented? We ensure their enforcement rather than abandoning the idea of having courts.
Similarly, rather than rejecting international law and the global order due to their imperfections, we must strive to refine them, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and adapt them to the realities of the modern world.
So, there is definitely a need for a renewed international order.
We need strong mechanisms to import implementation of the international law, implementation of the judicial act of the international courts.
Thank you, Madame rapporteur, for this report. I hope that the international community will stay strong towards the renewed international world order.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:23:44
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Julhakyan.
Now the floor is for Ms Olena KHOMENKO. The floor is yours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today we need to ask ourselves, what do we expect from human rights organisations like the Council of Europe and how we can keep them efficient.
First, we must ensure that there is no impunity for the worst human rights violations.
A key step for ensuring justice for victims of the Russian war of aggression was establishing the compensation mechanism and the Register of Damage. The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression is what must be put in place now. War criminals must be brought to justice because the unpunished evil grows. In this regard, it is also important and critical to respect the warrants issued by the International Criminal Court and uphold the authority we have given it.
Second, no country can ensure its security alone. We must stand together because security is the backbone of the human rights we all cherish. Europe's capacity to defend its physical borders, its citizens and its founding values against both military and hybrid threats must be strengthened, reducing its dependence on non-European allies. Europe must be ready to respond decisively to any aggression against its member States or partner countries.
And here I'd like to remind you that it is impossible to expect security guarantees and support from allies while continuing to depend on energy supplies from Moscow. This contradiction must end.
Today, Ukraine stands as a guarantor of peace and human rights in Europe and for Europe. And it needs your support to fulfil this role and protect its people from Russian genocidal fury. However, the just and lasting peace we all strive to achieve requires learning from past mistakes, weakness and short sightedness. Insecurity guarantees for Ukraine must not be repeated. The window for correcting these errors is open now. Let's not miss it.
Let's make Europe truly independent, strong and free from those who seek to disrupt our homes. Let's make Europe make common sense again.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:26:25
Thank you, dear colleagues.
Thank you, dear Olena.
Now, before I call the next speaker, I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect the three judges to the European Court of Human Rights.
The poll will close at 1:00 p.m. So, for those who have not heard it yet, the vote is behind here in this area.
So, the floor now is for Ms Christiana Erotokritou, if I'm right.
Dear colleagues,
First and foremost, I would like to thank the rapporteur Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS for this excellent report.
Amidst rising geopolitical tensions in both Europe and the Middle East, unilateral acts of aggression against sovereign states, unprecedented humanitarian crises and the disregard for international norms have seriously undermined multilateralism and people’s trust in international institutions.
Extremist narratives are on the rise, not only across the Atlantic but also in the European Parliament as well as among us, here, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Developments are worrisome; autocratic regimes invade and occupy the territories of sovereign states whilst the rest of the world appears shocked yet unable to stop these blatant acts of aggression. The far right continues to soar in numbers unseen since the end of the Second World War. Hateful rhetoric, fake news, propaganda and artificial intelligence, whose overall impact has yet to be measured, have taken over the internet. Our world order has dramatically shifted.
Even though Europe has always positioned itself as a beacon of democracy and our organisation more specifically, as the watchdog for the protection of human rights and the rule of law, at the same time we have tolerated violations of international law in Crimea, Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh and Cyprus, my own country, that continues to be militarily occupied, 50 years after the Turkish invasion of 1974. These fault lines merit careful consideration, particularly today where the current state of play dictates that we must redefine what form of multilateralism is best suited to advance world peace and international stability.
It is evident that we are moving from multilateral co-operation to fragmentation, multipolarity and isolation. In order to resist this trend and the continuing erosion of public trust in our democratic institutions, we must reposition Europe as a leader in global governance, and remain firmly committed to common rules and basic responsibilities as the only way to resolve shared challenges and advance common aims. We must also address our own shortcomings and internal challenges, notably populism, democratic backsliding and the rise of extreme rhetoric, both from the left and the right.
Accountability mechanisms must be established or strengthened, and perpetrators of grave human rights violations brought to justice. The Council of Europe can serve as a role model of regional co-operation and partnership, while key international institutions like the International Criminal Court must be further empowered. Moreover, the United Nations, as the bedrock of the international order, must undergo significant reforms to become more inclusive, transparent, representative and responsive to the changing realities of global politics. To effectively address global challenges – from climate change to armed conflicts and human rights abuses – we must ensure that all nations, regardless of their size or power, have a meaningful voice in shaping the future of our international system. The cost of further inaction will be far greater than the challenges of renewing a rules-based international order.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:30:32
Thank you, Miss Erotokritou.
Now I call Mr Vladimir VARDANYAN. The floor is all yours.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would first congratulate rapporteur Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS for an excellent and very kind report.
I would like to say that when I started my academic career, everybody, almost all my students, criticised some 20 years ago the very existence of international law, using each and every opportunity to criticise it.
Where are we now?
We are now thinking about coming back to the situation where this international law existed and functioned as it was.
