Government-Civil Society Consultations "EIDHR"
Israel is legally committed to international human rights norms. It is a party to seven major universal human rights conventions, namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); the International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The effectiveness of these human rights commitments depends, to large extent, on their internalization within the state. To this end, the Conventions generally require the adoption of appropriate domestic legislation, the conformity of all national laws and policies with the treaty commitments, and the provision of effective remedies in cases of violation of individual. Furthermore, the treaties establish standing Committees ("Treaty Monitoring Bodies", or "TMBs") charged, inter alia, with the monitoring of the internalization of human rights commitments, on the basis of periodic Reports that state parties are required to submit. TMBs comment on national Reports, usually in the form of "concluding observations". In addition, TMBs engage in detailed analysis and clarification of particular treaty commitments, producing "General Comments" that are considered authoritative interpretations of the relevant treaties. Concluding observations and General Comments are expected to guide states in the internalization of treaty commitments.
Civil society can play a vital role in this process of internalization, and in many jurisdictions it does. NGOs act as demandeurs vis-à-vis their government, bringing to its attention inconsistencies between national laws and international commitments, and suggesting ways in which the latter can be better implemented. Many governments consult with NGOs while preparing their reports to TMBs and in considering follow up action designed to apply TMBs' concluding observations and general comments. Moreover, TMBs invite or permit NGOs to directly provide them with information on treaty implementation, in the form of 'parallel' or 'shadow' reports. Ideally, states should facilitate the dialogue between civil society and government through the creation of national human rights institutions and mechanisms, such as human rights commissions.
However, no such focal point existed in Israel - a state of affairs which this project successfully sought to mitigate. The project has made a powerful contribution to the internalization of international human rights commitments in Israel, and to the participation of Israeli civil society in the process.
Components of the project included:
Each of these elements was unprecedented in Israel – as is the scope and structure of cooperation between civil society, government and academia that the project has already succeeded in generating, under the auspices and guidance of the HUJ Minerva Center. Despite some initial hesitation, civil society quickly embraced and supported the project, as reflected in the fact that some 40 NGOs, including virtually every major human rights organization in the country, have participated in at least some of the sessions. And despite the increasingly antagonistic attitude in recent years of the Israeli government towards civil society, the Minerva Center’s project has enjoyed wholehearted support and cooperation from the Israel Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General for International Law have both referred to the project at length in appearances before the UN Human Rights Commission and other bodies. The project has also received high praise from the EU’s independent evaluators, and featured in high-profile events of the EU Delegation to Israel.
In this project the Center has in many respects succeeding in filling roles that a National Human Rights Institution – which Israel lacks - would be expected to fill. Indeed, one of the focal points of the current phase of the project is to develop a realistic model for an Israeli NHRI, based on comparative and domestic research and on dialogue with and between senior government and civil society actors. A second new element of the current phase of the project aims to familiarize Israeli civil society and government officials with the UN special procedures, in particular the thematic Special Rapporteurs and the potential that cooperation with them may offer for the enhancement of human rights in Israel – including by inviting current and former Special Rapporteurs to Jerusalem and facilitating or hosting closed meetings for them with civil society and government (as well as public lectures).
In both government and civil society circles in Israel, the ongoing closed consultations established in the course of this project have come to be known as “the Minerva process”. Both sides have urged the Center to expand the consultations beyond their original scope and to add further topics of discussion – a clear reflection not only of the success of the project but also of the stature that the Minerva Center for Human Rights has attained. It is doubtful whether any other institution in Israel could have successfully put into place – and maintained on an ongoing basis - such a dramatic and fruitful consultation process.