What was the main achievement of the UN system? What was the main achievement of current international law? What is its difference in comparison with the classic international law? In classic international law, the war was allowed, but it was considered as last resort, ultima ratio.
What was the achievement of the United Nations system? Because the United Nations system prohibits war at all.
This brings us to the international law which we call jus contra bellum, the law against the war.
Where are we now? We are in a situation where, unfortunately, war is not even the last resort. War became the first resort. And here we should go ahead with coming back to the roots of international law and the UN system. Because it's the only logical way of working internationally.
Dear colleagues, if a system is corrupted, there are no limits, there are no rules and there are no possibilities to provide.
If we wouldn't come back to the system existed under the United Nations, we wouldn't come back to the classic international war where the war is considered as last resort. We would come back to the prehistorical times, where we have neither territory, nor population, nor sovereignty, we will have zero impact.
Because if you have no legal order, if you have no rules under international law, you cannot speak about any kind of development worldwide.
And here, dear colleagues, I do believe that altogether we should think about not just bringing the system of international law back to the pre-UN period, but we should think about the following: we should develop international law in its moral logic. Because all the development of international law was bringing this body of law to humanitarian approach in 21st century. We should build together international law with a human face.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:33:48
Thank you.
Thank you, Mister Vardanyan.
Now I call Mr Andrej HUNKO. The floor is yours.
So the last one is Ms Kenia LÓPEZ RABADÁN. The floor is yours.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
I am Kenia LÓPEZ RABADÁN. I represent the largest opposition party in Mexico.
As you know, I think we are looking now at a new way of looking at the world, and I think that is something which concerns all countries, a new rule-based international order based on power, money or ideology.
The polarisation and rising nationalism have generated difficult climates in which governments are facing the increasing lack of well-being of their citizens. This has to stop.
Today my country, Mexico, is undergoing one of the greatest challenges of the last decades. Millions of Mexicans who emigrated to the United States, our northern neighbour country, may possibly be deported, and this will have social and economic consequences for both countries. We need to recognise our differences, but above all to create legal spaces, both in the universal order and the regional one that correspond to these new visions of what the public sector should do.
Security, trade relations, artificial intelligence, protection of human rights are all priority subjects for a new world order.
The European Union is a clear positive example of the need for countries to co-operate with one another, so as to strengthen regions.
Building an international order which is transparent, realistic and above all with shared rules to defend the human rights of all persons is indispensable.
Mexico and the European Union have an association which is not only economic but from a political consulation and co-operation.
As friends and partners, I would wish that spaces of dialogue such as this, in the Parliamentary Assembly be useful for creating bridge-building for co-operation, respect and the dignity of people and their freedoms.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:37:23
Thank you, Madam López.
Now I call Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO.
The floor is yours.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[It's] so great to be back.
The issue of reform of the United Nations is a crucial issue, not only of the international rule-based order, but also a crucial issue of humankind's future and its survival. This issue has a very long history, sometimes disappointing and sometimes hopeless. The major problem here is the lack of political will to reform the United Nations on the part of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Those members don't want to give up their veto power, and thereby are not interested in the genuine reform of the United Nations.
Because of that, the United nations has turned into a helpless debate club like the League of Nations and is absolutely incapable of performing its major function, which is maintenance of international peace and security.
The UN has failed to stop Russian aggression and to defend one of its founding members, Ukraine, against the criminal terrorist state Russia, which had illegally usurped the seat of the USSR on the Security Council in violation of the UN Charter.
What is the solution to this crisis of the UN. Enlargement, which is by the way, proposed in the draft of the resolution? Enlargement of the membership of the Security Council is not such a solution, because there are no reliable objective criteria to pick the new Security Council's members.
The solution is to cancel the veto power and special status of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Structure and work of the UN should be based on the principle of sovereign equality of states and not on the special privileges of some countries.
If we want true peace in the world, if we want rule of law in international relations, we need authentic and radical reform of the UN despite resistance from some permanent members of the Security Council.
If, because of this resistance, the reform fails, then the international community should create a new, effective, and just international organisation of collective security, instead of a hopeless and obsolete UN.
I would like to invite you as representatives of your people to join in this project to change, to reform the UN or to create a new, effective international organisation.
Thank you.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:40:04
Thank you, Mister Merezhko.
I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that the type-written texts can be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
Now I call Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS, the rapporteur, to reply.
Madam Bakoyannis, you have 3 minutes. The floor is yours.
Thank you, Madam President.
Dear colleagues,
First allow me to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Marko BOŠNIAK, and to all of you who have spoken for your invaluable insights. The depth and breadth of your interventions are a powerful testament to the urgency Europe must embrace to address the profound challenges threatening the international rules-based order.
One thing is clear from what has been said in this room: The Council of Europe must remain a cornerstone of a renewed international rules-based order.
In an era of escalating uncertainty and geopolitical tension, our mission is more essential than ever. The Council's unparalleled role in championing human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, endows with a competence duty that rises above political divisions.
The Council of Europe stands as a testament to what can be achieved when nations come together in pursuit of common goals. It is not merely a platform for discussion, but a driving force for action.
To defend the rules-based international order and address the most significant challenges to humanity's existence, we must foster deeper co-operation not only among ourselves, but also with global partners who may not fully share our vision of the world.
Setting barriers too high to climb will only exasperate the global trend towards fragmentation.
Moreover, being too quick to assign blame, whether among member states of the Council of Europe or beyond, will only reinforce the perception held by many countries of Western double standards and hypocrisy.
Dear colleagues, this is not a time for retreat or hesitation. It is a time for boldness and resolve.
European citizens are looking to us, seeking solutions to the major challenges they face. If we fail to act together, if we cannot set aside the extreme voices of ethno-populism and achieve deeper European integration, it won't be long before those same citizens turn their back on us.
Together we can ensure that the legacy of this Council endures as a symbol of unity and strength.
With those words, I ask you to vote in favour of this report.
Thank you very much.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:44:04
Thank you, dear Dora.
Now does the chairperson of the Committee, Mr Bertrand BOUYX, wish to speak?
You have 3 minutes. The floor is yours.
France, ALDE, Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
12:44:14
Thank you, Madam President.
Madam rapporteur, dear Dora,
Mister President of the European Court of Human Rights,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Eighty years after the liberation of the camps, which we commemorated yesterday here in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe, and after the end of the Second World War, the world seems set to plunge once again into the abyss. A world where the strongest impose their vision and interests on others, including through disproportionate military means. This is international disorder, a system without rules, or with variable-geometry rules that are imposed only on the weakest.
We see it at work everywhere, and we Europeans cannot resign ourselves to it. When I say "Europeans", I'm obviously referring to all the peoples and states that make up our Organisation, which has never been so necessary to, and I quote, "prevent the world from falling apart", to paraphrase the words of my compatriot Albert Camus on receiving his Nobel Prize.
A delegation from the Political Affairs and Democracy Committee, which I chair, went to New York for high-level political and legal meetings, led by our colleague Marietta KARAMANLI. Well, the temple of multilateralism is teetering, dear colleagues. The system is at a standstill because no country - notably the United States, China and Russia - wants to co-operate with the others any longer, but only to impose their reason. It has been blocked since at least 2014, when Russian troops entered Crimea, and even more since that same country's aggression against the whole of Ukraine. We have met French and British representatives on the Security Council. Co-operation between these two countries is essential, as between them they manage to get the majority of resolutions passed at the Security Council. This co-operation must continue, as must that between European countries. The balance of the world depends on it.
The system is at a standstill for reasons external to the UN, but also internal to it. Who can still believe that the balance of power that emerged from the Second World War is still the same? Where are India, Brazil or Germany in this system?
On September 22, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution aimed at modifying certain rules governing the international order, including the enlargement of the composition of the UN Security Council, in order to increase its representativeness, but also a modification of the modalities for using the veto right of permanent members. Such a reform is urgently needed, because the consequence of inaction is not that the permanent member countries, including France, retain power over world order, but simply that the norm is set elsewhere, or not at all. You only have to look at the BRICS or G20 summits to see that the Security Council is increasingly marginalised.
We cannot accept this. As the oldest regional organisation promoting democracy and the rule of law, our Organisation has a role to play as a spur in the international system. It must play a greater part in the UN system. Our colleague Dora BAKOYANNIS's resolution is therefore very timely.
Thank you for your support.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Ladies and gentlemen,
The liberal agenda, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are receding from the international agenda as we once knew. Economic crises, the social media revolution, and the rise of far-right and far-left populism have led to severe polarization within European states and, as a consequence, to weaker Europe as a whole.
More often than not we see that in Europe our shared sense of interests and aspirations is often expressed more clearly through opposition to someone rather than in aspirations toward something. The range of developmental choices, especially for small states, has been reduced to the unacceptably simplistic dichotomy of "with us or against us." Worse so, the strategic choices made in Europe also lack consistency in terms of interests pursued. For example: the war in Ukraine is met with categorical resistance; yet Turkey’s imperial ambitions in Syria are met with understanding. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s occupation of Armenia’s sovereign territories, the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Artsakh, and the show-trials of Nagorno-Karabakh leaders in Baku are curiously perceived in the democratic world as something legitimate. Europe supported the right to self-determination in Kosovo, while denying it for Armenians of Artsakh.
What is this if not a consequence of serious identity and leadership crisis in Europe?
Dear colleagues,
In Armenia today a reality is taking shape that can be summarised as: "We go to the West, but at Russia's expense." Many here recognise that this approach is fraught with new risks and challenges to regional stability and prosperity. Responsible policymaking should acknowledge that the ongoing global crisis seems to be leading toward a "Yalta-2" conference — an effort to avert a Third World War and shape a new world order. It's highly probable that a trio of leaders will once again dominate discussions, particularly on Eurasian affairs. Yet, it would be deeply regrettable if Europe were excluded from these critical conversations.
When Europe falters—both internally and in its foreign policy—by failing to uphold its own standards of democratic governance, the rule of law, and human rights, it risks losing its very identity and value-added we bring to the world. This diminishes Europe to the status of a regional player, stripped of any unique contribution to offer. Internal political and identity crises across European states, growing disunity on key issues, and the broader challenges previously mentioned are exacerbating this decline.
To conclude I would like to address a single, but vital question: How can the Council of Europe contribute to restoring Europe’s political identity and advancing a more rules-based international order, both within and beyond its borders?
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Dear colleagues,
We live in an era of constant change, facing unprecedented challenges like the rise of authoritarianism and the weakening of international law.
These threats undermine stability and jeopardize the progress made in democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At this critical juncture, the European Union, the United Nations, and the Council of Europe must take meaningful action. Difficult times demand bold decisions.
For nearly 80 years, the Council of Europe has been the solid foundation that sustains co-operation, maintaining balance amid challenges. But now, it must step forward as a leader in safeguarding its values.
We must strengthen co-operation with the United Nations.
Defend international law.
Urge states to implement initiatives like "The Pact for the Future".
Promote a rules-based international order founded on respect and collaboration.
Dear colleagues, peace, democracy, and human rights need our vigilance, efforts, and voices more than ever.
In a world increasingly shadowed by uncertainty, the Council of Europe must be a beacon of hope and guidance. Because in the end, light always triumphs over darkness.
Let this Assembly, with Mrs. Bakoyiannis’ report, be a step toward a fairer, safer, and more democratic world.
Thank you.
Speech not pronounced (Rules of Procedure, Art. 31.2), only available in French
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
The major global institutions, including the Council of Europe, were born in the aftermath of World War II with a dual purpose: on the one hand, to ensure that humanity would never again experience such events, and on the other, to set humanity on a path of prosperity and progress by addressing the causes that led to two World Wars and their consequences.
This now being fundamentally shaken.
To be honest, this destabilization didn’t happen suddenly or just recently.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the occupation of part of the island represent a blatant violation of international law for over 50 years.
Following the 2008–2009 financial crisis, the number of democracies worldwide decreased, while opposition to globalization intensified.
Today, however, the principle that international law—and not power—should guide international politics is being undermined, not just in practice but as a fundamental principle. We see states and leaders openly advocating for and pursuing an agenda that seeks to overturn the international legal order.
These developments threaten the very DNA of major international institutions.
We must defend the rules and role of international organizations. However, for things to remain as they are, everything must change. And this concerns today’s European leadership.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Dear Madam rapporteur, dear ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to begin by extending my sincere appreciation to the Rapporteur and the team for this your remarkable report, which highlights critical aspects of today’s international security system and the urgent need for its reform. This report document is serves as an essential contribution toward shaping a more effective, equitable, and modern global order.
The current global landscape urgently demands a renewed commitment to a rules-based international order. This order is not merely a set of guidelines but the foundation upon which peace, security, and development are built. It is through adherence to international law, respect for human rights, and the promotion of democratic values that we can ensure a stable and just world.
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine represents the most serious violation of the rules-based international order in recent history. The attempt to forcibly alter the borders of a sovereign nation, the deliberate targeting of civilians, and the reckless threats of nuclear weapons are blatant breaches of the UN Charter.
United Nations and its Security Council unfortunately has appeared powerless and couldn’t respond properly to stop the aggressor, which has been killing civilians every day for years so far and does not show any signs to go back on track of rule-based order. Instead, they want to force the whole world to play by their brutal unjust rules.
That’s why we altogether need to make everything possible and
Reject any recognition of territory acquired through force in violation of international law;
Strengthen accountability mechanisms to ensure justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of aggression;
Bring back the UN in maintaining international peace and security, especially when the UN Security Council has lost effectiveness because of the misuse of veto power.
UN Security Council (UNSC) requires reforms! The report emphasises three core principles: Equity. Legitimacy. Modernization.
All States must respect and comply with the rulings of the International Court of Justice.
Ukraine stands at the forefront of the struggle for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. We call upon this Assembly to take decisive action in advancing multilateral reforms that promote peace, justice, and equity for all nations.
Let us unite in building a future where no aggression goes unanswered, no crime goes unpunished, and no nation stands alone in its fight for sovereignty and dignity.
Thank you for your attention.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Thank you, Madam Chairperson,
The current architecture of the rules-based international order is failing to provide stability and security at a global level”. The world order based on the rule of law is giving way more and more to the new world order based on the rule of power. An order in which many have claims contrary to the UN Charter. This old-world order has practically long passed as it died with the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, and with the many other “humanitarian” and “democratic” bombings. With the many imposed sanctions which have brought hundreds of millions of people into poverty and starvation, and all this because one democratic country has decided that it can impose sanctions on another, which it deems as non-democratic. Therefore, any amendment to the UN Charter must take place in respect to all members’ interests, and not as an act of power.
As members of PACE, we must set one very important goal. And that it is to decide which path our continent will take from now on because Europe risks being crushed between the United States and Russia. Right now, strong Europe is missing. We do not have strong leadership that can speak to both Putin and Trump as equals. And that is why, we from the Revival Party in Bulgaria, believe that if we want to defend our national interests as European countries, we must have leaders that are not afraid to speak the truth. The truth is that every country has its own national interest, which it must defend.
Our national interest, in Bulgaria, is to defend the Bulgarian ethnic minorities outside our borders – in North Macedonia and South Bessarabia, and to defend their full cultural and national autonomy. We see that the President of the United States wants to unify Canada with the US, an idea that is expressed for the first time. By the same logic, every state should be able to invoke identical criteria for similar claims or actions in accordance with international law, which should apply to all states equally. As the different states in North America united to become a federation, as the different provinces and territories formed Canada, and as East and West Germany have united, so North Macedonia and South Bessarabia should unify with Bulgaria into one fatherland.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Dear Colleagues,
For decades, a rules-based international order has sought to preserve peace, protect sovereignty, and uphold human rights. This system, forged after the horrors of two world wars, is far from perfect. Yet, it remains humanity’s best hope for peace, stability, and the protection of sovereignty in an interconnected world.
This system is under siege by military aggression to electoral interference and reckless rhetoric by world leaders. The most blatant threat to this order is Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine. For nearly two years, the Kremlin has waged a brutal war in defiance of international law, targeting civilians, razing cities, and violating Ukraine’s sovereignty. This is not only a tragedy for Ukraine but a crisis for the world. If borders can be redrawn through force, if a sovereign nation’s right to exist is ignored, then the rules that ensure global stability collapse entirely.
But war is not the only tool used to undermine international norms. Democracy itself is being corroded from within by external and internal forces. Russia, for instance, has weaponized disinformation to interfere in democratic elections, sowing division and distrust in societies worldwide. Yet it is not only states that pose this threat. Individuals with disproportionate power, such as Elon Musk, have shown how billionaires can manipulate democratic processes, media narratives, and even international relations without accountability. Democracy cannot thrive when wealth and influence outweigh the rule of law and the will of the people.
As if this weren’t alarming enough, we now see reckless rhetoric from leaders who should be stewards of this fragile order. The current president, back then president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, recently boasted about acquiring land from sovereign nations, including Denmark—a NATO ally. This is not just offensive to the principles of diplomacy; it is a direct affront to the sovereignty of nations and the partnerships that hold alliances like NATO together. The world cannot afford leaders who treat international relations as real estate deals.
A rules-based international order is not a luxury—it is a necessity. It is what prevents the strong from preying on the weak. It is what allows nations, big and small, to coexist peacefully. But for this system to endure, it must be defended. We cannot allow aggressors. We cannot allow billionaires to operate above the law. And we cannot tolerate leaders who undermine alliances and destabilize the global stage with irresponsible rhetoric.
We must reaffirm our commitment to sovereignty, democracy, and human rights. This is not just about safeguarding today’s order – it is about creating a future where justice, peace, and dignity are not privileges but guarantees for all.
Thank you.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
In its draft resolution, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy calls for “an open rules‑based international order of realism.”
The rapporteur explains why we should be concerned that international fragmentation is intensifying while our policy agenda is becoming more complex.
The report, draft resolution, and explanatory memorandum devote significant attention to the UN Security Council and the struggle to reach agreement on its reform.
When the Security Council divides rigidly along geopolitical lines, the implications are well known.
Nevertheless, history shows why we should not give in to frustration and lessen our engagement.
It is worth recalling that the long period – and pessimism – of Cold War deadlock at the UN eventually gave way to the constructive activism of the 1990s.
This is why I’m encouraged that the committee and the rapporteur are emphasizing renewal, rather than reiteration or retreat.
They recognize that the rules-based system that was built over decades must be preserved, but also modernized.
Whether we are talking about the UN Security Council or the Bretton Wood institutions, reforms are long overdue.
They are needed to ensure legitimacy, but also the capacity to deliver results.
While these reforms can address concerns about including the Global South, the return of power politics underlines why we can’t stop there.
As we encounter new forms of disruption, we must also adapt.
Colleagues, when our multilateral architecture functions well, it enhances belief in the idea of an “international community.”
Yet signs of disorder abound.
Even so, as we grapple with emboldened autocracies and disruptive technologies, we must not lose sight of the broader concept of an international society.
For any society to function, it must be based on rules, which are recognized and respected by all.
These rules lead to fairness and predictability.
That is as true for commerce as it is for security.
But if they are to be power-blind, these rules must be upheld, consistently and convincingly.
Ensuring we have architecture that is designed and equipped to do exactly that is our work ahead.
And the stakes are high.
The UN General Assembly’s Pact for the Future opens with a warning. That, “If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.”
But the Pact also reminds us that global transformation brings opportunities as well as challenges. As it says: “The choice is ours.”
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Multipolarity and multilateralism should indeed serve as a guarantee of a more effective global governance.
Rules are pivotal, indeed. The adoption of the UN Pact for the Future is an important starting point. But this should apply to every resolution of the General Assembly and the Security Council on every major crisis, including the Two-State Solution for the peaceful co-existence of Israel and Palestine and the reunification of Cyprus and the end of the military occupation.
The international community eventually serves as a collective mirror of internal politics. Polarisation and the strengthening of Far Right drive societies towards aggression. Illiberal democracies and quasi-authoritarian regimes tend to challenge international order.
This is one more reason to defend democracy, the rule of law and human rights in every country of the world. Mainly in these challenging times of oligarchy, toxic populism, and extensive cross-border, co-ordinated propaganda through malicious exploitation of technological progress.
To safeguard the rules-based international community, one must first safeguard its rules and their implementation, no matter how strong the perpetrator may be.
The more fluid and insecure the world gets, the more crucial is for us to defend our values and principles to reaffirm Europe’s commitment to peace and stability.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Thank you Mister President. Dear colleagues,
We are discussing a well-prepared report that underscores the vital importance of safeguarding international law, human rights, and multilateral co-operation. Yet, it is an upsetting reality that two ongoing crises—the war in Ukraine and the devastation in Gaza—pose direct and significant challenges to these principles.
The aggression against Ukraine is a blatant violation of the UN Charter, undermining the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and self-determination of a free and friendly nation. This unlawful war of aggression is not only an assault on Ukraine but also a grave attack on the very foundation of the rules-based international order. It highlights the urgent need for united and decisive action to ensure that violations of international law are met with firm consequences.
Similarly, the Israeli military operations in Gaza have inflicted immense suffering on civilians. The interim decision by the International Court of Justice in January 2024 clearly stated that the disproportionate use of force violates international humanitarian law, including obligations to protect civilian lives and infrastructure. These actions are a stark affront to the principles of justice and accountability, undermining trust in legal mechanisms and weakening established rules and norms.
To address these challenges and uphold the principles we stand for, The United Nations’s "Pact for the Future" offers a hopeful framework by promoting stronger multilateralism, accountability, and sustainable peace. Its focus on defending human rights and ensuring justice aligns seamlessly with the principles at the core of this Assembly’s mission. Therefore, we must fully embrace this vision and take concrete steps to translate it into meaningful action.
In light of these pressing challenges, I call on member states to exert pressure on the Israeli government to adhere to the ceasefire agreement and prevent any resumption of military operations. Likewise, we must stand resolutely with Ukraine, while reinforcing our shared commitment to the rule of law and territorial integrity.
By addressing these crises with unity and determination, we can restore global confidence in the rules-based international order and reaffirm our collective commitment to justice, peace, and human dignity.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
We are at a crucial moment for humanity. An era of transformation driven by innovation, technological development, the race to harness artificial intelligence, and political transitions. In this context, the world needs to rethink the current international order.
To make it more democratic, equitable, and based on clear and fair rules, to close the development gap between Nations.
We must envision an order where co-operation and mutual respect are the pillars of international relations.
In Mexico, throughout its history, our foreign policy has always held a deep commitment
to multilateralism and international law, rejecting the criminalisation of migration, respecting the sovereignty of nations, promoting fair trade.
In unity, we can overcome any challenge, from the climate crisis to post-pandemic economic reconstruction.
Distinguished parliamentarians of the world, I would like to make a call to action based
on two fundamental pillars:
The first is to seek global multilateral justice:
It is essential to transform international institutions, such as the United Nations, into more equitable models, where all nations have equal voting rights, regardless of their size or economic power.
It is time to build a global governance that represents everyone and makes decisions in favour of humanity, not just the interests of a few.
The second, economic co-operation and technological transfer I propose to this assembly, through international organizations, the creation of a global fund for technological equity, to guarantee developing countries access to key technologies.
This fund would not only bridge the digital divide but also boost sustainable development, allowing all nations to actively participate in the fourth industrial revolution.
History is watching us. This is the time to act. The future of the world will depend on the decisions we make today.
A new, clear, and fair international order is not just an ideal, it is an urgent need.
It is in our hands to promote this change and ensure that, in this new order, shared prosperity exists for the entire world.
Thank you very much.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Delegates,
The world stands at a historic crossroads. The complexities of the current international order – marked by enduring conflicts, geopolitical shifts, and profound inequalities – demand our collective reflection and decisive action. Challenges such as climate change, pandemics, cybersecurity, mass migration, and economic disparity transcend national borders. These global issues require solutions rooted in shared principles and a renewed spirit of cooperation.
It is imperative to acknowledge that the multilateral institutions underpinning the international system must evolve. Renewal does not entail discarding past achievements but rather enhancing existing structures to better address the pressing challenges of the 21st century. This renewal should be guided by three foundational pillars:
– Modernizing the International Legal Framework: The rules that govern our interactions must reflect contemporary realities, fostering peaceful conflict resolution, sustainable development, and global justice. Preventing the escalation of tensions and placing cooperation at the core of international relations are essential steps forward.
– Reinvigorating Multilateralism: International institutions, particularly the United Nations, must embody the diversity of interests and perspectives in our interconnected world. Collaboration among states, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector is essential to achieving inclusive and enduring solutions.
– Placing People at the Center: Social justice, gender equality, and the protection of human rights must remain non-negotiable principles. At the heart of every decision lies the need to advance human dignity and well-being.
From Mexico, we offer our national experience as a demonstration of how values-based transformation can yield tangible results. Under the leadership of Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum, our first female president, we have embraced Mexican Humanism – a governance model that prioritizes social justice, equity, and sustainability. This transformative approach has reduced inequality, lifted 9.5 million people out of poverty, and significantly narrowed the income gap between the wealthiest and the most vulnerable, as noted by World Bank data.
Our peaceful transformation serves as both an example of internal resilience and a call to action for nations to work collectively toward a more just, equitable, and sustainable world. The renewal of the international order must embody this spirit of adaptation, cooperation, and commitment to placing people at the forefront of every policy, treaty, and institution.
Thank you.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
The comprehensive report by Ms Bakoyannis comes at a critical moment. Democracy needs defending. Arecent study in the UK on young people in Britain paints a deeply troubling picture. A staggering 52% of those aged between 13 and 27 believe our nation would be better served by a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections.
In my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe in Kent, I regularly meet young people who express frustration with democratic institutions, reflecting a broader crisis of faith in our system of governance. This generational shift isn't unique to Britain. Across Europe and beyond, we're witnessing the highest number of global conflicts since World War II, with the UN Security Council increasingly paralyzed by irreconcilable positions.
From my constituency, you can see the white cliffs of Wissant in France; and the port in the town of Folkestone was a launchpad for the Normany landings in 1944. My constituency has historically served as a gateway between Britain and Europe, and I see first-hand how global instability affects local communities - from the impact of cross-channel migration to the economic pressures faced by our port towns.
However, there is cause for hope. The UN's adoption of the "Pact for the Future" in September 2024 demonstrates that the international community remains committed to reforming and strengthening multilateral cooperation.
The Council of Europe, through its 225 treaties and protocols, continues to set standards for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law that resonate far beyond our continent. As parliamentarians, we have a special responsibility to bridge the growing disconnect between our democratic institutions and the next generation.
I try to meet with students from our schools and colleges in Folkestone and Hythe every week; and when I do, I emphasize that democracy, while sometimes messy and imperfect, remains the best system for protecting individual rights and fostering collective prosperity.
The United Kingdom, as a founding member of this Assembly, stands ready to work with all our partners to strengthen the rules-based international order and ensure it delivers for all our citizens, particularly our youth who will inherit the world we shape today.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:47:43
Thank you, Mister Bouyx.
Now I declare the debate closed.
The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which 27 amendments have been tabled.
Also they have presented a draft recommendation to which 2 amendments have been tabled.
We will begin by considering the draft resolution first.
Any amendment which has been unanimously approved by the Committee seized for report shall not be put to the vote in the plenary and shall be declared as definitely approved unless 10 or more members of the Parliamentary Assembly object.
I understand that the chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Parliamentary Assembly that Amendments 12, 11, 13, 16, 17 and also 27 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved, be declared as approved.
Amendments 24 and 19 have also been agreed unanimously. But as there are consequential amendments, they will be taken separately.
Is that so, Mister Bouyx?
So, if no one objects, I will consider the amendments to be approved. Is there any objection? If there is, we will need to verify that the objector has the required support of 10 people. Please, could those who object raise their hands? I see no-one.
Amendments 12, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 27 to the draft resolution, 26 to the draft resolution are therefore approved and will not be called.
Rejection of amendments in the Committee by a two-thirds majority.
Any amendment which has been rejected by the Committee seized for report by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast shall not be put to the vote in plenary. It shall be declared as definitely rejected unless 10 or more members of the Parliamentary Assembly object.
I understand that the chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Parliamentary Assembly that Amendments 9, 10, 6, 7, 1, 5, 14, 15, 2, 8, 21, 20, 22, 3, 25, 27 and 4 to the draft resolution which were rejected by the Committee with a two-thirds majority be declared as rejected.
Amendments 23 and 18 have also been rejected with a two-thirds majority. But as they are consequential amendments, they will be taken separately.
Is that so, Mister Bouyx?
France, ALDE, Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
12:50:30
Yes, that's right.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:50:34
Okay, if no objection, I will consider the amendments to be rejected.
Is there any objection?
If there is, we will need to verify that objection has the required support from 10 people.
Please, could those who object raise their hand?
I see there are not, so Amendment 9, 10, 6, 7, 1, 5, 14, 15, 2, 8, 21, 20, 22, 3, 25, 27, and 4 of the draft resolution are therefore rejected and will not be called.
Amendment 16 was adopted by the Committee. However, I have received an oral amendment from from the Committee which reads as follows:
"Paragraph 11.3 as amended be moved to paragraph 12."
The President may accept an oral amendment on the ground of promoting clarity, accuracy, and conciliation if there is not opposition from the 10 or more members to it being debated.
In my opinion, the oral amendment does not meet the criteria of Rule 34.7A. Therefore.. are there any oppositions to the amendment being debated?
So, this is not the case there.
I therefore call Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS to support the oral amendment.
You have 30 seconds.
The change of paragraph is just.. we just want to add the amendment but change the numbers. So, I think it's from 18 to 19, something like this. The Secretariat will do their writing.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:52:44
As it's just a technical issue, I think that should be approved as so.
Does anybody wish to speak against the oral amendment?
As I see no one, so the Committee is obviously in favour.
I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The oral amendment is agreed, with 111 votes have been voted, 102 in favour and 3 against.
I call Mr George LOUCAIDES to support Amendment 23.
You have 30 seconds. The floor is yours.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The aim of this amendment is...
(I thought it was finished, isn't it? We have to. Didn't we vote?)
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:54:51
So, the Secretariat is telling me that because these are consequential amendments, they have to be taken separately.
Voted unanimously or rejected by two-thirds. These amendments are consequential, so they have to be taken.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:55:14
These amendments are consequential, so they have to be taken.
I had the impression that we had accepted that those amendments were rejected by a two-thirds majority. They don't stand a chance in the hemicycle to be accepted. So, we wanted to assist the procedure to proceed with the discussion and conclusion of the discussion of this item. But I don't know if there is a need to proceed and vote for it. I could do it. Yes.
The argumentation and aim of this proposal is related to the different roles that we have as the Council of Europe with the European Union. We believe that our aim is to promote our values and principles, not speak on behalf of European Union, not adapting or rejecting policies of the European Union. That has to do with the decisions taken at the European Union level. We are not the European Union.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:56:24
Does anyone want to speak against?
The Committee rejected this amendment with a two-thirds majority.
I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
23 in favour, 81 against.
The amendment is rejected.
Page 36... I'll call Mr George LOUCAIDES to support Amendment 19.
You have 30 seconds.
Amendment 19 was agreed, wasn't it?
So, I think it was unanimously agreed by the Committee that was the case. So, I don't think there is any need to support it.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
12:58:01
Does anyone speak against? Nobody.
The Committee unanimously accepted this amendment. I shall now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call now for the result to be displayed.
101 in favour, 7 against.
The amendment is agreed.
We will now proceed to vote to the draft resolution containing Document No. 16087 as amended.
A simple majority is required.
The vote is now open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
109 in favour, 10 against.
The draft resolution in Document 16087 as amended is adopted.
Congratulations, Mister Rapporteur. Congratulations to Mr Bertrand BOUYX, the Committee.
(Applause)
Now, we will now consider the draft recommendation. Any amendment which has been unanimously approved by the Committee seized for the report shall not be put to the vote in plenary and shall be declared as definitely approved unless 10 or more members of the Parliamentary Assembly object. I understand that the chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 27 to the draft recommendation, which was unanimously approved, be declared as approved.
Is that so, Mister BOUYX?
France, ALDE, Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
13:00:29
Yes, that's it.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
13:00:33
If no one objects, I will consider the amendment to be approved. Is there any objection? If there is, we will need to verify that objection has the required support of 10 people. Please, could those who object raise their hands? No objection.
So, Amendment 28 to the draft recommendation is therefore approved and will not be called.
Any amendments which has been rejected by the Committee seized for the report by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast shall not be put to the vote in the plenary and shall be declared as definitely rejected, unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object.
I understand that the chairperson of the Committee wishes to propose to the Parliamentary Assembly that Amendment 29 to the draft recommendation, which was by the Committee with a two-thirds majority, be declared as rejected.
Is that so, Mister Bouyx?
France, ALDE, Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
13:01:56
That's it.
Albania, SOC, President of the Assembly
13:02:01
If no one objects, I will consider the amendments to be rejected. Is there an objection? If there is, we will need to verify that the objection has the required support of 10 people. Please, could those who object raise their hands.
The request, Amendment 29 to the draft recommendation is therefore rejected and will not be called.
We'll now proceed to the vote of the draft recommendation contained in Document 16087 as amended. I remind you that a two-thirds majority is required.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
166 in favour, 9 against.
The draft recommendation in the document is adopted as amended.
(Applause)
Congratulations, Dora and all the people who supported it, colleagues.
Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. They are set out in Document Commission 202501, Addendum 2.
Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Parliamentary Assembly Committee agreed to? They are agreed to.
So, it is now nearly 1:00 p.m.
Does any member still wish to vote in the election of three judges to the European Court of Human Rights?
The ballot for electing three judges to the European Court of Human Rights is now closed.
The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Mr Sergey VLASENKO, Ms Agnes PRAMER, Ms Rhianne VOGELS, and Mr Berdan OSTUR. I invite them at once to go to the count that will take place in the meeting room on the fifth floor. The result of the election will be announced at the opening of the afternoon sitting.
The Parliamentary Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3:30 p.m., with the agenda approved on Monday.
The sitting is adjourned.
Thank you.
